I wasn't sure where to put this so I settled on here. If the MODs feel differently, then please move it.
The Cincinnati Enquirer today talked about the increasing challenges they have today with the issue of print media vs online content. The issue is the print media is something its customers pay for whereas the online stuff is being given out for free. In an evolving effort to deal with this new reality the paper has decided that they will begin labeling certain articles as "First in Print." Any article with that heading will have a 24 hr delay before it appears in the Online version. This is meant to give the print customers a "perk" over what the online moochers (my word, not theirs) get. One such example of this is a scathing article by John Fay about how Brandon Phillips is a Prima Donna. I mentioned this article in the Old Red Guard.
In the Forum section, the Enquirer editor talks in depth about what to do about this issue as papers are grappling for money. He goes on to talk about an issue that may or may not directly effect this site. The problem is that a paper like his spends big bucks paying its writers as well as their travel costs and other expenses to deliver a story and then other sites take their news story and reprints it. The following quote was in the article:
"online-only 'new-media' operations regurgitate a lot of our work and some news releases but do little original reporting"
And this is where Redszone may or may not be effected:
In an attempt to track down such content parasites, the Enquirer and Cincinnati.com now employ technology that scours the media landscape for illegal use of our content. In recent weeks, we have sent warnings to several blogs, Web sites and radio stations.
We are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore
This is where I admittedly have more questions than answers and I invite input from MODs and others.
Are there guidelines we need to follow when posting content from Cincinnati.com?
Does the fact that this site now has a system in place where it either charges its readers or sells ads complicate things? In other words can the Enquirer make a case that money is being made by this site if it posts articles from the Enquirer that could in turn generate more traffic to its site?
Have we (as a site) gotten any warnings?
This is a very complicated issue and I for one think we're living in a golden age where we get so much free stuff online. I am amazed that I have over 5 pages of free Apps on my i-pod. I get everything from 14,000 radio stations to sports scores to weather reports to international news and multiple entertainment sources for free. I don't think this will continue and the print media in particular can't continue to give this stuff out for free, but on the other hand we the customer are holding the cards right now. I kinda feel sorry for a guy like CTrent who is trying to make a living putting stuff on a website that can be accessed for free as well as pasted on this site for all of us to read for free. It's great for us but I don't see how it can continue indefinitely.