Posted 10/15/09 at 08:23:13 PM by Ryan Whitwam

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has some harsh words for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They want the FTC to withdraw the new regulations requiring bloggers to disclose financial ties to companies. The IAB said the rules “unfairly and unconstitutionally” penalize online media, while leaving traditional media untouched. They also invoked the first amendment right to free speech.

The IAB also took issue with the size of the possible fine for violating the rules. The FTC indicated a fine of $11,000 is possible for offending individuals. They later clarified their position, claiming the fine was a “worst-case scenario” that would be used only for chronic offenders.
 
These attempts as calming the concerns of bloggers seem to only be marginally successful. The IAB wants the fines eliminated despite the FTC’s assurances. They say that they aren’t asking for special treatment for bloggers. “Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels,” said Rothenberg, of the IAB. So, is the FTC overreaching, or is the internet overreacting?

Read More

Posted 10/09/09 at 03:20:23 PM by Bart Salisbury

The free lunch of information on the Internet is about to end, if The Associated Press (AP) and Rupert Murdoch’s News Crop. have their way. Murdoch threw down the gauntlet during his opening address at the World Media Summit in Bejing, stating “the aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content.”

The issue, for Curly and Murdoch, is the use of their content in search engines, by aggregators, and by bloggers. For too long, according to Tom Curley, chief executive of the AP, have the likes of Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook gotten a free ride on the backs of the “people who devote themselves--at great human and economic cost--to gather news of public interest.” It’s now time to pay up.

The AP’s position is logical given its present financial situation, and the shifting nature of advertising on the Internet. The AP saw a decrease of revenues, from $748 million in 2008 to $700 in 2009, in part due to a shifting away from traditional news sources. Murdoch, on the other hand, is just being Murdoch, advancing his long held views that news content, regardless of how provided, should be paid for. The Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal online already requires a subscription, and Murdoch is exploring similar options for his other holdings, including The New York Post and The London Times.

If the AP and News Corp. are successful, other news providers are certain to follow. This could be bad news for bloggers, many of who consolidate and interpret breaking information from a variety of sources to keep their readers informed. It would also serve to suppress the relatively free-flow of information the Internet now experiences.

Read More

Posted 10/05/09 at 08:34:04 PM by Ryan Whitwam

Bloggers that endorse products are about to be under a lot more scrutiny. The FTC today has issued new rules requiring the disclosure of financial ties between bloggers, and products/services they review. These changes are the first in nearly 30 years to redefine the relationship between reviewers and companies.

The so called “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising”, say that any material connections must be fully disclosed by the blogger. This could include payments in cash or free products. The FTC made it clear that this was not a blanket decree and that possible infractions would be handled on a case by case basis.

The new rules set out a possible penalty of $11,000 per violation if a blogger should fail to disclose these financial relationships. Though, the FTC didn’t lay out specifics on how bloggers should disclose these connections. The rules take effect December 1st.

Read More

Posted 08/02/07 at 03:41:57 PM by Erin Simon

Or at least they will be, federally, if a new reporter shield law has its way.

Read More