WebProNews

Think, that not all so simply. And business not only in AP and to the policy of Google. But it was not as though, it is a question of the future, and he will be decided. Thank you for food to the reflections.

Another good example of the Fat Cats (or, rather the former fat cats) shooting themselves in the foot. Who takes the AP serious any more, anyway?

If they get this pushed through people will just find other outlets to get their news from. AP is not the only news source out there. I think they are going to back themselves into a corner and they will actually lose more in the long run.

Of course they are justified!!! Someone is making money off their original work. This is a simple subject made complex only because the common understanding of content on the Internet is the fallacy that if you can find it, it's yours.

It's called piracy.

If it was music and Google was playing a clip of it in an ad, this wouldn't even be a discussion, it would obviously be theft.

If it was a novel by a famous author and a segment was shown (for gain - and not the author's gain), it wouldn't even be a discussion, it would obviously be theft.

Sorry folks, this is the same, it' just not entertainment, it's news.

Lots of the Internet's basic function is based on the false idea that taking without paying is something other than theft.

Feel free to reprint this, by the way.

News and information organizations find themselves in an economic financial crisis. This goes for all such organizations to an extent, but it is especially bad for the newsprint media. There may be a solution to their financial crisis.

Why don’t news and information organizations begin to charge search engines for using their content on search results that also include ads? After all, it is the result of the search that made someone use the search engine website enough that an advertiser concluded it was worth placing an ad on the site.

Is it not fair to conclude that this is the main way to increase the cash flow and profitability of news and information companies. This approach will make news and information companies gain greater potential for revenues, which will hopefully allow for greater profit and reinvestment potential.
If news and information companies can gain greater revenues, they can work to further improve their products even more, which will continue to drive demand for the knowledge and services they provide. This demand for knowledge and services will ensure that consumers will always need search engines thus keeping search engine companies in business. This demand for knowledge and services that news and information business provide will help news and information businesses thrive, so long as they charge for it whenever the product they provide is used by a search engine to gain money and competitive advantages.

If news and information companies fail to charge search engines for use of their ocntent, it is inevitable that one day news and information businesses will lose their revenue streams; thus, resulting in their closure. It is inevitable that search engines steal ad dollars from news and information companies. It is inevitable that search engines will kill the ability of news and information sites to survive by taking away their money-making streams. News and information companies will therefore eventually be unable to afford the workers and equipment needed to function.

It is conceivable that a search engine company or so will have archived all of the information ever stored on the Internet, but news and information companies can fight to regain their rights to the content. The news and information companies should take on this fight in order to survive.

I am not advocating high costs for news and information. I think that information should be affordable because it helps the world function better if it is available at a reasonable cost. The search engine companies are making money off of the news and information companies. Search engine companies say that the free search and free results help everyone on the internet by increasing exposure to their products for free. This is true, but when a search engine begins to offer ads on its site because of the contents of your information, the search engine is profiting from your content. The search engine will say that it is providing a service for free that all news and information businesses can profit from, but the search engine fails to say that there is an additional cost to the business. The cost is that any news and information business that used to make money from ads will now make much less because the search engine inevitably is in better position as a distributor of ads. It is in a better position because users will be thinking about their search at the moment the search results pop up with any related ads. The users will typically go with the ads on the search engine site for convenience sake.

Any news and information organization should say to the search engine that it does not want the search engines free service because the service is actually not free. The news and information organization should say to search engine companies that search engine businesses basically charge for their free service in effect by taking ad business away from any news and information business that participates in the search. The search engine company therefore needs to sweeten the deal for news and information sites if it wishes to continue including the content of news and information organizations. A fair price for such a service should be at least equal to the loss of ad revenue by the news and information organization resulting from its losses as a result of participating in a search engine result.

It might be difficult to quantify proper values, but we need to start somewhere fast. The values will be worked out by the market eventually. It may take time for the market to work this out, but the sooner that news and information businesses start charging search engines for the use of content, the sooner they can stop bleeding and begin nursing themselves back to economic health.

Does this make sense? Why yes? Why no?

If the AP and other news organizations are successful in Court, it may backfire, and more quickly lead to their demise. Reason: search engines, and similar content reference organizations, will cease to include their links/content in order to avoid the hassle and cost, which will lead the content of AP and like-minded companies being unavailable to the public, which will lead to viewers landing on other content sites to get their information, which will lead to AP and like-minded companies loosing even more revenue over time by falling off the grid. Bottom line, out of site, out of mind.

When that happens, what next? Insistence by the AP and other news / content providers that links and references be included by search engines and other content providers in order to receive fair and equal treatment? Demands that these inclusions be paid for? Law suits if the info ISN'T included... Law suites if it IS include but the presentation of which isn't liked / approved? Who will own whom then? Sound a little dictatorial to me.

AP obviously has a lot of lawyers working for them. Someone should tell them "NO ONE holds a patent on the news" The news just happen. It happens all around the world non-stop. If AP wants me to pay them to tell me that the queen was wearing a blue hat this morning or that Ford sells cars they'll be waiting a long time to collect. If I'm to pay for a story on the latest wall street scandal, I want to be paid every time an ad for Volvo pops up in my face. It's real simple. I won't be your whore. I'll pay you for content no one else has or knows about or give me content for free and take your money from the advertisers. I WILL NOT PAY TO WATCH AN ADVERT!!!!!

Guess I am safe passing Ap stories and links around "for the greater good" and sharing of information. I am making no profit and my pockets arent deep enough for them to bother with me. Its the $$$ they are after. Are they really that hard up for cash? What are they afraid of? Losing their edge?

Things that make you go ummmm! Dreaming of dollar signs can easily knock sense out of you. AP seems to be confused about how the web, publishing and copyright work. Their is an existing revenue model for paid articles and methods of keeping them off the web, search engines or from others. Once something is published, it is out there to read. AP is saying if I read it, then I can not freely talk or express my thoughts about it! The medium I choose to talk about it is irrelevant. Are we still talking about laws of the United States of America?

If they dont want their content on search engines, no one will visit of them. there's 1000's of newz providers

So what else is new.
If AP dosnt want its content displayed on the internet, they ought
do their best to keep their content off the web, or set up a pay site
like some do. That way they could watch their own leaks, and not
cause a new branch of beurocracy to bloom.

The idea of links in essential to the way information flows, and cry
babys should do their gate keeping on their side of the key board and not on mine. (you do know that press agencys do a little advertising on the side, and other forms of public relations, dont you?).

As far as crudentials are conserned, get to know the editor of the news paper. You might be able to get some from him.