Time for an MCD job on all Irish newspapers?

the_syco

http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/12/30/2012-the-year-irish-newspapers-tried-to-destroy-the-web/

This year the Irish newspaper industry asserted, first tentatively and then without any equivocation, that links -just bare links like this one- belonged to them. They said that they had the right to be paid to be linked to. They said they had the right to set the rates for those links, as they had set rates in the past for other forms of licensing of their intellectual property. And then they started a campaign to lobby for unauthorised linking to be outlawed.

Could you please stand up to them by not allowing anyone link to their online content, like the MCD embargo not so long ago?

The newspapers that the group entails;

The National Newspapers of Ireland is the representative body for Irish Newspaper Publishers. The 15 member titles in the NNI are

Irish Independent
Irish Examiner
The Irish Times
Irish Daily Star
Evening Herald
The Sunday Independent
Sunday World
The Sunday Business Post
Irish Mail on Sunday
Irish Farmers Journal
Irish Daily Mail
Irish Daily Mirror
Irish Sun
Irish Sunday Mirror
The Sunday Times
Irish Sun Sunday

P_1

Would that not just give them what they're looking for without them having to pay a penny to their lawyers?

I can't see this idea working for them, I mean they'll have to start suing individuals for what they post on their Facebook pages for example.

the_syco

pithater1 wrote: »

Would that not just give them what they're looking for without them having to pay a penny to their lawyers?

It would also mean no-one would link to their newspapers; but link to a non-Irish rival. Any revenue they'd get from their online web papges should then drop.

P_1

the_syco wrote: »

It would also mean no-one would link to their newspapers; but link to a non-Irish rival. Any revenue they'd get from their online web papges should then drop.

True, its a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face though?

the_syco

pithater1 wrote: »

True, its a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face though?

I think I know what you're saying, but since the rates per link are as follows;

1 – 5 €300.00
6 – 10 €500.00
11 – 15 €700.00
16 – 25 €950.00
26 – 50 €1,350.00
50 + Negotiable

boards.ie would be giving them at least €1,350 if not more. At least until they cop on and let boards.ie users link to their websites without boards.ie having to give the corporation money.

P_1

IMO it's a simple bit of kite flying from the papers and their lobby group that I can't see ever happening. Although Sherlocks SI might have changed things.

Possible headache for the lads upstairs methinks...

TherapyBoy

Aren't they being paid for this already? If I follow a link to their webpage to view a story/photo or whatever I presume my visit (& others) is being used to sell advertising.
"Our website had X thousand hits per day last year, that's X thousand people will see your ad!"

humanji

Simple solution: Boards News. Openly allow people to link to a new news related site, which will quickly out do all newspapers. A bit of advertising on the side of each news article and the site would pay for itself in no time*.



* may not be true.


Edit: or alternatively, start charging newspapers every time they steal a story from Boards.

P_1

humanji wrote: »

Edit: or alternatively, start charging newspapers every time they steal a story from Boards.

Methinks we'll be admiring the pigs flying past the blue moon on a particularly cold day in hell before we see the newspapers paying for anything

Have I run out of cliches?

seamus

As that article quite rightly quotes from TBL, a link is no more than a reference. It's not stealing or re-using anyone's work, in fact it's the exact opposite - giving credit where credit is due.

To require payment for a weblink is as absurd as requiring PhD students to pay royalties to every author referenced in their thesis.

Another example of the old media, much like the music industry, attempting to redefine the internet to fit into their outdated business model rather than updating their business model to fit reality. And much like the music industry, while the old media squabble over intellectual rights and try to control distribution of their content down to the nth level, those businesses who understand and embrace technology are cleaning up and running away with all of the money.

The Huffington Post is an example of how it's done. It's a newspaper in digital form. And it's annihilating the printed media in the US, despite having only been in existence for 7 years.

Pawwed Rig

pithater1 wrote: »

Methinks we'll be admiring the pigs flying past the blue moon on a particularly cold day in hell before we see the newspapers paying for anything

Have I run out of cliches?

Here is another one for you
'The last dance of a dying Swan'

2 stroke

the_syco wrote: »

I think I know what you're saying, but since the rates per link are as follows;

boards.ie would be giving them at least €1,350 if not more. At least until they cop on and let boards.ie users link to their websites without boards.ie having to give the corporation money.

