TVEyes Warping Fair Use Principle

Once again the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken up the cause of industry in the guise of public interest, principally with the ultimate goal of distorting fair use doctrine beyond its intended purpose.  I am speaking about the case of FoxNews v TVEyes, which as Terry Hart points out in this post on Copyhype, re-treads some familiar ground regarding the copyright interests of news producing entities and the fair use claims of news monitoring services.  I recommend Hart’s blog for more in-depth historical context; but suffice to say that in the early 1990s, bills proposed by Senator Orin Hatch that would have amended copyright law to add news monitoring to the list of fair use purposes never made much progress. But, as Hart writes, “…the lack of legislation did not jeopardize the broadcast news monitoring industry. Nevertheless, little has changed in the discussion of fair use and news monitoring from the early 90s to the current litigation involving Fox News and TVEyes.”

Last fall, a federal judged ruled in this case that copying “broadcast content for indexing and clipping services to its subscribers constitutes fair use.”  And this July, oral arguments will be heard as to whether or not other services (like subscribers downloading, storing, and emailing clips) might also be judged fair.  The EFF, along with the Technology Law & Policy Clinic at NYU School of Law, has filed an amicus brief on behalf of TVEyes, while several leading news organizations have filed a brief on behalf of Fox.

To be clear, plenty has changed technologically in the news monitoring world, but Terry Hart’s point above is that the fair use argument being made today in favor of TVEyes is fundamentally the same as the arguments that failed in Congress twenty years ago — namely that there is a public and First Amendment-serving purpose to news monitoring that should qualify the enterprise as a fair use of copyrighted material.  And be it far from me to second guess a federal judge, but it seems that technological changes have only weakened this argument, not strengthened it, particularly when we look at the specific business model of TVEyes itself.

News monitoring services have been around since before television, first in the form of clipping services for print, and later as video systems monitoring broadcasts of “hard news” that was captured and stored on tape. This enabled customers to order a specific broadcast clip for educational, documentary, reporting, and other communications and investigative purposes.  We used these services in the 1990s during my corporate communications days. You paid a service a small fee to do a search and then received a VHS tape with the clip(s) you needed.  Today looks very different.

Presently, TVEyes copies, stores, and indexes round-the-clock broadcasts from 1,400 channels, and this includes programming that exceeds traditional models for “hard news” monitoring, capturing entertainment programs like magazine-format shows and documentaries.  Moreover, TVEyes is a fairly elite, B2B service; and it seems to me that fair use exceptions in the name of the public’s right to information ought to be limited to those uses that actually serve the public. But you and I do not use TVEyes, and we never will because a subscription costs $500/month.  So, as a business, TVEyes is not even a consumer-focused service, but an industry-focused service used by professionals who need to be ahead of the proverbial curve when it comes to breaking and overlapping news stories.  Such professionals include news organizations like the Associated Press, major corporations, government agencies and NGOs, and of course high-level investors who are skilled in the dark arts of predicting how a traffic jam in Malaysia might affect their position in shoe laces or something.

Clearly, this $6,000/year service is not for the general citizenry that has a right to be informed. In fact, it’s interesting that one argument being made today on behalf of TVEyes — as it was twenty years ago for news monitoring in general — is that there is “so much information out there”, that these services are invaluable.  And they are invaluable for the types of clients that need and can afford them. Meanwhile, the public-serving aspect of the fair use argument here seems to overlook this free technology we all have called the search engine.  Yes, there is more information produced more rapidly by more sources than ever before; but the average citizen also has more free tools to search, index, and access that information than ever before.  Isn’t that what Google congratulates itself for doing at every opportunity?  And setting aside the chicken-and-egg quality of these phenomena, the bottom line is that you and I can search news items all day long on just about any subject we can imagine, which has nothing to do with the high-priced and  specialized service provided by TVEyes.  The logic being applied is akin to saying that because the public has a right to know what happens in the financial markets, Reuters should not have to honor licensing deals for any of the content it aggregates to its elite Reuters Insider service that it sells at a premium to investment professionals.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with TVEyes. It’s a sound business and clearly provides a service that many companies and institutions consider well worth the subscription fee.  But as a for-profit entity providing a high-level, B2B service for institutional clients, it should not be allowed to profit from the use of assets produced by Fox or any other entity without paying reasonable licensing fees.  More importantly, it is dismaying to see fair use doctrine distorted on the basis that the general public is in any way served in this case. It moves the needle of legal precedent closer to the Internet and tech industry goal of monetizing the totality of works without paying the individuals or entities who produce them.  This neither serves any beneficial social practice nor any larger ideological principle.  It’s just an old-fashioned land grab and a big middle finger to the evicted. Fair Use is not what we mean when we say “FU.”

