“NewsRight”. Wouldn’t you know it’s called “NewsRight”.

And what’s a poor Linkster to do? There’s no “NewsLeft” for us, sigh.

So true newsright brought to you by fuax and friends. Oh those liberal media types just want to have some fun;)

NewsRight must be the new name for the Ministry of Truth. Using copywrite infringement laws to track and control information.

6. CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA –
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

From THE 14 DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

NewsRight encodes original stories with hidden data that includes the writer’s name and when it was published.

Solution: copy and paste the relevant quoted section into Notepad (at least on a Windows computer) before dumping into a blog. Omit the writer’s name for good measure.

To paraphrase Bukowski, “As the content wanes, the rent-seeking appears.”

Ironically, the best work done at AP, NYT, and WaPo is barely worthy of quoting…

NewsRight encodes original stories with hidden data that includes the writer’s name and when it was published. The encoded stories send back reports to the registry that describe where a story is being used and who is reading it.

Wait.. They’re embedding a virus into their text bodies to infect other websites?

Terrorists.

Ya beat me to it.

The corp media are rushing headlong into putting themselves out of biz ASAP.

Since pay-per-view didn’t work bc the MPV is less than one, they’ve decided to double down.

When’s the last time the NYT came up with an original scoop?

Something to do with aluminum tubes, or something like that…

Judith Miller. /s

As someone who successfully fought ABC/Disney on a fair use claim, I’m not surprised by it.

How will this work in the world? If you know you are going to get dinged by the AP for using their stuff you will start using another “news source” like Fox or CNS (Conservative News Service) who don’t care that you use their stuff. They WANT you to spread it around because they are already getting paid by their sugar daddies.

This is yet another way that the right will win the media wars because the “so called liberal media” has to make a profit.

The corporate media watchers won’t attack this because they are paid by the corporate media and they WANT their people to get their rents. I believe that the people who do the work should be paid for it. But their desire to wring out any more money from the system is going to be their undoing.

This is targeted at people like “Huffington Post” and Daily Kos or other left leaning sites. It is NOT targeted at Brietbart’s Big sites or Drudge or Politico, Fox, and World Net Daily and the Right Wing blogosphere. They will say, “Screw AP they aren’t on our side anyway so they won’t be using them ever again.

I thought of that too. Go lo-tech and past into a “dumb” program like Notepad.

Conversely one could go higher-tech and use speech recognition software, and read out loud the material one wanted to quote.

There’s also plain old re-typing.

Fuck the corporate media. They don’t have anything I want. The only reason to take anything off the AP or NYT is to debunk it and I already know its bunk.

Blog Right is a great idea. The propagandists have deep pockets while the bloggers have mostly diddly. Sue the bastards.

I was thinking Jayson Blair :)

So much to choose from.

Love the headline, BTW. We have gotten so good at intimidating trolls, this might be one case we have the jump on them.

What’s next?

Are they gonna start a consortorium for publishers to make sure that teenagers turn over a portion of their allowances when they footnote term papers?

The idea that if you write a paper to promote discussion on a topic that you then own the conversation that ensues thereafter is nutso.

Attempting a technology solution (encoded data) to a “problem” such as fair use is sure to fail. It wont take long for blogging practices to automatically included steps or tools that circumvent what NewsRight is doing. There is no law against fair use, therefore all the media companies can try to do is coerce payments and cooperation from aggregators by arm twisting and empty threats. Either a law gets broken in aggregation or it doesnt.

David:

Read up on the recent saga of “RightHaven” if you haven’t already. It’s pretty much the same concept; find people who are using our content (fair use be damned!) and sue/threaten/intimidate them into forking over cash. Since most bigger outfits will just settle instead of fighting it in court, this was supposedly a risk-free profit model.

RightHaven just went bankrupt after their first few attempts at extortion were met with unexpected resistance.

