Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:48, 9 January 2018

Revision as of 13:55, 9 January 2018

Line 1:

'''Automated Content Access Protocol''' ("ACAP") was proposed in 2006 as a method of providing machine-readable permissions information for content, in the hope that it would have allowed automated processes (such as search-engine web crawling) to be compliant with publishers' policies without the need for human interpretation of legal terms. ACAP was developed by organisations that claimed to represent sections of the publishing industry ([[World Association of Newspapers]], [[European Publishers Council]], [[International Publishers Association]]).<ref>[http://www.the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq15 ACAP FAQ: Where is the driving force behind ACAP?]</ref> It was intended to provide support for more sophisticated online publishing business models, but was criticised for being biased towards the fears of publishers who see search and aggregation as a threat<ref name="douglas">{{cite web |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/3624601/Acap_a_shot_in_the_foot_for_publishing/ |title=Acap: a shot in the foot for publishing |first=Ian |last=Douglas |date=3 December 2007-12-03 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |publisher= |accessdate=3 May 2012-05-03}}</ref> rather than as a source of traffic and new readers.

== Status ==

Line 27:

The project has generated considerable online debate, in the search,<ref>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 Search Engine Watch article] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070127201118/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 |date=27 January 2007 }}</ref> content<ref>[http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html Shore.com article about ACAP] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021020607/http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html |date=21 October 2006 }}</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 any common themes in 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>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/jan2008/acapshootsback.htm |title=Acap shoots back |first=Ian |last=Douglas |date=2007-12-23 December 2007 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |dead-url=yes |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080907233655/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/jan2008/acapshootsback.htm |archive-date=7 September 2008 <!--alternate archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304085425/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/3624261/Acap_shoots_back/ -->}}</ref>

== See also ==

Line 52:

{{refend}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=JulyJanuary 20112018}}

[[Category:World Wide Web]]