There is a column up on the PD website by Connie Schultz in which she argues that the United States copyright law should be changed to protect newspapers. The idea, which she credits to a lawyer from the same law firm that represents the PD and a economics professor from Arkansas, involves prohibiting sites that aggregate news articles from profiting from the aggregation.
The theory is that sites like Newser and The Daily Beast, which link to articles on newspaper sites, are profiting from the aggregation without sharing the revenue with the linked to newspaper sites. Schultz argues that they are basically ripping off the newspapers which produced the original article.
The two men she quotes are proposing some sort of revenue sharing arrangement and a prohibition on aggregation sites linking to stories during the first 24 hours a story is up and running.
Another possibility would be to treat newspaper articles like recorded music. If a radio station plays a record, they have to pay the owner of the rights to the record a fee. They also have to keep records of what they play and when they play it. It is not a perfect system, but it prevents radio stations from making money off the efforts of others.
The problem, of course, is what to do about links to newspaper articles in sites, such as this one, that doesn't generate revenue. If we put a link in one of our posts should we have to pay? On the one hand we are benefiting from the work of others, such as Ms. Schultz, but on the other hand we are not making any money from her work.
In any event, it is a good article and brings up a lot of interesting points. You can go to www.cleveland.com and read the whole article.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Good Washington Post Article on Impact of Internet
The Washington Post has an interesting article dated Tuesday, April 1, 2008, about the impact of the internet on presidential campaigns. It describes that for managers of campaigns, the internet seems very chaotic because the campaign can't control the message nearly as well since the internet has arrived on the political scene. This is a quote from the article concerning Joe Trippi, who managed Howard Dean's 2004 campaign:
To Joe Trippi, who pioneered Howard Dean's insurgent online campaign in 2003, this is "the beauty and also the curse of the Web. . . . Like it or not, an army of people are working for you or against you." A veteran of past presidential campaigns -- he worked for Sen. Edward Kennedy, former vice president Walter Mondale and former congressman Richard Gephardt -- Trippi says the hardest thing for him to learn was to cede control.
One thing that the internet is doing, at least for presidential campaigns, is making it much easier to donate to political campaigns. This quote from the article illustrates how much this has benefited Barack Obama:
Still, the Web's impact has been profound. For instance, running a serious campaign means raising a serious amount of money. Without the Web, the relatively unknown Obama would have been unable to mount such a strong challenge to the more prominent Clinton. Nearly 60 percent of the $193 million that Obama has raised so far in his campaign -- about $112 million -- came from online contributions, with 90 percent of them in amounts of $100 or less.
The impact of the internet is just beginning because, as the article points out, older voters still tend to use television and newspapers to get their political information. That's changing, though. Americans over 65 are the fastest growing users of the internet. As more and more Americans become savy about politics on the 'net, its impact will continue to grow.
Read the whole article here.
To Joe Trippi, who pioneered Howard Dean's insurgent online campaign in 2003, this is "the beauty and also the curse of the Web. . . . Like it or not, an army of people are working for you or against you." A veteran of past presidential campaigns -- he worked for Sen. Edward Kennedy, former vice president Walter Mondale and former congressman Richard Gephardt -- Trippi says the hardest thing for him to learn was to cede control.
One thing that the internet is doing, at least for presidential campaigns, is making it much easier to donate to political campaigns. This quote from the article illustrates how much this has benefited Barack Obama:
Still, the Web's impact has been profound. For instance, running a serious campaign means raising a serious amount of money. Without the Web, the relatively unknown Obama would have been unable to mount such a strong challenge to the more prominent Clinton. Nearly 60 percent of the $193 million that Obama has raised so far in his campaign -- about $112 million -- came from online contributions, with 90 percent of them in amounts of $100 or less.
The impact of the internet is just beginning because, as the article points out, older voters still tend to use television and newspapers to get their political information. That's changing, though. Americans over 65 are the fastest growing users of the internet. As more and more Americans become savy about politics on the 'net, its impact will continue to grow.
Read the whole article here.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The Obama Factor or Why the Media Has Trouble Covering What They Can't See
Readers of this blog will remember that we have previously remarked on how video clips of Barack Obama on You Tube were getting many more views than clips of other candidates. (See this entry: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/2008-candidate-views-on-you-tube.html ) Now we see that Obama has raised far more money than anyone expected just a few weeks ago and has raised it from about twice as many people as Hillary Clinton. All of this seems to have surprised the political reporters and commentators. (See this article from the Washington Post, for example.)
