Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2013
Clear
16°/4°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2013
Clear
13°/5°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2013
Clear
13°/5°

14 Comments

news

A Licence to Print Money For Canadian News Sites

20100121licensing1.png
CBC.ca’s licensing system for emailing articles.


Thanks in part to the internet, people are consuming more news than ever before, which is great—except for the fact that the news industry has yet to find a way to turn online readers into a sustainable source of revenue.
Faced with cutbacks, declining newspaper subscriptions, and the possibility of extinction, news organizations everywhere have been experimenting with different sources of income, such as licensing. For more than a year now, CBC.ca, the Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star, have been using iCopyright, a Seattle-based online copyright licensing service, to license their content to users.
Here’s how iCopyright works: if you want to print an article from your printer, just click the little print icon beside any story, and an iCopyright window pops up asking you how many copies you’d like to make. Printing is free, as long as you’re making fewer than six copies. If you want to print six or more, iCopyright asks you to pay per article. The system works the same way if you’re trying to email an article, and it can also be used to quickly purchase republication rights.
Of course, this is all voluntary, as the service works on the honour system. If you don’t want to pay, there’s nothing stopping you from refreshing your browser and printing off more copies or copying and pasting the text into an email. In fact, it’s so easy to bypass iCopyright’s system that it’s a wonder that it’s even implemented at all.


20100121licensing2.png
The Globe and Mail‘s licensing system for printing articles.

iCopyright’s website trumpets its service as a non-invasive source of revenue and as an anti-piracy tool, but as Torontoist learned, its clients are more interested in the system’s money-making potential than its ability to protect copyright.
“It’s not so much a piracy issue as it is a recognition of the fact that we’ve got financial issues,” Jeff Keay, the CBC’s head of media relations, told Torontoist. “The fact of the matter is that our subsidy hasn’t changed over the years—it has eroded in an inflationary environment—and we’ve got to come up with creative revenue streams to help fund some of the things we do, particularly CBC.ca, which has grown enormously.”
Robin Graham, the managing director of Torstar Syndication Services, also views the service as a revenue stream, but has been a tad disappointed with its performance so far. “iCopyright had approached the Toronto Star and they had told us about their service, and they said that they could help us earn revenue with online licences,” Graham told us. “It hasn’t produced as much revenue as we thought it might.”
News sites have a right to protect their copyrighted materials, but these licensing schemes are unlikely to dissuade pirates or generate much profit, and in an age where information usually travels fast and freely, they’re really only a hindrance that limits a site’s potential reach.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

[pinit] Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://dandmb50.tumblr.com/ dandmb50

    I read about this kind of service with the New York Times, but they have a service for their online site which allows you to sign up for “premium” service where you pay a fee to view their online content. And soon they will charge just to view their site. Anyone does that they will lose my business and I will never pay to view it online. Why don’t they just increase their advertising rates, isn’t that how they are suppose to make their money? It’s all around us the TV stations are crying they aren’t getting paid for carriage of services, give me a break. They run advertising don’t they, for as long as I remember the TV sent their signal out on the free airwaves so they could get people to watch. I think everyone is just getting greedy, not trying to survive.
    What have the newspapers been doing with the income from their online papers for the last 5 years?
    Make cuts but don’t mess with the online community, you will regret that.
    Daniel ………. Toronto
    http://dandmb50.tumblr.com/

  • http://undefined Swarley

    Have you missed the collapse of the advertising industry? Newspapers that have been around for decades going out of business? They’re not getting greedy, they’re trying to survive in a rapidly changing industry.
    The attitude that you should never have to pay to read a newspaper’s website is slightly ridiculous, why shouldn’t they get paid for their work? You can certainly visit other websites, but I think this will become a growing trend. I’d certainly be willing to pay a reasonable fee (a few dollars / month) to read a quality paper like the Times online.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Daniel, the TV stations are crying legitimately, because almost no one watches ads anymore, so advertisers pay less for the same airtime.
    I use AdBlock Plus, a FOSS ad blocker for Firefox, as well as Bug Me Not to get through the NYT paywall. As I see it, some inevitable facts:

    • Free software being what it is, no one can or will kill these sites/plugins/applications in which the plugins run. Reciprocal blocking of users by sites can not solve this problem.
    • Rupert Murdoch is right, at least, in that paywalls will not work unless universally implemented. Partial implementation will push readers to other (usually lower-quality) news sources.
    • It being business, some companies will see (real or illusory) economic advantage in not implementing paywalls.
    • From the two above points, paywalls are not a solution.

