Drudge First, You’re Next

You’ve all heard the AP hoo­pla, they want blog­gers to stop cop­ying AP con­tent, and recently went after The Drudge Retort for doing so.

The AP want blog­gers to pay them for con­tent.

Words Fees
5 – 25 $ 12.50
26 – 50 $ 17.50
51 – 100 $ 25.00
101 – 250 $ 50.00
251 and up $ 100.00

They ask for your blog address at the bot­tom of the form.

Luc­kily for me the Dar­fur blog does not use Ame­ri­can media most of the time unless we are put­ting out relea­ses sent to us. I think this is a little ridi­cu­lous, but as I’m tired of full cut and paste posts with not sin­gle ori­gi­nal thought this will not hurt my feelings.

In the end this will only hurt the AP. Have they not heard that most peo­ple my age can email their friends in Bejeng with the query 什麼是詞n街道我的朋友?( for­give me Hui )

Sure, there is that little fire­wall pro­blem, but that is easier to get around than we might think.

I blame their own report — a recently conc­lu­ded eth­no­graphic study of the Deep Struc­ture of Young Adult News Con­sump­tion( pdf)

Done under the guise of fin­ding out what young peo­ple wan­ted from news, but for the pur­pose of fin­ding out how they could use the inter­net as a their own cash cow.

For­give the Anth­ro­po­lo­gists, they know not what they do.

Peace

Share This
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • SphereIt
  • Mixx
  • FriendFeed

21 Comments

  • Hadn’t seen that report pos­ted in any of the artic­les on this, but it did come out only days ago. Not a coin­ci­dence I’m guessing.

    I kind of bug­ged right now by what you said to your Chi­nese friend. Because I can’t read it.

  • Yes, I have a rather large dis­taste for peo­ple who cut and paste their entire post with no ori­gi­nal con­tent on their own. I always though a good site had stuff that was crea­tive, enter­tai­ning, AND per­so­nal. I never got posts with little or no per­so­nal com­men­tary from the site owner.that are nothing but road signs lea­ding you to some­body else’s site.

  • 18 peo­ple from 2 spe­ci­fic geo­graphic areas doesn’t make a pro­per study.

    I stop­ped rea­ding all blogs but per­so­nal as if I want infor­ma­tion I would rather go to the source. Hyperln­king is a great way of citing and an occa­sio­nal quote shows a point, breaks up wri­ting etc.

    I’m against paying for con­tent – but when I think about it, there are an awful lot of blog­gers who do carry ads, make much money, and their blogs are nothing but links. How much would an image cost or are they public?

    I don’t think any gene­ra­tion en masse wants to think but perhaps this will force some blog­gers to think or fold up shop and I can’t feel badly about that

    I can’t remem­ber what dia­lect is spo­ken in Bei­jing and I too want to know what it says.

    • They speak Man­da­rin or tra­di­tio­nal Chinese.

      Ima­ges cost more I think. I’ve never loo­ked and never intend to.

  • Does this mean for the AP artic­les where they just say the same thing three dif­fe­rent ways they’re hoping to get tri­ple pay? Drudge doesn’t post artic­les, just tit­les and links so this won’t affect those sites, just some lazy-ass blog­gers who won’t pay. Why do I get the fee­ling AP might even try some Javasc­ript hack and popup a war­ning when a visi­tor selects text to copy…oh well. I guess I find this effort on their part sad.

  • Meh. Ambrose Bierce is public doman.

    Should we all start posts with “Accor­ding to the Asso­ciate Press,” just to mess with them?

    • Should we all start posts with “Accor­ding to the Asso­ciate Press,” just to mess with them?

      Yup, you first.

  • The pro­blem is news is not owned by anyone, it hap­pens and it belongs to the world. It’s not that dif­fi­cult to paraph­rase the facts of an inci­dent and totally skip even refe­rring to AP sour­ces. I think they have scre­wed themselves.

  • I like the idea of wri­ting “accor­ding to the AP” before every post.

