Comments on: How Mashable & Hacker News Ripped Off My Newspaper Story

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:04:42 +0000

Man I loved reading your “Thinking of dropping your link spam” Fantastic!

By: Dr James

Dr James — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:23:57 +0000

This whole story totally puts me off releasing good articles for linkbait reasons. My last one took about 18hrs to write and got stolen within 2 days of release.

By: Tim Cohn

Tim Cohn — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:42:25 +0000

Does Wired need to added to your headline too?

The AP has a web interface to buy their words by the word ($12.50 minimum) http://bit.ly/6tqsX. Salvation, or “good luck with that?”
3:23 PM Aug 2nd from Tweetie

Assuming all Tweets times are UTC, your original Tweet preceded Wired’s by a full day.

I saw their tweet RT, then retweeted their Tweet and because I couldn’t find an original article on the Wired site then asked Greg Sterling if he had seen the “new” AP service.

He replied he hadn’t.

He then wrote a piece about it.

PaidContent’s Rafat Ali then chimed in and said the service has been in use since April.

http://gesterling.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/ap-debuts-online-payments-form/

My head is starting to hurt thinking about how your original story could have miraculously gone through all those retweetings only to make it back here to you again in its present iteration.

By: Gary Stock

Gary Stock — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:06:55 +0000

When do *we* organize? Nexcerpt has parsed 110M articles over the last eight years — and we’ve sent new (otherwise unattainable) clients and page views to the media and agencies where those articles reside. When does *AP* start compensating *me* for promoting snippets of their content around the world, around the clock?!? Hmmm… maybe AP resents the fact that we sift them in with 6,000 other resources — as diverse as Corn And Soybean Digest, or Doctors without Borders — all receiving *equal* exposure! Maybe, AP wants to put news monitoring services out of business, so they can dominate and “own” the news again…?

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:29:11 +0000

Thanks, Bob — got it fixed, cleared up a few other typos.

By: Bob Mutch

Bob Mutch — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:09:48 +0000

Danny it should say… “He’s either got pretty stiff email filters or is just so swamped with email he can’t respond to everyone.”

There are a few other editing mistakes in the above piece but this one changes the meaning.

You can just delete this comment if you want.

Bob

By: Mandy Jenkins

Mandy Jenkins — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:24:21 +0000

Great post, Danny. Thanks for linking to my post on the subject as well.

The AP’s policies and the Marburger plan are set up to benefit only the big, mainstream news operations while limiting their smaller online-only competition. I work for a newspaper and you wouldn’t believe the amount of people who seem to believe changes to media law will “save them” without them really having to change or innovate. It’s maddening.

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:44:43 +0000

Yep, totally tongue in cheek. News flows around often, and it can be hard to pin down an exact source. That’s one reason when the AP and some other mainstream outlets suggest they’re somehow the originators of news, this isn’t always the case.

By: Pete Cashmore

Pete Cashmore — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:19:26 +0000

Great article, Danny.

Obviously your title is tongue in cheek, but for those not following: Mashable wrote the story based on the Hacker News thread that links directly to the AP pricing page, and there’s no way to see from that source that Danny was involved in bringing the story to the fore. We’re all about giving credit where due.