Comments on: The Associated Press Declares War on the Online World

By: Darth Venomous

Darth Venomous — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:31:29 +0000

All you brave “I’ll copy/paste and they can’t stop me” bloggers will change your tune when the summons arrives, and you realize you’ll have to mortgage your house just to hire 10% of their lawyer-power.

You’ll cave.

Wanna bet?

By: LwC

LwC — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:13:24 +0000

#60, that is NOT established case law. You cannot simply copy someone else’s work and get around the copyright law by crediting the source. Here is the best explanation of which I’m aware: http://malor.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/what-bloggers-should-know-about-copyright-and-fair-use/ . Gabriel Malor wrote it after a request from Brian Ledbetter, who has written here at PJM about his own battles over copyright and fair use rules.

No laws need to be changed for the AP to protect its written or photographed property.

By: Nosingin

Nosingin — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:11:43 +0000

14. Mike W “No, thank the federal government for the Internet. Without government investment in new technologies such as the Internet and personal computer, you’d still be banging rocks together”

You’re right!! I think Al Gore invented the internet

By: Tom Blumer

Tom Blumer — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:44:12 +0000

#60, that’s also the Obama Economy model.

By: John "birther" Samford

John "birther" Samford — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:31:23 +0000

I was of the opinion that as long as the source is credited, any public use copyrighted materiel is allowed. Since this is established case law, for AP to do otherwise would require the Law to be changed. The new law would be challenged, which would open up a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Back where the rubber meets the road, the AP is losing money. They think that this measure will stop that. It won’t.
As a practical point, the people AP will sue have no money.
One assumes their attorneys pointed this out, which means this move is about intimidation.
It looks like they are going with the Microsucks business model. Fear, Uncertainity, Doubt. FUD.

By: LwC

LwC — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:12:23 +0000

Doesn’t it come down to property rights and whether or not you believe in them? The AP thinks they have something valuable, and worth revenue and therefore worth defending. I think the fact that much newspaper coverage is actually rehashed (or just reprinted) AP reports is exactly the point. They charge their clients for any use of their written material, and want to assert their right to do the same to anyone else who uses their content (property). That so many here find the property for sale worthless is beside the point. If you think it worthless, then don’t buy it. But as in any other commercial transaction, if you don’t pay for the product, you don’t get to use it.

I know the argument is that “information wants to be free” and “once you give it to the people for free (the way newspapers have on the web) no one will want to pay for it.” Maybe. But xeroxing was a verb until Xerox fought to protect their property– the name of their brand. Now everybody photocopies. Just because AP didn’t defend their property from the get-go doesn’t mean that they abrogated the right to ever do so. And maybe web-based competitors will arise who will do the leg work on the ground to generate the stories. It would be all to the good if they did.

News isn’t property– so go to the ball game or to an event and write up your version. And you can generate your own property after reading an AP story– you just can’t copy and paste any part of it. Fair use is a complex concept– it’s not as simple as saying it’s fair use so long as it’s less than 10% (or whatever) of the piece. That said, I don’t know if the AP’s latest salvo would stand up to a court challenge.

AND TO BE CLEAR– property rights cut BOTH ways. If bloggers content/property is stolen by the AP, then the bloggers have the right to defend their rights. Every blogger should have a linking and copying policy published on their site– with one in place, if the AP (or anyone else) violates it, you can at the very least send a threatening letter.

By: Democracy101

Democracy101 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:25:58 +0000

Shouldn’t the AP have to pay for the news that they report as they are using the people within their news articles to generate income? The people used in their news stories should be compensated for creating the news that the AP reports. In the light of what the AP intends to do, this sounds fair to me.

By: Wynne

Wynne — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:14:31 +0000

What is happening at the AP, NYT, network news, etc., is free market culling at its best. Trouble is (as suggested in the article) the administration means to quell the free market. Upholding the hopeless; supporting the unsupportable.

By: David in Knoxville

David in Knoxville — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:09:38 +0000

Hot damn! Now I can get my blatantly-left-slanted news reports in a special “copyright-safe” package! Thank you AP, for saving me from the terrible blogosphere.

If the AP wants paid badly enough to try and keep “their news” out of the public domain, then I think we should pay them. With as little attention and respect as possible.

By: Perry de Havilland

Perry de Havilland — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:02:12 +0000

My blog will link to whatever AP story we wish to, unless it is locked behind a password protected barrier, and add our own comments to that news… and under UK law that is legal “fair use” and if AP wishes to take me to court in the UK, I am totally happy to oblige them. They will lose and, this being the UK, they will the also therefore end up paying my legal costs, not to mention doing wonders for my blog’s readership numbers. Please PLEASE start sending me threatening letters AP. In fact I am now more motivated than even to link the hell out of anything interesting AP does.