It’s high time to fight the theft of news-related contents, really. A couple of weeks ago, Attributor, a US company, released the conclusions of a five-month study covering the use of unauthorized contents on the internet. The project was called Graduated Response Trial for News and relied on one strong core idea: once a significant breach is established, instead of an all-out legal offensive, a “friendly email”, in Attributor’s parlance, kindly asks the perpetrator to remove the illegal content. Without a response within 14 days, a second email arrives. As a second step, Attributor warns it will contact search engines and advertising networks. The first will be asked to suppress links and indexation for the offending pages; the second will be requested to remove ads, thus killing the monetization of illegal content. After another 14 days, the misbehaving site receives a “cease and desist” notice and faces full-blown legal action (see details on the Fair Syndication Consortium Blog). Attributor and the FSC pride themselves with achieving a 75% compliance rate from negligent web sites taking action after step 2. In other words, once kindly warned, looters change their mind and behave nicely. Cool.
To put numbers on this, the Graduated Response Trial for News spotted 400,000 unlicensed cloned items on 45,000 sites. That is a stunning 900 illegal uses per site. As reported in a February 2010 Monday Note (see Cashing in on stolen contents), a previous analysis conducted by Attributor pointed to 112,000 unlicensed copies of US newspapers articles found on 75,000 sites; this is a rate of of 1.5 stolen articles per site. Granted, we can’t jump to the conclusion of a 900x increase; the two studies were not designed to be comparable, the tracking power of Attributor is growing fast, the perimeter was different, etc. Still. When, last Friday, I asked Attributor’s CEO Jim Pitkow how he felt about those numbers, he acknowledged that the use of stolen content on the internet is indeed on the rise.
No doubt: the technology and the deals organized by Attributor with content providers and search engines are steps in the right direction. But let’s face it: so far, this is a drop the ocean.
First, the nice “Graduated Response” tested by the San Mateo company and its partners needs time to produce its effects. A duo of 14 day-notices before rolling out the legal howitzer doesn’t make much sense considering the news cycle’s duration: the value of a news item decays by 80% in about 48 hours. The 14-days spacing of the two warning shots isn’t exactly a deterrent for those who do business stealing content.
Second, the tactics described above rely too much on manual operations: assessing the scope of the infringement, determining the response, notifying, monitoring, re-notifying, etc. A bit counter, to say the least, to the nature of the internet with its 23 billion pages.
You get my point. The problem requires a much more decisive and scalable response involving all the players: content providers, aggregators, search engines, advertising networks and sales houses. Here is a possible outline:
1/ Attributor needs to be acquired. The company is simply too small for the scope of the work. A few days of Google’s revenue ($68m per 24 hrs) or less than a month for Bing would do the job. Even smarter, a group of American newspapers and book publishers gathered in an ad hoc consortium could be a perfect fit.
2 / Let’s say Google or Bing buy Attributor’s core engineering know-how. It then becomes feasible to adapt and expand its crawling algorithm so it runs against the entire world wide web — in real time. Two hours after a piece of news is “borrowed” from a publisher, it is flagged, the site receives an pointed notification. This could be email, or an automatically generated comment below the article, re-posted every few hours. Or, even better, a well-placed sponsored link like the fictitious one below:
Inevitably, ads dry up. First, ad networks affiliated to the system stop serving display ads. And second, since the search engine severed hyperlinks, ads on orphan pages become irrelevant. Every step is automated.
Think of the benefits for the search engine: instead of appearing as the internet’s biggest looter, it becomes the copyright white knight.
3 / The business model. Publishers pay a fee to have their content tracked. For the biggest ones, the cost/benefit is obvious as the fee is adjusted to the amount of advertising revenue the looters were generating from the abused property. Even better, Google can position itself, once again, as teaming up with the little guy: now, the tiniest hardworking blogger, specialized in astronomy or in sociology, can fight unauthorized use of its work — for a small monthly fee. Alternatively, if Bing choses to become the white knight, such a move could become a powerful differentiator — reality and perception — against Google.
Of course, merely beefing up algorithm-based detection of unlicensed contents won’t be enough to solve the ruinous information piracy problem. Many sites do business by rewriting, processing existing stories into compact, stand alone texts that are entirely self-sustaining, generating loads of page views at the expense of original publishers (see a recent Monday Note Aggregators: the Good Ones and the Looters). This battle will be a long one. But it has to be fought. Serious legitimate money is at stake.
—frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com
Related columns:
- CBS buying CNet, the content equation TweetWhen an aging TV network acquires one of the oldest independent web media properties, what does it mean? Last week, CBS took a major step to increase its internet presence by acquiring CNet Networks for a $1.8bn (euro1.56 bn). Created in 1992, CNet Networks is of the oldest media property on the internet. It runs [...]...
- Google owns 69% of the internet advertising TweetHere is why Google was so eager to buy the ad-server company DoubleClick : their combined market share reaches 69% of unique visitors, according to Attributor, a start-up specialized in tracking monetization on the web (January numbers). The split gives 35% for Google itself and 34% for DoubleClick. And, if we measure by domains (instead [...]...
- Freemium Revisited: Paying For Content-Based Applications TweetLast week, Instapaper’s founder Marco Arment gave us a remarkable insight into the economics of content applications. For readers who haven’t used Instapaper on their iPad or iPhone (preferably on both): this application is an absolute must-have. This is what I call a Real-Life App. Minimalist design, no frills, no “wow effect”. But, in return [...]...
- Bloomberg hires a press veteran as content chief TweetOut of the blue, Bloomberg LLC, the financial news service giant created by New City mator Michael Bloomberg, created a new position to fit the size of its new recruit: Norman Pearlstine. The man is a veteran editor: 22 years at the Wall Street Journal (including 9 at the top news executives) and 11 years [...]...
- The future of content navigation TweetLet’s forget business models and monetization — just for a brief moment. Instead, we’ll focus on one key issue: the interface, the way you access, browse, spot, save relevant information. The interface is pivotal. A good one will allow you to rope in your readers / viewers, and make them loyal to your brand, your [...]...





3 Comments
Just today, I was shocked to discover four articles I had written and sold to a newspaper (that went out of business years ago) reposted on a website with NO CREDIT given to me although the originals clearly contained my byline.
An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing slightly evaluation on this. And he in actual fact bought me breakfast because I discovered it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the deal with! However yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love studying extra on this topic. If doable, as you turn out to be experience, would you thoughts updating your blog with extra details? It’s highly useful for me. Massive thumb up for this blog post!
What an all around incredibly written article…
5 Trackbacks
[...] Frédéric Filloux of the Monday Note addresses the timeframe, saying, “A duo of 14 day-notices before rolling out the legal howitzer doesn’t make much sense considering the news cycle’s duration: the value of a news item decays by 80 percent in about 48 hours.” He goes on to suggest that Attributor needs to be acquired by a larger entity to produce realistic, large-scale results. “Let’s say Google or Bing buy Attributor’s core engineering know-how,” says Filloux. “It then becomes feasible to adapt and expand its crawling algorithm so it runs against the entire world wide web — in real time. Two hours after a piece of news is ‘borrowed’ from a publisher, it is flagged, the site receives a pointed notification. This could be email, or an automatically generated comment below the article, re-posted every few hours.” [...]
[...] is Joomla and I use it for my Web Site Content Management [...]
[...] (MondayNote) [...]
[...] Frédéric Filloux z witryny Monday Note, odnosząc się do kwestii czasowych, pisze: “Podwójne 14 -dniowe ostrzeżenia mailowe przed wyprowadzeniem działań prawnych nie mają sensu, jeśli wziąć pod uwagę cykl życia newsa: wartość danego newsa spada o 80% już po 48 godzinach.” Dalej sugeruje, że przejęcie Attributora przez większego gracza dałoby bardziej realistyczne rezultaty na większą skalę. „Powiedzmy, że Google lub Bing kupuje od Attributora cały kluczowy know-how” – pisze dalej Filloux. „Tylko wtedy możliwe jest zaadaptowanie i rozszerzenie powolnego algorytmu tak, żeby zaczął działać w czasie rzeczywistym. Już dwie godziny po pojawieniu się „wypożyczonej” od wydawcy wiadomości, zostaje ona oflagowana, strona otrzymuje ostrzeżenie – w formie maila lub automatycznie wygenerowanego komentarza pod artykułem, który samoczynnie powielałby się po paru godzinach.” [...]
[...] reprise abusive du contenu des media ou la jurisprudence de septembre qui permet désormais à Google de ne plus [...]