Chances are you've heard all about the now-'resolved' dispute that opposed the Associated Press to social news sharing site Drudge Retort, over the fair - or unfair - use of AP quotes. Even more likely is the possibility that you've heard emotion-filled - and perhaps inaccurate - coverage of the affair. So this is an attempt to untangle some of the knots.
The four-point recap, clarifications Lesson one: The blogosphere's outcry is heard Lesson two: but the winner is? Lesson three: AP - "Whither" or "Adapt"? Change the DMCA or set a legal precedent?
The four-point recap, clarifications
If you haven't followed the story, here's a four-point recap (or skip to next):
- Earlier this month, AP demanded that the Drudge Retort take down seven entries, which were in its view violating policies of fair use of content and the agency's copyright (AP wants to charge outside sources for using for excerpts longer than four words). - Drudge Retort Web host Rogers Cadenhead consequently blogged about the takedown notice, and this created a ##-storm in the blogosphere, with many influential bloggers including TechCrunch's Michael Arrington and BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis calling on the boycott of AP content. - Shortly after, on June 16, AP retreated, but didn't recant: it admitted that its request had been "heavy-handed" but didn't withdraw the takedown notices. - Then, on June 19, AP issued a statement to say its conflict with Cadenhead had been resolved, after AP lawyers gave him guidelines to make the postings suitable, and that "both parties consider the matter closed." This really meant that Cadenhead agreed to modify the contested items and ended up not reposting them.
The guidelines discussed with Cadenhead have yet to be made public though, and the AP is working on a new set of guidelines for "fair use" of its content in general. "If AP's guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use," Cadenhead wrote on his blog. He told the New York Times' Saul Hansell that some of the key issues for AP related to protecting headlines and first paragraphs of stories.
First clarification: unlike what has been widely echoed on the Web and suggested by another New York Times article on June 16, AP was never supposed to meet the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) in order to draft guidelines for all bloggers, according to MBA PresidentRobert Cox.
Another clarification: the blogosphere went ablaze when it learned that AP had filed a lawsuit against Cadenhead in June, seemingly out of the blue. According to Cox though, "Drudge Retort got on AP's radar due to the posting of entire articles with exact headlines which all parties agreed constituted copyright violations two months BEFORE the most recent spate of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Take Down Notices."
Lesson one: The blogosphere's outcry is heard
News of the Associated Press' June take-down notices was met with severe criticism, calls for boycott - and many profanities - by the blogosphere.
In one of his posts, entitled "FU AP," Jarvis wrote: "Bloggers, unless the AP recants and apologizes to Cadenhead, I urge you to avoid linking to the AP and to link to reporting at its source." Jarvis also encouraged bloggers to copy-paste full AP stories.
In a self-admittedly "ridiculous" post, after being quoted in an AP story, Harrington announced that "I've called my lawyers (really) and have asked them to deliver a DMCA takedown demand to the A.P. And I will also be sending them a bill for $12.50." According to Harrington this "is exactly what the A.P. would have charged me if I published a 22 word quote from one of their articles."
That short posting alone generated more than 230 comments - most of which were harshly critical of AP's stance at the time. The wildfire that spread in the blogosphere and the seemingly rapid turn-about of AP once again illustrated a known fact: blogs have gained enough traction and buzz-generating capacity to concretely influence and shape the media landscape.
Lesson two: but the winner is?
One - erroneous - interpretation is to say that bloggers - won their battle against the traditional media Goliath, which was trying "to impose some guidelines on the free-wheeling blogosphere, where extensive quoting and even copying of entire news articles is common," - a quote from a New York Times story. (The Times' coverage of the affair was, according to Harrington, hindered by a conflict of interest, considering that the Times is one of AP's members and sits on its board of directors.)
But this isn't a victory for bloggers. "The A.P. is going to assert a much stricter interpretation of fair use than most people on the Internet are used to," reported Hansell on the Bits blog.
As mentioned above, Cadenhead had to agree to AP's proposed modifications, and ended up not reposting the material. Furthermore, this case is really a microcosm for the bigger issue of how to adapt "fair use" policies and copyright to the digital age in general.
"I'm glad that my personal legal dispute with the AP is resolved, thanks to the help of the Media Bloggers Association, but it does nothing to resolve the larger conflict between how AP interprets fair use and how thousands of people are sharing news on the web," wrote Cadenhead, following his two-hour conversation and settlement with the AP.
"I think AP and other media organizations should focus on how to encourage bloggers to link their stories in the manner they like, rather than hoping their lawyers can rebottle the genie of social news."
While Cadenhead may be right in terms of global news consumption trends on the Web, the AP was clearly in its own right under the US DMCA, at least regarding the stories posted in their entirety with the same headline. But the legal provisions concerning "fair use" of content for smaller excerpts have remained vague - simply undefined - until now, something the AP hopes to reform by setting guidelines.
