Muse

A.P. Cracks Down on Unpaid Use of Articles on Web - NYTimes.com

For the longest time, I’ve been saying that the current “free Internet” would not last. However, the battle plan devised by the AP is contradictory at the very least, and idiotic, at first glance:

The A.P.’s president and chief executive, Tom Curley, claims the his organization is taking a new hard line that news articles should not turn up on search engines and Web sites without permission, yet the new software his organization has developed will, among other things, ensure that each article — and, in the future, each picture and video — would go out with what The A.P. called a digital “wrapper,” data invisible to the ordinary consumer that is intended, among other things, to maximize its ranking in Internet searches??!!

Could someone explain the logic of this to me, other than the possibly very unsavory possibility of some form of entrapment?

Content creators deserve to influence the value of their work. Some may choose to share their work for free, while others may choose to seek remuneration. I fully support that. However, just as the RIAA failed to “force” music consumers to bend to their will, so will this equally draconian measure fail to do anything but cause antagonism, resentment, and consternation.

Perhaps the intent is merely to elicit reaction and launch a much overdue dialogue on the issue? There are easier and less confrontational ways of initiating such a discourse.

Perhaps this is the clever “overreaction” phase in a well-laid plan, designed to bait-and-switch the consumer: begin by infuriating us with an uncompromising and aggressive stance, before changing tack - seemingly in response to our outrage - and offering a far less punitive solution to the challenge? I can only think there must be a less exhausting way for us to all get along.

The current economic crisis has rendered the consumer somewhat apathetic and despondent, so I’m not sure s/he will react in quite the same rebellious manner as s/he did to the RIAA. Will there be a Bit Torrent and Pirate Bay for news sharing? Only time will tell.

My hope is that, whatever restrictions the AP and other pubs place on access to their content, such boundaries will be matched by new models of for acceptable access to the content in question. It is pointless to refuse us access, on the one hand, without offering us new options for content acquisition, on the other. We don’t like the current model so much, and that’s been proven. Don’t force us to swallow that bitter pill.

Apple saw this truth, when they expanded upon the single use download model and monetized it fully.

Might I suggest that the future lies with e-readers, mobile content access, and the model should be multiple: some will wish to access via subscription, some on an ad-based basis, and some on a pay-per-article basis. Don’t choose for us, let us have the final choice. So long as the financial parameters are fair (a fair price for reasonable use), and the usage model is realistic (content when I want it, where I want it, how I want it), I believe we will happily comply with a content creators eminently fair desire to be duly rewarded for their creative and professional efforts.