I don't see why aggregators should have to pay for using 'headlines' to point to news websites. Surely it's no different to browsing the front pages in the paper shop before picking up something to kill your impending train journey.
Equally, I wouldn't expect book publishers to demand money from a librarian for helping me find books that may be of interest to me. Fair enough, the aggregators are making money from advertising revenue, but that's for providing a service that the news websites don't, just like the libraries may charge for advertising in their premises.
Charging for the content is one thing, but charging third-party service providers for increasing traffic seems a bit wrong.
I don't see why aggregators should have to pay for using 'headlines' to point to news websites. Surely it's no different to browsing the front pages in the paper shop before picking up something to kill your impending train journey.
ReplyDeleteEqually, I wouldn't expect book publishers to demand money from a librarian for helping me find books that may be of interest to me. Fair enough, the aggregators are making money from advertising revenue, but that's for providing a service that the news websites don't, just like the libraries may charge for advertising in their premises.
Charging for the content is one thing, but charging third-party service providers for increasing traffic seems a bit wrong.
I think the problem comes when aggregators charge a fee to users just to access the list of links. But generally I tend to agree with you.
ReplyDelete