Breaking News is of very high value, and in many cases an exclusive perspective should not be discounted simply for a lack of corroboration. However, 2 elements must be taken into consideration, IMO:
--You must be willing to publicly and prominently amend the record (e.g., strikethroughs with corrections immediately following).
--You still must consider the implications of "getting it wrong." For example, if your original story is likely to cause irreparable damage to someone's reputation or livelihood, you have an ethical obligation to obtain further corroboration.
If you fail to do either, your own reputation will rightly be tarnished. I can think of several MSM sources I no longer follow due to their violation of one or both of these basic tenets.
The problem with the NFL is that the game has taken a back seat to the celebrity. The front office has become obsessed with controlling the image of its membership and forgotten the real reason fans like to watch. The league has taken on the model of the Vince McMahon's WWF. How do they expect anyone to take it seriously anymore?
I wholeheartedly agree. I make creative works *now*, and I want to clearly specify to my clients what they can and cannot do with my work.What are the alternatives?
--Copyright my work and ignore the fact my customers will violate the terms,
--Public Domain it and have no say over its use, or
--Copyright it and then threaten to sue the pants off of my customers when they violate it.
Sorry, but if I can add a clear and concise statement of how I'd like them to treat my work *most* clients will understand and happily respect my wishes. For those that don't I have written proof that I specified terms of use to prod them with. And in most cases, I find that by using an "alternative" licensing scheme I introduce them to the concept that there are alternative ways to handle the distribution of IP, thereby beginning their education on this critical issue.
Now, remind me why I should wait for the vitriolic debate in the US congress over this? Especially when it is going to be controlled by the Special Interest lobby?
Four. A search without enough probable cause to justify a warrant is a clear violation of privacy rights, especially if you are USA citizen. If DHS feels time is of an essence, they can seize the laptop and wait for a warrant to be issued before violating you.This needs to change.
Actually, I do not think either of those organizations use AP. And this post is specifically about the ineptitude of the Associated Press, not wire services in general.
And I disagree that either of these organizations have to "massively increase" anything. That's kinda the point the newsfuturist was making in the first place.
Sometimes we tend to forget that the average reader of this blog is an individual who likely uses the internet for a great deal of their news and information gathering. I would contend however that at least in the US, we have yet to become the majority (though this will likely change in the next decade or so).
I live in a fairly rural and isolated area where there are still quite a substantial portion of the populace without a broadband connection. For those individuals, the national and international coverage that AP provides for the local paper is hardly irrelevant.
Having said that, I think our local daily (which I personally find to be a piece of garbage) would be better served by hiring a staff member or two to research the internet (and other sources) and find stories relevant to our community. A local reporter could then provide some contextualization to the big stories, while the 5 sentence digest stories could be be gleaned from just about anywhere. The AP in its current role is indeed unnecessary in such a model. See ya!
...which is precisely the point made in the OP. It's up to the songwriters to come up with a viable method of charging for their services, just like in virtually every other industry. Personally, I don't see any good coming out of the subsidization of their current business model. The current arguments for industry protectionism fall grossly short in this case, considering the harm done to innovation and how simple it is to change the earning model.
Republicans are responsible for over regulation. Democrats are responsible for over regulation. Lining their pockets is a bipartisan effort.
Both parties act in the best interest of large corporations as it is they who help finance the massive campaigns now required to hold office.
Your logic is incorrect not only because you assume that you are going to be able to attract 100 customers, but because your venture relies on a failed business model.
The *reality* of the market is that there is NO WAY you are going to prevent at least one of your thousand customers from sharing a copy of your work. Relying on your government to somehow make up for your inability to adapt to this new paradigm only serves to erode personal freedoms and stifle innovation.
It is up to you to come up with alternative methods to recoup your investment and profit from your innovative ideas. Many others have by recognizing that greater exposure leads to further opportunities, providing service and support for your ideas, providing supportive scarce goods, etc.
Personally, I am going to fight for my rights to privacy and ownership. The sooner you realize that the long term suppression of ideas is a *bad* thing for society, the better.
The Better Deal:
Artist records/produces own music, distributes it via a multitude of possible channels, promotes and markets through live performance, social networking, etc. and tells the labels to go f%# themselves.
As for the solo artist: How about you record your music, and if it is good then people will pay to have it performed live, or to use it in a commercial veture (movie, television, etc.,),. or pay you to compose something original? Your talent is the scarce good in that model.
