Whenever my family gets together, I'm guaranteed to be bombarded with questions about the fate of newspapers -- questions I never know the answers to. This "conversation" has recently evolved into why newspapers don't charge readers for their online content. Again, I don't know what to tell my family.
A simple Google search reveals that I am not alone. Opinions on the subject vary, with Rupert Murdoch (among others) saying newspapers should charge for online content to stay afloat and others saying that charging is the last thing papers should do. There are certainly many subjects for debate, including whether people would be willing to pay and how exactly papers should structure their payment systems (subscription? article-by-article?).
Part of the problem, as the Huffington Post points out, is whether newspapers will be legally able to stop other sites like Google and the Drudge Report from reprinting the stories. After all, if readers can get content for free on another site, they're certainly not going to pay to get it from a newspaper. Copyright problems abound on the Internet, and a newspaper would certainly have a difficult time if it had to go after every site that gave away its content. However, I don't think that there's as much of a legal problem for the papers here as Peter Scheer of the Huffington Post implies.
Protection for those re-publishers of news would come from the fair use doctrine, which allows people to make use of copyrighted materials in limited circumstances. As Scheer points out, the law is pretty vague on what actually constitutes fair use, meaning that it is often disputed in court. In my opinion, newspapers don't really have much to worry about here. The trend for the past, oh, hundred years or so, has been in favor of stronger copyright protection.
So, while a move to paid news content could produce some interesting legal challenges, I don't see copyright issues posing a real problem, so much as enforcement of copyright. Should newspapers, then, attempt to charge people to read their stories online? I still don't know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thinking about the implications of trying to move something free to something we have to pay for are huge! I can't imagine having to pay fo online content, but I was talking to my father the other day and he said that he'd gladly pay for online subscription to a newspaper if it meant keeping good, quality journalism.
ReplyDeleteAnd, what about the move by the Associated Press? Their board of directors voted to sue aggregators that post content without permission...and the newly launched Journalism Online (www.journalismonline.com) site that will offer different publishing companies a variety of ways to incorporate charging online customers for content. It is a business that will implement a new business model to the publishing identity.
I think this is an interesting topic Annie. The debate about rather or not newspapers should charge for online content is a very important one that we as journalist should all pay attention to. This really seems to be newspapers last resort but looks like a resort that they just have to take. This is life or death. I do not understand why papers has not moved to subscription for online content yet. If you can research deeper into copyright infringement and get some information about what editors and newspaper staff have to say that would be great,
ReplyDeleteGood choice of a topic! I think the legal aspects of the re-publishing news articles would be especially interesting to research. Just watching the AP's case would be pretty exciting.
ReplyDeleteWhile the news article concludes that "newspapers and other publications, in deciding whether or not to charge for their content online, must ask the question of whether they have the legal right to block others from giving their content away," I have to wonder if these publications have the time and money to see these legal decisions through. If fighting a legal battle in court is expensive as my media law class is making it sound, trying to figure out the copyright and fair use boundaries of newspapers' works could be a costly venture.
Also, here are some resources for fair use I stumbled on. The Huff Post article wasn't understating how vague the fair use guidelines are:
Factors for Determining Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
(Selected) Supreme Court Fair Use Cases
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/copyright/fair-use-cases/