Google Ditches Newspaper Archival Effort… To Help Publishers Charge For Online Content

from the i-thought-google-was-all-about-the-taking dept

It seems like it was just a few days ago that we were listening to a Disney exec (one Anthony Accardo) droning on and on about how the tech community (Google, in particular) should be doing more (and more, and more) to prop up Big Content and protect its interests. No sooner had our eyes glazed over when along came the news that Google is abandoning its newspaper archival efforts (which would have benefitted all Google’s users) in favor of assisting various publishers in monetizing new online content. 

Of course, Google’s archival efforts had already coaxed various bitchy noises from various Big Content noiseholes, namely Rupert Murdoch (whose son, James Murdoch, was given free rein to lambast the British Library for attempting to do the same thing).  So, thanks to incessant complaining and uphill battle after uphill battle to do a "good thing," Google has apparently decided it might be simpler to just do "a thing" and give publishers a hand with their money problems via OnePass, its new online payment platform.

Obviously, projects like a comprehensive archive of 200 years of newspapers are just another example of Google’s selfish efforts to improve the flow of information. This kind of computing power and technical know-how is better utilized constructing virtual tollbooths on the information superhighway.

Honestly, Anthony, your industry can’t fail fast enough.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Google Ditches Newspaper Archival Effort… To Help Publishers Charge For Online Content”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Honestly, this should worry no one. First, it’s Google. They’re known to bow to pressure. Second, there is lots of payment processing/escrow services out there, and OnePass is hosted in the all mighty US of A. That means that it can’t be trusted to keep your data private, under no circumstances. Ever. And finally, big content providers will need to adapt, with or without Google’s help… otherwise they will keep failing and hopefully faster.

Darryl says:

You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

If you dont care if that industry fails, then why are you so upset that you cannot get for free the produce of that industry ?

You would think that if news papers are a failed industry, then that industries archives would also be of no use of value.

So you want all their past work, for free and you dont care if they are capable of continuing to provide that work in the future !!!!..

Meet the two faces of masnick

The eejit (profile) says:

Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

Why not allow all those after, say, 90 days for free? It works for other niche companies alongside a better business model. Look at Star City Games, a Magic: the Gathering retailer; they have free articles, and they have a Subscription service which allows access to certain articl;es as they’re written.

The Premium articles are also available for free after 90 days. So, if newspapers refuse to do the same thing, why can’t Google help them archive it? IT passes ther costs on to Google, rather than the newspaper. so I’d argue that it’s a win-win scenario for all.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

Your assumption is that if the major content providers can’t adapt that no one else will step up and fill the void.

That’s a terrible assumption.

Google’s Archive project wasn’t an attempt to undermine current publications. It was done to allow greater access to a wealth of information that many people would have benefitted from.

Now they’re helping these content providers make money. And you’re still complaining about them. And about Techdirt.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

You have such a big problem with free that you can’t organize your thoughts, can’t use simple logic, nor can you use the “reply to this” function. If you have such a big problem with free why do you come here. I mean techdirt is exactly what you hate so much; a website that you can read and comment on for free and it makes money. That seems to be your kryptonite, how do you tolerate it?

darryl says:

Re: Re: Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

thats because Mikes content has zero value… im sure even you can work that out.

No one wants it, but lots of people want the content from news papers, including mike who is crying that allthough he wants it, he is not willing to pay for it.

and he also wants it and does not want to creators of ‘it’ to continue to exist.

So if Mike got his way, we would have archives but nothing new and no new stuff being created.

That is just stupid.. And you agree with it ???????

darryl says:

Re: Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

firstly i use the “reply to this” every time I REPLY TO THIS..

again, I notice in your rant you totally ignore the issue but engage in a personal attack.

Does that indicate that you have NO viable argument to counter my statements ?

Does that mean you cannot apply simple logic to my statement and us that logic to prove me wrong ?

You have not even tried to use logic or common sense or anything, you are not even up to addressing the issue.

All you are capable of doing is personal attacks, I attack Mike and his drones on the issues.

If I say mike is a moron or lying, I state why, and how.

I also notice how much you are avoiding the issue and the question I asked.

Why is that ??? did you apply your simple logic to that problem and failed to derive a result ?

if you are that good, shoot me down, provide me with a strong and viable argument to counter my statement..

otherwise, you are basically just waiste of space.

Viln (profile) says:

Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

The internet has maimed the newspaper industry, yes it’s true. NewsPAPER. The internet killing the “news” industry is something between a myth, a misconception and a bold-faced lie. The major players in the industry have never made any significant money off of papers or articles from months or years in the past. Ever. If anyone has a legitimate dispute to that statement, please enlighten everyone. Otherwise, it’s not the consumer’s responsibility to prop up a struggling industry with new previously-untapped source of revenue simply because said industry no longer has a monopoly over the flow of breaking information.