If newspapers had to pay for the amount of "research" they do on boards they could easily balance that payment.

TheDoc

Just stumbled across this actually.

As a webmaster for a sporting organisation, and also involved in a few other web based projects, I discussed this issue with colleagues at length.

We came to the decision there was no legal grounds for "ownership of links" as it is simply a reference and we left it at that. In two projects I'm involved in, we have received payment requests from two national papers, who got a formal response of "**** off", and we have heard nothing since.

Squeaky the Squirrel

Didn't Womens Aid (after receiving one of these demands for payments for links) make a great point about all these Newspapers having Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Wordpress and loads of other icons on each page of their sites for the exact purpose of linking on Social Media Sites/Comercial sites.

My name is URL

Would they actually be allowed to charge for links pointing to the sites? How would that work?

Ghost Train

My name is URL wrote: »

Would they actually be allowed to charge for links pointing to the sites? How would that work?

Presumably they'd have to filter who has access to their site, be able to detect the source of the requests, block commercial non subscribers.

I'd imagine any system like this is going to be messy and complicated to control. Would probably frustrate and drive away end users. It's not going to increase traffic to a site only kill a percentage of traffic from sources not interested in paying for the "service" if you can even call it that.

Existing advertisers hardly going to be behind less page views

wnolan1992

Shur all we'd have to do is not use the [noparse][url][/url][/noparse] tags and it wouldn't count as a link. :pac:

seamus

Whatever they think they would attempt to do is easily circumvented.

If the plan is to capture data from logs to find out which sites appear as the HTTP_REFERERs and send out bills, then you can just use link shorteners for the relevant sites. So all links to the Irish Times are automatically changed into tinyurl links and the HTTP_REFERER information is lost, not to mention the fact that the link would no longer be one directly to the IT so there would be no legal grounds to challenge it.

If they were to start filtering/blocking links on the basis of knowing who's a paid subscriber, then you use a passthrough link from a provider that you know isn't going to ever be blocked - like Google: http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnewspaper%2Fbreaking%2F2013%2F0103%2Fbreaking20.html

As I say, easily circumvented. If push came to shove and all IT links from boards.ie were to become dead links, then I know which business would suffer more. Hint: it's not boards.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

Whatever they think they would attempt to do is easily circumvented.

If the plan is to capture data from logs to find out which sites appear as the HTTP_REFERERs and send out bills, then you can just use link shorteners for the relevant sites. So all links to the Irish Times are automatically changed into tinyurl links and the HTTP_REFERER information is lost, not to mention the fact that the link would no longer be one directly to the IT so there would be no legal grounds to challenge it.

If they were to start filtering/blocking links on the basis of knowing who's a paid subscriber, then you use a passthrough link from a provider that you know isn't going to ever be blocked - like Google: http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnewspaper%2Fbreaking%2F2013%2F0103%2Fbreaking20.html

As I say, easily circumvented. If push came to shove and all IT links from boards.ie were to become dead links, then I know which business would suffer more. Hint: it's not boards.

Only one slight thing against that, basic / casual web users are often discouraged from clicking on disguised and ambiguous links to promote safer browsing. It doesn't really help to propose the option to disguise links to get around any "risks" from referrals.

If the Irish media choose to hold onto this idea, just leave'em be. No point in trying to find ways around something that's gonna be on the TV/Radio news 24 times a day for the following week whenever something new comes up.

Overheal

I'm thinking of that little convenience store on that bridge in Carlow.

The newspapers are this convenience store.

And to protect their business, they blew up both sides of the bridge.

That'll teach the ****ers to refer business here.

MugMugs

Overheal wrote: »

I'm thinking of that little convenience store on that bridge in Carlow.

The newspapers are this convenience store.

And to protect their business, they blew up both sides of the bridge.

That'll teach the ****ers to refer business here.

Wouldn't blowing up just one side of the bridge have the same impact and stop use of the bridge?

Squeaky the Squirrel

Dravokivich wrote: »

Only one slight thing against that, basic / casual web users are often discouraged from clicking on disguised and ambiguous links to promote safer browsing. It doesn't really help to propose the option to disguise links to get around any "risks" from referrals.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=unshortenit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Overheal

MugMugs wrote: »

Wouldn't blowing up just one side of the bridge have the same impact and stop use of the bridge?

