AP setting up tracking system for Web content

AP setting up tracking system for Web content

hosted.ap.org

The Associated Press is moving ahead with plans for a system to detect unlicensed use of its content and potentially create new ways for the 163-year-old news cooperative and other media to make more money on the Internet.
...
The AP will be able to determine what's being read on individual computers, but AP executives stressed the monitoring system won't collect personal information.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[mod edit: fixed long source link]

[edit on 24-7-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

This looks to be the start of a new trend which stands to limit the amount of news that people can access on the internet free of charge. When this takes hold, it will set a new precident in internet monitoring of both the sites people are visiting and the peoples computers themselves.

All of these new "monitoring" devices be it Microsofts "Genuine Advantage" tool or now the AP's new monitoring system claim to not collect personal information. I do not get an easy feeling about that claim. It would be far too tempting for a company like Microsoft to be able to access information but not use it in order to make a profit.

My main concern is that sites such as ATS may soon not be able to post even snippets of stories that come up in MSM networks. The key problem is that there is not one news site that covers stories from various angles. Here on ATS the users can get multiple angles on stories that come up.

I would like to know what impacts the rest of you including ADMIN think about these new advances in technology profiteering.

I personally think it is bad enough that the media as a whole only reports part of the story. Now the MSM is trying to make it to where the only way you can access their media is now on their legal terms.

If a story reroutes back to the "main" site for the "complete" story, how are they at a loss? It makes no sense to me. As long as stories are posted like they are on ATS then I personally do not think the MSM should complain. After all they still get their website traffic and sponsor "hits".

This seems to be a backhanded way of censorship by reducing the spread of news.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


[mod edit: fixed long source link]

[edit on 24-7-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

For me the Drudge Report is a great source, I wonder if this will affect their access to AP news.

I think the big players may ruin their own future with these attempts to make more money. There is always going to be independent sources of news, heck they are likely more reliable and less controlled anyways.

The "NEWS" is not "THEIRS"

It is OURS, everyones!

So lets say I did something really dumb, and made international headlines tomorrow.

Is the story about me THEIRS?

HELL NO! If it is anyones, its MINE!

The AP Sucks, I guess it is time to boycott their lies anyways.

This thread needs to be at the top of our discussions today, seriously.

Starred and Flagged in hopes that others will see this unbelievable development.

So how are we suppose to "source" things now? This does not make sense at all. So if I use the encyclopedia as a source, than I am now stealing their content?? This is totally absurd.

Good bye to the days of using sources in any and all research! *Unless you pay them a fee i guess!*

[edit on 24-7-2009 by muzzleflash]

Very disconcerting news indeed. Fair use allows one or two paragraphs which I've seen exceeded increasingly more often. Facts concerning events can't be copyrighted but the wording can be. The claim may be to protect copyrighted material, but ultimately it sounds like another means to target advertising to their consumers.

So when we read and quote news from AP we have been stealing?

WOW... Makes me wonder how many more internet pirates were just born?

If they run the same story as other outlets will they still sue over copyright violations claiming exclusive rights over a news story multiple outlets have reported on?

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


Google uses data filtering to rank webpages. It uses this to see where sources of info come from to rank data placement accordingly.

So...couldn't the AFP just hire google?

Technically this website has sponsors that the Owner receives money from. The Owner of ATS gets money when people visit the site and his sponsors get more hits (or whatever deal they have worked out renting a certain period of time etc. ) . When there are news stories posted for free on this site that generates revenue for the owner of this website.

So yes technically the owner of ATS is making profit off of the work of reporters from other news agencies by allowing those stories to be posted here.

The real problem comes into play when you begin to find out that a large majority of new on the internet comes from the AP. Most people will find it hard to find stories that were not originally sponsored by the AP on other news sites.

This could get a little tricky because not all sites post the "AP News" part thus making it more difficult to tell if it is an AP story.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Technically this website has sponsors that the Owner receives money from. The Owner of ATS gets money when people visit the site and his sponsors get more hits (or whatever deal they have worked out renting a certain period of time etc. ) . When there are news stories posted for free on this site that generates revenue for the owner of this website.

So yes technically the owner of ATS is making profit off of the work of reporters from other news agencies by allowing those stories to be posted here.

No- the owner makes money by providing a place for people to discuss the news.

They are not selling the stories- they are selling the venue that allows for user-to-user interaction.

Big difference.

reply to post by ninecrimes


Where is the legal line drawn? That is the big question. If talking about the story is okay then so should posting snippets.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The "NEWS" is not "THEIRS"

It is OURS, everyones!

So lets say I did something really dumb, and made international headlines tomorrow.

Is the story about me THEIRS?

HELL NO! If it is anyones, its MINE!

The AP Sucks, I guess it is time to boycott their lies anyways.

My thoughts exactly except for the AP sucks part sort of. The AP has some good stories sometimes that have not yet been tainted buy the polititians. If they become this facist company that they are seeking to be with these new rules then yes the AP sucks.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
reply to post by ninecrimes

 

Where is the legal line drawn? That is the big question. If talking about the story is okay then so should posting snippets.

That's correct.

Legally, this website should only allow 2 paragraphs (I am taking your word that 2 paragraphs is the legal limit) and a link to the source.

As long as ATS complies with it's restrictions, it can still exist as a place to debate the news and make a profit accordingly.

reply to post by ninecrimes


The profit should still end up in the hands of the AP though. Even though we post partial articles the end user still on this site at least likes to fact check. This causes the user to follow the link as if it were searched for. That in return exposes the AP's advertisers to the fact checker.

I am just thinking out loud but would sites like this that post story snippets and direct links acctually be hurting the Search Engines more than the acctual web sites? With direct links no one needs to search as much.

Could this be a back door approach to making the search engines more profitable?

Associated Press would shoot themselves in the foot if all they want to do is stop attracting viewers to their websites who were attracted from another website.
The privately owned mass media is the source of all our governments power i.e. they virtually are the government the average man on the street is too uneducated to see through their deception, and because if you want real influence you just buy shares-bonds from them.

I tend to think that the real logic will be to profile individuals political interests, and interests in general, in order to create a better service, but also one more capable of homing in on notable individuals.

reply to post by Liberal1984


I tend to feel the same way about thinking it has more to do with "data mining" more than anything.