"I think it would be helpful for bloggers and users of social news sites to know what the AP believes to be fair use of their copyrighted work," said Cadenhead's lawyer. But "I hope that any guidelines that are issued are not interpreted as an agreed definition of fair use" under copyright law.
Lesson three: AP - "Whither" or "Adapt"? Change the DMCA or set a legal precedent?
The Associated Press versus Drudge Retort - blogosphere - affair throws light onto two main issues:
- Does this case exemplify the 'old media' versus 'new media' divide? Is the AP's stance representative of its inability to adapt to a new context?
Yes, in the eyes of new media guru Jarvis: "I value the AP and don't want it to die. I want it to morph to a new model and a new future. But I am afraid that in its fights, we are seeing its inability to adapt."
On the other hand, few bloggers have pondered the more controversial view that the AP's approach may actually be a sign of its willingness to adapt - granted, not yet to the 'utopian' world copyright-lessness. But the AP, in its own way and after being "heavy-handed," is now attempting to define new standards that are adapted to the digital age. (Read this note on June 13 by Jim Kennedy, VP and Director of Strategy for AP.) No doubt some of the outspoken bloggers mentioned previously could be quick to shatter this argument.
- As is often the case, the law doesn't evolve as rapidly as the context it seeks to protect. The blurry wordings of the current DMCA must either be reformed quickly, after multilateral consultation, or the issue of "fair use" of content will eventually be settled in court and set a precedent, costing either news organizations or bloggers - presumably both.
This is the real issue at stake: how fast can the law be adapted to the reality of the Web, in order to avoid costly conflicts over subjective interpretations of "fair use" of content? As Hansell concluded in the Bits blog, "the unsettled state of the law makes it a gamble to take the matter to court."
A costly gamble, whether it ends in a loss for the AP or for bloggers. Or both.
Note that, just in case, no AP material longer than four words was excerpted in the above.
Bloggers: you can also watch this video by DigitalJournal.com for advice from Harvard Citizen Media Law Project Director David Ardia.
Newspaper readers and editors agree on the basics of good journalism, but
readers desire looser rules for online conversations, finds a study on online news
credibility.
Reader and editor responses diverged most sharply on the topic of anonymous
remarks: approximately 70% of editors surveyed said "requiring commentators to disclose
their identities would support good journalism," a sentiment shared by only 45%
of readers, reports the Associated Press.
Readers were more likely to favor an online news model in which journalists engage
in conversation and give their opinions, with only 36% of the public seeing
this as detrimental to journalism, compared with 58% of editors.
In contrast, the study found a general agreement amongst readers and editors
on basic practices such as the need to ensure accuracy, the importance of fairness in news
coverage, and desirability of depth, meaning providing links to other related material
so readers can gain a fuller understanding of a story.
The Online Journalism Credibility Study was released April 8th by the
Associated Press Managing Editors group and the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism
Institute at the University
of Missouri. Click here
for the complete report.
According to John Bartosek, editor of The Palm Beach Post in West Palm
Beach, Fla., and chairman of the credibility committee for the AP managing
editors group, sites that allow journalists to express personal views are
perceived as more credible, a finding which runs contrary to journalism's
traditional emphasis on maintaining complete objectivity.
Editors' reluctance to inject journalist commentary is understandable; it's a
blurry line between expressing opinion and assuring fair news coverage (the
study shows that readers want both).
So what to do to meet both demands? A possible solution can be found in the
recently incarnated service Hubdub, which allows users to make predictions on
the outcome of a given story (e.g. Barack Obama being elected president). Hubdub founder and CEO Nigel Eccles, who recently noted readers' desire for journalists to make predictions, said that Hubdub is
now looking to distribute a continuously-updating widget that will display the state of the market ie. the percentage of users who believe that a
certain outcome will come to pass (e.g. Obama will be elected).
By incorporating a Hubdub style widget in their news sites, editors could have their journalists
rest neutral, while meeting readers' desire for opinion. The only difference: readers would get the opinion of thousands of other readers rather than that of
single journalist.
There is a major shift from traditional media toward online media, and journalists should consider the journalistic possibilities of social networks, YouTube, and other new technology instead of using them for fun and socializing.
Readers of online news is up to 71% in 2007 from 60% in 2000 and 37% said they went online for news "yesterday" compared to the 22% in 2000, according to Project for Excellence in Journalism.
MediaShift journalist Mark Glaser outlines "The New Rules of Media" with this shift:
1."News is a conversation, not a lecture" Traditionally, reporters had the answers and told the rest of us what was going on in the world. In reality, the audience and its "collective wisdom" knows more and can be experts on a subject. Thus, news is a conversation that may begin with a journalist but extends its form online where audience can help with ideas, comments, corrections, updates, etc.
