We need Pols and Post
Here’s an exchange on Colorado Pols about The Denver Post’s decision to threaten legal action against Pols:
Jason Salzman: free content
You can understand why The Post would want to try to protect its news content, even if it’s being offered for free.
It’s one thing to read a article from Westword for free. It’s another to put it on your website and generate ad revenue from people who go to your website because they know they’ll get to read good stuff from Westword.
I’m not saying Pols is making a killing at the expense of the Denver Post, but theoretically opinion blogs could make money doing this–while fewer people would subscribe to the journalistic outfits like The Post or even click through to their websites.
So if you own The Post, you’re not likely going to want to stand around and watch others give away your content for free, even if you’re giving it away for free yourself on your website. You’re going to want to draw people to your website somehow, by asking others to respect “fair use” of your content. The Post went beyond this in its letter, of course, trying to ban Pols from all quotation, but you can understand the Post’s motivation.
But still, your readers and everyone else are better off if both Pols and The Denver Post exist and thrive because The Post does reporting/journalism that benefits society, is often not found elsewhere, and makes the content on Pols more informed and stronger.
And the freewheeling debate/discussion/gossip (and some reporting) on Pols makes our feeble political culture stronger–and The Post healthier too in the end.
So what we need is both Pols and The Denver Post. But instead we have a battle between Pols and The Denver Post.
I’m not blaming Pols for being pissed. Like I said, it’s a shame the Post apparently sent in the lawyers without more effort at reconciliation–and took the hostile no-quotation-at-all stance. Makes it look like The Post is desperate, which is probably the case.