Comments on: AP’s Curley v Curley and News Corp’s Rupert v Rupert http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert Picking out patterns in the chaos Tue, 22 May 2012 22:04:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Suw Charman-Anderson http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert#comment-7607 Suw Charman-Anderson Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:42:28 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert#comment-7607 Richard, that's the same argument that the music industry has been using, saying that ISPs should charge a levy and then give that money back to the artists (a process that the industry would look after, natch). The argument doesn't hold water for them, and it doesn't hold water for the news industry either. ISPs are basically a dumb (ish) service - they provide access to the internet and have no real interest what goes on after that, so long as you don't pound their bandwidth or do anything naughty. (That's where the 'ish' comes from - they have to have some idea of type of traffic so they can ensure that the connections work even if someone's abusing them.) They are not responsible for what websites you go to, so there's no case to answer that they are somehow responsible for the fact that you choose to read some free content produced by the news industry. It's also not the case that ISPs are making "huge amounts of money". Certainly the ISPs that I've spoken to regarding the music industry's version of this idea have laughed at the concept that they have such a cushy deal going on. But even if they were, the content industries have no right to ask for a slice of the pie. ISPs provide access to a lot more than just content created by formal businesses, such as the news, music or film industries. They also provide access to Wikipedia, this blog, and a gazillion other websites created by individuals, businesses and charities. If the ISPs "owe" the news industry, then they also owe the music and film industries, and they also owe me and Wikipedia and everyone else who has put content on the internet. Furthermore, if the idea that the news industries should get a cut of the ISPs' income because the ISPs allow access to content, then it also follows that the ISPs should get a cut of the news industry's income, because after all, news sites are providing content like video that is bandwidth-heavy and shouldn't they pay up for clogging the pipes? I'm afraid that's a nonsense. Now, there are a whole raft of other practical arguments why such a levy would not work, but to argue those would be to presuppose that there is some logic to the idea in the first place. Richard, that’s the same argument that the music industry has been using, saying that ISPs should charge a levy and then give that money back to the artists (a process that the industry would look after, natch). The argument doesn’t hold water for them, and it doesn’t hold water for the news industry either.

ISPs are basically a dumb (ish) service - they provide access to the internet and have no real interest what goes on after that, so long as you don’t pound their bandwidth or do anything naughty. (That’s where the ‘ish’ comes from - they have to have some idea of type of traffic so they can ensure that the connections work even if someone’s abusing them.) They are not responsible for what websites you go to, so there’s no case to answer that they are somehow responsible for the fact that you choose to read some free content produced by the news industry.

It’s also not the case that ISPs are making “huge amounts of money”. Certainly the ISPs that I’ve spoken to regarding the music industry’s version of this idea have laughed at the concept that they have such a cushy deal going on. But even if they were, the content industries have no right to ask for a slice of the pie.

ISPs provide access to a lot more than just content created by formal businesses, such as the news, music or film industries. They also provide access to Wikipedia, this blog, and a gazillion other websites created by individuals, businesses and charities. If the ISPs “owe” the news industry, then they also owe the music and film industries, and they also owe me and Wikipedia and everyone else who has put content on the internet.

Furthermore, if the idea that the news industries should get a cut of the ISPs’ income because the ISPs allow access to content, then it also follows that the ISPs should get a cut of the news industry’s income, because after all, news sites are providing content like video that is bandwidth-heavy and shouldn’t they pay up for clogging the pipes?

I’m afraid that’s a nonsense.

Now, there are a whole raft of other practical arguments why such a levy would not work, but to argue those would be to presuppose that there is some logic to the idea in the first place.

]]> By: richard hart http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert#comment-7599 richard hart Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:20:25 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert#comment-7599 I am amazed that in all these discussions about how to pay for the journalism (good and bad) that a century of monopoly and near-monopoly newspapers created (thanks to a unique, lucky and dying set of printing-advertising-transportation circumstances), no one has pointed out one key fact: I pay about $100 a year for a newspaper subscription, and around $400 a year for the privilege of reading a few newspapers and blogs for free on the Internets. It is a rule of thumb in the newspaper business that the cost of a subscription is only about enough to pay for printing and distribution. On the Web, those costs are vastly reduced--but distribution is the only thing we're paying for, and we're paying more, at that. As a result, the ISPs are able to make huge amounts of money on the backs of free content. Why shouldn't they be paying the content providers who make their services so attractive? Given the advanced (and advancing) state of data collected about Web users, how hard would it be to either set a fixed rate or calculate a rate for them to pay back to content providers (even bloggers!) based on usage to pay for maintaining the Baghdad bureau or sending someone to a City Council meeting? (I remember reading a Brookings posting suggesting this a while back, but now can't find it.) Maybe it raises ISP costs by $5 a month. Or $10. Maybe nothing. I don't know. But I'm baffled why micropayments, not payments from ISPs to content providers, have become the central part of the discussion. How have the giant telecoms managed to keep themselves out of this conversation? Maybe there's an obvious reason this isn't being considered, but I can't think of it I am amazed that in all these discussions about how to pay for the journalism (good and bad) that a century of monopoly and near-monopoly newspapers created (thanks to a unique, lucky and dying set of printing-advertising-transportation circumstances), no one has pointed out one key fact: I pay about $100 a year for a newspaper subscription, and around $400 a year for the privilege of reading a few newspapers and blogs for free on the Internets. It is a rule of thumb in the newspaper business that the cost of a subscription is only about enough to pay for printing and distribution. On the Web, those costs are vastly reduced–but distribution is the only thing we’re paying for, and we’re paying more, at that. As a result, the ISPs are able to make huge amounts of money on the backs of free content. Why shouldn’t they be paying the content providers who make their services so attractive? Given the advanced (and advancing) state of data collected about Web users, how hard would it be to either set a fixed rate or calculate a rate for them to pay back to content providers (even bloggers!) based on usage to pay for maintaining the Baghdad bureau or sending someone to a City Council meeting? (I remember reading a Brookings posting suggesting this a while back, but now can’t find it.) Maybe it raises ISP costs by $5 a month. Or $10. Maybe nothing. I don’t know. But I’m baffled why micropayments, not payments from ISPs to content providers, have become the central part of the discussion. How have the giant telecoms managed to keep themselves out of this conversation? Maybe there’s an obvious reason this isn’t being considered, but I can’t think of it

]]> By: You Can Ignore The AP’s Bluster. It Is Just A Negotiating Bluff. http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert#comment-7595 You Can Ignore The AP’s Bluster. It Is Just A Negotiating Bluff. Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:58:14 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2009/10/09/aps-curley-v-curley-and-news-corps-rupert-v-rupert#comment-7595 [...] funny. Both Curley and Murdoch were singing different tunes just a few years ago. But they have different agendas [...] [...] funny. Both Curley and Murdoch were singing different tunes just a few years ago. But they have different agendas [...]

]]>