Discussion

By Les Csonge on Jan 08, 2008

How true,

But yet as one door closes a new one opens.

The RISE of Digital Editions (Newspapers, Magazines, Catalogues, Directories, Brochures are taking over from Paper based print.

AS Publishers transmute across this also opens up a brand new wealth
of opportunities for PRINTERS.

Let's face it, it's all about content and readers(viewers).

Printers currently provide a brilliant service in taking those words and pictures and putting them on (printing) paper for distribution.

So why should they not take the same words and pictures (content) and put them on (create) digital editions ?

No need for expensive machinery, ink, paper, storage, fork lifts, etc

Just a simple Online on demand conversion program (PDF to Digital).

By Michael Jahn on Jan 09, 2008

One simple reason as to "why not" is that most people are not familiar with the new rules - for example, you can't simply grap a section of a syndicated television show and place it into a blog without permission.

Beides this disconnect - Newspapers and other print media just don't get that we don't want static words re-fried as digital, we want streaming information, and that is not what newspapers do.

By Tom Stodola on Jan 09, 2008

I think the point is that news media is changing. To lump all "print" into the newspaper industry is misleading. The "digitizing" of the world has definitly changed the way many commercial printers operate, but to remind everyone that the term "print is dead" is statement that goes back to the 1970s when Time Magazine (and others) were touting the paperless office. The digital world has just as many opportunities for the printing industry as endings.

By Mike on Jan 09, 2008

Michael Jahn - I don't think you understand the rule. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" rel="nofollow">fair use numerous times. So you can actually grab a section of a syndicated television show and place it into a blog without permission, so long as it falls within the guidelines set forth in the 31 years old Copyright Act of 1976.

By Michael Jahn on Jan 09, 2008

Yes, I have heard this argument - but if we are speaking of a blog - vs - what AP and Reuters can post as "news" - well, in a streaming world, the rules are indeed changing as is the 'news workflow' - so, who is gather the news has changed (AP and Reuters compete now with Fox news Online - and I would arguee that as the Simpson's are on Fox, perhaps they may take issue to 'what is news and what is "our" news.

By Mike on Jan 09, 2008

http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/" rel="nofollow">Bloggers can be journalists (and journalists can be bloggers). What you seem to be inferring is that bloggers are not entitled to free speech and that bloggers have less rights of fair use then traditional "news" media. Fair use is a crucial feature of copyright law and what keeps copyright from being censorship.

By Alistair Dabbs on Jan 09, 2008

I guess we can expect all the Simpsons comics to close pretty soon, then.