Web Forefront

The heart of the matter is how valuable content is on the Internet? And more importantly, who has the right to make money of it? If you look at the earlier post Content is the peasant, if you only live in the Internet kingdom, I compare it to TV syndication which has been a proven business model for decades.

You run a local TV station, you air a few re-runs of syndicated content and produce a few more shows for you audience, in between you run advertising to make it a business. Typical business model for TV. You want to run the 'X' smash hit show which aired a few years ago? It will cost you and likely more, why? Because it was a smash hit, which in turn will likely draw a larger audience for which you are likely to get more advertising bucks in return, here its just a question of negotiating a fair deal on syndicating the content. The creator will get his share, you will get a cut, the advertisers will get an audience, everyone is happy.

Now the Internet. You run a site, rely on syndicated content, and in between you run advertising to make it a business. Were things get put on their head -- especially with things like RSS feeds -- is that the content producer is likely to not make any revenue from you. The main argument for those running sites on syndicated content, is that they are just 'referencing' sources. The poster child for this model is along the likes of Google which 'references' sites and makes millions in advertising from the process. But in between, there are some gray areas in this model that have 'ruffled some feathers' to say the least.

If you put yourself in the shoes of TV or movie content creators, someone will not only have to pay for the syndication rights to your content, but in theory they will also be 'referencing' your work. This makes Internet content producers seem like they are getting a bum deal, because even though they are being 'referenced', the only reason they are being referenced is that someone is standing to make money of such content with advertising.

But herein lies the 'network effect' just like on TV I might add. Or if you like quotes, as Brendan Behan said There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary or Oscar Wilde's The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

If you're a small producer on the Internet and syndicate your content, what could be better than Google referencing your site on its various sections(e.g Search, News). Of course, they are potentially standing to make money by 'referncing' your content -- of which you wont see a penny -- but they're Google!. Same case applies to TV, if you're in any type of business and get called up for an interview on a national network, you will probably go through hoops even though you might not make any money directly, because well, they're a national network!.

When things start to get grayer is when lesser known players start to get involved with one another, in which the 'network effect' doesn't exist. In TV-land, the scuffles between reaching an agreement on rights to air TV shows made by lesser known production companies is well known. But even then, some type of agreement is reached between parties, content can't just be taken at will and aired without permission. The content producer gets revenue and references.

So now enter the wild-wild west on the Internet. How ugly can it get ? When someone like the Associated Press starts bickering about Reining in Sites Using Its Content or a blogger starts going ballistic after what appears to be an established media outlet -- backed by major tech players I might add -- for re-publishing content without permission. Well, you know the 'status' of content on the Internet is changing, and the 'King' over 'Peasant' battle is still in progress.

Ironically, this battle between 'the creative' is nothing new, it just hasn't been figured out for this new context. If you like novels and the topic, you might be interested in titles like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged both by Ayn Rand, somewhat utopian but a good read on creative/entrepreneurial thinking.

Update Found this related article Search Spammers Hacking More Websites . Just fancy names "The practice, also known as "spamdexing," exploits the way search engines' algorithms figure out how to rank different pages for a particular search query". I bet the Associated Press and some bloggers wont buy the theory that their websites are being 'hacked', I think the word they would use is content is being 'hijacked'. At least I agree with the last part 'I do believe we'll see more of this' said Matt Cutts - head of Google's Web-spam-fighting team.

Update 2: So you want to legally quote Associated Press content on your site? $12.50 (U.S) up to 25 words: Post Excerpt from the Associated Press . If that doesn't tell you what they think about RSS feeds I don't know what else will.