The root of that headline is conversations I've had with three separate - and very disparate - employees of the Times in the last several months. They were all pleasant talks, but their content, coupled with observing the paper attempt to develop an Internet presence in recent years, leaves this blogger with the rather strong impression that as an organization the Seattle Times has no earthly idea how to attract, cultivate, and retain new Internet readers.
That's a not so insignificant issue since the whole point of having an Internet presence in the era of steadily declining dead tree readership is to actually, you know, attract new readers.
Individually there might be some good things happening at the Times online, but as a general rule the transition to the Internet age is just not going well at Fairview Fannie. They simply don't get it as an institution.
All that said, the AP now has the Seattle Times crushed for lack of savvy on these vacuum-tubed Internets:
The AP's disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it's now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles -- as few as five words...The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.
Charging bloggers for quoting from the AP? I'm torn between laughing hysterically and choking with spittle-filled rage at the stupidity of it all.
What's their game here, seriously? They're turning themselves into laughingstocks and blogosphere pariahs while drumming up business for Reuters and AFP. If they're trying to establish some sort of bright line beyond which excerpts can't go without triggering infringement, then why not just lay down some reasonable-ish policy -- two paragraphs maximum, say -- and wait for someone to violate it, then sue to see if a court will enforce it? (Suspected answer: Because the court probably won't and the AP knows it.) I'm mystified by their thought process.
Ditto. Bloggers already cast a skeptical eye on the "Old Media" for assorted reasons. Skepticism that is now going to turn into outright mockery at this rate.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 17, 2008 07:23 PM | Email ThisThe change would certainly tend to keep the liberal allies of the AP printing their stuff, while keeping it off the blogs where they probably don't expect to have many friends anyway.
Doesn't sound much like a profit-oriented change at AP, but an alternative media suppression exercise.
Posted by: Reality on June 17, 2008 07:50 PMhttp://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/17/hey-associated-press-you-owe-me-at-least-132125/
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 17, 2008 11:09 PMPeople who create and provide content on the Internet are being paid zilch to nothing and being ripped off. Yet it is text -- not hardware, or software -- that fills the Web. I think what they are doing might start to bring some rationality to the market place.
Bloggers should rejoice...not reprimand their actions.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 18, 2008 07:52 AMWhat the issue boils down to is that the AP is trying to take by threat and coercion that to which it is not entitled. It's not up to the AP, or Reuters or any other news agency as to what constitutes fair use.
And Bloggers and websites and online news certainly expect and are entitled to equal treatment as it relateds content.
It's becoming clear that AP has a history of taking more than they themselves have claimed. techdirt, Poynter Online and other blogs are starting to fill up with stories of AP using excerpts without permission.
My grandmother used to say "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander". I say there is alot of truth to that statement.
What I've read about AP and what they've said, and how they actually behave makes me believe that the AP's is a "bad actor".
Posted by: Bill Enator on June 18, 2008 12:59 PMWhat the issue boils down to is that the AP is trying to take by threat and coercion that to which it is not entitled. It's not up to the AP, or Reuters or any other news agency as to what constitutes fair use.
And Bloggers and websites and online news certainly expect and are entitled to equal treatment as it relateds content.
It's becoming clear that AP has a history of taking more than they themselves have claimed. techdirt, Poynter Online and other blogs are starting to fill up with stories of AP using excerpts without permission.
My grandmother used to say "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander". I say there is alot of truth to that statement.
What I've read about AP and what they've said, and how they actually behave makes me believe that the AP's is a "bad actor".
Posted by: Bill Enator on June 18, 2008 12:59 PMA fair use law written in the age of printed books, may not be adequate in the age of hyperlinks.
It may be a single thought or phrase (like a news headline) that captures an audience of thousands.
Writers make up the real Internet (and videographers and recording artists) yet while someone who creates a "facebook", an empty shell of a database, gets millions, the minions who slave to create the content get nothing. A few dollars a word? Yes, this is the way to go...it is a way for many, many people to get rewarded and to help create the 21st century economy.
Did you read what I wrote? That'll be $4.75 please.
John, you can go ahead and charge for your content too. Free (there's that word again) country and all. Hope that works out for you.
Posted by: Palouse on June 18, 2008 04:06 PM