Fine.
If the AP can convince their clients that they deserve a premium rate so they can finance a voracious legal team to run around suing folks, that is certainly their prerogative.
Personally, if I was a client, I'd start shopping...
All the discussion regarding various methods of reforming copyright are interesting and there's no question that some type of reform is long overdue. I personally believe you should be able to have some say over the use of your IP while you're alive, but that it should probably end there.
But in a marketplace collapsing due to the "zero cost" factor, what does it really matter whether the time frame is 3 years or 73? If your IP is widely available at no cost within 3 days of release regardless of your legal rights, then you're still left with the same underlying problem...
From reading the update on the post, it seems fairly clear that the primary issue was concerning the photographs used by Apartment Therapy.
The reality in the world of commercial photography is that rights-managed usage licenses are the norm. The photographers charge for their work based upon the agreement that the licensee will only distribute it in accordance with their contract. Apartment Therapy was violating those licenses by "distributing" those images without permission--and apparently without even giving proper credit. As such, like it or not, this is indeed a clear violation of copyright.
Now having said that, a couple thoughts come to mind:
--Why is the NYT issuing the takedown notices and not the photographers themselves? If they are NYT employees, then ownership defaults to the NYT and the opinions above are valid, and
--The world of rights-managed photography had better sit up and take notice of this situation as this type of "infringement" is becoming commonplace, and in many cases benefits the authors way more than threatening legal action. Allowances had better be written into the contracts *along with stipulations to provide proper credit* before the whole situations spins out of control like the RIAA/MPAA.
Lastly, there is *no* excuse for sicking the legal staff before even making a phone call. But then, the NYT has gotten what they deserve from this, haven't they? A nice black eye from the AT readership.
RSS
Twitter
Both have great value. (as BAlbrecht)
Breaking News is of very high value, and in many cases an exclusive perspective should not be discounted simply for a lack of corroboration. However, 2 elements must be taken into consideration, IMO:
--You must be willing to publicly and prominently amend the record (e.g., strikethroughs with corrections immediately following).
--You still must consider the implications of "getting it wrong." For example, if your original story is likely to cause irreparable damage to someone's reputation or livelihood, you have an ethical obligation to obtain further corroboration.
If you fail to do either, your own reputation will rightly be tarnished. I can think of several MSM sources I no longer follow due to their violation of one or both of these basic tenets.
(as BAlbrecht)
The problem with the NFL is that the game has taken a back seat to the celebrity. The front office has become obsessed with controlling the image of its membership and forgotten the real reason fans like to watch. The league has taken on the model of the Vince McMahon's WWF. How do they expect anyone to take it seriously anymore?
Re: (as BAlbrecht)
I wholeheartedly agree. I make creative works *now*, and I want to clearly specify to my clients what they can and cannot do with my work.What are the alternatives?
--Copyright my work and ignore the fact my customers will violate the terms,
--Public Domain it and have no say over its use, or
--Copyright it and then threaten to sue the pants off of my customers when they violate it.
Sorry, but if I can add a clear and concise statement of how I'd like them to treat my work *most* clients will understand and happily respect my wishes. For those that don't I have written proof that I specified terms of use to prod them with. And in most cases, I find that by using an "alternative" licensing scheme I introduce them to the concept that there are alternative ways to handle the distribution of IP, thereby beginning their education on this critical issue.
Now, remind me why I should wait for the vitriolic debate in the US congress over this? Especially when it is going to be controlled by the Special Interest lobby?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as BAlbrecht)
Four. A search without enough probable cause to justify a warrant is a clear violation of privacy rights, especially if you are USA citizen. If DHS feels time is of an essence, they can seize the laptop and wait for a warrant to be issued before violating you.This needs to change.
Re: Re: Re: (as BAlbrecht)
Actually, I do not think either of those organizations use AP. And this post is specifically about the ineptitude of the Associated Press, not wire services in general.
And I disagree that either of these organizations have to "massively increase" anything. That's kinda the point the newsfuturist was making in the first place.
Not there yet. (as BAlbrecht)
Sometimes we tend to forget that the average reader of this blog is an individual who likely uses the internet for a great deal of their news and information gathering. I would contend however that at least in the US, we have yet to become the majority (though this will likely change in the next decade or so).
I live in a fairly rural and isolated area where there are still quite a substantial portion of the populace without a broadband connection. For those individuals, the national and international coverage that AP provides for the local paper is hardly irrelevant.
Having said that, I think our local daily (which I personally find to be a piece of garbage) would be better served by hiring a staff member or two to research the internet (and other sources) and find stories relevant to our community. A local reporter could then provide some contextualization to the big stories, while the 5 sentence digest stories could be be gleaned from just about anywhere. The AP in its current role is indeed unnecessary in such a model. See ya!
Re: (as BAlbrecht)
"News by press release"?
Uhhh...no.
The article implies that readers will utilize other sources for news beyond the coverage sphere of the local paper, such as BBC, CNN, etc.
Re: Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but (as BAlbrecht)
...which is precisely the point made in the OP. It's up to the songwriters to come up with a viable method of charging for their services, just like in virtually every other industry. Personally, I don't see any good coming out of the subsidization of their current business model. The current arguments for industry protectionism fall grossly short in this case, considering the harm done to innovation and how simple it is to change the earning model.
Re: Re: Re: (as BAlbrecht)
Republicans are responsible for over regulation. Democrats are responsible for over regulation. Lining their pockets is a bipartisan effort.
Both parties act in the best interest of large corporations as it is they who help finance the massive campaigns now required to hold office.
Re: $10 software (as BAlbrecht)
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentYour logic is incorrect not only because you assume that you are going to be able to attract 100 customers, but because your venture relies on a failed business model.
The *reality* of the market is that there is NO WAY you are going to prevent at least one of your thousand customers from sharing a copy of your work. Relying on your government to somehow make up for your inability to adapt to this new paradigm only serves to erode personal freedoms and stifle innovation.
It is up to you to come up with alternative methods to recoup your investment and profit from your innovative ideas. Many others have by recognizing that greater exposure leads to further opportunities, providing service and support for your ideas, providing supportive scarce goods, etc.
Personally, I am going to fight for my rights to privacy and ownership. The sooner you realize that the long term suppression of ideas is a *bad* thing for society, the better.
(as Bruce A.)
The Better Deal:
Artist records/produces own music, distributes it via a multitude of possible channels, promotes and markets through live performance, social networking, etc. and tells the labels to go f%# themselves.
As for the solo artist: How about you record your music, and if it is good then people will pay to have it performed live, or to use it in a commercial veture (movie, television, etc.,),. or pay you to compose something original? Your talent is the scarce good in that model.
Let 'em try (as Bruce_A)
Fine.
If the AP can convince their clients that they deserve a premium rate so they can finance a voracious legal team to run around suing folks, that is certainly their prerogative.
Personally, if I was a client, I'd start shopping...
What's the point? (as Bruce A.)
All the discussion regarding various methods of reforming copyright are interesting and there's no question that some type of reform is long overdue. I personally believe you should be able to have some say over the use of your IP while you're alive, but that it should probably end there.
But in a marketplace collapsing due to the "zero cost" factor, what does it really matter whether the time frame is 3 years or 73? If your IP is widely available at no cost within 3 days of release regardless of your legal rights, then you're still left with the same underlying problem...
Time to change the business model, folks.
(as Bruce A.)
To play a bit of the Devil's Advocate here:
From reading the update on the post, it seems fairly clear that the primary issue was concerning the photographs used by Apartment Therapy.
The reality in the world of commercial photography is that rights-managed usage licenses are the norm. The photographers charge for their work based upon the agreement that the licensee will only distribute it in accordance with their contract. Apartment Therapy was violating those licenses by "distributing" those images without permission--and apparently without even giving proper credit. As such, like it or not, this is indeed a clear violation of copyright.
Now having said that, a couple thoughts come to mind:
--Why is the NYT issuing the takedown notices and not the photographers themselves? If they are NYT employees, then ownership defaults to the NYT and the opinions above are valid, and
--The world of rights-managed photography had better sit up and take notice of this situation as this type of "infringement" is becoming commonplace, and in many cases benefits the authors way more than threatening legal action. Allowances had better be written into the contracts *along with stipulations to provide proper credit* before the whole situations spins out of control like the RIAA/MPAA.
Lastly, there is *no* excuse for sicking the legal staff before even making a phone call. But then, the NYT has gotten what they deserve from this, haven't they? A nice black eye from the AT readership.