Posted on 04/16/2009 12:18:49 PM PDT by a fool in paradise
...How can an industry survive if it allows other companies, like Google News, to use its content without any compensation?
(NYTimes editor) Keller asked him (Google CEO), "When are you going to start paying for our content?" Schmidt stiffened a bit and declared: "We will pay when everyone pays" - everyone with an Internet site, that is. There's an impossible standard...
Online sales now provide one-third of his (RIAA VP) industry's income. At best, the music business would be a hollow shell of what it is today...
There's another solution. The courthouse. The Associated Press announced last week that it would "seek legal and legislative remedies" to stop Web sites from pirating AP content. The nation's newspapers own the AP. Shouldn't newspapers stand up for themselves? (Google, by the way, does pay the AP for its stories.)
You might ask: Why does it matter? Several studies have shown that more than three-quarters of the news you see, hear or read anywhere is at least derivative of something that originally appeared in a newspaper.
Television news has always been especially dependent on newspapers... The point is, without newspaper journalism, the nation would have little original journalism left...
"I wince as they run long excerpts of our material," he said. "I'll leave it to the lawyers to decide if that is piracy. But it's certainly freeloading."
Meantime, Keller said he frequently encounters the lofty ethos of the Internet age: Information should be free! Wouldn't that be nice. Wouldn't it be nice if metropolitan newspapers didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for their reporting staffs? Wouldn't it be nice if Keller's paper didn't have to pay $2 million a year to maintain its Baghdad bureau? Newspapers provide an expensive product. They deserve to be paid for it...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
How much does the MSM pay Media Matters and the DNC for running their missives without editing or rebuttal?
Here’s my prescription for newspapers: ESAD.
Their tripe would make a parakeet constipated.
How can an industry survive if it allows other companies, like Google News, to use its content without any compensation?
(NYTimes editor) Keller asked him (Google CEO), “When are you going to start paying for our content?” Schmidt stiffened a bit and declared: “We will pay when everyone pays” - everyone with an Internet site, that is. There’s an impossible standard...
Online sales now provide one-third of his (RIAA VP) industry’s income. At best, the music business would be a hollow shell of what it is today...
There’s another solution. The courthouse. The Associated Press announced last week that it would “seek legal and legislative remedies” to stop Web sites from pirating AP content. The nation’s newspapers own the AP. Shouldn’t newspapers stand up for themselves? (Google, by the way, does pay the AP for its stories.)
You might ask: Why does it matter? Several studies have shown that more than three-quarters of the news you see, hear or read anywhere is at least derivative of something that originally appeared in a newspaper. Television news has always been especially dependent on newspapers... The point is, without newspaper journalism, the nation would have little original journalism left... “I wince as they run long excerpts of our material,” he said. “I’ll leave it to the lawyers to decide if that is piracy. But it’s certainly freeloading.”
Chill out man, what are you some greedy capitalist? Dude, its just words, nobody own words. We should be like the indians and share everything. Live and let live Bro.
How much of the SacBee’s content is regurgitated from the Socialist Daily Worker?
Why buy a newspaper when you can get the exact same content in a fax from the DNC for nothing? Enjoy bankruptcy sucker.
A laughable, pathetic prescription for a Dead Parrot industry.
The liberal newspapers destroyed most of their remnant credibility in the Great Obama Scam.
Yeah, AP and NY Times, make my day. See who will pay to see your democrat national committee press releases disguised as “reporting.”
why do they think that if we borrow their “news” to laugh at,
that we’d pay for it?
By making the site require a paid subscription. You know, just like a regular newspaper.
When you post your content on the open web for everyone to read, guess what? Everyone can read it. Don't like it? Don't post it.
What the Slimes wants is for lots of people to come to their site and a view their ads. They are quite kind by collecting money from advertisers (their customers) while letting you (their product) view their spew for free. That's because producing news content is a business expense. Like electricity in a car factory. They use content to attract ad views.
But when Google uses their technology to view the Slimes spew (which they would produce anyway) they want a payday.
The Slimes doesn't want a solution to this problem. The solution is as old as .htaccess files.
They want a handout.
A mixture of cyanide and arsnic ought to cure what ails the MSM and liberal rags.
“What the Slimes wants is for lots of people to come to their site and a view their ads. They are quite kind by collecting money from advertisers .... They use content to attract ad views.”
I have tried to tell people that whenever we “freep” some lame MSNBC poll, we increase the sites hit count and therefore its ad revenue. No one listens.
My prescription for them would be administered with elderberry wine.
They act as if the forged National Guard Memos (2004) and attacks on Sarah Palin (2008) were flukes. When they celebrated a criminal child molesting Democrat congressman who died the same week they were taking Mark Foley to task (in 2006) and used the same phrase of A Culture Of Corruption that they got from the DNC (and evidence came out of their collusion with Democrats on Foleygate), they exposed themselves to be nothing but yellow journalists in the service of The Party.
Their chief complaint is that sites like FR take them to task for what we write.
Plain and simple. There are sites that have a “no except” policy. That means they don’t even want a hit.
There is plenty of original content on FR. FR threads get a “launching pad” for further discussion of and counter argument to the article posted (in full or excerpt).
When we do not have to excerpt, it makes it clear that an article has not been parsed to exhibit some passages “out of context”.
They take issue with FR. They blame the messenger, not just the click throughs.
MSNBC pointed out to web travellers when one of their polls had an FR thread asking FReepers to FReep it. They even gave a link back to said thread. And the FReepers let visitors know that all groups do this, there was no “dirty secret exposed”.
They deserve to be paid for it...
But then again, if it was not slanted propaganda, the newspapers wouldn't be in trouble.
Newspaper journalists don’t think it’s all bad. They have engineered One Party Rule and One Voice Reporting. DHS has offered a proposal to criminalize dissent.
They almost hold all the cards.
If they can silence their detractors, they can still make money running interviews with Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and Ben Affleck
Um, yeah, I imagine they will continue to think that right up to the day they get their pink slip and then they'll weep and moan that they don't understand why they are unemployed.
They may think they are powerful, they may have engineered one party rule, but if nobody pays for their stuff, they're unemployed, and are unemployable. Do you know any business person who will seriously consider anyone with the word "journalist" on their resume? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.