AP Google Spat
May 2, 2009
Forbes.com’s Dirk Smillie wrote “AP’s Curley Has Fighting Words for Google” at a time when dead tree outfits (my way of describing traditional publishing companies) experience a surge in blood pressure. The GOOG and the AP had a deal for content. Money changed hands. According to Mr. Smillie, presumably in the know with regard to discussions between the information giant of the past (AP) and the information giant of the future (Google), the two are having difficulty communication. Mr. Smillie wrote:
The AP and Google ( GOOG – news – people ) have been debating content and compensation issues for months. In an interview with Forbes on Wednesday, Curley warned that if Google doesn’t strike the right deal with the AP soon, “They will not get our copy going forward.” The threat follows Rupert Murdoch’s accusation earlier this month that Google is committing copyright thievery when it borrows material from news stories to assemble search rankings. A few days later, the AP weighed in with a similar charge–though it did not mention Google–announcing a content protection initiative and threatening legal and legislative action against news aggregators.
I am thrilled to be an addled goose paddling on a pond filled with mine draining run off in rural Kentucky. This battle could be Dickensian. The ghost of information past rails at the ghost of information yet to come. We know the outcome, don’t we?
Google wins.
Now let’s think about why this is, in my opinion, the trajectory of this dispute.
First, the financial ground on which the AP (Associated Press) stands is crumbling. The erosion is not caused by Google. The erosion is a consequence of the flow of bits that are tunneling worm holes in the once solid foundations of the newspaper business. Whatever actions AP takes will be similar to the hapless home owners who use sand to shore up shaky foundations. Wrong material. Wrong action.
Second, the Google is an information platform. If the folks with news want to get their information in front of people, Google is a major distribution channel. But, as described in my new monograph Google: The Digital Gutenberg, the GOOG can make it easy for those with content to monetize that information. One of Google’s disclosed inventions allows a partner to use the Google platform to perform many information functions, including monetization. Should Google wish, in a blink (I wanted to use the word nonce but a reader said it carried negative connotations), Google becomes a Swiss Army knife of news. If Google doesn’t take this step, another online upstart will. AP can’t be that upstart. AP can’t stop the trajectory of online information.
Third, it is too late. The AP inked a deal, thought it knew the ropes, realized it didn’t know the ropes were located in a Costco, and now is trying to advantage itself. In my opinion, Google is not too fond of second chances. As a result, the AP is negotiating from a position of weakness. Maybe the copyright lawyers will have an answer, but I think the children of the AP executives and the copyright attorneys will be the generation that decides in favor of the GOOG or a similar service. Let me repeat: Too late. No more flights to Cleveland today.
Do I agree with Mr. Smillie? He’s an objective reporter. I am writing a Web log, and I think that it’s game over for the AP.