Scoop is concerned with Ethics. In particular an ethical paywall.
It turns out an ethical paywall is about consumers having a conscience and being prepared to pay for what was previously free content. It is about paying for original content if it is used professionally by purchasing a license to use the content.
This is quite interesting as the vast majority of Scoop is press releases which are original content written not by Scoop but by other organisations. In those cases Scoop is essentially the noticeboard on which other people’s content is posted. In that situation professional organisations are paying a license to view the noticeboard and other organisations content which Scoop is now claiming copyright on.
It is a very interesting business model indeed that claims copyright on other people’s work. Even Kim Dotcom, when charging for access to other peoples content on Mega, never claimed that he had copyright on the work that he provided access to.
Is it ethical to claim copyright over other organisations’ original content?