“NewsRight” even SOUNDS like “RightHaven”…

David Dayen is a robot.
Pass it on.
How else could he produce piece after quality piece?
He doesn’t sleep!
That’s how!

someone needs to invent the

“paraphrase app”

Do you remember John Burns, the NYT reporter, a Brit, who at the beginning of the Iraq war actually did some good reporting for awhile (bushy hair & beard)? After he moved over to take charge of NYT London office, I saw him on one of those endless, fruitless panels of useless corp media reporters bemoaning the demise of print and the vapidness of TV news. Burns was absolutely sure the NYT would survive & figure out a way to make a profit. That was the moment when I knew both that he was an idiot and that corp media was doomed. Prolly around 2005-06.

Print is going to disappear within the next few years, I think. The SF Chronicle is now smaller than the National Inquirer with many fewer pages. It’s almost gone and that’s sad. I imagine that perhaps many of the small town papers will survive because the locals read and like them. In my county there’s a small paper that covers just about everything – you can’t subscribe – you have to just pick it up somewhere. They leave it in doctors’ offices, vets, etc. It’s fun to read.

This is both pitiful and scary. “NewsRight.” I’ll bet they don’t even get the double meaning.

Not only is there “no law against fair use,” “fair use” is an exception in copyright law; it’s explicitly protected. The controversies are on what constitutes fair use.
That’s why diarists or commenters who cut and paste entire articles from other sources usually get a reminder not to do that for precisely this reason.
(I haven’t seen that happen lately; are we getting smarter, or is there some automatic catch of too-long quotes?)

These folks are gonna be surprised at how badly their plan fails.

OTOH, I’d love to take part in billing them for the unattributed quotes from “a blog” like fdl.

The print media CAN’T disappear. How else can I light my woodstove & fireplace.

Twain,
I hope you are wrong about the demise of newspapers.
I like nothing more that to buy my copy of the San Francisco Chronicle and sit back with it and a cup of coffee and read it.
I scan the page, ignoring the adds and see if there is something I want to read.
Most of the time, the e-edition doesn’t have the same stories as the paper edition, and vice-versa.
Both have value, but the print edition is a lot more fun.

I’ll send you all my Christmas catalogues. :)

I love reading anything. I have a Kindle but rarely use it because I enjoy holding reading material. I always liked the Chronicle but it’s glory days are long gone.

Yep.
Herb Caen
Mike Royko
Tom FitzGerald

I’m confused. What’s to prevent copy and saving the article text as plain text and then recopying and pasting back to the blog–like this:

“The Associated Press and 28 news organizations, including The New York Times Co. and The Washington Post Co., are launching a company that will measure the unpaid online use of their original reporting and seek to convert unauthorized websites, blogs and other newsgathering services into paying customers.”

Doesn’t that remove all the metadata–when you convert from plain text back to html, I mean??

“The company provides publishers with strings of HTML code to insert in their stories’ headlines and text, so they can track the spread of each piece of their content. The encoded stories report to the registry, showing where and when a story is reblogged and read.”

By Bast’s furry ears… if that is accurate then this “venture” is going to be no better than copyright trolls chasing iframes. I smell a scam in the making…

Of course they’re trying to intimate to the paleomedia that this will be a route to set up a “pay for breathing” regime but I wonder if they actually believe that themselves… or whether the encoding will actually be embedded in the text and typography of the stories.

Y’kow, the same tech that’s already used for leak tracking by governments and corporations alike.

Somebody is being set up. Might be the dinosaurs. Might be the blogs.

Actually, just copying it off the browser page or saving it as plain text should work fine. Copy/paste only captures the displayed text data, not the markup/metadata/script.

The metadata can’t be all that hidden either. Every browser that I know lets you view the source. Even if they didn’t, you could save the HTML and load THAT into NotePad or a similar text editor.

In short, the whole thing is a bluff. They probably hope that fear will distract us from our rights under copyright law. Unfortunately, this is just so dumb that I can’t see it scaring anyone who thinks about how the web works.

Leak reveals U.S. threat moved Spain to implement anti-piracy law

“Much as U.S. officials leaned on France to pass an Internet disconnection law for repeated copyright offenders, so too was Spain threatened with repercussions if their lawmakers did not pass a strict new anti-piracy law, according to a leaked U.S. diplomat’s letter obtained by Spanish newspaper El Pais.

