Steal This Professionally Reported Content(opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
Steal This Professionally Reported Content
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/steal-this-professionally-reported-content/
8 comments
From the article:
Look at Shapira’s article, says Snyder. It’s missing 'anything resembling a point of view.' And that’s exactly what Nolan’s Gawker post provided.
A lot of blogs that are second-hand reporting, what they usually add id their own opinion on the topic. They were interested (or disgusted) enough when reading the article to add their 2 cents to the topic. Sometimes that opinion is just as interesting (or more) as the original article.
Look at Shapira’s article, says Snyder. It’s missing 'anything resembling a point of view.' And that’s exactly what Nolan’s Gawker post provided.
A lot of blogs that are second-hand reporting, what they usually add id their own opinion on the topic. They were interested (or disgusted) enough when reading the article to add their 2 cents to the topic. Sometimes that opinion is just as interesting (or more) as the original article.
Indeed, and this seems to be one of the main motivations behind the notion of fair use. Is it such a stretch to go from discussing a piece around the water cooler, to e-mailing the link to some friends and associates, to posting opinion and criticism in a more permanent form on a blog? It seems to me that this sort of "reprocessing" of a story has been going on for ages, but that sometime in the late 70s to mid 80s society grew faster than individuals ability to communicate with their peers. It is only now that we are catching up. So why are newspapers so taken aback that we are discussing the stories they write?
In other words, I would highly doubt that what Gawker did does anything materially to diminish the value or profitability of the original reporting. Rather, it seems that news papers are failing not because of re-publication and fair use, but because they had tied themselves to an economic model (advertising) which they, ultimately, did not fully control.
In other words, I would highly doubt that what Gawker did does anything materially to diminish the value or profitability of the original reporting. Rather, it seems that news papers are failing not because of re-publication and fair use, but because they had tied themselves to an economic model (advertising) which they, ultimately, did not fully control.
>> So why are newspapers so taken aback that we are discussing the stories they write?
I think because sites like Gawker use the newspaper work for their own profit.
I think the following analogy could be used: Let's imagine that as a professional photographer, you shooted a photo gallery, spending quite a lot of time and money while working on it, and then you published it on your website with ads to attract readers or potential buyer. And then, I as a blogger will take several of your best photos, publish it on my blog with a few lines on comments and a link back to your website. Since I will repeat this with other photographers as well, my blog will be quite attractive so I will earn money with ads, and since my costs are minimal, I will survive a lot easier than you. This seems to happen with the newspaper in this era, with the only exception that republishing photos would be stealing and considered illegal, while republishing words is just "quoting".
I think because sites like Gawker use the newspaper work for their own profit.
I think the following analogy could be used: Let's imagine that as a professional photographer, you shooted a photo gallery, spending quite a lot of time and money while working on it, and then you published it on your website with ads to attract readers or potential buyer. And then, I as a blogger will take several of your best photos, publish it on my blog with a few lines on comments and a link back to your website. Since I will repeat this with other photographers as well, my blog will be quite attractive so I will earn money with ads, and since my costs are minimal, I will survive a lot easier than you. This seems to happen with the newspaper in this era, with the only exception that republishing photos would be stealing and considered illegal, while republishing words is just "quoting".
When I look at my own behaviour as web content consumer, I'm obliged to feel that the bloggers are in the right here.
For example, when I read Daring Fireball, I very often read the quote that Gruber has chosen from an article, and am interested enough to click through and read the whole article, so that I can appreciate the context of the quote. Gruber's aggregation of content + commentary, is actually generating traffic for the source site.
I can't help feeling that this whole debate is triggered more by the fact that newspapers don't know how to turn web pages served into dollars. Attacking blogging aggregators is just clutching at straws, as they haven't managed to resolve this fundamental problem...
For example, when I read Daring Fireball, I very often read the quote that Gruber has chosen from an article, and am interested enough to click through and read the whole article, so that I can appreciate the context of the quote. Gruber's aggregation of content + commentary, is actually generating traffic for the source site.
I can't help feeling that this whole debate is triggered more by the fact that newspapers don't know how to turn web pages served into dollars. Attacking blogging aggregators is just clutching at straws, as they haven't managed to resolve this fundamental problem...
I think that you picked a rare counterexample to the normal behavior of bloggers. Gruber does not write like most bloggers; he does an excellent job of finding interesting articles and piquing interest in them without using a large amount of their content. When his posts are long, you can bet that they are full of original ideas and material.
In the Gawker example, the blog post is eight paragraphs long, four of which are lifted directly from the source and the rest summarized from the most interesting parts of the source.
I think that if everyone blogged like Gruber did, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
In the Gawker example, the blog post is eight paragraphs long, four of which are lifted directly from the source and the rest summarized from the most interesting parts of the source.
I think that if everyone blogged like Gruber did, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
I still believe there is a role for a better class of ad broker. One who brings content providers, advertisers, and content consumers together in a mutually beneficial, opt-in relationship.
I don't mind ads, if they don't distract me. I even welcome them, when they inform me in a useful fashion. In the "early" days of the web, I recall following some ads and learning of useful things. This might even have led to a purchase or two.
