Who took my profits?

This is getting interesting. But I don’t think it will amount to much other than a thought exercise and discussion. So here is the situation. Not too long ago, anyone who watches anything involving news and writing online found out about some protective measures that the AP and others are trying to get the world to buy into. Well, I wrote about it then, and then again when Murdoch said he’d put up a payment firewall on all of his online properties. But since then, we get some quick poking back and forth between The Washington Post, and Gawker, with a nice Stanford Law editor comment. But I think everyone is missing the point. The real point is that anyone who reprints portions of an article from the original presenter is doing the same as they would if they were talking to their friends. For instance:

Dood 1: “Hey, I read this article on Gawker about this totally fake job. Yah, this chick says she can relate to the fat cat suits what we’re all about. She’s way old, like 44 or 90 or something.”

Dood 2: “Yah man, I read about that too, but it was on the Washington Post site. Damn, it was dry, and I hate that site.”

Dood 1: “You should check out Gawker then, cuz they had me rolling on the floor.”

Then, one will go to the Washington Post site, and the other will go to the Gawker site. The Gawker site links directly to the source of their raw material facts like the Law Editor at Stanford is arguing about “the facts” and all is good in the “they didn’t steal my story because they gave me credit” world.

Tah Dah! It is the new Coffee Clutch, the Water Cooler, the Knitting Circle.. what have you.

Except, online, it reaches more people than you can possibly imagine. I once ended up talking to someone from my home town, one street over, but we were in a chat room, with the other person in Iraq, me in DC, the street we were talking about in Escondido, California…and the chat room of course was in a new place… “The Cloud.”

Here is the legal commentary:
“Who owns the News? And Where is your Outrage, Man?”

Here is the Gawker commentary that takes a bit from the WP:
“Generational Consultant holds America’s Fakest Job.”

Here is the WP which did all the hard work of gathering quotes:
“Business Coach Anne Loehr Tries to Bridge Diverse Generations: X, Y, Baby Boomer.”

In the legal commentary side of things, you’ll see that Anthony Falzone takes on the tried and true legal position. One that requires, in my opinion, the most litigation to solve because “Facts” can amount to something tangible if argued properly, like a patent, or indeed a Copyright, or a Trademark. These can all be defended in a courtroom.

The exchange of an idea, with relevant discussion thrown in, can’t be litigated… it just is.