© 2015, David Newhoff. All rights reserved.

Follow IOM on social media:

36 comments

  • Fox did not “make” the news. They reported on it. Just like any other news outlet. They are, at their core profiting from the work of someone else every time they tell a story. You know how I know this? Because all news outlets are willing to pay for exclusive access to said stories.

    These SERVICES are not selling content. They are not “stealing” content. No one makes money off of a random person seeing a news story, no one makes money off a person randomly hearing a song, watching a movie. NO ONE. The ONLY way to quantify these things is by tracking HOW they were seen. Thus you can get a general number of how many people accessed the produced work.

    I love how in every instance like this, you just gloss over the technology needed to do the aggregate work. To serve out the content, be it songs, movies, etc. To you, that is a non issue, it has no value, what you are concerned with is the “work”.

    There is nothing stopping Fox or any other news outlet from doing the same, in FACT they do actually do reprint/post content from other sources on a daily basis.

    The content is NOT what has value, at least nothing you can truly quantify. It is impossible to let one person hear something, or read something while selectively blocking it from another. So if I call my buddy over to my desk to read a news story, his viewing is not what has value. It is his viewing of that organizations work. That artists song, that studios movie(or more relevant, that franchise/actor). The value comes from those imprints and the fact that maybe next time he clicks on their page, or watches their channel, buys their album, etc.

    The whole mind set of “selling” media as if it was something more than an experience is absurd and outdated. The whole idea that “news” can be stolen is preposterous.

    • They are not ‘stealing’ content. No one makes money off of a random person seeing a news story, no one makes money off a person randomly hearing a song, watching a movie.

      If that were true there would be no Google News, YT, and no FB, and very few blogger users. These sites only exist because they are scrapping content, or their users are directly infringing. Few get drawn to any of those sites or many like them because of the content created by their users. Very few go to YT to hear some local kid band, they go there for the big name groups. The FB feeds I see are almost 90% infringing content. Blogger pages, LiveJournal pages, WordPress pages are chock full of web pics. That there are exceptions does not mean that bulk of the pages there are original content. The bulk of teh web is parasitic.

      News is a very good example of this blogs title. News sources have contracted in the last couple of decades. There are far fewer news sources, feeding a cacophany of opinion. How many local news outlets are there these days? How many are doing something other than taking an Reuters or AP news feed and rewording it? This is how companies and polticians manipulate things. Take any major news event and the reportage is all the same. It is all working off a one or two original sources, mainly a company or politician’s PR release. The internet in particular feeds off it, as the web is nothing but one giant cut&paste machine. Take the reviews of any new album, and they will almost all be sourced from the artist or label PR. Take report about Apple or Google and the source will be Apple and Google respectively. If it is a banking story it will be sourced directly from either the bank’s PR dept, or the regulator’s PR dept. And so it goes. Hardly any one does independent reporting. Its too costly, and there is insufficient money to finance it, because no one is paying for it. Here is a web page with a discussion from 14 years that incidentally addresses how news is made.

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/30/roshhuntress/

      Any one that is concerned about the state of the press should read and understand it, it has got a lot worse in the intervening years, as fewer and fewer are paying for it.

      • If that were true there would be no Google News, YT, and no FB, and very few blogger users.

        As stated above, once again you ignore the entirety of what was stated to try and push your ideals.

        No one makes money off of a random person seeing a news story, no one makes money off a person randomly hearing a song, watching a movie. NO ONE. The ONLY way to quantify these things is by tracking HOW they were seen. Thus you can get a general number of how many people accessed the produced work.

        They are not making money off of the story, one story means no more to a aggregate site than the next. One source is no more important than the next. Just as Spotify or youTube doesn’t really care what is popular or being listened to more often. They don’t need it to be some big name artist, or come from some well known news site. None of that is relevant to the service. You think that it is the quality of content that these companies are profiting from, when in reality it is the ability to present as much variety as possible regardless of source.

        Very few go to YT to hear some local kid band, they go there for the big name groups. The FB feeds I see are almost 90% infringing content. Blogger pages, LiveJournal pages, WordPress pages are chock full of web pics. That there are exceptions does not mean that bulk of the pages there are original content. The bulk of teh web is parasitic.

        LOL. You are absurd. Most people go to youTube to watch cat videos and the like. And the VAST majority of content on youTube is from independent creators, who are starting to, through community funding, actually make money doing whatever it is that they like to do. Again, as with aggregate sites, the content is ultimately not that important to the user, they will generally not be returning once it has run its course. Trying to sell or monetize views is a losing battle, which is why many creators are going directly to their audience. Ads don’t really work that well for small creators, but direct patronage is proving to be quite lucrative.

        Hardly any one does independent reporting. Its too costly, and there is insufficient money to finance it, because no one is paying for it.