The question is why is this catching most reporters by surprise? We think that its because it is happening out of their sight and therefore out of their control. The media is used to top-down organizations. By that we mean that a candidate forms a core group, that group reaches out to more people, and so on, but the campaign is controlled by a relatively small number of people headquartered in one place. Such a group is easy to reach and easier to cover. The media knows where they are and develops contacts within the organization.
Internet driven campaigns, which is what Obama may be conducting, are much more diffuse and much more spread out. Let's say a volunteer tapes Obama giving a speech and puts it up on You Tube which is then seen by a 1000 people. All of that doesn't really catch anyone attention, yet Obama's message has been seen by a 1000 viewers, all of whom had to make a conscious choice to watch that video clip. Some of those viewers may then be motivated to contribute or sign up to work as a campaign volunteer. None of which is necessarily going to be seen by the media covering the campaign, most of which are based in Washington.
Not only is it going to surprise the media, but it makes their job harder and decreases their power. The more that people can access the Internet and obtain information on their own, the less they need political commentators and reporters. The media didn't react well in 2004 when Howard Dean began the heavy use of the Internet in presidential politics. Whether they react well to Obama's use of the Internet will be one of the more interesting stories of the 2008 campaign.
The question is why is this catching most reporters by surprise? We think that its because it is happening out of their sight and therefore out of their control. The media is used to top-down organizations. By that we mean that a candidate forms a core group, that group reaches out to more people, and so on, but the campaign is controlled by a relatively small number of people headquartered in one place. Such a group is easy to reach and easier to cover. The media knows where they are and develops contacts within the organization.
Internet driven campaigns, which is what Obama may be conducting, are much more diffuse and much more spread out. Let's say a volunteer tapes Obama giving a speech and puts it up on You Tube which is then seen by a 1000 people. All of that doesn't really catch anyone attention, yet Obama's message has been seen by a 1000 viewers, all of whom had to make a conscious choice to watch that video clip. Some of those viewers may then be motivated to contribute or sign up to work as a campaign volunteer. None of which is necessarily going to be seen by the media covering the campaign, most of which are based in Washington.
Not only is it going to surprise the media, but it makes their job harder and decreases their power. The more that people can access the Internet and obtain information on their own, the less they need political commentators and reporters. The media didn't react well in 2004 when Howard Dean began the heavy use of the Internet in presidential politics. Whether they react well to Obama's use of the Internet will be one of the more interesting stories of the 2008 campaign.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
New Hillary Clinton Webcast on Energy
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can view the latest webcast from Senator Hillary Clinton on energy. If anyone knows of any other webcasts by Democratic candidates running for President, please send them to us so we can link to them in our blog. Send the links to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Use of Webcasts in 08 Campaign
When Hillary Clinton announced, she used a webcast to reach supporters and the general public. She bypassed the traditional first announcement to a rally where supporters are invited along with the media. Now her campaign is using webcasts embedded in email announcements to announce her positions to her supporters. The first one that has been issued deals with Iraq. You can view it by clicking on the link in this entry's title. A viewer can, of course, also view it by going to her presidential campaign website.
This is a very intriguing step and one that many more campaigns will be adopting, if they haven't already. It allows politicians to bypass the media and get their message directly out to their supporters and it is much cheaper than buying commercial time on television.
Tactics like this will, over time, change the relationship between the media and candidates. Right now, candidates need the media and so put up with the a lot of the media's stupidity on issues and campaigns so as not to tick off media representatives. Once they no longer need the media, candidates will become a lot less tolerant of their stupidity, their vapidness, and their biases.
Such tactics could also drastically reduce the cost of campaigns. It costs a lot less to send out email messages than to run 30 second spots on television and you can target them a lot better. This is a campaign tool that bears watching and developing, not just for national campaigns, but for local campaigns as well.
This is a very intriguing step and one that many more campaigns will be adopting, if they haven't already. It allows politicians to bypass the media and get their message directly out to their supporters and it is much cheaper than buying commercial time on television.
Tactics like this will, over time, change the relationship between the media and candidates. Right now, candidates need the media and so put up with the a lot of the media's stupidity on issues and campaigns so as not to tick off media representatives. Once they no longer need the media, candidates will become a lot less tolerant of their stupidity, their vapidness, and their biases.
Such tactics could also drastically reduce the cost of campaigns. It costs a lot less to send out email messages than to run 30 second spots on television and you can target them a lot better. This is a campaign tool that bears watching and developing, not just for national campaigns, but for local campaigns as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)