WebProNews

Newspapers and other news businesses should receive fair compensation for the work they put into gathering and distributing the news. On the other hand, they don't create the news. If you see a crime being committed and a reporter sticks a mike in front of you, do you get paid for helping them make a profit?

However, they do have to pay people to gather, write, photograph, etc. Instead of blocking websites from "stealing" their news, why not make it so that some of the ads that pay for the work are required to be posted along with the news? Advertisers should love that type of viral marketing!

The idea that a system of tracking people copying articles is pointless given that once you post a blog or a twitter or even a news event becomes public domain once it hits the web and is therefore open for anyone to see unless the site has restricked viewing rights. which makes the copying and pasting of said material fair rights to email or share with others for the terms of general interest as long as the article is not amended.

However the idea of using this bot to track people coping web site profile and reusing it as there own to impersonate someone else for the means of causing harm or stealing in any form would be a great idea esp if these people were trailed under the laws related to Identaty thieft and fraud.

Perhasp this would be a better use of lawyers time instead of wasting court time with pumped up charges of possible copywright thieft to make the corpations richer from unfair pursuance of a poor person sharing material that corpations are already profitting from.

father more innternet providers should have to pay a % of their monthly fee's into a fraud protection fund for the people hurt by scammers which could be used to setup an innertner policing squad for the recovery of stolen goods ect.

I once spoke of this to my Government many years ago and designed a model for use asking them to gather all the counties leaders of the world that use the innernet to sign an acord for stamping out this criminal activity and well todate nothing has been done for the innernet user you might want to concieder that idea.

http://www.freewebs.com/planet4
Kenneth Donaldson

I'm sorry, but I'm really confused. Is the AP's entire reason for being not to gather and disseminate news?

I'm all for cracking down on plagiarism, which is rife online, but they're in such an uproar about preventing people from actually using their content.

Ultimately, it comes down to money. They're fine with their paid members reprinting their content but heaven forbid someone follow their example and excerpt/summarise/link.

They're bound to become obsolete unless they get with the times.

Just a humble opinion from South Africa.

It seems it's time for the AP horse-and-buggy to get off the Information Highway. They're fixin' to be in a wreck like they ain't ever seen. If they're not going to buy a vehicle that fits the flow of the traffic, they at least need to get a neighbor who has one to bring them to town.

I grew up reading newspapers and periodicals in print. They had a smell to them that exuded knowledge, authority and integrity. I had relatives that worked at the Courier Journal in Louisville and the writers there were looked on as celebrities in the community. But everything changes and communication is no exception.

I'm sure AP and the others are simply repeating the cries of the scribes in the era of Guttenburg. It's a natural human reaction to react rashly when your safety and security is threatened. The stability of a future in the printed news field has been compromised, to say the least. There is none.

Print news media only has two choices to choose from really: integrate into 21st century technology or go back to school and learn a new trade in a different field.

I imagine there will always be newspapers (or their New Wave equivalents) for local and regional news. But the day of international monsters is all but gone. They have simply outlived their usefullness and are old, withered and of a poor disposition.

The Talking Heads on television will be next. Perhaps they are already being phased out as well. I know I have phased most of them out as purveyors of gossip, shock and other useless morsels of information of little value. Except the weather; even journalists can't seem to taint that.

Well, anyone that knows a little about publishing web pages are way ahead of the AP. They could set their website to prevent specific "bots" (like the AP bot) from accessing their site. How would AP deal with this?

Facts interesting term for AProvda to toss out like the facts for invading Iraq? Simple regurgitation of lies doesn't constitute a fact. There has to be a better name for Lawyer Bots than Sue.
enjoy pjc
to quote a very famous detective "Just the facts mam"

AP is definately out of touch with modern communications. We use complete news excerpts from media outlets all over the World for our weekly non-commercial newsletter Wildlife Bytes. It focuses on wildlife news of interest to our subscribers. I think this attempt by AP to monopolise news shows again how many people are disenchanted with media monopolies. In fact I believe that's why they fill their newspapers up with all sorts of junk to attract readers, and only devote a couple of pages to actual news. I also understand newspaper readership is crashing, as more people turn to the Internet to catch up with the news, and even more people don't believe what they read in the papers anyway. Pat OBrien, Australia

As long as the AP is reporting on events that happen, the copyright really belongs to people associated with the events. Their naming them should give them no ownership, which belongs elsewhere. Copying large portions of articles, however, is copyright infringement.

AMD

I think the idea sucks. All of the content that Ap uses actually belongs to the American people and they have stolen that content themselves.

AP is already a content thief, now they call others thief?

Personally I believe the public should castrate AP excutives.

ZD