

Steal This Professionally Reported Content - jakewolf
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/steal-this-professionally-reported-content/

======
shib71
Nice overview of the most recent focus for collective navel gazing.

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.

~~~
wvenable
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.

~~~
jballanc
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.

~~~
greyman
>> 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".

------
demallien
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...

~~~
sounddust
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.

------
pasbesoin
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.

------
rawr
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..

