I'm interested in this snoops, so I hope you don't mind me playing devils advocate.
My first obvious question is, don't Vimeo and YouTube make money from videos posted, is that acceptable because they provide hosting, if 321 provided hosting for polo videos would you like what they did?
In relation to the white paper, but I'd say the main difference between the polo video's and news is that the creatives in the news sites are employees of the publishers, so even if you argue against fair use (I think the transformative nature of the site and almost entirely documentary style videos mean the case for fair use is close to irrefutable), you can't argue that 321 is stopping any of them from making money. It does look like the 'in the news' thread is probably breaching copyright though!
Obviously I've only read your links, so my opinion is mostly based on them.
News in the uk is in massive decline, and that is partially because of the availability of news on the Internet. Personally I find it difficult to understand how so many quality papers existed in the uk... I don't know of another country with as big a news industry? But there will always be professional journalists in the uk (the beeb and laws about media time spend on news ensure that) so I think your suggestion that aggregators will end reporting/art/documentary is a bit extreme.
I'm still a bit on the fence... When I want news 2 of the three places i go to are aggregators (this forum and google news, the other being the beeb) frankly the click-through's from the aggregator's are the closest I've ever been to paying for news (before the Internet all my news came either from the beeb or the oldest aggregators, other people).
I'm interested in this snoops, so I hope you don't mind me playing devils advocate.
My first obvious question is, don't Vimeo and YouTube make money from videos posted, is that acceptable because they provide hosting, if 321 provided hosting for polo videos would you like what they did?
In relation to the white paper, but I'd say the main difference between the polo video's and news is that the creatives in the news sites are employees of the publishers, so even if you argue against fair use (I think the transformative nature of the site and almost entirely documentary style videos mean the case for fair use is close to irrefutable), you can't argue that 321 is stopping any of them from making money. It does look like the 'in the news' thread is probably breaching copyright though!
Obviously I've only read your links, so my opinion is mostly based on them.
News in the uk is in massive decline, and that is partially because of the availability of news on the Internet. Personally I find it difficult to understand how so many quality papers existed in the uk... I don't know of another country with as big a news industry? But there will always be professional journalists in the uk (the beeb and laws about media time spend on news ensure that) so I think your suggestion that aggregators will end reporting/art/documentary is a bit extreme.
I'm still a bit on the fence... When I want news 2 of the three places i go to are aggregators (this forum and google news, the other being the beeb) frankly the click-through's from the aggregator's are the closest I've ever been to paying for news (before the Internet all my news came either from the beeb or the oldest aggregators, other people).
Tl;dr