F...the AP

[onlydarksets]

The AP is going after bloggers for posting links to their articles.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0117561394.shtml

Rather than just going after the big aggregators (surprisingly, Google settled), it appears that the Associated Press is going after bloggers for merely posting a linked headline and a tiny snippet of text from the article. In this case, Rogers Cadenhead informs us that the AP sent 7 DMCA takedown notices last week to his site, the Drudge Retort (a site that mocks the Drudge Report). In six cases, a blog post on the site quoted just a small snippet of text from an AP article (between 33 and 79 words -- nowhere near the full length of the article). In every case, they also contained links back to the original AP article. Five of the six used a different headline than the original AP article.

So, posts like this one could put The Warpath in the sights of the AP:
http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post453317

Here are how a couple of other sites are responding:
http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f8/a...ets-89609.html
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/16...theyre-banned/

It's ridiculous, and it's shooting themselves in the foot. What's going to happen to their web traffic if they shut everyone out?

[MTK]

That's just brilliant. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Seriously, what do they have to gain by doing that?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I feel like the majority of AP articles that I read are crap anyway. They almost always seem jumbled and rushed, much like my posts.

Maybe I could be an AP writer.

[saden1]

I can see AP having problems with people posting their clips wholesale but they'd stupid to try and marginalize bloggers via legal means...it's costly and I doesn't work. Besides, if AP articles are off limits they just might quote someone else.

[MTK]

If people are posting entire articles with no link to the source I can see them having a problem with that. But going after those posting a link with a brief excerpt is just retarded and I can't think of any good reason why they would have a problem with that. If anything it's driving traffic to the source and doing them a favor.

[saden1]

Yeah it's really stupid but I suspect if this policy goes into effect sooner or later their customers who are already hurting will ultimately suffer the consequences...I suspect AP will come to it's senses and this is not a fight they want to pick.

[SmootSmack]

Yeah for the past two or three years, the AP has been trying to figure out ways to monetize their online presence. Each idea they come up with is met with resistance and they back down. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens here.

[BDBohnzie]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If people are posting entire articles with no link to the source I can see them having a problem with that. But going after those posting a link with a brief excerpt is just retarded and I can't think of any good reason why they would have a problem with that. If anything it's driving traffic to the source and doing them a favor.

Quoted for truth. Links and small snippets like this will only drive people to their site. And as saden hinted to, the AP is picked up by news sources across the globe. What prevents me from grabbing the quote from The Wash Post or the NY Times, instead of directly from the AP?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

According to the "fair use" doctrine, the owner of a copyright cannot obtain judicial relief if the alleged infringer's use of the copyrighted material is minimal. So, for example, when someone quotes a sentence or two from a book, the author/publisher can't do much about it. Moreover, I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that posting links which re-direct the browser to the copyright owner's site are fair game.

So, while I understand why the AP would go after people who are posting entire articles without links, I have no idea why they would try to sue people who are just posting snippets with links. Not only are they alienating people, but they're highly unlikely to win in court if they are challenged.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

Quoted for truth. Links and small snippets like this will only drive people to their site. And as saden hinted to, the AP is picked up by news sources across the globe. What prevents me from grabbing the quote from The Wash Post or the NY Times, instead of directly from the AP?

Well, ironically, the NY Times owns part of the AP. So I'm not sure how that plays out

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If people are posting entire articles with no link to the source I can see them having a problem with that. But going after those posting a link with a brief excerpt is just retarded and I can't think of any good reason why they would have a problem with that. If anything it's driving traffic to the source and doing them a favor.

That's the crux of it - the people they went after are absolutely within the fair use boundaries, so this is just baffling. Unless you consider that they are absolutely clueless how to build a presence in the internet economy. Which is embarrassing for any company in 2008.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I feel like the majority of AP articles that I read are crap anyway. They almost always seem jumbled and rushed, much like my posts.

Maybe I could be an AP writer.

Yep, also inaccurate and often citing "unnamed sources".

The AP is trash.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I feel like the majority of AP articles that I read are crap anyway. They almost always seem jumbled and rushed, much like my posts.

Maybe I could be an AP writer.

You're too objective to work at AP.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah for the past two or three years, the AP has been trying to figure out ways to monetize their online presence. Each idea they come up with is met with resistance and they back down. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens here.

I want to find a way to monetize the increased use of the word "monetize."