    The root problem is that journalism is ill-served by being considered a commodity. I suspect no amount of creativity can produce enough revenue streams to support good, unbiased, serious news.
    We have an opportunity, in the CBC, to treat good journalism as a public utility, an element of our democractic infrastructure, and to fund it without any expectation that it compete on equal terms with private “infotainment” conglomerates. To me, this is the only solution; it needs a political champion.
    For private news, the situation is a lot worse. If they are well-diversified, they can make the noble but economically unwise choice subsidize journalism with profits from their other market segments. Many more opt for cuts. I have no clue what a real solution for private news would look like it, but I really do hope brilliant minds are working on it.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Incidentally, if the Torontoist staff are reading this, a handy trick might be a big button that says “If you love us, exempt us from your ad blocker!” and does so automatically (else explains how).
    A friend shared this link: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

  • http://undefined Sergei

    The issue with newspapers and other news sites is that they think we are dumb. There is really not that much original content on their websites. Check Google News and you will notice that the same AP story is published by hundreds of newspapers with placeholders for the newspaper name filled with different name in each instance.
    At the same time all these news outlets want to (or have to because of the unions) keep all these journalists and editors even though each does not create all that much content. Thanks to the Google News we now can see that usually there are just a few original stories, while the rest of the publications just reprint the same thing (and often without attribution to the original news source) and want us to pay for it.
    All in all there are just too many “news” outlets out there and they all have to share this slim money flow streak, eventually some will have to die.

  • http://undefined Marc Lostracco

    I use AdBlock because some people can’t behave themselves and ruin it for everyone else. I’m talking to you, 680 News, Toronto Star, and autoplaying audio National Post.

  • rek

    Good luck with that, old media.
    Information wants to be free.

  • http://undefined spacejack

    HA, government-funded news organizations aren’t biased??
    This story is as old as the web, and journalism isn’t nearly as dead as they thought it would be 10 years ago. In fact it’s a hell of a lot more diverse.
    News organizations are in the process of adapting. They’ll eventually reach a point of equilibrium and then start improving from there. The worst thing we could do now is kill off innovation with government intervention.
    Will this particular idea work? Maybe not. But they’re experimenting. That’s exactly what we need.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    If the CBC were properly funded, it could afford to produce reports from multiple perspectives on any given topic. It also would not have to choose to omit coverage of certain stories that would display bias.
    Compare with the BBC, which is widely respected in part because it’s not on a starvation budget. Its per-capita funding is twice that of the CBC.
    Someone will always attempt to derail discussions of merit by alleging bias in whichever news source is being referenced, so the best any organization can hope is to draw the same amount of criticism from all political stripes. Both the BBC and CBC seem to doing fairly well in that regard.

  • http://undefined joeclark

    You don’t need a licence, or anybody’s permission, to duplicate a news article for research or private study. It’s covered under fair dealing, which the Supremes expanded considerably in the CCH case.

  • http://undefined spacejack

    Give me a break. The CBC IS properly funded. It’s over funded. They throw away all their money trying to be a commercial-style station. But I’ve ranted about this before and it’s off topic.
    You actually see no conflict of interest relying solely on a government-funded journalism on topics of, say, whether or not the government should be funding such things? Or even in the general case? It’s a fundamental ideological divide that touches just about every topic they’re likely to cover.
    And yeah, the CBC is obviously biased if you’re not a leftist. You may as well say the Post has no bias.

  • http://undefined Rodney

    I agree that we need more than the CBC to support Canada’s news industry, but where do you see the diversity in journalism? Where is Canada’s ProPublica, or Spot.us? There are a couple new start ups in Toronto here but I’m not seeing the experimentation that everyone says is happening, at least in Canadian journalism.

  • http://undefined rek

    “They throw away all their money trying to be a commercial-style station”
    But they don’t have the funding to go commercial-free, so they have to deal with ratings, which means buying and airing shows that will attract eyes and therefore ad revenue.
    I’d love CBC to be like the BBC, but I also don’t want to spend $1000 a year on a television license.

  • http://undefined Matt

    £142.50 per year per household actually.