        Bullshit. Hardly anyone is doing it because journalists are lazy hacks who, like you, think that everything is a product with some monetary value attached to it. NEWS should not be a commodity. Are you honestly suggesting that selling the news is less lucrative now than before the advent of the internet? LOL.

        You post a paragraph talking about how news, reviews, financial outlooks, etc, come from singular sources and then want to blame technology? You want people to pay for recycled music, news, movies, etc? The industries are the architecs of their own demise, by producing half assed tripe and expecting the consumer to foot the bill. We don’t need “journalists” any more. Especially people trying to sell their editorialized story to the highest bidder, and certainly not when a random person on twitter COULD, no IS, but COULD be just as good a source of information, and in some cases be a better source.

        Aggregate services are necessary. And considering how little research actually goes into the news, they are basically the only way for anyone to get the majority of the facts about a particular event.

        How news is made? Are you kidding me. Here is how news is made, something happens, people talk about it. That is how news is made. No one gives a shit if Fox or whoever is losing money because they spent too much on a new studio, website, logo, etc…

      • Look, there is no sense in arguing. If you want to respond, great.

        The only further point I will make is this. Aggregate news sites, streaming services, etc. are an important and functional way for the average person to process information. I truly do wish there was more original work being done by large content producers, but the reality is that they don’t see the profit in such things, so almost all large scale media is a rehash of whatever is popular or trending at the moment, often colored by opinion and subjectivity.

        Consumers want to feel like they are in on the ground floor. They want to feel like they are part of the story, or the latest trend, and quite frankly do not care how they get there. They don’t really care about the source and with all the crap that is out there, why should they?

        Quality content does have its place, which is why more and more people are looking to the little guy, to what might be the next big thing, just so they can feel like they were there first.

        People are willing to pay for THAT experience, not a rehash of the same thing that everyone else has already seen, heard or reported on…

      • LOL. You are absurd. Most people go to youTube to watch cat videos and the like. And the VAST majority of content on youTube is from independent creators, who are starting to, through community funding, actually make money doing whatever it is that they like to do.

        If that isn’t bullshit they’ll be data for that statement.

        They are not making money off of the story, one story means no more to a aggregate site than the next.

        What does that mean? The profit is in scraping day in day out. Fagin didn’t survive by one child stealing a pocket handkerchief but by 50 kids stealing handkerchief, watch fobs, and picking pockets. It is the accumulated larceny of a 100s of 1000s of pennies that make the enterprise profitable.

      • If that isn’t bullshit they’ll be data for that statement.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_subscribed_users_on_YouTube

        Seriously guys, it is not that hard to do a bit of research.

        Those are the top 20 channels on youtube by subscribers. If you look at most viewed channels, the list is pretty similar. These are the people making money on youTube, at least the vast majority of it. Notice anything?

        They are either independent creators or legitimate music distributors.

      • AV Quality content does have its place, which is why more and more people are looking to the little guy, to what might be the next big thing, just so they can feel like they were there first.

        Streaming data from spotify shows that kids are mainly streaming the most popular chart music. That will be the stuff by and large that is most highly promoted by the labels, and that they start to branch out in the late teens but by their mid to late 20s they have ossified in their music choices.
        https://insights.spotify.com/us/2015/04/22/music-taste-matures-by-age-35-and-its-different-for-parents/

        So that was the PR now how do the news services deal with it:

        http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/23/spotify-musical-midlife-crisis-42-year-old
        http://uk.pcmag.com/services-players-products/41335/news/spotify-music-taste-matures-in-your-30s
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/21/taste-in-music-age_n_7344322.html
        http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/04/when-do-we-stop-keeping-up-with-popular-music.html

        notice the similarity, some of them are even the same story just a different byline? That is because none of them have either the time nor inclination to question the data being presented to them.

      • notice the similarity, some of them are even the same story just a different byline? That is because none of them have either the time nor inclination to question the data being presented to them.

        That is kind of my original point. “news”, actual news, just happens. People go to particular sites or outlets because they like a given interpretation of that news. So The Guardian no more “owns” that story than the HuffPost, so an aggregate can’t actually steal from either one by presenting both links as a valid source for the story.

        Notice I said valid source, not that they are actually presenting valid data. It is very hard to defend “journalism” when almost all articles are op-ed pieces written by ideologues who have no regard for truth.

        As an aside. The problem with Spotify is that it is subject to external influence by big labels/artists. Marketing will always trump quality when it comes to consumer exposure. The only way that a service like spotify could change that would be to level the playing field by piggy backing independents along side major label releases. Which in and of itself poses a whole other set of problems.

