Huffington Post Blasted For Stealing Content http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/12/huffington-post-blasted-for-stealing-content/comments en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 27 Dec 2014 08:48:33 -0500 Henry Blodget http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ccbdfc849e2aec016240000 prokaterkino Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:05:12 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ccbdfc849e2aec016240000 We think "fair use" online, in other words, will eventually come to mean exactly that: "fair." Sites should aggregate and link to others' content the way they want other sites to aggregate and link to their own. <a href="http://www.iphone-4-cases.org/">iPhone 4 cases</a> and <a href="http://www.ipad-cases-store.net/">iPad cases</a> http://www.businessinsider.com/c/69b9b91493f90a4a6c7a3d00 Chanel Wed, 13 May 2009 12:47:15 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/69b9b91493f90a4a6c7a3d00 Case in point Google -- block them in robots.txt, they honor it. But who wants to?People that bothered to write blog posts referencing/embedding news video clips. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c790b494e4967970500 Alex Schleber Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:47:55 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c790b494e4967970500 Henry, I believe that your current flexible policy is right on the money. Most people are making a major mistake when they are thinking about the distribution of their content from a scarcity mentality. The problem is usually the opposite of what is feared: Not that someone will rip off one's content (obviously, if that happens without attribution and back link it is somewhat of a problem), but more so that no one will give a dear about one's content/ideas/etc. Even the major Old Media companies are still frantically clinging to their old and obsolescent models, and are missing out on major opportunities to gain mindshare. E.g. Hulu should be uploading excerpts of their own stuff to YouTube all day long, to point back to their own archives where back-end sales of full versions can take place, etc. Similarly, it was one of the great idiocies of 2008 that RedLasso was canned due to Cable News pressure, when their content is more fungible than anything else, and RedLasso was giving second life to it that could only increase their viewership, and, if done right, back-end sales (it is mind-boggling that in the age of iTunes success, CNN/MSNBS/et al. have not figured out how to sell whole archived shows for $1 a pop). If CNN were to try to get their own RedLasso off the ground, they would likely fail to rach the same level of viral adoption that RL had already achieved. Instead they left a bad taste in the mouths of what must by definition be considered fan(atic)s: People that bothered to write blog posts referencing/embedding news video clips. Move the Freeline, moentize the back-end. All else is folly at this point. We are living in an information economy, in which attention is becoming the only scarce resource. Just get in front of where the attention is already being directed, and worry less about traditional notions of media ownership, because no one cares anymore due to the massively incrased rate of info/content creation. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c793aac4d49824c0400 rags Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:38:50 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c793aac4d49824c0400 Henry: Nice article. I think this is going to be a huge issue for the Internet and traditional media companies moving into 2009 and beyond. I also think the fair use rules should actually be tightened to protect the businesses that invest in creating content. Although SAI may point readers to sources such as the New York Times, how much of the revenue generated from user comments do you share with them? Similarly, Google may not profit from aggregating news, but they are making a fortune from the searches people perform once they arrive at Google News. I'm not sure what the solution is, but its certainly become much easier for people (like yourself) to profit from content they have no role in creating. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b914928a4d49ec25e800 ian Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:15:14 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b914928a4d49ec25e800 Google has been aware of this kind of thing for ages. If anything google penalizes sites for 'borrowing' too much source from the source and will black list you if you do it to often. check out http://www.copyscape.com/ I'm sure the algorithms that google use are way more advanced than this site, but you get the picture. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79d5844d4917310400 bolweevil Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:50:45 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79d5844d4917310400 SAI "excerpts" with respect, kinda like a good hip hop dj, theys givin props... http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b91458754d49ae16e800 the718 Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:44:40 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b91458754d49ae16e800 Hillary Rosen...who btw is leaving the Huff Post soon to form her own venture. Look for that to come out in January. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c793a6c4d49531f0400 Henry Blodget Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:05:46 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c793a6c4d49531f0400 We excerpt lots of stuff. And we always credit and try to do it in a way that we would are happy with when others do it with our stuff. And if someone doesn't like how we've done it, we change it immediately. The alternative, as some suggest above, is rewriting the key points, which we also do. