5 ms·

If you read the actual report they're quoting (http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/j

by aaronsw 16y ago

If you read the actual report they're quoting (http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d...) you'll see, as usual, that the _Washington Times_ is being totally dishonest. First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals. Second, it isn't a tax -- it's simply talking about news providers providing licenses for their content to news aggregators. Third, the FTC isn't even talking about changing the law to create new legal rights against news aggregators. What they're actually talking about is removing antitrust barriers to news providers getting together and starting a joint licensing scheme. In short, this is less than nothing.

alexyim 16y ago
"In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place." Maybe this article isn't that well written or I'm not reading correctly, but I did get the impression that they are trying to charge for something
- px 16y ago
  The editorial is definitely written that way. It doesn't exactly reflect what is in the FTC document, though.
roboneal 16y ago
Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct." A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.
- px 16y ago
  Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.
    - px 16y ago
      Not trying to be contentious here. I'm just not sure that the FTC has staked out a clear position on this issue, yet. They seem to be inviting scrutiny. For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question, "Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"
    - hristov 16y ago
      The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various roundtable discussions etc. "It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized." No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources). If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that). But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.
gojomo 16y ago
As the 'discussion draft' itself notes in its own words, "a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct". Several of the proposals listed involve creating broader IP rights ('hot news'; statutory truncations of traditional 'fair use'; a new statutory licensing scheme), or antitrust exemptions, all to allow favored traditional newsgathers the ability to demand payment from aggregators. In common parlance, that's enough like a 'tax' to make the description accurate in a popular account. (The Washington Times didn't even highlight one of the most egregious ideas listed -- a $5-$7 fee per subscriber on all ISPs, collected and distributed by the federal Copyright Office.) The least honest part of the WT coverage is calling the document a "draft proposal". As you note, it's just a laundry list of ideas. (In the document's own subheading, "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism".) But it's fair of the WT to suggest these ideas are being considered, and to alert those who might find them disconcerting before the proposals become any more concrete. And the ideas are heavy on new taxes, new licensing fees, new IP rights for old-line industries, and new government subsidies -- as should be expected from an agency looking for something to do.
anamax 16y ago
> First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals. The report says that the proposals come from FTC staff and as potential policy. I'll quote. "In May 2009, the Federal Trade Commission announced a project to consider the challenges faced by journalism in the Internet age. Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding. We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club."

by aaronsw 16y ago

alexyim 16y ago

"In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place." Maybe this article isn't that well written or I'm not reading correctly, but I did get the impression that they are trying to charge for something

px 16y ago
The editorial is definitely written that way. It doesn't exactly reflect what is in the FTC document, though.

roboneal 16y ago

Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct." A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.

px 16y ago
Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.
- roboneal 16y ago
  Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.
  - px 16y ago
    Not trying to be contentious here. I'm just not sure that the FTC has staked out a clear position on this issue, yet. They seem to be inviting scrutiny. For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question, "Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"
  - hristov 16y ago
    The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various roundtable discussions etc. "It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized." No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources). If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that). But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.

gojomo 16y ago

As the 'discussion draft' itself notes in its own words, "a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct". Several of the proposals listed involve creating broader IP rights ('hot news'; statutory truncations of traditional 'fair use'; a new statutory licensing scheme), or antitrust exemptions, all to allow favored traditional newsgathers the ability to demand payment from aggregators. In common parlance, that's enough like a 'tax' to make the description accurate in a popular account. (The Washington Times didn't even highlight one of the most egregious ideas listed -- a $5-$7 fee per subscriber on all ISPs, collected and distributed by the federal Copyright Office.) The least honest part of the WT coverage is calling the document a "draft proposal". As you note, it's just a laundry list of ideas. (In the document's own subheading, "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism".) But it's fair of the WT to suggest these ideas are being considered, and to alert those who might find them disconcerting before the proposals become any more concrete. And the ideas are heavy on new taxes, new licensing fees, new IP rights for old-line industries, and new government subsidies -- as should be expected from an agency looking for something to do.

anamax 16y ago

> First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals. The report says that the proposals come from FTC staff and as potential policy. I'll quote. "In May 2009, the Federal Trade Commission announced a project to consider the challenges faced by journalism in the Internet age. Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding. We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club."