      • Years ago news outlets check their stories, they wrote independently of one another and didn’t just take a press release wholesale. Well that’s nor completely true as the NUJ FoC at the Daily Mirror did write a book on tricks that radicals could use to ensure that our PR was properly presented by harried local journos. But mostly the national broadsheets, like the GRAUNIAD were far less likely to fall for them.

        The problem is that in the last 15 years or so the money has been sucked out of newspapers. The newsdesk and editorial teams have been decimated many times over. No money and corners are cut. You reap what you sow.

  • AV, again with the opinions instead of facts ‘reported’ .. err said –
    ” LOL. You are absurd. Most people go to youTube to watch cat videos and the like. And the VAST majority of content on youTube is from independent creators”

    -actually, AV, this is a quantifiable thing, and sorry.. it’s statistically the very same as YT’s stolen beginnings… YTube’s Top views are quite consistently professional music videos… This is consistent over the ENTIRE youtube existance.. it takes three seconds to look up…

  • Consumers want to feel like they are in on the ground floor. They want to feel like they are part of the story, or the latest trend, and quite frankly do not care how they get there. They don’t really care about the source and with all the crap that is out there, why should they?

    Kids in particular, associate with a genre, wear the genre’s uniform, listen to all the same stuff. They aren’t at all keen on feeling “like they are in on the ground floor” that is for the weird kid that is sat at the lunch table all alone. They’ll always tell you about the crap that is out there and year by year more and more of them are right. What they currently lack is the self awareness that they are a large part of why there is so much crap.

    which is why more and more people are looking to the little guy, to what might be the next big thing …

    People are willing to pay for THAT experience, not a rehash of the same thing that everyone else has already seen, heard or reported on

    Where? The little guy ain’t getting any notice. For all its bollocks take a look at the TV talent shows that are out there, and the number of people that are ‘looking for a break’. A huge number of them aren’t bad performers, but no one is looking for them. The little guy has no chance other than playing in bars for beer and exposure.

    There is no paradise, no magic bullet, all there is are a handful of parasitic web companies siphoning off whatever money there was in the system.

    • Where? The little guy ain’t getting any notice. For all its bollocks take a look at the TV talent shows that are out there, and the number of people that are ‘looking for a break’.

      You are confusing being famous with being profitable. Big difference. You and David are far too mired in the old way of thinking. No one needs big time news outlets, no one needs Taylor Swift. There are 1000’s if not millions of replacements ready to be plucked from the sidelines. And despite what you might think. That is a good thing. To succeed you don’t need everyone to like/know who you are, you just need ENOUGH people to like/know who you are

      • If that were so IT tech would be parading 1000s of new news outlets, and 1000s of musicians/film makers, authors that are making a fair living in this utopian dream. As it is they have a mere handful, to counter the 10000s of successful artists in their various field that have gone off and done something else.

        You don’t need ENOUGH people to like/know who you are, you need ENOUGH people who are willing to pay for the content that they know and like.

        Meanwhile they think like you that there are an infinite number of replacement Taylor Swift’s and maybe there are, but if so that is a sad day. And would be a sad day of we were saying that there are a infinite number of replacement Beethoven’s too. Because in the end what we’d have is no Reich, no Gershwin, no Miles.

      • If that were so IT tech would be parading 1000s of new news outlets, and 1000s of musicians/film makers, authors that are making a fair living in this utopian dream.

        Um, there are. Does everyone succeed? No. But that goes for any industry. No one succeeds and makes a living at something simply because they want to.

        You don’t need ENOUGH people to like/know who you are, you need ENOUGH people who are willing to pay for the content that they know and like.

        And as I said, many creators are finding that the new model for doing just that is direct patronage. And guess what? It is the very tech that you decry making this possible AND profitable.

        Because in the end what we’d have is no Reich, no Gershwin, no Miles.

        What? Are you suggesting that the only way great art comes to pass is because someone was willing to pay for it? That is absurd. History is full of great works created by artists and not profiteers. People who never truly “made it” in their lives yet still created some of the most enduring works in human history.

        I’m sorry but you and David are fighting for the wrong cause. Who cares if Fox makes money on their news? Or MSNBC? Fuck those companies. Seriously, who gives a shit if they are profitable at rehashing current events. More and more people get their news from sites like twitter, and you know what? News outlets are embracing this as well. Why do you think disingenuous headlines crafted for shock value are so popular?

        They don’t care about truth, or actually presenting information. They are simply going after a number. Just like youTube. Just like the NYT. Wall Street journal.

        Even when print was king, it was common to sensationalize the news to get more subscriptions.

        I think the problem with your point of view lies squarely on what you think is the “product”. What you think people should be paying for. Here is a hint, it’s not “the news” or “the view” or “the listen”. It’s the connection to the consumer. The ability to leverage a user base.