Then the ads starting moving, flashing, etc., to the point where I could no longer pay attention to the content. Further, the ad content became less and less relevant. The early web was largely tech oriented, and the ads reflected this. They were often hand placed on pertinent pages. You mean in addition to product X, there is product Y? Maybe I'll have a look.
So, large, flashing adds -- with monkeys! -- about some Vodka I'll never drink. Bye bye, ads.
Text Google ads I can tolerate. Pictures, as well, as long as they don't move (or speak -- ugh!) and don't outshine the content. If they make me aware of things actually of interest to me, all the better.
A broker would help place those. The broker could also establish relationships whereby placement would be on legitimate sites and not rip-offs. How could this work, when the rip-offs can just place different ads? Because I, the consumer, have chosen to allow through the broker's ads. I continue to block the distracting crap from other advertisers. (A present day aside: To legitimate sites using such ads: Sorry, but with my sensory system, those ads make pages just plain unusable for me.)
The content provider gets opt-in advertising revenue. Advertisers get opt-in, and hopefully somewhat optimized, views and heightened click-through. The consumer gets ad-supported content where ads are not distracting and are even, on average, more informative.
The (other) gorilla in the room, for me, is privacy. I do not welcome the pervasive tracking that is being fostered. I'm willing to accept ads targeted based on page content, but not on my larger browsing history. In fact, the former work better for me. On a page, my mind is already on a specific topic. Ads that address that topic may be of interest. I don't care to be distracted by e.g. Sam Adams, based on the fact that two days ago I looked up a microbrew that a friend recommended.
So, Mr/Ms Ad Broker, in addition to offering non-sparkly, unicorn-free ads that are pertinent, you have to guarantee me control over my privacy. I don't just have a relationship with the content providers, and a relationship with the advertisers. I have a relationship with you. In fact, I am your prime product. You are selling my attention to the others. If you want to keep it, you had better keep me happy.
So... a brief, off-the-cuff exposition of a market solution that, on the surface, makes sense to me. If I was in a better position, I might try to put it together, myself.
There is so much distraction and noise in the domain. Break it down: You have three parties. They all have interests that can be mutually beneficial. Find the common ground, explain it clearly, and enable it. Everyone will have to compromise; but the compromise can meet the 80% that each party is really interested in. That's the reality of business. Let go of the pipe dreams.
I don't mind ads, if they don't distract me. I even welcome them, when they inform me in a useful fashion. In the "early" days of the web, I recall following some ads and learning of useful things. This might even have led to a purchase or two.
Then the ads starting moving, flashing, etc., to the point where I could no longer pay attention to the content. Further, the ad content became less and less relevant. The early web was largely tech oriented, and the ads reflected this. They were often hand placed on pertinent pages. You mean in addition to product X, there is product Y? Maybe I'll have a look.
So, large, flashing adds -- with monkeys! -- about some Vodka I'll never drink. Bye bye, ads.
Text Google ads I can tolerate. Pictures, as well, as long as they don't move (or speak -- ugh!) and don't outshine the content. If they make me aware of things actually of interest to me, all the better.
A broker would help place those. The broker could also establish relationships whereby placement would be on legitimate sites and not rip-offs. How could this work, when the rip-offs can just place different ads? Because I, the consumer, have chosen to allow through the broker's ads. I continue to block the distracting crap from other advertisers. (A present day aside: To legitimate sites using such ads: Sorry, but with my sensory system, those ads make pages just plain unusable for me.)
The content provider gets opt-in advertising revenue. Advertisers get opt-in, and hopefully somewhat optimized, views and heightened click-through. The consumer gets ad-supported content where ads are not distracting and are even, on average, more informative.
The (other) gorilla in the room, for me, is privacy. I do not welcome the pervasive tracking that is being fostered. I'm willing to accept ads targeted based on page content, but not on my larger browsing history. In fact, the former work better for me. On a page, my mind is already on a specific topic. Ads that address that topic may be of interest. I don't care to be distracted by e.g. Sam Adams, based on the fact that two days ago I looked up a microbrew that a friend recommended.
So, Mr/Ms Ad Broker, in addition to offering non-sparkly, unicorn-free ads that are pertinent, you have to guarantee me control over my privacy. I don't just have a relationship with the content providers, and a relationship with the advertisers. I have a relationship with you. In fact, I am your prime product. You are selling my attention to the others. If you want to keep it, you had better keep me happy.
So... a brief, off-the-cuff exposition of a market solution that, on the surface, makes sense to me. If I was in a better position, I might try to put it together, myself.
There is so much distraction and noise in the domain. Break it down: You have three parties. They all have interests that can be mutually beneficial. Find the common ground, explain it clearly, and enable it. Everyone will have to compromise; but the compromise can meet the 80% that each party is really interested in. That's the reality of business. Let go of the pipe dreams.
The end of the article was amazing. Nothing better than bitching about your work being stolen and then finding out that your communications director endorses the process by tipping off Gawker. Oh the irony..
I suspect the only way for 'reporters' to prevent second-hand reporting is to write articles that have a high signal-to-noise ratio. Articles that can't be reduced further without losing most of the value.