We are on familiar ground here. In fact the outcry from the news agencies are all too familiar.
If my information is correct, news agencies like The Associated Press,Reuters etc., do not pay but they are granted access to events like IPL or even the inaugural speech of the American President. They in turn disseminate information and here is the catch that rankles, this news is subject to copyright and we, meaning bloggers, can be sued if we use it in turn.
This defies logic, firstly why should we pay for information that is for want of a better word 'public'? Secondly, when someone asks them to pay up why do they they threaten to boycott which in effect is a black out, thus denying us information.
To me the stance of the news agencies is incomprehensible, just because they are asked to pay up like ordinary mortals, why are they threatening a boycott?
Can some one explain?
If my information is correct, news agencies like The Associated Press,Reuters etc., do not pay but they are granted access to events like IPL or even the inaugural speech of the American President. They in turn disseminate information and here is the catch that rankles, this news is subject to copyright and we, meaning bloggers, can be sued if we use it in turn.
This defies logic, firstly why should we pay for information that is for want of a better word 'public'? Secondly, when someone asks them to pay up why do they they threaten to boycott which in effect is a black out, thus denying us information.
To me the stance of the news agencies is incomprehensible, just because they are asked to pay up like ordinary mortals, why are they threatening a boycott?
Can some one explain?
[Rigid stance]
2 comments:
Shame! Monopolists!
It is time to revolt. Lal Salaam!:)
Post a Comment