        FB provides no actual product. None. It is an aggregate of user information. There were social media outlets before and there will be social media outlets after. The consumer has and will always be the true commodity.

      • David Newhoff

        “Who cares if Fox makes money on their news? Or MSNBC? Fuck those companies. Seriously, who gives a shit if they are profitable at rehashing current events. More and more people get their news from sites like twitter”

        Twitter doesn’t have journalists on staff. I think FoxNews quality sucks, too; but that isn’t remotely relevant. When a real journalist who works for The Daily Beast or The Times or some other “company” you dismiss posts a story on Twitter, it’s that worthless company that paid his salary and expenses so he could go to Syria, risk his life, and get that story for you. It’s that same worthless company that will use its resources to try to extract that journalist if he gets kidnapped. The statement “more people get their news from Twitter” has to be among the most naive things I have seen you write. You might as well say, “I don’t care about that reservoir, my water comes from the faucet.”

      • Each of your posts demonstrates the depth of your ignorance. Almost all art was created because someone was willing to pay for it. When it was financed through patronage by Kings, Priests of some religion, and wealthy merchants the art was limited to the tastes of those groups. Look to the art of Orthodox religion to see just how limiting it becomes.

        Twitter can’t make any money. It’s CEO has just jumped ship.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33103838

        What news that is on there is mostly from traditional news outlet. Some times you get people tweeting about something that is happening around them. So what!
        http://news.nationalpost.com/news/twitter-hoaxes-are-the-new-normal-a-lesson-from-2013
        http://mashable.com/2013/12/17/social-media-hoaxes-2013/
        http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/26/celebrities-we-lost-in-2013-according-to-the-internet-4233492/

        Or take the Boston Marathon Bombing and the hue and cry that developed on social media looking for the perpetrators.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Sunil_Tripathi

        FB isn’t user created content, it is content that its users are ripping from elsewhere. Whenever I go there I’m mostly seeing stuff that someone has ripped from elsewhere.

      • David: “You might as well say, “I don’t care about that reservoir, my water comes from the faucet.”

        Back in the 1980s we started an Urban Farm to teach kids about the environment, where food came from, etc. Before we built the farm on local wasteland we took some of the kids (8-12) out to see a real dairy farm. A couple of them managed to get themselves cover in cow shit and were adamant that they wanted nothing to do with cows and that they should all be destroyed on sight. Someone said “But then where would you get milk, butter, and cheese?” the immediate response was “we get that from the supermarket”.

      • David Newhoff

        Yep. And books come from Amazon drones.

      • Real journalist? Please. That’s like saying a “real” pop star or rock musician. People either create with integrity or they don’t, getting paid for something doesn’t make your creation any more “real” it simply means that if you want to make more someone else is going to foot the bill. I know lots of designers who do work for themselves, they are just as “real” as I am.

        The statement “more people get there news from Twitter” has to be among the most naive things I have seen you write. You might as well say, “I don’t care about that reservoir, my water comes from the faucet.

        You really don’t get it do you? Naive. LOL. Let’s talk about being naive. In 2014 the NYT had about 830,000 subscribers. Twitter has almost 1 BILLION users. What is the primary reason people use twitter? Well, they follow their families. OK, so what is the number two reason? A NEWS AGGREGATE. More people are getting their news from social media than from anywhere else. Oh, were you foolish enough to assume I meant, these sites were producing the news? No, see I already explained that the source of “news” is irrelevant to the vast majority of people. They will read/post/follow just about anything they agree with.

        Aggregate sources are where people go to for news, entertainment, whatever. So as I stated, the value of “news” is essentially nothing. The value of a song, as in a listen, is zero. The only commodity in this case is the consumer, and companies who have not figured out how to capitalize on that fact will continue to suffer. Naive, LOL.

        You decry technology yet allow your bias to far exceed your knowledge on the subject.

        Each of your posts demonstrates the depth of your ignorance. Almost all art was created because someone was willing to pay for it. When it was financed through patronage by Kings, Priests of some religion, and wealthy merchants the art was limited to the tastes of those groups. Look to the art of Orthodox religion to see just how limiting it becomes.

        That is true for some, yet not all. The implication that enduring art is only created when someone gets paid is preposterous.

        Twitter can’t make any money. It’s CEO has just jumped ship

        That is correct, because they have no idea how to monetize their only valuable asset without losing the aforementioned asset. People will jump ship as soon as they slap ads or whatever all over the place. As soon as it becomes intrusive, the users will respond negatively.

