Ten reasons why it makes no sense to try to charge news aggregators

The confrontation between media outlets that generate information about news and new aggregators that share and spread content on the web goes back a long way, based largely on criteria such as fair use or hot news misappropriation. The fact is that the web and the way that we read news is developing toward an increasingly conversational model whereby users no longer “belong” to a specific news organization, but instead select content from a range of sources.

What is new is news organizations’ demand to be paid for third-party use of their content, with the courts ruling in their favor on occasion. These cases are about clickthrough rates or “clicking back” to the source media, the amount of content used, whether aggregators select new items manually or automatically, and the aggregated differential value. These are interesting topics, but have never aimed to a kind of general framework agreement whereby news aggregators or link providers should pay a fee.

Meanwhile, the Spanish government wants to pass a law giving news organizations “inalienable rights” to charge anybody who provides a link to their stories, in the process laying the blame for these traditional media groups’ worsening financial results at the feet of news aggregators, social networks, and blogs.

This move would not simply affect big players like Google, but others such as Flipboard, Zite, Twitter, Facebook, and even bloggers who comment on news items. The idea is not only absurd, but would do incalculable damage to the internet, as well as creating a dangerously symbiotic relationship between the state and the media. In Spain, three newspapers that have traditionally been critical of the current administration have changed their editors in the wake of the announcement of the law.

In Spain, the government’s proposal is backed by AEDE, the association of daily newspaper owners. More progressive groups, such as AEEPP, which represents other publishers, as well as business confederations, have rejected the government’s move. Basically, this is coming down to a standoff between traditional newspapers, who can’t turn a big enough buck from the web, and new media, born online, who are better adapted to the new environment.

Below, 10 reasons why, in the opinion of somebody who has spent more than a decade researching online news, generating content and sometimes using other sources, it makes no sense to impose fees on news aggregators.

• Because we enjoy an increasingly varied news diet: most people no longer simply visit one news site. We not only use a variety of sources, but also channels: the social networks such as Twitter; as well as apps like Zite, Flipboard, and others. Then there are blogs that contain comments on news stories.
• Because the media groups pushing for charges and fees to be imposed on news aggregators do not represent the industry overall, nor are they even the most relevant anymore. In many cases we are simply dealing with groups unable to adapt to the reality of the internet. The idea that a news organization or journalist has some kind of inalienable right to their content is no longer sustainable.
• Because at the very least the idea of owning a news story is open to debate. Many news organizations compile stories based on a variety of sources, often from news agencies. Much of what they publish is far from original content, often based on translations of foreign news content, which they do not provide links to.
• Because providing a link to a news story will always have a positive effect on the traffic flow of the news site in question. Links can be provided for many reasons: a completely original text can be linked to provide a reference to a story, without being in any way “parasitic”. The best thing that any news story could hope for is for people around the world to pass it on to others. Hoping to be paid as well is absurd.
• Because once we open the door to payment for linking news stories, the big media groups will hound anybody that makes any reference to what they will argue are “their” stories, when in truth, news belongs to everybody. Do we really want a situation where media groups take legal action to defend their “authorship” of a particular subject, just because they also published something about it? The rights societies that collect royalties would then demand payment from any source that mentioned a story or event that was featured in a larger, more powerful group’s outlet. And who would these rights societies answer to?
• Because what the big media groups are doing by going after Google, for example, is undermining the free flow of news on the internet. It is human nature to comment on news and events, the internet is a reflection of this. The fallout from attacking Google could damage the entire ecosystem of the internet.
• Because government support (through the passing of laws imposing fees on news aggregators) of media groups is to all intents and purposes a prebend, a subsidy, and which creates an unhealthy relationship between the state and the media, whereby the former can apply pressure on the latter.
• Because what the media needs to do above all is to identify the sources of traffic and to encourage them in their work, not tie their hands or try to make money out of them. Anybody who still thinks that they should be paid for receiving traffic doesn’t understand how the internet works.
• Because any additional work using the information is adding value to it. I’m not talking here about sites that simply reproduce information from other sources verbatim, but who categorize it, comment on it, vote on it, or otherwise add to it. People who do this cannot be accused of plagiarism or being parasites, and instead, the value of their contribution should be recognized.
• Because the idea of paying for providing a link is contrary to the nature and spirit of the internet. On the world wide web, linking is free by definition. When a media outlet no longer receives links, it is the loser, in every sense. Any media outlet that demands payment for linking to its material is doomed to extinction.

(En español, aquí)