Of course; but nothing about this situation screams 'sensible'

Gordon

Ye olde newspapere model obviously works on that rare economic demand determination model called "Price and Supply" which is contrary to the dusty hackneyed "Demand and Supply" model of price determination. This model is one where the supplier raises the price of something and demand automatically increases to match (loosely seen in Apple products..). It's quite a smart move, especially in this current economic climate that we're living in where you've got to make bold moves to gain real ground, so when your business is in trouble, you don't go out and buy a second hand company car, you buy the top of the range Bugatti Veyron, show people you mean business, your business means business. This bold move really separates the men from the boys.



One thing that's important to note is that this type of demand determination model works really well with the digital domain we're conversing in at the moment (or as I like to call it - newstalking), and mark my words - we will ALL benefit from this.

For example, websites that allow user generated 'newstalk' content like the Irish Times' "Have Your Say" and "Comment on this" sections allows for crowdsourced opinion pieces where we, the people, generate their content, so rest assured - WE will be paid for our contributions to these websites.

For example also, websites like the Independent that directly link to social media websites with handy buttons to "Tweet", "Share" and "G+" the content will also have to pay Facebook, Google and Twitter etc for the honour of allowing to link directly to these social media sites - they have to pay the piper too you know. And WE the people will benefit from this, because these social media sites will be paying US for our user generated content. It's quite clever

For example also, when newspapers trawl boards for interesting stories, as is their wont on many many occasions, don't worry - YOU the poster on Boards will be paid heftily for this "newstalk", they will automatically attribute a predetermined supplyprice figure to your account and you will be monetarily cooking with gas, playing with the big boys, buying Bugatti Veyrons.

Trust me, we will benefit here, the newspaper companies have figured out a pretty crafty method to boost our economy and ensure that their analog newspaper business thrives in this brave new digital newstalk world. I for one welcome them etc etc.

Orion

Gordon wrote: »

some crazy sh!t

*brain explodes*

Dravokivich

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/search?q=unshortenit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

eh, I don't get what you're at there.

seamus

Dravokivich wrote: »

eh, I don't get what you're at there.

You can get browser add-ons which do the legwork for you and change shortened urls into their full URL. I have it running on FF at the moment, so if someone puts up a t.co link, it replaces this with the full link. So you don't have to click on it to find out where it goes.

Oryx

Please let us know how the papers respond to boards.ie's demand for payment for print stories that originated here.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

You can get browser add-ons which do the legwork for you and change shortened urls into their full URL. I have it running on FF at the moment, so if someone puts up a t.co link, it replaces this with the full link. So you don't have to click on it to find out where it goes.

Yeah well, extensions and add ons are things that'd be used by power users and IT enthusiasts. My post referenced purely basic/casual users. Such as people who wouldn't use, or even know of such things.

Surely there could be a happy medium here?

Off the top of my head-
Newspapers are given the opportunity to have official representatives on here. If there is a news story that breaks here, they must ask the permission of the OP to print it. If they don't and it's proven that the story originated on here, the journalist/newspaper has to pay a minimum fee of €300 to the site.

General Zod

I think we need to boil down what the issue is so that we would be better able to discuss what the NNL, through their lapdog, the NLI are actually trying to accomplish.

Currently if you are a commercial body which stores Newspaper clippings or online for reference or public reproduction you are legally obliged to purchase a licence from the NNI. Many organisations already do this.

The NLI is the entity set up by the NNI to enforce this. They will mail companies/charities public bodies etc. informing them of their existence and what the legal requirements currently are. If you are a company who does not store press clippings or articles for reference/reproduction then they would request that you send them a declaration of such.

Here is where it gets interesting. They recently submitted a proposal and invited public commentary, that the law regarding copywrite not be ammended, as it was their legal view that providing a link to a story hosted on one of their members websites, along with reproducing texts or photographs from the expressed articles represented copyright infringement and as such the company responsible were incumbent under current legislation to purchase a licence for such activity.

However, they have not been consistent in their behaviour and in some correspondence simply stated that even the link itelf was creative content and as such subject to current copyright legislation.

It's worth noting that they are not intent on charging private individuals, this is currently a means of widening the net of potential bodies which would fall under the current legislation.

I have an idea that it's flying a flag for something else further on though.