Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Media The Almighty Buck The Internet

AP to Charge Members to Post Content Online 171

oboreruhito writes "The Associated Press has announced that, effective Jan. 1 2006, it 'will begin charging newspapers and broadcasters to post its stories, photos and other content online.' The article says online portals that are already subscribed to an online service won't be affected; the change is that newspapers and broadcasters, which have had the privilege of posting online at no extra charge over their usual licensing fees for print or TV, now have to pay extra. How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AP to Charge Members to Post Content Online

Comments Filter:
  • Fark? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm@ice[ ] ['bal' in gap]> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:48PM (#12283777)
    Why would it affect fark? They just link to em...

    OMG F1R57 P057!
  • Google and Fark? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:50PM (#12283823)
    How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?

    My guess is not much at all. It's the sites that Google and Fark link to that will need to pay the AP. If the number of AP newswire sites drops, it will most likely be made up for by homebrewed stories citing the AP newsfeed as a source.
  • hmmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:50PM (#12283825)
    Google might be affected a little, but anyone that is paying the AP to carry the story will still have it posted, and google (or fark) could get to it that way.

    Depending on how much they are charging, though it might force other sites to start charging online subscruption fees, as a large amount of free news will not be there anymore...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:53PM (#12283862)
    Associated Press

    Just think. In the future, it would have cost the Sun Sentinal to print this "story" stating that the AP will be charging to post their stories...
  • by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:56PM (#12283903) Journal
    Not so sure about Google and Fark which are purely online, but it seems logical that traditional newspapers will pass on the cost to their print subscribers.
  • by Syncdata ( 596941 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:57PM (#12283910) Journal
    Still, this has been a long time in coming. Popular sites like drudge/google news linking pictures from the AP wires, AFP, and other sources are:
    #1: Not liscencing the content, which is exactly what the AP's et alls standard business practice is,
    #2: Actually costing money due to bandwidth.

    I don't think it's going to be long untill the major wires actually close their content to subscribers only. It would be a sad day for me, as I love getting my news hot off the wire, but I can understand why the AP/Reuters/AFP/UPI would do it.
  • by shashark ( 836922 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @01:58PM (#12283925)
    "About 300 commercial Web sites, including popular destinations such as Yahoo, AOL and MSN, already have been buying AP content, said Jane Seagrave, the news cooperative's director of new media markets."

    Most of the commercial web-sites are already buying content. It'll be mostly small-time portals and bloggers who'll be really affected. Think of all the blogs cross-posting APs content.

    Also, bloggers who post APs content on there websites might be discouraged to do that henceforth. Imagine, if bloggers are not allowed to link content to AP/reuters or other authentic news sources -- blogging might suffer.

    Hell, even slashdot carries AP articles. Will Slashdot be affected ??
    All your content are belong to us.
  • by lysander ( 31017 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:02PM (#12283971)
    How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?

    Why do slashdot articles end with inane questions that obviously aren't interesting or useful? They just drive discussion away from actual article. Instead, we have a whole page of people agreeing that this almost has almost no impact on Google or Fark.

    (Yeah, yeah, offtopic.)

  • Re:Fark? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NaruVonWilkins ( 844204 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:06PM (#12284022)
    If nobody posts AP stories anymore, the AP won't exist, and another news agency will take over (like the AFP).
  • Re:Google/Fark (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kennedy ( 18142 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:18PM (#12284139) Homepage
    The AP has had RSS feeds for some time - just never made a big deal of it.


    I wonder how long these will stay up...
  • by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john,lamar&gmail,com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:27PM (#12284224) Homepage Journal
    As a blogger I am horrified when I see someone post the full text of an AP story on their site. Quoteing is one thing, but putting the entire article in a blog post is blatent plagirism. On the same note I'm bothered by people who submit Slashdot summaries with the same exact language of the AP/Cnet/Tom's Hardware story they are submitting.

    Then again, there is Wikinews [], where "All content of the Wikinews Beta is in the public domain."
  • New Slogan:) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:28PM (#12284241) Homepage Journal

    Maybe the AP will have explicit notifications in each story proudly proclaiming that

    This News was sponsored by Someone Who Can Afford to Bring it to You and Who Wants You to See This.

    [It's just about that way already anyway.]

  • by Tsiangkun ( 746511 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:37PM (#12284339) Homepage
    Mod Parent Up.

    If the wires are pay per view, the only news reported will be news that someone wants you to see, paid for by the interest the news best serves.

    Poster might be going for funny, but I think there is lots of insight into that statement.
  • by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:48PM (#12284495)
    It will force news gathering and dissamation away from central media sources to a more distributed outlets that are harder to manipulate and have more direct accountability as a whole. It will also bring more individuality and integrity to the news process.

    I can't count how many times I've seen the same old garbage re-hashed by diferent reporters who didn't know a damn thing about the story other than what the AP report told them. Hell, why didn't they just cut out the middleman and let me read the AP story myself without all the spin and personal BS opinions.

    The truth is, what this is really about is the media industry living in a wet-dream that says "nobody should get reliable news free of charge, tracking, or advertizements" - well I hate to tell them this, but they can and they should ... and if the big media industry dies becasue of it, then that is their problem, not mine.
  • by Oori ( 827315 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:00PM (#12284656)
    Does anyone know whether Yahoo pays AP for their photos off the wire? For years I've been using the "news photos" link from [] to see up-to-date photos. Do you think this free service will end now?
  • by LordSnooty ( 853791 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:34PM (#12285087)
    But all the stories I come across (OK, a lot...) are the same, i.e. identical, all with the (AP) tag at the end. So what difference would it make if they disappeared to an extent? AP must be losing money H over F to try this stunt.
  • Cluetrain impact (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:56PM (#12285320) Homepage Journal
    They'll go down in authority as less and less eyeballs see AP news stories. Given the short attention span of people, in 5 years nobody will have ever heard of AP, and mistake it for Access Point, or some other acronym.

    Market forces correct a lot of stupidity, and they'll correct this as well. I for one welcome our new more diverse media, which will result.


The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.