“Dated Dec. 12, 2011 and written by U.S. Ambassador Alan D. Solomont (an Obama appointee), the letter expressed frustration with outgoing President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who did not adopt policies imposing sanctions for online piracy even though he was pressured to by the U.S.

“That policy was adopted on Dec. 30, in one of the first major reforms implemented by the administration of Mariano Rajoy Brey, who took office on Dec. 21.”

LINK.

No news organization has a right to be paid for the use of a story–if, by “story”, we mean the facts that it discovered and reports. Copyright applies to the form of the article, not the content. The writer’s wording, organization, choice and arrangement of illustrations, and the like are covered. The “who”, “what”, “how”, “where”, and “how much” are not. The “why” (to the extent that “why” is logically derivable from the facts) is also not covered.

At present, in this country, we are seeing a determined attempt to convert copyright–a limited monopoly granted for a limited time for public purposes–into a property right. Hence the deliberately adopted misnomer “intellectually property”. News organizations, Disney, political parties, and corporations want to “own” information–and thus truth and thought. Why? Because information is power.

In 18th-century Europe, copyright indeed granted ownership of ideas as a way of suppressing undesirable thoughts and controlling populations. By licensing the printing presses to politically reliable persons (or their aristocratic patrons), reactionary governments could make sure that there were limited, tightly controlled outlets for ideas. By letting the licensees (not the authors) monopolize the profits of publication through copyright, autocrats could insure that the licensees had incentives for self-censorship.

As an antidote to this kind of oppression, the US Constitution estabished a different kind of copyright. In America, copyright is meant to encourage the widest dissemination and broadest range of thought. Here, information is free. Thought is free. Only direct copying of the form and presentation of ideas is protected–and only for a period of years (though Disney has bought itself a virtual exception). Copyright belongs to the author (except in cases of work for hire, a concept created by the courts under corporate pressure) and applies only as long as the work is kept available at a reasonable price. Limiting publication or charging excessively is supposed to be an abuse of the monopoly that injures or negates copyright.

We call him “the Dayen Brothers” because he does the work of two top-flight journalists.

Exactly! If nearly half a dozen people can immediately figure out an easy low-tech way around this, this isn’t going to work very well.

so let me get this right. People want to be in the info business but they want to charge their readers to use anything they say to further the discussion and discuss what they’ve read.

I guess the schools better stop demanding that students use “periodicals” I don’t think the school districts can afford the copyright rates. And then there’s books. Can’t quote books either, I guess.

What’s next, getting copyrights on words. Can you imagine people having to send Donald Trump a dollar every time they want to write the words,”You’re Fired”. Good Grief.

LOL

I usually quote msm media in order to correct its lies – will they pay me for fact checking and editing?

The lack of privacy inherent in the “NewsRight” secret tracking system is troubling. And what if someone accesses some of this precious copyrighted material on a public computer at a public library? Does “NewsRight” plan to ding the library?

As a library trustee, I can tell you no way could we either afford this, or turn around and rebill a user for any such fee. Many people use public computers in libraries because affording a personal computer is out of the question. Some of those people blog.

Does “Newsright” want to get the public computers out of public libraries?

We are all Wikileaks now. We are all Julian Assange and Bradley Manning now.

Conservatives cannot allow the unauthorized (and uncontrolled by them) release, dissemination and sharing of information to continue on the internet. “Fair Use” is the last bastion of the “Fairness Doctrine” that hasn’t been destroyed yet by conservative monopolists. Until everything and everyone is tagged and monitored, conservative monopolists will not be satisfied. The embedded metadata is their version of “unmanned drones” flying over internet links and websites, probably with their version of Hellfire data-bombs attached. What conservative monopolists can’t control, they kill. Actual freedom scares the crap out of conservative monopolists, even as they claim (like those here in the U.S.) that they are for freedom, cross their heart, swear on a bible, while neglecting to mention that they are really only for their freedom (see Republican Party, see Wall Street 1-percenters, conservative monkey see, conservative monkey do).

*sigh*

It ain’t a Repug vs Dim thing. In matters of information control both parties are on the same side… and it ain’t ours.

But if you substitute “political” and “politician” for “conservative” in your comment then you get surprisingly closer to the facts.