        Yup, sucks to be them. I don’t recall stating that twitter was the future. I simply stated the fact that more people use it as a news source than any other and probably more than all other major news sources combined. If that confuses you I am sorry. Twitter’s ability to aggregate is precisely why this is the case, as no one cares where a story comes from, so long as it aligns with their ideals, or contradicts them to the point where they want to be outraged. When twitter goes away, something else will take its place or become popular again(I use RSS). I only care where a source came from in regards to determining how many other sources I will have to peruse to get an accurate story. It’s always at least 3, but some places like MSNBC or HuffPost require a ton of actual research to find the truth of anything. And David wants to talk about “real” journalists.

        Anyone can go somewhere and report on what they see. And more and more people who actually live where the news is happening are willing to tell their story. Journalists. What a bullshit term used to describe something almost as outdated as print news itself.

        Gone are the days when actual writers presented the news. Long gone. And even then the purpose of the news was to manipulate, not educate. And you guys want to imply that news from a “real” source is more important or valid than the man on the street? LOL.

        FB isn’t user created content, it is content that its users are ripping from elsewhere.

        Yeah, that is on purpose. They don’t want users selling themselves, they want users shilling for other people, that’s how they make their money. Didn’t you say at one point you work in IT? I find that really hard to believe.

        You might as well say, “I don’t care about that reservoir, my water comes from the faucet.

        And there is your problem. You think there is only one reservoir. You are mistaken, there are millions, and they are never going to run dry. Be it news, be it music, movies, whatever.

      • And where is the ‘news’ coming from? Twitter doesn’t create news articles any more than Google creates web pages, or spotify creates songs, or Amazon creates books.

        And yes enduring art only gets created when someone gets paid, or hopes that they might get paid. The artists of the Renaissance went where there were people willing to pay them. I have a bunch of photos of 12th century stone work, these stone carvings were created by people that moved from place to place and from country to country. They went were the money was. A few miles from me there is an exhibition of paintings by Canaletto that he created in England. In the mid 18th century the Grand Tour tourist weren’t traveling to Venice, so he and fellow Venician based artist traveled to London where their clientele were.

        In nature there is a balance between parasites and that upon which the parasites feed upon. As the parasites become too numerous the organisms upon which they feed can no longer support the parasite species. Basically if you over fish the content creators you should expect to get smaller less developed fish. Huffpost is a prime example of what happens.

      • And where is the ‘news’ coming from? Twitter doesn’t create news articles any more than Google creates web pages, or spotify creates songs, or Amazon creates books.

        But they do create connections. And that is their value, whether you see it or not. The service is more valuable than the article, the web page, the song or the book, to the consumer.

        And yes enduring art only gets created when someone gets paid, or hopes that they might get paid.

        You just contradicted yourself. Hopes the might get paid, is not the same thing as making art for profit. Van Gough never sold his work, yet produced tons of it. That one example disproves your theory. Art is not about money to the people who create it. Sure, everyone wants to make a living doing whatever it is they do, but there are many examples of artists who never made a dime, yet somehow managed to create work that has and will endure for generations.

        So the idea that the world will stop being creative if artists aren’t making money seems ridiculous to me. I make music. I do not get paid. Who is to say that when I am gone someone else won’t find my work valuable. Sorry but history really does not support your theory.

      • Oh yeah Vincent was such a happy little bunny.

      • That isn’t the point. You said that enduring art was tied directly to getting paid. Then you said it was tied to a desire to get paid.

        My only point is that great works of art, in all mediums, will continue to be produced regardless of whether or not the artists profit from their work.

        I would also argue that in this day and age it is a lot easier for artists to actually do so. And I believe this has a lot to do with technology. Again. I get that you and David do not agree. I get why you don’t agree, but your assertions are simply not supported by the facts.

      • You said that enduring art was tied directly to getting paid. Then you said it was tied to a desire to get paid.

        Please pay attention I said

        And yes enduring art only gets created when someone gets paid, or hopes that they might get paid.

        Most people do stuff with the hope of making it a earning job. Though I suppose there were the Bright Carvers in that clung to the outer walls of Gormenghast in their hovels of clay and mud. Each year they were permitted to enter the castle and exhibit their carvings, three of which would be chosen and the rest burnt. Those whose work got chosen at least got to live nearer to the walls of the castle.

        I gather you play music, but don’t get paid for it, or at least not chosen.

  • Van Gogh also had a brother supporting him – a brother who made a living selling art, which is probably not going to be very viable in the future without some form of policing IP.

    It’s simple economics: to make any kind of art takes money and time and a place to live, and when you have to worry about getting that you have less time to devote to art.

    (Not to mention that if big tech has its way the “day jobs” your romantic starving artists rely on will be going away, too)

    • Yes he did. But not Van Gough’s art. The point being. He created art, a lot of it, and never profited. He did not benefit from his own creations, at least not in the monetary sense.

      The claim that artists only create when they are being paid to do so, or can profit from their work is not a definitive truth.