This isn’t about copying today’s newspaper articles and making them available free on Google. This is about an archive. If newspapers were still the only game in town and still made a fortune telling people what to read, no one would even think to ask for money for this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..

I don’t know why you guys continue trying to argue a point with darryl. He never puts forth even a semblance of a coherent argument. He just pops in with one inane statement and 6 of you respond. Ignore this jackass, and he’ll get tired of posting. If he doesn’t, no big deal.

If you ignore a petulant child long enough, they will go away.

darryl says:

Re: Re: Yes I know, but they are all little masnicks.

I know I am…. 🙂

I guess you would not like any more, because you seem to have so much trouble trying to answer my simple questions.

Instead you have to resort to personal attacks, every time I see you silly people attacking me, and not the issue, I KNOW IVE WON.

Because you have proven you cannot counter my argument, so you do the next best thing, (all your capable of) that is personal attacks, and trolling.

darryl says:

Re: Re: masnick and google

Im sure you must have ment Masnick instead of the word “darryl”.

What was not truthfull about darryl saying that mike wants the archives to be freely available, and then makes the statement that papers should be out of business.

If darryl is lying, therefore so is mike… your choice… AC

Stroking says:

People need to understand that they’re here to entertain me for free. It’s not my problem if they don’t get paid for their work. No one should expect to be paid. If they don’t like it then they need to change their business model.

In fact everything needs to be free and delivered to me when I say so. I’m the consumer and I’m always right. Now go make me a sandwich right now cuz I’m hungry. If you don’t do it immediately then you really need to learn how to adapt to the 21st century.

What’s wrong with you?

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Dear Stroking,

To check if you are having a stroke:

Things to look for or ask:

Are you able to stand straight and tall? Or do you slump to one side?
Do you appear to have lost strength on one side of your body?
Are you leaning to one side when you try to walk?
Are you veering off to one side?
Are you dragging the foot on the side you are leaning toward?

Things to look for or ask:

Are you having problems speaking?
Are you having problems “getting your words out?”
Do you sound like you have something in your mouth when you speak?
Are you saying the appropriate words (do your words make sense) when you speak?
Does one side of your mouth droop down?

Things to look for or ask:

Try to raise both your arms up together. Does one arm begin to fall down?
Try to squeeze someone’s fingers with each hand; is one hand weaker than the other?
If you try to hold something like a pen, can you do it without any difficulty?
Ask someone to lightly touch you on the skin of both arms; is the feeling the same on each?

Things to look for or ask:

Do you normally wear glasses or contact lenses, or do you normally not use either of these? Try to describe any changes in your vision.
Is your vision clear?
Is it blurry?
Can you see everything in your field of vision? Do you see everything or just part of the visual field?
Does you see double?

Things to look for or ask?

Do you have a headache? On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the worst, rate your headache.
Do you normally have headaches? If so, is this headache any different from your usual headache?
Does this feel like the worst headache of your life?
Does light bother or hurt your eyes?
Does a sound or loud noise make the headache worse?

Phillip Vector (profile) says:

Good Move by Google

This is actually a good move by Google. Once they help put up the paywalls for the newspapers, they can then turn around and start back up providing it for free (well, they can get ad hits and such, but you know what I mean).

I see this as Google just putting up the cages around the newspapers and letting them hang themselves.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Good Move by Google

I was thinking the same thing. Google is giving big content (news, music, video) everything they need to hang themselves. The record labels have 2 years, the news papers 4-5, TV studios 4-7 years, and the movie studios have 2-3 decreasing payment windows open to them in under 10 years.

So its a waiting game, as the price of all content goes to zero for the consumer over the next 10 years. With the exception of movies in theaters.

Huph (user link) says:

Re: Re: Good Move by Google

as the price of all content goes to zero for the consumer over the next 10 years.

How is that going to be sustainable? Someone has to pay for something. If all content is free, what’s being advertised? You’ll notice that the most prevalent form of advertising on websites and “edgy” shows ([adult swim] for instance) is mostly ads for other media like video games, movies, other shows etc. If the advertisers have no product that makes money, where do they get the money to place advertisements? Where will shows/movies/music find funding if not from consumers or advertisers?

Subscription models? I find that very dangerous, because people will only be fed information relevant to their content bubble. Especially in news reporting. We need some form of objective news analysis. And if a given media has to be solely supported by subscriptions, then the ‘script will have to be expensive, effectively eliminating people without disposable income from being able to obtain objective information or be entertained.

I’m sure Fox News and institutions with agendas would have no problem propagandizing through free content to everyone. But is that the kind of world we really want?