2.People control their media experience People are now listening and watching to what they want on the devices they want, whether it be podcasts, radio, TV, etc. This allows more control over media experience, and people are "no longer slaves to programmers," according to Glaser. But what people lose are shared experiences: watching shows or sport events together or at the same time. Now with TiVo-ing or taping shows for later, people no longer can immediately talk about these shows until everyone has finished watching them.
3."Anyone Can Be a Media Creator or Remixer" Anyone with a cell phone or video camera can capture and share experiences, and these devices and editing software are becoming increasingly affordable. Amateurs are noticed by the work they post online, which has the power to change the agenda in politics. However, anyone can create or remix their own media, but skills to use these tools are required to stand out from the millions of others who are doing the same thing.
4. "Traditional Media Must Evolve or Die" Because of the speed of innovation and change in technology and its importance in news dissemination and analysis, the media business must live by this same rule, originally a Silicon Valley mantra.
In the mid-'90s, the New York Times launched online-only publication called CyberTimes which later had a pay wall around its archives in order to increase diminishing print subscriptions, rather than innovate online. Eventually the Times opened all online archives and began blogs (though opposed to them in the beginning) after learning that "traditional media must live in the digital world on its own terms."
Traditional media must evolve by changing their mindset first, before adding new features.
5. "Despite Censorship, The Story Will Get Out" People have the knowledge to get a story out around repressive governments, for instance, when China blocked YouTube because of the videos of conflict in Tibet, people viewed the sites through Google cache. Also, people can get around new technology that cannot be suppressed, for example: the music business shut down Napster, but people are still sharing music online.
As Glaser puts it, "Once the technology genie is out of the bottle, there's no way to put it back in."
6. "Amateur and Professional Journalists Should Work Together" With the distinction between the bloggers and journalists becoming blurrier, the animosity between the two should end, and theyshould learn from one another. Bloggers can learn about "being fair and having ethical standards" while journalists can "learn the 'incremental journalism' of bloggers, adding facts, analysis and aggregation over a period of time."
Ultimately, journalists need to understand the basic journalism skills before knowing the new technology.
Glaser writes, "It's crucial that those skills, those ethics, that fairness, is not lost in the rush to new technology...This is the best time in history for new journalists to make their own way, start their own media outlet and get noticed."
Posted byEvan Fell on November 9, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Anne Spackman, editor of Timesonline told delegates at the Society of Editors conference that Google is ”hugely dangerous” and ”the number one topic of conversation at News Corp is Google.”
An Online Journalism Review wiki aimed at independent publishers provides some key tips to choosing which advertising programs work best for individual news content websites.
The Mail and Guardian (MandG) Online has just launched a South African blog aggregator, Amatomu, which ranks and sorts out the country’s blogosphere according to ‘most-popular’, categories, newest postings and more. Amatomu symbolizes the paper’s evolving philosophy, from being a content producer to being a “facilitator of knowledge-makers.”
Here’s a new idea from Amy Gahran of Poynter Online: local papers offering “news cards” akin to grocery store discount cards to provide customized content and advertising to readers.
More from the UK Guardian's Changing media Summit. User Generated Content (UGC), copyright and community engagement are the main discussion topics for this session.
Posted byJohn Burke on November 6, 2006 at 3:58 PM
The world's most popular search engine has come under a lot of fire from traditional publishers, even being charged €1million per day in Belgium for failing to remove copyrighted content from its news aggregator, Google News. Most recently at the Society of Editors' annual conference in Glasgow, CEO of Press Holdings, Andrew Neil, called for more negotiations with Google.
When it comes to large traditionally print media entities, the Washington Post has always been ahead of the curve on the web side. Washingtonpost.com’s executive editor Jim Brady’s presentation at the World Editor’s Forum in Moscow showed why. Brady told the audience what the Post had done, and what it was planning on doing, to ensure that its newsroom was steeped in the hi-tech art of convergence.
Ever hear of Bluffton, South Carolina? If you are a newspaper professional, you should know about this small US community of 15,000 people, where a new model for newspapers and newspaper web sites is succeeding.
The Internet has arguably been the biggest boon to newshounds since the first newshound scanned his first headline. The nearly infinite amount of content available at the click of a mouse has liberated the reader, creating a freedom that he fears could be taken away by the very newspapers that feed his obsession. At the same time, newspapers are having trouble surviving on the very tool their readers now take for granted. Below are some ideas of how newspapers can keep their readers happy while simultaneously earning revenue.
Posted byJohn Burke on November 22, 2005 at 2:51 PM
Journalism is under fire. It has lost the public's trust. It is marred by scandal. It is looked at by those who "own" it as an aside to a profit machine, not a community service.
Although all this looks bad, we still depend on journalism as one of the guiding forces in democracy. So who's going to fix it?
