5 comments

• 

  billenator

  1 year ago

  Dave - I would agree that this is more a question of money than it is of fair use. It is no secret that AP and old school media totally got it wrong when it came to the web. Many in paleo-media viewed the web as nothing more than a fad...
  
  What happened, thanks in part to your role in RSS. is that old world media (this includes the AP) got left behind and entire new business models passed them by. That's too bad because in all the AP does a decent job and although antiquated we need organizations like them.
  
  However I believe that the AP has been acting badly... They've filed lawsuits. sent outrageous DMCA and legal demands etc. From what I read on the DMCA and the actual posts in question I would argue that they fall squarely in the realm of fair use.
  
  What this looks more and more like is that the AP considers that they are entitled to "Own the news", Not just the expression of the news but the "facts of the day" or as AP's chief strategist called it "conversation of the day" as well.
  
  What it looks and smells like to me is that the AP is trying to strong arm and coerce bloggers, the aggregators and online news into accepting terms that no court would ever grant them. The AP is probably willing to bet that not too many people have the resources or willingness to mount a defense.
  
  AP has some suits pending with competitors that are on shaky ground and these companies are presenting some extremely compelling motions and arguments... Take a moment to read the motions (they are available from legal libraries or through the court systems)
  
  In the end this is all about money to the AP and like the predator that they are they'll try to hunt the weakest prey first.
  
  It's pretty sad that Cadenhead decided to kow-tow, I think he's right. But he's also concerned that he can't mount an effective defense against the 800lb AP gorilla and there would be bad caselaw.. got to credit him with that i guess.
  
  In the end.. it's all about the money...dontcha know.
  reply
• 

  mikesax

  1 year ago

  Fair use is based on the idea that you can take a little bit of a work and it won't harm the owner of the work substantially. I have some sympathy for AP in this because in news, the link and the quote are 90% of the value (even though it's only a small percentage of the content).
  
  Does it make sense to redefine what fair use means? I think it does: It's better to lead with common sense than let the situation get polarized.
  reply
• 

  chrisbaskind

  1 year ago

  There's a difference between wholesale plagiarism -- which is pretty common online -- and a brief headline + summary. I hope cooler heads prevail here. But the reports we're hearing today seem to contradict the AP's own Stylebook appendix on what constitutes Fair Use.
  reply
• 

  kenlefeb

  1 year ago

  I use both approaches: "quote & link" as well as "full quoting" depending on my audience. I tend to quote the whole article when I know the recipient of my comments about it, are not going to click a link. They might still not read the article when I include its contents, but at least it was flashed in front of their eyes and maybe something will jump out and make them stop to read it... :)
  
  Most of my regular readers read my blog because I'm a friend or family in real life, not because they read blogs in general. I think this is a legitimate use of the content (it's always well attributed with links back to the source), and in fact gets the original authors more exposure than they would get otherwise. (Well, "more" is relative, right? They won't notice any great surge from my tiny corner of the world!)
  reply
• 

  Joshua_Whalen

  1 year ago

  If someone with the time and patience were to put together a legal fund to fight this, I would happily contribute asome $$$, and also a list of some good civil rights lawyers I've worked with.
  
  Something I've been waiting to see emerge from the blogosphere, and which I think is a natural outgrowth of the political blogging and netroots fund-raising apparatus that's evolved the last few years, is the ad-hoc legal fund. I don't have the time right now (last few weeks of a major development project) or I'd volunteer, but I've discovered this past year that I can't balance thaqt kind of commitment with my other responsibilities right now. Soon, maybe, if all goes well.
  
  None the less, Rogers Cadenhead shouldn't have to fold just because he doesn't have the dough. We all collectively do have the dough. We didn't cave in to the republicans, and look what we've accomplished! This is doable also.
  reply