by R.F. Goggin
January 12, 2012
R.F. Goggin - is the editor of
The New World Reporter, where he is a contributing author.
The Associated Press
The New York Times
...along with 28 other news organizations, are launching a
company which hopes to further profit on their news reporting, by seeking to
make paying customers out of websites or blogs which reproduce their
content, either in full or in part.
The new company will go by the ridiculous name of ‘NewsRight’, to make it
better appear to the general public that these mainstream media outlets have
some kind of exclusivity over the very flow of human existence of any
significance (or as equally likely, insignificance) taking place anywhere in
With technology available to the media organizations which I have mentioned
to clandestinely encode news stories or articles with the writer’s name and
date published, NewsRight, will not only know when content is under their
watchful eye, has been copied and pasted elsewhere on the Internet, but also
the privacy infringing details of just who may be viewing it.
NewsRight, is to be led by former ABC News president David Westin,
who apparently has insufficient grasp of public sentiment toward greedy
corporations or conglomerates, these days, as he inform us:
'More news is available more ways than ever
in history. But if reliable information is to continue to flourish, the
company’s investing in creating content need efficient ways to license
it as broadly as possible,' Westin said in a statement.
'NewsRight’s mission is to make sure
consumers continue to benefit from the all the original news reporting
they want while ensuring those who republish content do so with
Integrity? If information is to continue to
Fortunate for me then, I suppose, that I’ve come equipped with enough
integrity to know a crock of utter bullshit when it's sent my way. What if
what it is being reported has no integrity associated with it to begin with?
This load of tedium (above), is the kind of
outdated propaganda that mainstream, big media thinks the general public
capable of swallowing hook, line and sinker.
Certainly people like Westin ought to know that most folks who get their
news from the Internet are smarter than the average sheep? Or that shrouding
complete greed in noble appearance has become predictable enough stuff,
indeed, to precipitate a backlash when taking intelligent human beings who
spend time occupying the medium of cyberspace for a gullible collection of
According to the US Copyright office on the doctrine of ‘Fair Use’:
Copyright protects the particular way
authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas,
systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
Now is there a soul present consuming this
article, who can sit there and tell me that other than in some print media
op-ed or opinion article of some sort, there is any semblance of
'originality' whatsoever in reporting actual or factual news or events?
It’s absurd by its very nature to suggest such a
propriety, as Westin clearly does, and it would hardly stand up in a court
of law, I would reckon, even if said news event were reproduced from one of
his clients - word for word.
So, therefore, what we basically have here is a case of good old-fashioned,
power-playing, American bullying seeking to take shape.
The NewsRight company hopes to dictate the terms
of its existence to a publication such as The New World Reporter - being,
either you fall in line where we think you belong and pay us for reproducing
a factual news story, or we will sue you for copyright infringement, even as
we try to banish your site into some bottomless blacklist, or have it pulled
from the Web entirely.
Where have I heard something like this before? Oh right, S.O.P.A. (Stop
On-line Piracy Act), minus the Congressional kickback.
If a single news organization were to choose to lease out content, which
some do, that’s something entirely different, of course, than dozens of
large companies banding together to attempt to control both the market, and
the content, of Internet news.
There are anti-trust issues at play here, which
far surpass copyright protection at the heart of such an ungainly collusion,
whether or not an individual information outlet could indeed claim copyright
to the course of human activity.
Yet, without the backing of a governmental body behind this effort, this new
attempt to curtail free speech and/or personal liberty has no discernible
teeth worthy of consideration.
Consequently, I can do little but laugh whilst I
snicker at the very idea of this thing called ‘NewsRight’, and wish them
every success in convincing anyone at all that anything I publish via the
resources of their well-to-do overseers is every bit as likewise 'original'
a story, as their own version.
Henceforth, it would be wise of me, it seems, that instead of adding a
source link to such material as I was hitherto inclined to do in such case,
that this not so humble editor and chief (on such matters), shall simply be
obliged to change a few words here and there, so as to be completely sure
not to anger whatever gluttonous beast of which copied such news to begin
with via perfectly 'original' human affairs, circumstances and/or events.