Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:59, 16 November 2009

Revision as of 08:02, 16 November 2009

Line 22:

==Comment and debate==

The project has generated considerable online debate, in the search<ref>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 Search Engine Watch article]</ref>, content<ref>[http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html Shore.com article about ACAP]</ref> and intellectual property<ref>[http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=408&res=1280_ff&print=0 IP Watch article about ACAP]</ref> communities. If there are linking themes to the commentary, they are that keeping the specification simple will be critical to its successful implementation, and that the aims of the project are focussed on the needs of publishers, rather than readers. Many have seen this as a flaw.<ref name="douglas"/><ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ian_douglas/blog/2008/01/23/acap_shoots_back Acap shoots back]</ref>

==ACAP participants==

Publishers confirmed as participating in the ACAP pilot project include (as at 16 February 2007)

* [[Agence France-Presse]]

* [[De Persgroep]]

* [[Impresa]]

* [[Independent News & Media]] Plc

* [[John Wiley & Sons]]

* [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]] / [[Holtzbrinck]]

* [[Media24]]

* [[Neue Zürcher Zeitung]]

* [[Reed Elsevier]]

* [[Ringier]]

* [[Sanoma Corporation]]

==References==