    What they are saying is ” we own the news”. I agree. Won’t work ‚they are not the only source of news. With print news publi­ca­tions making less than they used to they are gras­ping at figu­ring how to make money on line.

    I do unders­tand the lar­ger scale Drudge is a rather big site. Little blog­gers though?
    Come on.

    Are they afraid that peo­ple will read the blog­gers and not them?

    I love the Chi­nese touch.

    The more I look at that price list the more I want to laugh. How absurd.

  • They are straight tripping…

  • Well, I wish I could feel sorry for poli­ti­cal and cele­bu­tard gos­sip blog­gers who basi­cally openly pla­gia­rize news wire ser­vi­ces, but hot­lin­king, cutting-and-pasting, and reprin­ting without cita­tion or rights to redis­tri­bu­tion doth not equate with fair-use, espe­cially when so many folks are making a pro­fit over repac­ka­ging — with their own socio­po­li­ti­cal spin — the hard work of others.

    It’s nothing new. Aca­de­mic publishers have simi­lar arran­ge­ments, in fact, with some libra­ries, based moreso on indi­vi­dual site licen­ses and access. It’s why your local small-town public library doesn’t have an online scrip to ser­vi­ces like EBSCO and most aca­de­mic libra­ries don’t waste pre­cious bud­ge­tary fun­ding on pop mags like Peo­ple or Us Weekly, unless there’s a spe­ci­fic curri­cu­lar need.

    And poor, poor Drudge. Maybe he should go back to wor­king in a net­work gift shop. Maybe if he’d paid atten­tion in high school and college during those “When in doubt, cite it out” research paper — heavy courses…

    Actually, blog­gers shouldn’t com­plain about the pri­ces — go ask a local news­pa­per publisher or sta­tion mana­ger about those AP, Reu­ters, or other wire ser­vice pac­ka­ges — pretty big chuck of the ope­ra­ting bud­get. I expect all wire ser­vi­ces will switch over to a simi­lar pay-to-play direct buy for­mat — news repor­ting may be a com­mu­nity ser­vice, but it’s an expen­sive pri­vate sec­tor enter­prise. And AP’s the grand­daddy of them all, the first “Internet.”

  • Do you think that means posts dark balck dres­ses? lol

    I’m a ran­dom blog rea­der, yet I’ve not­cied over the last year there are more and more use­less blogs star­ted with nothing but cut and pas­ted infor­ma­tion so it will not be a sad day for me. On the other hand it does seem like a rather lame attempt to stoke a busi­ness which has to start switching over to making most of their mney online.

    I don’t like no com­ment posts.

    I don’t like no com­ment post.…hint hint.
    I did my wri­ting this mor­ning on the Chap­man thing.

  • I’m late, and because your com­ments are off above I’m going to tell you I am wri­ting all the spon­sors of that icon of Ame­ri­can pathology.

    I guess I’m going ot have to think about the AP because I use their stuff. Don’t read anoyne who does though. Isn’t that strange. I’m not a real bog­ger, as I ‘ve often said I’m your best audeince.

    The Rus­sert post is bit­ters­weer and I ilike the title.

    You friend don’t have to worry, you don’t need the AP.

  • When I get stuff off the AP Wire, I give credit.

    But I also believe in fair use. If I pay a subsc­rip­tion to a news­pa­per and it runs an AP story, am I not already paying for the AP story? Plus, if I post an article — regard­less of source — I do so with the inten­tion of star­ting a dis­cus­sion. My pointy little head tells me that the AP then gets a bit more traf­fic. Good for them, eh?

    They can come after me if they’d like.

    They’d lose. And they know it. Greedy bastards.

  • When I get stuff off the AP Wire, I give credit.

    But I also believe in fair use. If I pay a subsc­rip­tion to a news­pa­per and it runs an AP story, am I not already paying for the AP story? Plus, if I post an article — regard­less of source — I do so with the inten­tion of star­ting a dis­cus­sion. My pointy little head tells me that the AP then gets a bit more traf­fic. Good for them, eh?

    They can come after me if they’d like.

    They’d lose. And they know it. Greedy little buzzards.