Google Reveals Payment Deal with AP 59
mytrip writes to mention a ZDNet article concerning a deal Google has struck with the Associated Press. The search company has ended a dispute between the two organizations by agreeing to pay for the articles and content it delivers via its Google News service. From the article: "Financial terms were not disclosed. Consequently, it's unclear whether the deal involves a flat fee or paying AP according to traffic statistics. On the surface, paying the Associated Press seems to conflict with the stance Google has traditionally taken regarding its Google News service. Because Google News is an aggregator, the company has argued, Google is not obliged to reimburse news outlets for linking to their content. But Wednesday's announcement said the AP content will be the foundation for a new product that will merely complement Google News. Thus Google maintains that the deal supports its original stance on fair use."
Monopoly play (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder how this will play out? My theory:
1) AP forces Google to sign a contract based on traffic
2) Google puts AP articles last.
3) AP traffic drops to 3%.
4) AP crawls back to google and apologises.
5) ???
6) Profit.
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:3, Insightful)
Because then you will only access their sites when there is an article that interests you, and you will go directly to the article, missing all the ads/offers/surveys (etc) on the rest of the site.
Take Slashdot, for example. I can't remember the last time I visited its main page. I simply look the the RSS Feed to see if there is something interesting. Same for NYT and ma
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
In way of explanation, here's mine...
X >> Y
Where:
X = # People viewing story deeplinked via news aggregator
Y = # People who randomly found said website, and navigated to page manually.
I may be completely wrong in my base assumption, though.
Re:Monopoly play (Score:1)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
Yeah, I much prefer how news is handled in a communist system. They don't put a fence around it, they just shoot the messenger, or put him in prison for the rest of his life.
Re:Monopoly play (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:3, Interesting)
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Choose your poison.
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
Hypercapitalism? What fucking color is the sky in *your* world? The current system of economic mismanagement, in case you haven't noticed, is firmly rooted in corporate oligarchy backed, supported, and enforced by bought-and-paid-for government legislation and police power. This sure as shit isn't capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination.
Max
Re:Monopoly play (Score:1, Insightful)
What you're describing is not a direct consequence of an economic system, try...
The problem is that this has absolutely nothing to do with what the OP said, thu
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
For the record, Communism is an economic system, as is Capitalism. The comment was about how Capitalism works, specifically as it applies to the dissemination of the news. My comment merely pointed out how every country that uses communism as its economic system uses a different, much less desirable technique, for distributing news. True, those countries
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
People who have a fetish or an axe to grind about something like to wander off topic and try to turn every conversation into one about whatever it is they are obsessed with. This is bad enough even when they know what they are talking about.
When they hijack worthwhile threads in order to parrot the same nonsensical stereotype-driven propaganda we can already
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
I know just what you mean. That is why I had to say something to him. Thanks for backing me up, though. Appreciate it.
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
As regards distribution of the news having nothing to do with economic systems, the OP said that this whole Google-AP exchange was an example of how "capitalism works - taking things that are available to everyone and putting a fence around it". It was the OP that began this thread by b
Re:Monopoly play (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly play (Score:1)
I agree with your wiewpoint, completely, but there is an alternative to 'paying' for the AP, and that is: to 'contribute.'
Even a small-town paper can take advantage of AP's wide web (oops, bad word, sort of) of correspondents, by submitting their own stories of local news. When AP sees there is quality in the writing, or any bonafide utility to the stories, the s
AP are scared (Score:1, Interesting)
Sounds like AP are scared of Google competing with them. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
---
Re:AP are scared (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AP are scared (Score:3, Insightful)
That is fine for sites that offer free news, but AP doesn't. If you think what Google is doing is A-OK, try to imagine what it will be like when one of the world's largest news agencies goes under. Thi
Re:AP are scared (Score:2)
Or is it your position that hyperlinks are illegal? How about Go
Content, not aggregation? (Score:5, Insightful)
We may soon find out just how much those sites were "hurt" by being linked from Google News, once they lose that sweet AP article traffic...
Re:Content, not aggregation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Many people will say that this drifts away from Google's main mission [google.com] because it doesn't "send people off" to other websites, which is the core of web searching.
However, this should make AP articles (and maybe Reuters + others later?) faster loading, ad-less, and centralized. Plus, it's not the first time Google has helped by not "sending people off": they've done it to Usenet, blogs, maps, and all their new conte
Not adless (Score:2)
It'll be interesting to see how news sites react. The value of AP content to them will presumably go down, as it will no longer be attracting Google clicks. (At least, I hope Google News will stop returning 200 identical hits that link to the exact same syndicated story....)
Some might also look to strike similar deals with Google, thoug
Re:Content, not aggregation? (Score:2)
Small clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Nice (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Small clarification (Score:2)
Logically they have to say that it's for "something else".
If they (admit that they) are just paying to link, then they've set a precedent that would mean that they would have to pay AFP, Reuters, and every other new organization.
Re:Small clarification (Score:2)
Re:Small clarification (Score:2)
AFP not AP? (Score:1)
Re:AFP not AP? (Score:1)
*shifty eyes* What I REALLY meant was...
Isn't it funny that Google's paying one news agency for full news articles, whilst several other newspapers have tried to sue google for linking to their stuff with tiny excerpts. Who do you think is getting the short end of the stick here?
Re:AFP not AP? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood the "deep linking" controversy or -- more to the point -- how linkees had any cause to object. But I guess at least here the issue is "tiny excerpts". How tiny? Full text would clearly be a copyright violation. So, how tiny does an excerpt have to be in order to qualify as fair use? At least that's a reasonable basis for dispute, as opposed to linking itself.
It seems to me tha
Direct vs. Indirect Access to articles (Score:3, Insightful)
wonder how AFP is doing? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think about it, google could wipe out just tons of online news sites if they wanted to. Podunk and east buggywhip little news paper sites can afford to pull wire feeds. Google could do the same and just *drop* any places that are just redundant coverage of the same story once they have paid for it. They get copy and images from the feeds, so no real reason to index all those other places. Pull up any google news article, take a gander at the "all xxx-number related" links. Looks like around 99% identical to me. For that matter, they could hire freelancers by the droves around the planet and give a lot of the old established press services a thorough scare. Be a reporter, actually get looked at on the net with some numbers, stick with the old school news services, be limited to dead trees print if lucky. I bet a lot of the current freelancers that the wire news feeds use would jump ship quickly given that choice.
mod parent interesting-I would if I had points. (Score:2)
Remove duplicates? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Remove duplicates? (Score:2)
Re:Remove duplicates? (Score:2)
AdSense (Score:1)
I need such deal too (Score:1)
If AP Wants Money (Score:2)
Re:If AP Wants Money (Score:2)
The AP is one of the few worldwide organizations that is actually in the business of news gathering. Google News is basically a big AP/Reuters gateway considering how all the big stories are 90% wire reports. I'm glad to hear that Google is actually paying to license some of the content they shovel at you.
Re:If AP Wants Money (Score:2)
I've asked this a couple of times now. Could someone please point out specifically which section of the copyright act Google is not in compliance with by linking to other peoples' articles?
And could you all please quit with this evil crap? Calling any company evil makes you sound like a paranoid nutcase.
Why Can't these Faux "Victims" (Score:1)
just exclude ***themselves*** from being spidered / searched / archived / cached? Why, robots.txt exists for these uses. See http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
for further Google specific examples.
Or, can someone explain to me what I am missing from their rationale?