The AP wants to outlaw search engine linking? What?

The AP is launching an all out assault on any use of its content that is not licensed (read that as purchased) for use by Internet publishers and search engines.

The AP is not JUST focusing on the blatant violators such as spam type blogs or sites that quote paragraphs without attribution or link backs. On the contrary, the AP is specifically going after bigger mainstream blogs, Internet publications and, believe it or not, search engines such as Google and Yahoo.

The AP believes that desperate times call for desperate measures and that means demanding royalties from any company profiting from any aspect of their content. When Google links to an AP story in a search result with an Adwords ad on the page the AP expects to be paid. Include a rewritten headline link to an AP story, Matt Drudge and you will be sued for payment by the AP. Add a paragraph snippet of content from an AP article in your PaidContent.org blog post and be ready for a call from an AP lawyer demanding their cut of your ad revenue.

From the AP's perspective, the concept of fair use is primitive and counter to their desperate desire to prevent their demise in an ad supported Internet content economy. The Associated Press Board of Directors, which is made up mostly of newspaper executives, has issued a member call to arms against anyone and everyone who misappropriates AP content.

The release quotes AP Chairman Dean Singleton who spoke at the AP annual meeting in San Diego, "The news cooperative would work with portals and other partners who properly license content – and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don't." Mr. Singleton added, "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories."

Thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with the AP on this one? will it have the desired effect for them, or do you feel this is something that will backfire?

the Web Without Links?

Should you be sued for linking?

In an age where the web appears to be getting more and more open, with the rise of data portability and everybody sharing stuff with everybody else, it is fascinating to see that a newspaper publisher is suing another one that is linking to its content.

GateHouse Media Inc., which owns 125 Massachusetts newspapers as well as web properties like WickedLocal.com, sued the New York Times Co.. because its Boston.com-run website "Your Town Newton" was posting headlines and small article snippets from WickedLocal.com.

Now the snippets linked to the original site, but that was not good enough for GateHouse. The company claimed that this created confusion over where the content originated, and leads to readers missing out on advertisements from WickedLocal.com's front page.

It seemed that GateHouse was not considering the very real possibility that readers would never have made it to their site in the first place had Boston.com's site not driven them there. Then readers would be missing out on the ads on the article pages too, and frankly, I can't see how that would help GateHouse's cause. Boston.com offers its parent company's stance on the matter:

In a statement, New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the company is simply doing what hundreds of other news sites already do -- aggregate headlines and snippets of relevant stories published elsewhere on the Web -- and believed GateHouse's lawsuit was without merit.

"Far from being illegal or improper, this practice of linking to sites is common and is familiar to anyone who has searched the Web," Mathis said. "It is fair and benefits both Web users and the originating site."

It was like GateHouse was not interested in expanding its web traffic. Traffic comes from links. And many, many sites drive traffic to other sites by doing exactly what Boston.com did. They show article titles and snippets and link to the original.

Ever looked at a Google SERP? Ever shared a link on Facebook? Ever browsed tech news on Techmeme? Digg? Most publications would love to be linked to via these venues.

The two sides have since settled this little argument, the terms of the settlement can be read here (adobe Acrobat reader required, you can get that here) . Under the terms of the settlement, the New New York Times Co. has agreed to remove all GateHouse feeds that contain headlines and ledes from Boston.com.

GateHouse will implement solutions that prevent the copying of its content from its sites and RSS feeds. "Nothing shall prevent either party from linking or deep-linking to the other party's websites," provided that the other conditions are met. The agreement of course applies to all of GateHouse's and the New York Times Co.'s properties.

So there you have it. It's settled, but the topic is still up for debate is it not? Who would've won this case? Fair use still exists right? As Paid Content points out though, the New York Times Co. is in no position to deal with a lengthy and costly legal battle.

To me, it still seems like GateHouse's loss. It should be interesting to see how much difference in traffic there is after losing the Boston.com links. Yes, they can still "link" to them, but I would imagine the rate of links will be drastically reduced. After this, I'd be surprised if they still wanted to link to them anyway.

Getting your website on Googles 1st page

It's a dream come true for a webmasters site to appear at the top of Google's search results, especially if the website is actually selling a product or service. In a competitive industry this would mean that the orders would start rolling in with such a force that the business would grow incredibly quickly.

Is it all just a dream? NO! Hundreds of businesses do it with regularity, and you can do it for yourself too.

The first and foremost task when trying to get your site to the top of Google is to start link building, not just any old link building but having your keywords included in your "anchor". Anchor links are when the links are actually clickable, if for example you were selling green buttons the link would not be a www link. It would actually say "green buttons".

The next step is choosing the correct keyword phrases for your site. Now most people want to be on the first page of Google for a one word phrase like "Buttons". However, if you only sold buttons made of silver, it would be bringing you the wrong type of customer. It would be best to choose keyword phrases like "Silver Buttons" or "Buttons made of Silver". This would bring you the right type of customer and it your Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) efforts would show results a lot quicker.

Integrate the keyword phrases throughout your site with your best ones on your homepage. Without the keywords on your site, your site will not perform at all.

The next step is to actually go out and get some back links to your site, be smart about whom you get links from, as websites that are relevant to your industry will have far more weight when it comes to giving you good results. Getting a few powerful links with a page rank of 6 or 7 will give you almost immediate results (It's even possible to see your results within just a couple of days!)