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c796b504d49ef0b0400 Rick Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:07:07 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c796b504d49ef0b0400 agree with Allen! aah the irony...have you looked at your and other posts on this site and wondered how much you are lifting from other sites!!!!!! http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79dc4e4d49d20a0400 Allen Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:00:28 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79dc4e4d49d20a0400 aah crap - the html tags were removed on my comment - let me try again (sarcasm) absolutely an amazing post (end sarcasm) http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79b64e4d49ba0a0400 Allen Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:59:50 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79b64e4d49ba0a0400 absolutely an amazing post http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b9141e3f4d4963f1e800 Jeremy Wright Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:53:18 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b9141e3f4d4963f1e800 Betsy Morgan? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79a6364d4931f80400 dwight Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:17:10 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79a6364d4931f80400 I think it's pretty simple: if a site doesn't want to be excerpted, it should not be -- that also then means the site won't get the free promotion & traffic. Case in point Google -- block them in robots.txt, they honor it. But who wants to? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79292f4d492bf30400 hehateme Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:45:14 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79292f4d492bf30400 Thats the big problem. Who is going to pay for content. I just watched a Perfect DVD OSCAR screener of the movie Seven Pounds. It was so easy to download. That charging $19.99 at retail or whatever itunes charges is stupid. Only a flat Royalty on ISP's can work. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79d82c4d490df10400 Scott K Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:35:20 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79d82c4d490df10400 Who is that a picture of? It's not Arianna Huffington, so I'm not getting the reference. I've seen the picture before; I just don't know who it is. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b9143a284d49cddee800 brooklynradio Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:15:38 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b9143a284d49cddee800 For the past year, I've been thinking about this problem. People have been getting so used to free content that the business of creating content is being undermined. I think the next billionaire in the web game is the person who creates software that protects content from being abused. Aggregating content is one thing, but just reprinting, even with a link, for your own site is ridiculous. The problem remains, though, in how easy it is to copy and paste. The Huffington Post is not a model for delivering good content. It's USA Today for the web. Same with Google News. I think subscription services need to return...Advertising is not going to subsidize The New York Times and smaller papers. We need these institutions. The Huffington Post and all the blogs can't live without them...But if they're going to aggregate and reprint, they need to be charged a fee. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b914cb124d491dd2e800 geewhiz Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:44:12 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c5b9b914cb124d491dd2e800 No company aggregates more than Google. Case closed! http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c795f114d4945dd0400 Clark Troy Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:38:07 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c795f114d4945dd0400 My mistake. I saw your name on this post (http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/jeff-jarvis-responds-to-slate-attack) but misinterpreted the margins on the post. It is Jeff Jarvis who is invested there. It's worth taking a look at Daylife. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79b10e4d494bdb0400 Henry Blodget Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:26:41 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79b10e4d494bdb0400 I don't know Upendra or Daylife, so not sure what you mean. Also didn't realize they "serve" Huffpost content. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79440e4d4904db0400 Clark Troy Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:24:53 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/387a6c79440e4d4904db0400 I see from your 11/12 post that you've actually invested with Upendra Shardanand over at Daylife, and they're the ones serving Huffpost its content. This post, then, would represent pangs of conscience?
http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/12/huffington-post-blasted-for-stealing-content/comments.rss
www.businessinsider.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-52
14121
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:Q5ND7KJAT7E5WMXQ2NFZ6NY3YF22ILVT
<urn:uuid:92819284-e0cb-40ca-9019-93a73f96e0c2>
2014-12-27T13:48:33Z
64.27.101.155
sha1:QMN6CJFT74PWHXBLUPAU466SNE6V7WMD
<urn:uuid:809be3d7-6c05-49e1-9215-b86b0fa5ad44>
http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/12/huffington-post-blasted-for-stealing-content/comments.rss
response
<urn:uuid:3e7270ba-90f2-44fb-a30a-e001a20cf4ba>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-231-17-201.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-52
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for December 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf