QUERY: Can JTMers help consider this copyright idea to support journalism?

[Bill Densmore]

There's some buzz about the idea that a slight modification in U.S. copyright law could make it illegal for Google and other search engines to display "snippets" of news without compensating the underlying reporter/creator.

Many copyright experts worry this could create vastly more problems than it would solve, making it hard for academics and others to make "fair use" of works for education, analysis, review or comment.

But just as a thought experiment, I've wondered if it would be possible to constraint the effect of such a change by restrictive language. I'd appreciate any thoughts from the JTM community about this proposal:

Fair-use excerpting without permission of the copyright owner would be illegal where ALL of the following conditions exist:

1. Work used consists in substantial part of news reporting ("news" needs definition);

2. Created by person(s) regularly engaged in the work of news gathering, whether or not for compensation;

3. Use is a context which an average person might conclude was intended to be of financial benefit to the user;

4. Where the use involves a contiguous sample of more than 10 words or 10 seconds of the work;

5.The use begins within 24 hours after first public performance of the base work.

What do you think?

-------------------------------------
Bill Densmore, 2008-2009 Fellow
Reynolds Journalism Institute

[Josh Wilson]

An interesting modifier to this formula is: 

Does information of civic interest have a value above and beyond those monetary values derived from commercial transactions? 

How that question can be answered seems to suggest diverse potential futures for media and democracy. 

jw / newsdesk.org 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en.

[Martin Langeveld, CircLabs]

[Ironic that both lists of addressees here are on Google Groups]
Legally: too much ambiguity - how do you determine intent (or "average person" perception) to make money; how do you define and differentiate news from all other content?
Practically: why would you want to put this kind of constraint on news? If this were actually adopted and put serious constraints on Google News, the effect would be to put a big damper on access to news. 
Too many ways around it.  9 words? 9 seconds? Or maybe Google would say: all profits from Google News will go to charity, problem solved. They'd still benefit from market share, branding, etc.

Interestingly, the question of whether Google's snippets are fair use has never been tested in court. A test case would be easy to generate.  Why doesn't Murdoch take that route? Probably because everyone knows there is enormous value in the traffic being driven by GNews. A lawsuit would run the risk of killing the golden goose. The current machinations are aimed at extracting some revenue, not at stopping Google from doing what they do.
_________________________
Martin C. Langeveld
CIRCLABS INC.
802-254-2407  Cell: 802-380-0226
mar...@circlabs.com
131 Woodland Rd., Vernon VT  05354
WWW.CIRCLABS.COM

[Ross Williams]

I see no reason to make any modifications to the copyright law to
benefit commercial news media. If they don't want Google to search
their content, they can stop that now. They are objecting to Google
passing along the fact that they have reported something. What they
want is not control over the expression of information, but the
information itself. That has nothing to do with copyright. It has
everything to do with a business model that is based on having a
monopoly and wanting the government to restore that monopoly.

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Journalism That Matters" group.
> To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en.
>
>
>

--
Ross Williams
Advocacy Technologies
twitter.com/rosscwilliams

[Barry Parr]

1. I don't see any explanation of why copyright law has to be rewritten to solve this "problem". Ross's comment below is dead-on.

2. I don't see where the money will come from to cover the necessary payments to the copyright holders. Google News isn't capable of producing enough revenue to be more than a rounding error for any journalistic enterprise.

3. The publishers are already on the record as regarding Google users (as well as Google) as worthless parasites.

4. We need a to broaden our definition of fair use, not narrow it.

bp

--
Barry Parr

http://coastsider.com
http://mediasavvy.com
http://twitter.com/barryparr

650.523.4929
-----------------------------------------

[G. Patton Hughes]

Interesting idea but it does nothing for me.

The goal is not to stop the search engines from pulling news but to
improve large news organizations negotiating position by making search
engine scraping of their content with links subject to license under
copyright.

When you think about this as a practical matter, you realize that this
idea would be of benefit large news organizations. I don't think it
would do much for small news organizations ... and it could hurt them.

With that proposed change in place significant liability that would
accrue for violating the copyright law. That would mean, IMO, that the
search engines would license content from the top 20 - 30 news
organizations simply stop indexing information from smaller news
organizations. The smaller organizations would be left with a choice -
whether to waive their copyright and let the search engines again scrape
their news or just go dark on the web.

GP Hughes

[Tracy Record, WSB Editor]

As a news source indexed by Google News - the first blog-format service in this area to get indexed (after having to FIGHT for it, and having to appeal the first denial) - my problem is not even REMOTELY with Google. Google shows a headline and one line.

