Read a little. Learn a lot. • Tightly-written news, views and stuff • Follow us on Twitter • Be a Facebook Fan • Tumble us!
 

Posted on March 5, 2010 | tags

 
 

Biz: Dear copyright-hounds Attributor: Are you reading our site?

  • Apparently, Attributor plans to go after blogs for copyright usage. Does our blog use more than 80 percent of your average news article? No. In fact, we go to great lengths to rewrite the content and link to everywhere we post about. Which is why we’re curious as to how Attributor plans to tackle ShortFormBlog.
  • What is it? Attributor, if you’re not aware, is a Silicon Valley startup whose entire business model is based around going after Web sites posting news or eBook content, forcing them to take it down or pay for a license, pushing ad providers to remove advertising from the site, or even forcing hosts to shut down a site.
  • Sound familiar? If these tactics sound familiar, it’s because the exact same kind of tactics were used by the RIAA for years when handling copyright violators. Jammie Thomas-Rasset could tell you a thing or two about how this shakedown model works, and it’s not pretty. The only difference is that they aren’t suing.
  • wrong approach We feel that Attributor is a bad harbinger for this industry of news. What we’d rather see is a version of the AP and other wire services designed specifically for small-to-mid-sized blogs, with a reasonable cost. Bloggers like us would pay $20 a month for Reuters or AP. Just an idea, dudes. source

Posted by Ernie Smith • Permalink


 
  • Rich Pearson

    Hi Ernie — I work at Attributor and wanted to reassure you that only sites posting full copies of the articles will be contacted. In all cases, the first contact will be a note asking you if you already have a license or want to purchase one before any further actions are taken.

    Rich

  • http://shortformblog.com shortformblog

    Rich: First of all, thanks for your response. I do have some thoughts for you in general.

    Here’s the problem I see with this model: It seems designed assuming the worst of the blogger. It puts bloggers on the defensive and makes them have to react to one of your notices. I understand the need for copyright, but the approach, to me, seems all wrong.

    As for wire services, I’d like to see a per-site license, not a per-article license. I’d like to see an infrastructure that adds value for bloggers instead of one that focuses on wire services going on the offensive. You guys already have contracts with these news services. Why not figure out a way to make it easy for us?

  • Rich Pearson

    Ernie — good points. While I can’t speak for all of the publishers, the majority seem to have a per site license.

    While true that a blogger may only receive a notice out of the blue, it will only be if he/she has reused more than 10 full copies in the last month. And the notice actually presumes innocence in that we are asking them to confirm that they have a license.

    Finally and maybe most importantly, the focus of this effort is to convince Google and the other ad networks to support the ad revenue sharing model proposed by the Fair Syndication Consortium (http://www.fairsyndication.org). I urge you to check this out as we are trying to build an infrastructure that adds the value to bloggers as you mention.

    I’m interested in your thoughts on this — with luck, and some support from bloggers like you, DMCA notices will be replaced by revenue sharing agreements.

  • Rich Pearson

    Ernie, I just posted to our blog trying to answer your questions (and others!)

    http://www.attributor.com/blog/new-content-synd…

  • Rich Pearson

    Hi Ernie — I work at Attributor and wanted to reassure you that only sites posting full copies of the articles will be contacted. In all cases, the first contact will be a note asking you if you already have a license or want to purchase one before any further actions are taken.

    Rich

  • http://shortformblog.com shortformblog

    Rich: First of all, thanks for your response. I do have some thoughts for you in general.

    Here’s the problem I see with this model: It seems designed assuming the worst of the blogger. It puts bloggers on the defensive and makes them have to react to one of your notices. I understand the need for copyright, but the approach, to me, seems all wrong.

    As for wire services, I’d like to see a per-site license, not a per-article license. I’d like to see an infrastructure that adds value for bloggers instead of one that focuses on wire services going on the offensive. You guys already have contracts with these news services. Why not figure out a way to make it easy for us?

  • Rich Pearson

    Ernie — good points. While I can’t speak for all of the publishers, the majority seem to have a per site license.

    While true that a blogger may only receive a notice out of the blue, it will only be if he/she has reused more than 10 full copies in the last month. And the notice actually presumes innocence in that we are asking them to confirm that they have a license.

    Finally and maybe most importantly, the focus of this effort is to convince Google and the other ad networks to support the ad revenue sharing model proposed by the Fair Syndication Consortium (http://www.fairsyndication.org). I urge you to check this out as we are trying to build an infrastructure that adds the value to bloggers as you mention.

    I’m interested in your thoughts on this — with luck, and some support from bloggers like you, DMCA notices will be replaced by revenue sharing agreements.

  • Rich Pearson

    Ernie, I just posted to our blog trying to answer your questions (and others!)

    http://www.attributor.com/blog/new-content-synd…

 

More in Biz (2 of 2 articles)