      Of course people would like to sell their work. Of course they should be the ones to profit from that work, but for a lot of creators, there needs to be a middleman. Some conduit for getting their work to the people who are willing to pay for it. Be it an agent, a big news company, a distribution service, whatever.

      Aggregate services do not create news, or music, or movies, whatever. That however does not mean they are without value, or that the value of a particular creative work is more than the service. It can be, but it is not necessarily so.

      People like to romanticize artists. They like to pretend that those who are masters, simply create and thrive because of their work. Yet history tells a different story. Very few creatives “make it”. This is not something new to the age of technology. And just because someone wants to be an artist and create for a living, that does not mean it is viable. When has that ever been the case? Where someone says “I am an artist, support me” and the world accepts whatever it is they choose to produce.

      News happens. It is not created. Who owns a tragedy? A societal movement/event? Fox? MSNBC? A reporter? Writer? Musician?

      They present their interpretation, and to some that has value. To others it does not. That is simply the way of things.

      So what is being sold? The work? Or the right to view experience that work?

      • The point was that Van Gogh WANTED to sell his stuff.

        Nobody is saying “I’m an artist, pay me.” What they’re saying is that if people are going to make money off their work, they should be paid, too.

        No, news does not just “happen.” It may seem that way now that TV news has become an endless stream of sensation after sensation, but to really get an accurate picture of the world you need actual reporters on the ground and talking to people. It was a beat court reporter who noticed the break-in at the Watergate. there are countless examples of governments covering up stuff that reporters later revealed.

        Leaving it to the aggregators means that we’ll get an endless stream of bullshit, some of it actuallly just plain fake (The sub-Onion quality “satirical” news sites like National Report).

      • Nobody is saying “I’m an artist, pay me.” What they’re saying is that if people are going to make money off their work, they should be paid, too.

        Except that is not what people are making money off of. Aggregate SERVICES do not push on piece of content over another. They promote the idea of a CHOICE of content. And in reality, people are getting paid for their work, they just think they should be paid for someone else’s as well.

        Why did a given user go to Twitter? To youTube? To Spotify? Facebook? Was it to see Fox’s article? Swift’s song/video? David’s blog post? So in regards to that service, which puts no precedence on one piece of work over another, what is a view/listen actually worth? what if I only read part of the article? Or listen to part of the song? Should you only get a partial royalty? What if I don’t click on the ad, should you not get credit for the click?

        Double dipping. THAT is the real problem with digital content creation. News outlets, artists, whatever think that they deserve to get paid for every impression, regardless of actual engagement or end user value.

        “Well, my song streamed for 30 seconds to X guy in Y location, pay up.”

        “Hey, someone clicked from your site to my news article on my site, but didn’t click the ads, or had the ads blocked…”

        No, news does not just “happen.” It may seem that way now that TV news has become an endless stream of sensation after sensation, but to really get an accurate picture of the world you need actual reporters on the ground and talking to people.

        No you don’t. Why do we need a middle man for the news? I am not talking about an op-ed piece. News, X happened at Y location at Z time. Pure news does not need interpretation. The sole point of actual journalism is to put a spin on a given subject. To add depth and feeling to an event. But that is opinion, not necessarily fact.

        X happened at Y location at Z time does not need editorial. But a lot of people do like it, so yeah there is value. But news, actual news, does in fact, just happen.

        Leaving it to the aggregators means that we’ll get an endless stream of bullshit, some of it actuallly just plain fake (The sub-Onion quality “satirical” news sites like National Report).

        That demonstrates the same lack of understanding that David has in regards to what an aggregate service does. It does not editorialize the news. It aggregates the different sources. It does not put precedence on one source over another unless that is the USER preference, which is not akin to pushing bullshit.

        Aggregate services are not selling news, they are selling convenient choice. Same with youTube, spotify, etc. And THAT is what people like David are truly upset about. That is the real problem to them. The consumer has control over what they see/hear, not the artist, not the corporation, the consumer.

        And that is why so many things have been homogenized. THAT is why there is really not difference regardless of the source. Laziness.

        Rather than take the chance of standing out, of presenting something original with no guarantee, they go the safe and easy route, spitting out the exact same story/song/whatever, slightly changed as to be able to promote their given agenda.

  • AV: if you’re truly concerned about “agendas” being pushed then the last thing you’d want is to leave it to Twitter and other aggregators.

    And you’re missing the point about national report. They aren’t just catering to users; they are actively making stuff up. If you don’t believe me check out how the mayor of Dearborn Michigan has had to say several times that no, the city is not under Sharia law, just because national report posted some “satirical” article about it. National report claims satire, but their business plan is to create an outrageous story with hopes that it will be taken seriously and reposted endlessly on Facebook.

