Reflections of a Newsosaur: AFP case perils all online publishers — Alan Mutter writes an interesting analysis of the recent suit filed against Google by Agence France Presse over “stealing” or “reposting” or cacheing. Something or other. Overlooked in the debate (Mutter ignores it completely) is simple reality. I’ve had complete columns from PC Magazine lifted in their entirety. I complained to the editors who talked to the lawyers and nothing comes of it because it is “too much trouble” to go after two-bit theft. With 8 million small fry bloggers (with maybe a thousand or so readers each at the most) how many people — as Mutter suggests — are going to be “sued into oblivion?” None unless they have the reach of Google and if they do they can afford to pay a fee to someone.
It is only reasonable to wonder when the AP, New York Times, ABC News, USA Today, CNN, Business Week, Chicago Tribune and countless others will file suit to demand payment for — or block the use of — their content on other web sites.
The bigger question here, it seems to me, is who are the idiots at AFP that do not want all those Google links? Mind-boggling stupidity.
Related link:
AFP Homepage
If I were the supreme ruler of the earth, I’d point out that the internet is a WEB. Then I’d point ouf that if you don’t want to put your material on THE WEB, GET IT THE FUCK OFF!
Then I’d wipe France off the face of the earth.
Dolt!
EXTRA! EXTRA!
From Meet the Press to Be the Press
NYU PRESS THINK
The Economist just said it: the “the traditional notion that the media play a special role in informing people is breaking down.” Rising up: government as a “purely neutral” news provider, credible where a sinking press corps is not.
The Office of Legal Counsel boasts of the “purely informational nature” of the government’s PR message, different from “undisclosed advocacy,” even though the undisclosed part may be true. It includes this remarkable passage:
OLC does not agree with GAO that the “covert propaganda” prohibition applies simply because an agency’s role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or “covert,” regardless of whether the content of the message is “propaganda.” Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency.
Really good stuff
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
Remember that Rachel Carson wrote her way out of government
work . That is how DDT and the fraud of the poisoning of the people was exposed once and for all. What are these idiots going to do, cite Jeff Gannon and let Karl Rove manage the news? They have a new White House blogger, that should make it all better. The government could have a larger budget for fake news than actual television news divisions have for real news. Go figure!