It seems to me that this sort of thinking puts us back in the dark ages, where people just aren’t going to have time for art, and news will be whatever those in power deem worth knowing. Following this thinking means there will be no TV. The web x.0 is/will be mostly an advertising medium (in Douglas Adams’ words, a medium for “brochures”), it will shrivel, too. How is this cultural progress?

Is this really more of that “Star Trek replicator-tech” talk? Star Trek?! Seriously. A show that has people de-evolving into arthropods (what?!) and evolving into iguanas on a space station! (what, what?! Iguanas are best adapted for space colonization?) I would be wary of using Star Trek as a compass for scientific endeavor.

Anonymous Coward says:

A comment in one of those links that I thought was worth reposting here

LexyBoy writes

“As quoted, the British Library’s press release makes it very clear that in-copyright material isn’t going to be scanned until agreement has been reached with the copyright holders.

James Murdoch or his drones will certainly have read this, so what is their real goal here? The monetary value of a deep archive of historical, out-of-copyright material will be very low, or even negative, in comparison to the cost of digitisation, which is why News International isn’t leaping to scan its old pages for the common good. Only over the very long term could this project recover its investment.

In other words, James Murdoch’s target isn’t this project, it is, once again, the public sector and more generally, any media activity that doesn’t directly benefit News International enterprises. Self-serving, cynical and shallow.”

One must realize that copy protection laws are part of a bigger scam, the scam is intended to ban the distribution of any and all content (ie: movies, music, news, pictures, etc…) that doesn’t directly benefit the interests of large corporations.

It’s why the whole system outside of the Internet is intentionally set up that way. Outside of the Internet the FCC prevents you from using broadcasting spectra to distribute content, only the big corporations can do that.

The laws are set up to prevent restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying unnecessary parasitic third parties huge fees or face ridiculously expensive lawsuits with potentially ridiculous fines, under the pretext that someone ‘might’ infringe.

The government grants monopoly power on cableco use (and the ability to build new cableco infrastructure).

and to prevent the free distribution of any of the content that is delivered via monopolized communication channels, and to help ensure that each iteration of delivered content directly benefits big corporate entities (and doesn’t compete with any other content that they sell), the government also grants monopoly power on the content itself (through copy protection laws), it makes copy protection opt out (which minimizes the amount of freely distributable competitive content, partly by creating ambiguity over what is and what isn’t protected, since there is no centralized way to find out. Just because something says it has a CC license doesn’t mean it really does, someone could have falsely attached such a license), and they make copy protection lengths last effectively forever (minus a day) so that old content can’t compete with new content (even though there is little profit being made directly from the old content).

The government wrongfully grants a monopoly on both content and distribution and it creates laws that effectively ensure that almost all distributed content is monopolized content.

Anonymous Coward says:

I just wanted to comment that this post’s tone is quite different than the usual techdirt articles and I think it does your site a slight disservice. An example of words, phrases and intonation that won’t win you arguments:

– droning
– No sooner had our eyes glazed over
– coaxed various bitchy noises from various Big Content noiseholes,
– incessant complaining
– Honestly, Anthony, your industry can’t fail fast enough.

Comes across more of a whine, than the usual well thought out posts from Mike.

So, in short, Please more Mike, less whomever this is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No better than IP maximalists incessantly calling infringers “thieves”? Claiming colossal and unproven numbers of revenue and job losses? Using my tax dollars and pressuring third parties to do their work for them “or else!”?

I think Mr. Cushing calling it like he sees it is at least genuine.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Oh, come on. Tell me you wouldn’t be thrilled if your local newscaster used “noisehole” or talked about his/her eyes “glazing over” while running down the latest shenanigans at the city council meeting.

There’s always that one crazy person who thinks they need a crosswalk installed mid-street just because their Pomeranian was nearly grazed by a passing vehicle (meaning “said vehicle came within 30 feet of the curb”) and spends 45 minutes citing unrelated local statutes and an informal poll he took at the forums, thus drawing everyone’s attention away from the much-needed renovation of the 5th street parking garage.

“Last night’s city council meeting, as usual, became Harold X’s personal soapbox. Eyes began glazing over immediately nearly as soon as his noisehole opened, pushing new councilman Rick Ephard over the edge and into a deep slumber. In light of this all-too-familiar event, the council has ratified ‘blowhardian’ as the new go-to descriptor.

Harold X. is also expected to speak at this week’s Save Our Ramshackle City Pool potluck dinner. If you’re a fan of droning, be sure and check this out. However, you’ll be facing some steady competition from a newly-reformed Spacemen 3, who have been known to hold an E note for upwards of 45 minutes.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...