My problem is with a million other scrapers that pick up much more of the RSS feed (and yes, I know, I could stop that by no longer sending out full-text RSS) and sometimes manage to get indexed in Google ahead of the original version. One that was a special offender because its browser title - in other words, the headline that displayed on Google - showed our site name, then our headline, just like our style, and the name of its site was usually off the page. I wrote them repeatedly asking them to either stop using our feed OR to change the browser title so that the headline on Google started with the name of their site, rather than the name of my site, which made it look as if the search result would take the clicker directly to my site.

There is also something called "Fwix" which scrapes RSS, frames sites, and sends out to twitter FWIX urls that go to FWIX pages containing large snippets of our content. The people from this "service" actually had the audacity really to send notes declaring that we are now lucky to be getting indexed by them and gosh, isn't it great, and it's wonderful that we're benefiting from the traffic. I'm sure they're benefiting a lot more than the dozen or so referrals we are getting.

I could go on. Anyway, Google News makes it crystal clear whose headlines they are displaying, AND to my knowledge they are not PUSHING OUT "my" content with "their" URLs the way some of these scrapers are. SO let's get off Google's case already. Their service is to me nothing less than a miracle. To be able to find information in a flash - is a miracle. Some of these OTHER "services" that have NOT invented anything and are doing nothing more than saying "Hi! We're going to find new ways to profit off your content!" (although at least the upshot is that they have not yet managed to find commercial success - which doesn't keep VC's from pouring money down their throats), are NOT a miracle and ARE a potential problem.

And yes, again, I know - like all the people who point out that Rupert M could get his content out of Google with a simple tweak - I could solve this problem by changing our RSS, and I do make the conscious choice not to. But for all their whining and bitching, legacy media organizations already have so many unfair advantages and subsidies - public notices, even government-sanctioned tax breaks like the one that passed in my state last year - they don't deserve any more. How about a break for us little guys who have stepped up to cover what isn't getting covered any more - or never was, till we showed up? If anybody needs a break, it's us, not the big orgs that are still slow to change.

TR
not that I feel strongly about this or anything

--- On Sat, 11/28/09, Martin Langeveld, CircLabs <mar...@circlabs.com> wrote:

[King Kaufman]

Tracy, I learned more from this post than I've learned from everything
I've ever read on this subject put together, and I've read a lot.

You say you could deal with some of this scraping problem by not
sending out full-text RSS and have made a conscious choice not to do
so. Can you explain the reasoning behind that decision?

Thanks.

King Kaufman

On Nov 29, 1:04 am, "Tracy Record, WSB Editor"

<westseattleb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As a news source indexed by Google News - the first blog-format service in this area to get indexed (after having to FIGHT for it, and having to appeal the first denial) - my problem is not even REMOTELY with Google. Google shows a headline and one line.
>
> My problem is with a million other scrapers that pick up much more of the RSS feed (and yes, I know, I could stop that by no longer sending out full-text RSS) and sometimes manage to get indexed in Google ahead of the original version. One that was a special offender because its browser title - in other words, the headline that displayed on Google - showed our site name, then our headline, just like our style, and the name of its site was usually off the page. I wrote them repeatedly asking them to either stop using our feed OR to change the browser title so that the headline on Google started with the name of their site, rather than the name of my site, which made it look as if the search result would take the clicker directly to my site.
>
> There is also something called "Fwix" which scrapes RSS, frames sites, and sends out to twitter FWIX urls that go to FWIX pages containing large snippets of our content. The people from this "service" actually had the audacity really to send notes declaring that we are now lucky to be getting indexed by them and gosh, isn't it great, and it's wonderful that we're benefiting from the traffic. I'm sure they're benefiting a lot more than the dozen or so referrals we are getting.
>
> I could go on. Anyway, Google News makes it crystal clear whose headlines they are displaying, AND to my knowledge they are not PUSHING OUT "my" content with "their" URLs the way some of these scrapers are. SO let's get off Google's case already. Their service is to me nothing less than a miracle. To be able to find information in a flash - is a miracle. Some of these OTHER "services" that have NOT invented anything and are doing nothing more than saying "Hi! We're going to find new ways to profit off your content!" (although at least the upshot is that they have not yet managed to find commercial success - which doesn't keep VC's from pouring money down their throats), are NOT a miracle and ARE a potential problem.
>
> And yes, again, I know - like all the people who point out that Rupert M could get his content out of Google with a simple tweak - I could solve this problem by changing our RSS, and I do make the conscious choice not to. But for all their whining and bitching, legacy media organizations already have so many unfair advantages and subsidies - public notices, even government-sanctioned tax breaks like the one that passed in my state last year - they don't deserve any more. How about a break for us little guys who have stepped up to cover what isn't getting covered any more - or never was, till we showed up? If anybody needs a break, it's us, not the big orgs that are still slow to change.
>
> TR
> not that I feel strongly about this or anything
>
> --- On Sat, 11/28/09, Martin Langeveld, CircLabs <mar...@circlabs.com> wrote:> From: Martin Langeveld, CircLabs <mar...@circlabs.com>
> > Subject: Re: {JTM} QUERY: Can JTMers help consider this copyright idea to  support journalism?

