Online Journalism vs. Print Journalism: Real Time vs. Batch Processing

from the think-about-it dept

Last week, there was a bit of a silly fight over the NY Times publishing an article noting that blogs sometimes publish rumors. I didn't find the story to be all that bad, actually, as it did a fair job explaining why those blogs publish rumors without confirmation, and how they do it in a reasonable way (i.e., saying it's a rumor and hasn't been confirmed). Some felt the article was a hit piece, but on the whole it actually seemed pretty reasonable and accurate. Still, in response to that, Cody Brown (via Jay Rosen) put up a fascinating and thought-provoking writeup comparing online to print journalism -- noting that print is "batch processing" while online is "real-time processing" and explaining why this makes it so difficult for print to either understand the value of online journalism, or to keep up with it. To be honest, I think the point was made even clearer in last week's hilarious Daily Show takedown of the NY Times, where Jason Jones refers to the newspaper as "aged news" and asks Rick Berke, the assistant managing editor to point out a single article in today's newspaper that "happened today" (at around 3 minutes):

Separately, I should point out that I find it amusing that around 1:45, the video quotes Kristin Mason, the NYT's communications coordinator, noting that "The NY Times really prides itself on making sure that the information we're putting out in the newspaper and online is factual. We have editors going through and checking on a variety of sources...."

Fair enough... But what happened on Friday? That's when the NY Times falsely reported that The Pirate Bay had lost its appeal... and that false story has remained uncorrected at least up until I published this story. It appears that the "pride" the NY Times takes in getting the story right doesn't necessarily extend to things like The Pirate Bay.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Next Big Copyright Battle? The 'Real-Time' Web

from the it's-coming dept

The history of copyright law is pretty straightforward: basically every time some new technology comes along that shows just how obsolete copyright law is, rather than recognize that fact, entrenched interests warn politicians about how they'll just die if they don't get new protections, and another layer of protectionism is slapped onto the law -- not (as copyright law intends) for incentives to create new works, but as a policy to protect an old industry. That's created a house of cards, where copyright law keeps getting stretched and twisted every time it's adjusted. In 1909 the problem was player pianos. A big part of the reason for changing copyright law in 1909 was the fear that player pianos would destroy the market for sheet music and even (potentially) live performances. So the law was changed... but the player piano soon died. But the copyright law it gave us stuck around. When radio came about, we got changes to copyright law to deal with that. When the internet came about, we got the DMCA. So what's next? Perhaps the internet's new big buzzword: "the real-time web."

We've already talked about how it was only a matter of time until someone was sued for "lifecasting." With video recording and streaming technologies getting cheaper and cheaper, there are a number of services out there that let people broadcast anything they're doing. For many of them, it's a lot of fun... but in almost every case, some copyright lawyers could make an argument that it represents copyright infringement. If you are videotaping, and you walk past a TV broadcasting a copyrighted show, some would argue that's infringement. If you happen to hear some music, that's infringement. Yes, there may be a fair use defense, but this is hardly a situation where people are going to want to go to court just to defend the fact that they walked past a TV.

In reality, this should (again) demonstrate the silliness of copyright laws right now. The fact that merely walking past a TV while streaming video could be considered a copyright violation should be seen as a joke. It's legal if I see it with my own eyes, but if I include a virtual eye that lets others see it as well... that's infringement? Yet, there are already lawsuits over this sort of thing, and Liz Gannes at NewTeeVee has a thoughtful article wondering if copyright holders are going to start complaining that the DMCA is insufficient to deal with these sorts of situations.

As it stands now, the DMCA already goes too far in allowing someone to claim they are a copyright holder and demand a takedown of content they believe is infringing. To retain the DMCA's safe harbors and avoid potential liability, a site then has to take down the content. This gives copyright holders (or even those who claim to be copyright holders) tremendous power to force content offline for at least a few days. Yet, the fear is that in a "real-time" world, that's not fast enough. If I'm watching a baseball game, and turn on my camera, by the time MLB or whoever the broadcaster is discovers it and sends out the takedown, the game is already going to be over. They could still sue me and perhaps that acts as a deterrent, but we've see how little a deterrent mass lawsuits have had in the music industry.

So what happens next? My guess is that we'll see some sort of push to change copyright laws again to try to deal with this "problem." Perhaps even something that would put liability on any company that enables "real-time" streaming. The content companies won't want the burden of actually changing their business model, so they'll try to dump the burden of enforcing the old business model on the innovators. Hopefully, though, there are enough folks out there who won't simply let such a change go through unchallenged.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..