The Chairman of the Associated Press had some sharp words for those darned ol’ Internet interlopers out there. He said he’s “mad as hell” over those who “walk off with our work.” Though Chairman Dean Singleton didn’t exactly specify who he was talking about, according to Politico, the wire agency has been targeting Google, Bloggers and news aggregator sites such as Huffington Post of late.
So, what does it mean? How far will the AP go to protect its work? Are there court cases soon to be seen?
Singleton signaled that the AP is ready to go further to prove that the world’s oldest news organization won’t be put out to pasture by the new media. But Seagrave stressed that while there is an enforcement aspect to the AP’s new initiative, it’s really “more affirmative than punitive.”
And, once again, we come down to questions of what “fair use” means. Is it on solid legal footing? Many say it isn’t.
“In copyright law,” said another attorney who’s represented top media companies, “fair use is one of the major fuzzy lines.”
Now, here is the thing. If we here link a story and then deconstruct it for our readers, if we critique it, doesn’t it almost always lead to the readers here clicking over to the original source so that a comparison can be made between our interpretation and the original? In this case, the original source is still getting credit for the story AND getting traffic to see it. Isn’t it the best of all worlds? Aren’t they losing nothing and actually gaining eyes to their story that otherwise would never blink once at their content?
Seems to me that in the case of bloggers and news aggregators, they are getting free advertising for their work. Now, I can understand that a full copy of a story without linking to the original source would be a violation of use. But bloggers and news aggregators would seem to me to be a boon to the struggling news industry.
In any case, this story is one we should all watch closely because it really could affect us. The AP may not be expected to go after small bloggers, but it surely could go after big sites like NewsBusters.org or RedState.com!
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Exactly right WTH ..
pac_NY (Diary) Monday, April 13th at 8:51AM EST (link)that posts which link the original source typically get read, whereas they might not otherwise be seen.
It seems to me other online publications should be grateful to get more traffic when their articles are linked elsewhere. I don’t fully understand the AP fuss about this.
He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. -Psalm 104:32
I don't believe that "views" of their 'work' is at all important to the AP.
USNJIMRET (Diary) Monday, April 13th at 9:43AM EST (link)What they are interested in is a stranglehold on providing the “news”.
If they should continue to lose money while they pursue the destruction of alternative media, that’s OK. Being “to big to fail” the very people who read alternative media will be forced, through taxation, to help pay to prop up traditional media.
When the courts and legislation has forced all but the AP out of the news gathering and dissemination business, the ONLY ones left will make all the money.
Provide the news in print only AP!
fisk2521 Monday, April 13th at 10:04AM EST (link)The answer for AP is obvious….stop putting their stories on the internet and restrict it entirely to print.
See how that works for them….I find their reporting more left than I can tolerate sometimes anyway.
LDavis
What does ownership mean?
youthgrunt (Diary) Monday, April 13th at 10:44AM EST (link)I have seen various discussions about copyright law with regard to things like this and links to people’s videos, etc.. Many accurately point out that the owner of the property (AP in this case) derive benefit from it being posted in various forms throughout the internet. But the real question is about the definition of fair use. My understanding is that fair use was better defined than what is suggested above, but when anyone wants to tighten their rights everything becomes undefined.
But ultimately ownership means that you have the right to determine the use of your product (exactly why the government telling you what to do with your assets is socialistic, even though they don’t hold the deed to the assets). That includes doing stupid things with your product. So just because the AP gains a benefit from people posting their documents everywhere does not make it right to do it. If fair use is determined to include snippets and quotes (which I think would be a silly interpretation of fair use), then it is AP is well within their rights to be idiots and keep people from using it.
Please forgive
youthgrunt (Diary) Monday, April 13th at 10:46AM EST (link)the numerous typos and awful grammar in the previous comment. I shouldn’t do this between conference calls.