Comments on: NLA goes on the defensive over eClips charges as PRCA leads industry fight back

By: NLA vs PRCA on charging for weblinks - round two : PR Bristol

NLA vs PRCA on charging for weblinks - round two : PR Bristol — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:46:50 +0000

[...] Stephen Waddington from Speed communications also put a spanner in the works when he highlighted the increasing use (especially with online PRs) in using RSS feeds or aggregated content on Netvibes (or in our case Pageflakes.) He also makes a good point about the Guardian’s new open source API – will this be exempt then? I would add to this and ask what about online news publishers, blogs and Ohmynews.com that refer to a client’s coverage for example? [...]

By: redeye

redeye — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:42:40 +0000

This is so funny. It’s like watching the music industry implode all over again. All you need to do is watch the battles the RIAA (and the rest) have had trying to pull money from thin air. All that will happen is that new models will come and the original people/agencies will die a slow and bitter death.

The age of free is upon us, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t money to be made.

This is going to be interesting.

By: Mark Hanson

Mark Hanson — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:52:39 +0000

This is a shocker – another exmple of big, lumbering vested interests just not ‘getting’ it. Will even harder to police and enforce than the old cuttings system.

You just can’t fine someone for sharing links.

By: renaissance chambara alias Ged Carroll - Links of the day

renaissance chambara alias Ged Carroll - Links of the day — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:03:11 +0000

[...] NLA goes on the defensive over eClips charges as PRCA leads industry fight back | Wadds’ PR Bl… [...]

By: Steve Earl

Steve Earl — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:49:43 +0000

The NLA has shown itself time and time again to assert misplaced authority over PR agencies with rudeness and a climate of fear.

Yes intellectual property should be protected, but the media industry needs to redefine how it will charge for content. That’s the priority here, not a clumsy and desperate (even laughable) clampdown.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a protection racket, but it’s certainly (in this case) abusing its position in the protection bracket.

By: 10 Yetis Public Relations

10 Yetis Public Relations — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:44:40 +0000

10 Yetis Ponder NLA’s Decision on e-clippings – New Tax for PR’s…

Andy reporting in for a bit of a blog rant and questioning session.

For the last month or so I have been seeing a growing tide of some of the greatest PR Minds talking about the Newspaper Licensing Agency’s proposal to add e-clips to their armoury…

By: Katy Howell

Katy Howell — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:38:58 +0000

So asking one industry to pay for what is free is justified? Or will they be charging Google too? There is no reason for this other than to squeeze PR agencies and their clients. The NLA intends to smother the opportunity to prove the value of online PR to clients, by sucking us all dry at the very sniff of a new PR practice.

I am as delighted as you to see the PRCA stand firmly against this. We need to stand together and protest with a single voice. This must not happen.

By: Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:25:18 +0000

And what happens when someone shares a link on Twitter and a client happens to follow you?

What about using a bit.ly or tinyurl link to divert to that site? In that instance, you’re not sharing the link with the client, but a re-direct. Will they charge for that?

It’s utter ridiculousness and racketeering. How is it ‘copying’ if you are linking to content stored on their servers and not reproduced? You’re not even at the edges of infringing on a trademark if the publication name is in the URL that you’re forwarding around.

Playground bully tactics, pure and simple. They’re trying to steal people’s lunch money and someone needs to step in a put them on the naughty step.