Can The Newspaper Industry Really Be THIS Stupid About Google News?

sock --
You realize, of course, that starting a thread with the phrase "Can the newspaper industry really be THIS stupid..." is sort of self-explanatory, right?

 

FB:
Yeah, good point. Actually, it was the headline on the item I posted. I decided to plagraize it for my subject line; subject lines can be full of fail for me. I probably should edit this thread head with quotation marks ... ah, I'm not THAT stupid.

 

As bitchin' as a charticle?[/oldcrossthread]

 

Ah, charticles ... That buzz word's SO 2005!

 

None, but they aren't making any fucking money any other way on the internet so how can they blame google?

 

Is a charticle related to a testicle?

 

I can't see why a newspaper would be upset. When Profootbalktalk.com or a similar site blogs about one of our stories, we get increased traffic to the original story. Ditto for a link.
Perhaps AP itself probably has a valid issue, however, because its existence is based on news organizations subscribing for its services. So if I understand the issue, any benefit it receives would be indirect.

 

What newspapers should be getting upset about are places like the Big Ten Network's site (and others, I'm sure), which replicate the entire article and put the same byline on there. No link, the actual article. All Google does is send you traffic. BTN gives you ... nothing (oh, and it also will appear on Google, thus taking away from your site's traffic).

 

Newspapers should do more than get upset about that. They should be prosecuting copyright law to the fullest extent.