3 ms·

It seems like the content provider has little downside to doing this. News aggregator sends traffic to their page + news site seeks 'licensing' fees for that

by dbcoops 14y ago

It seems like the content provider has little downside to doing this. News aggregator sends traffic to their page + news site seeks 'licensing' fees for that traffic = profit. I suppose there is the potential for the newspaper to lose money in legal fees as well as look like a jerk to people on the internet, but hey, gotta fight the inevitable demise of print media somehow.

Jacqued 14y ago
Sometimes I just wish they would go out of business already. I think google should stop infringing their copyright too. You know, indexing Their Stuff and making links to it. That could do the trick. I wonder what they'd say then. We see first hand what happens when disrupting incumbents who happen to also control politicians and have some good friends in the legal system. Hopefully the current people movement against copyright mafia will see further victories...
- socksy 14y ago
  What does it mean to go out of business? Don't most newspapers make a loss? [1] (Excluding The Sun, obviously.) I don't think the motivation for funding them is profit, but influence, and so they'll continue to be produced for quite a while. Regarding Google, didn't Murdoch complain about just that? [2] [1] Well, at least The Times and The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-readership http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-re... mentions a daily loss of £240,000 for The Times, and http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/10/guardian-media-group-results http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/10/guardian-media-g... suggests similar (if not as great) losses by The Guardian. http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/can-guardian-survive http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/ca... suggests a calculation of £100,000 a day. However, The Telegraph appears to make a profit, as suggested here because of merging their digital and print media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/18/telegraph-group-profits-increase http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/18/telegraph-group-... — though I get the feeling that it would still be funded somewhat past the point of profitability too… [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-google-paywalls-ipad http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-g...
  - Jacqued 14y ago
    Good point. However, I think even Mr Murdoch's personal wealth could not sustain the losses of digital news outlets should Google comply and stop indexing them. By any means, they just have to put a little piece of text in their robots file to do just that - so this is yet more talk in favor of strong copyrights, and no action to renew anything.
    - socksy 14y ago
      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/robots.txt http://www.thetimes.co.uk/robots.txt would suggest that they are already doing that for their paywalled sites, wouldn't it?
drivingmenuts 14y ago
> It seems like the content provider has little downside to doing this. Seems obvious, but not to everyone. Some of those companies are trying everything they can to claw a buck (or in this case, a pound) wherever they can, no matter who it hurts. The sensible thing for cutbot to do is just cut them off (no pun intended).

by dbcoops 14y ago

Jacqued 14y ago

Sometimes I just wish they would go out of business already. I think google should stop infringing their copyright too. You know, indexing Their Stuff and making links to it. That could do the trick. I wonder what they'd say then. We see first hand what happens when disrupting incumbents who happen to also control politicians and have some good friends in the legal system. Hopefully the current people movement against copyright mafia will see further victories...

socksy 14y ago
What does it mean to go out of business? Don't most newspapers make a loss? [1] (Excluding The Sun, obviously.) I don't think the motivation for funding them is profit, but influence, and so they'll continue to be produced for quite a while. Regarding Google, didn't Murdoch complain about just that? [2] [1] Well, at least The Times and The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-readership http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-re... mentions a daily loss of £240,000 for The Times, and http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/10/guardian-media-group-results http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/10/guardian-media-g... suggests similar (if not as great) losses by The Guardian. http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/can-guardian-survive http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/ca... suggests a calculation of £100,000 a day. However, The Telegraph appears to make a profit, as suggested here because of merging their digital and print media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/18/telegraph-group-profits-increase http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/18/telegraph-group-... — though I get the feeling that it would still be funded somewhat past the point of profitability too… [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-google-paywalls-ipad http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-g...
- Jacqued 14y ago
  Good point. However, I think even Mr Murdoch's personal wealth could not sustain the losses of digital news outlets should Google comply and stop indexing them. By any means, they just have to put a little piece of text in their robots file to do just that - so this is yet more talk in favor of strong copyrights, and no action to renew anything.
  - socksy 14y ago
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/robots.txt http://www.thetimes.co.uk/robots.txt would suggest that they are already doing that for their paywalled sites, wouldn't it?

drivingmenuts 14y ago

> It seems like the content provider has little downside to doing this. Seems obvious, but not to everyone. Some of those companies are trying everything they can to claw a buck (or in this case, a pound) wherever they can, no matter who it hurts. The sensible thing for cutbot to do is just cut them off (no pun intended).