Copyright and copy writers
By Steve McClure on Mon, Jun 29, 2009
Copyright protection in the online world is going to be an exciting area of discussion in the coming years, and columnist Connie Schultz got the ball rolling recenly with her piece in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Schultz writes about a recent panel discussion during which David Marburger brought up the idea of dramatically changing federal copyright law to protect those who produce news. David Marburger is a First Amendment lawyer who has done a good amount of work for newspapers. In her column, she quotes Marburger’s ideas on how to go after free-standing web sites and local television stations that pull newspapers stories and post them online.
“It’s unfair competition with unjust enrichment,” Marburger says.
It’s also a downward spiral toward extinction.
“If the copyright law doesn’t open the way for originators of news to stop the free-riding, newspapers will die,” he said. “No exceptions.”
The Marburgers propose a change in federal law that would allow originators of news to exploit the commercial value of their product. Ideally, news originators’ stories would be available only on their Web sites for the first 24 hours.”
As an interesting aside, Marburger notes that The Associated Press was one of the movers and shakers in the initial world of copyright protection. Given the current discussions between the AP and some of the big-wigs of the online world, it could be that AP gets to play a role in the next great decision on copyright as well.
Only time will tell whether the Marburger solution plays out, but it stands to reason something will have to change. There are costs associated with gathering information, and those costs aren’t going to change in the future.
An example can be seen in the area of public records. I’ve noted before that there are those government agencies that use the law to put up financial barriers with public records requests. Those barriers might be too high for a good number of people to get over. News organizations, however, incorporate that into the cost of doing business (right up there with the costs of salaries, health insurance, etc.).
It’s easy to dismiss those costs with grand pronouncements about the supposed demise of media organizations (usually made with some sweeping brush about the MSM — as if we’re all one giant cabal that meets weekly to discuss our agenda), but the need for information and people to pursue that information isn’t as easily dismissed.
Tags: Notes On News
June 29th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Steve,
Here’s the problem as I see it: no one will pay for the news. The NY Times tried to charge for premium news. That failed because no one was willing to pay for something they could get elsewhere for free.
Even if all of the MSM outlets went to the kind of format you mention (free for 24 hours), that’s long enough to be picked up by news aggregators not located in the USA, and therefore still free for download.
Whatever law someone comes up with, there will be a technological solution to circumvent it.
As I learned in gradaute school, information wants to be free.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Dale,
I think it depends on how you establish what is “premium.” I also think it depends on how you look at the media industry.
I don’t consider the New York Times to be operating on the same scale as most community newspapers. Instead, that group of large, metro newspapers has a different role than news organizations that really focus on their communities.
Interestingly, while the NYT and LA Times and others seem to dominate the media discussion, about 80 percent of the country’s daily newspapers fall into the community category — with circulations less than 50,000.
I’m not sure exactly what the business model will look like in the future, but I do know there needs to be some recognition of the costs associated with gathering and disseminating information.