> > To: "Bill Densmore" <densmo...@rjionline.org>

> > Bill Densmore <densmo...@rjionline.org>

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en.

[Corona Del Mar Today]

Wow...amen.

Amy Senk

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 29, 2009, at 1:04 AM, "Tracy Record, WSB Editor" <westsea...@yahoo.com

[Tish Grier]

those proposed changes to copyright are ludicrous. And would severely impact academic programs that rely on Fair Use to create teaching materials. After hearing Henry Jenkins talk about how current Fair Use parameters inhibit effectively teaching about film and other subjects in our media-saturated world, I can only come to the conclusion that to limit Fair Use even further would seriously compromise teaching young people how to be media literate in all forms of media, not just print.

Tracey is right, too, about the scrapers. A few years ago, we used to call these kinds of scraper-aggregators "sploggers" and there was active discouraging of their actions among bloggers. But, sometime between '06 and '09, the idea of creating news sites that consist of aggregated content (with little or no original content) and slapping ads on it to make money became acceptable. Maybe it was Michael Wolff and Newser, or maybe it was sites like Topix, but all of a sudden a bunch of creeps started seeing scraping as good. Among the bloggerati--the bloggers who follow an ethical code and, believe me, there are a whole lot more of them than news orgs think--scraping was never a good thing because it impacted us too. But I guess whe guys like Wolff do it, and are considered "entrepreneurs" for doing so, it green-lights the practice for others.

Here's the link to my Sept. '06 post on how a blogger named "Head Lemur" took out an aggregator:

http://spap-oop.blogspot.com/2006/09/so-many-splogs-so-little-time.html

In working with Placeblogger--also an aggregator--we made sure that we did not "scrape" content nor take any more than Google. We use Google as our guideline for aggregation--Title, plus 200 characters. And we are often saddened that others do not do the same. Then again, we have never sought to make money from aggregating--we only want to be a gude for others. And are actually glad that Google is getting better at indexing local newssites :)

So, stifling Fair Use and other nonsense that was suggested will only end up hurting educational programs and little guys like West Seattle Blog. If hurting others, including education, is a way for the journalism establishmet to shore up their failing business models--well, in simple vernacular "screw that."

Tish




Social Media Strategist and Blogger
blog: http://spap-oop.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tishgrier


and Community Manager
Placeblogger.com
http://www.placeblogger.com
land: 413-203-1339
cell: 413-265-1500

[Kara Andrade]

Totally in agreement on this one:

"If anybody needs a break, it's us, not the big orgs that are still slow to
change."

Great conversation!
Kara


On 11/29/09 3:04 AM, "Tracy Record, WSB Editor" <westsea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Equipo Técnico de HablaGuate
www.hablaguate.com
GT: 4552-0186

[Josh Stearns]

I have a number of concerns about this idea Bill - others have touched on some of these concerns so I won't repeat them here - but there is one point about competition I want to make. (I'll use Google News as an example for any/all aggregators for a moment). First, if a news site doesn't want to be in Google News, it has the power to express that desire, and Google will respect it - without any changes to copyright law. Modifying copyright law in the way you describe seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Essentially, what the changes you outline would do is create a default opt-in (where news sites have to opt in to be part of something like Google News), rather than the current opt-out (where Google will include you unless you request not to be included).

It seems likely that any change to copyright law as described below will make it harder for smaller and independent news sources to be included in aggregation (and many of them want to be included) and by building obstacles to future Google News/aggregator competitors to enter the market (be they newspapers or new news ventures who want to do more aggregation or stand alone sites like Google or Yahoo news.)

Josh