    No, “pure news” doesn’t need interposition. What it needs are people committed to getting the facts right. In almost every major story of the last few years we have been subject to half-truths and outright lies spread by people who take to Twitter and Facebook without bothering to verify their facts.

  • Av: And how exactly are people getting paid for their work?
    The internet model of giving a creation for free in the hopes of making money on appearances or merchandise favors certain types of creators over others. Why bother writing a serious book if you have to tour to make a living off it? Why go in debt to make a serious movie if it will just get pirated and you’ll be told “just sell t-shirts?”

    You seem to have this libertarian bootstraps view that talent will rise. The last ten years of our popular culture shoes that’s just not true

  • No you don’t. Why do we need a middle man for the news? I am not talking about an op-ed piece. News, X happened at Y location at Z time. Pure news does not need interpretation.

    “06/15/2015 11:15pm – Man shot on corner of 14th and Broadway.”

    “06/15/2015 11:15pm – Unarmed black man shot four times by white cop in busy pedestrian intersection.”

    “06/15/2015 11:15pm – Robbery suspect apprehended by police after shots fired at 14th and B’way.”

    “06/15/2015 11:15pm – Shots fired on 14th and B’way. One wounded, suspected gunman identified.”

    “06/15/2015 11:15pm – Another breezy, sunny day in Downtown Manhattan.”

    All of these are objectively true descriptions of the same event. The idea that there’s no editorializing going on in even basic “fact” reporting is pretty naive. Which facts are relevant? Is “white cop” a fair description, or should the facts surrounding his education and hometown be brought up? Child of divorce? Should it say “white male cop?”

    Simply deciding which events/facts are worth mentioning is at the mercy of the bias of whatever middleman is doing the reporting. If humans feed the aggregators, then the aggregators reflect someone’s editorial biases.

    Asking for pure news without editorial is as silly as demanding “objective” video game reviews.

    • It is quite obvious that AV didn’t actually read the deltoid link I gave above, or oif he did he didn’t understand a word of it. The first reports that were distributed were of a armed student being overpowered by two other armed students. That was the sum of the eyewitness reports, in today’s terms the tweets. Those reports got syndicated and resulted in an op-ed piece by John Lott arguing “That more citizens carrying guns equates to less crime.” It turns out that the students that overpowered the perpetrator, didn’t just have guns in their cars but bullet proof vests too. As my friend commented students with guns in their cars are one thing, students with guns and bullet proof vests something else. Turns out that they weren’t just students they were cops. The initial reporter on the scene filed that report some hours later, after he’d researched the background, but by that time the news agenda had moved on. There are more to news stories than what eyewitnesses say or see. My friend, a journalist by the way, says that someone like John Lott ought to have known not to trust initial reports especially as the initial reports indicated that these “citizen’s with guns” were more than likely not ordinary citizens at all.

  • Back before the 1976 Copyright Law and the fair use sections 106 and 107 news and what was said on the media was just part of the public domain and providing video clips was not considered a copyright infringement. By BIG MEDIA crying copyright infringement for a media monitoring company providing clips and reports on how a subject of interest is being handled is in my opinion is blocking the free flow of information which does go against our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. BIG MEDIA in a sense would have the rights to say and do whatever it wants to and never ever be held accountable.

    This article does address this very issue – BIG MEDIA does not own the news or has the rights to say whatever it wants and then limit the redistribution of what was said, they are just reporting the current events and their news directors and staff make the decision what to release and what not to.

    Much of what is released out in the media has been created by somebody else who is completely independent to BIG MEDIA. Press releases video and audio news releases are created by a independent source, they are sent to the stations the news director and staff that makes a decision to air the releases or not.

    If you do further research into the 1976 Copyright Law the real owner of the release is the person or organization that originally created the release not the station. The original of the release in my opinion has all the legal rights to be able to track the story (release) as to how many times was the release mentioned, how many stations carried the release, and to receive a video clip or clips as to feedback on how the story was handled.

    A Broadcast Media Monitoring does not copy or sell or redistribute the entire works – the entire works sold and redistributed is a copyright infringement. A Broadcast Media Monitoring Service is similar to paying for a photocopy of say a page or so of a book, but not the entire book.

    BIG MEDIA also should not have the rights to sue for copyright infringement if they talk about a certain subject related to an individual company or organization, people should have the rights to search out the data, and capture the clips.

    Using a Broadcast Media Monitoring service is sure not being used for entertainment purpose laying down on ones couch and watching TV, the only purpose behind using a Broadcast Media Monitoring service really is for file reference and research, sure not for just relaxing and watching Television or listening to radio there is a major difference that the courts need to recognize.

  • Pingback: Sarah Jeong Pitches Copyright Conspiracy Thriller - The Illusion of MoreThe Illusion of More

Join the discussion.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.