To be honest, I can see where the AP is coming from. They want to protect their content online just as much as they want to protect it in print. And yet, I cannot fathom a way in which they will "hunt down" that many news sources using their content. It seems as though it would be impossible.
Also, it seems as though Singleton is attempting to go against the forces of change when it comes to how consumers get their news. Is he just going to stop putting content online altogether until he gets his money? His news services would be more prominent and useful online whether he was getting paid or not.
At the end of the day it is all a money game. And, I do believe AP will have to charge for their content to appear online, otherwise they will be as at risk as every other news organization.
Here is the thing that I find the most interesting...
Google gets paid by AP, NY Times, and tons of other news organizations to create search capabilities for them. So the newspapers are giving their money to the biggest search database in the world. However, Google repeatedly gets people looking for news through their search engine, where they continue to make money. What I can't understand really is--if the newspapers continue to pay money to Google to display their content, but they can't afford to stay afloat, will the news then go solely to a service like AP, who refuses to let their content be used online without payment? Seems like a sticky situation.
