Comments on: AP wants $2.50 a word to excerpt its stories now?

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » It’s on: AP sues designer of creepily iconic Obama poster for copyright infringement

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:59:45 +0000

[...] AP’s always been freaky about copyright, as bloggers well know, although in their defense, there’s big money at stake [...]

By: HonestConservative

HonestConservative — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:40:40 +0000

Completely ignore them.

Like trolls, they will go away.

Wait until the Almost Pravda gets a load out of not getting the little attention they get now.

Don’t quote them, don’t read them, don’t use ‘em for fish wrap. If you see them used somewhere, go elsewhere if at all possible for your sources. Let publications know, you have no use for AP. Lets teach them a lesson in economics.

If they dislike what they perceive now to be bad attention, wait until they get a load of NO attention.

By: Right_of_Attila

Right_of_Attila — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:50:02 +0000

I saw a headline about AP owing Michelle Malkin $132,000.
.
Initially, I thought MM was docking Allahpundit for his many assinine articles promoting Atheism on hotair.
.
Too bad….

By: SaintOlaf

SaintOlaf — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:22:57 +0000

Actually the saudi muslims own the controlling interest in Ap.

By: fossten

fossten — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:06:41 +0000

Funny, they don’t look Jewish.

Coronagold on June 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM

How is this not a bannable offense?

By: The Race Card

The Race Card — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:25:04 +0000

Funny, they don’t look Jewish.

Coronagold on June 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM

I hope this guy/gal is gone. I’m sure someone will suggest that I’m missing the humor. They will be correct.

***
It’s going to be funny watching the AP try to file suit on hundreds of people who will flagrantly test this policy.

By: Spanglemaker

Spanglemaker — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:21:22 +0000

Hello, Associated Press? Yeah, hi, I used the words “suck”, “my” and “balls” from three of your articles. Who do I make the check out to?

By: mark24609

mark24609 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:28 +0000

Bloggers should start flooding their blogs and comments with AP links and citations.

Mark

By: infidel2

infidel2 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:37:50 +0000

All we need to do now is to find a way to use AP’s special words as a substitute for gasoline.

By: locomotivebreath (YeeHaw!) 1901

locomotivebreath (YeeHaw!) 1901 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:10:40 +0000

Blogger arrests hit record high & the AP charges admission…

Of course, the AP’s shot across the blog-o-sphere bow is a result of the AP – and by extrapolation, the MSM in general – having their ‘information high ground entitlement’ threatened by the rapid & aggressive growth of this new 21st century internet…

By: Jewels

Jewels — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:31:34 +0000

They’re clearly feeling threatened by this citizen journalism on the nets. Their reaction is to try to bully the bloggers.

Me thinks they don’t know us very well. (Rather, anyone?)

By: roux

roux — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:18:07 +0000

Except they are stealing from the blogs now.

http://patterico.com/2008/06/17/irony-alert-ap-attacks-blogs-for-quoting-their-stories-then-quotes-even-more-extensively-from-blogs/

By: RedWireNut

RedWireNut — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:17:05 +0000

Since 95 percent of what comes out of AP is pure BS, can manure for the spreader be purchased by the ton?

By: James

James — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:49:54 +0000

Wait, Allah, in your post you used some words that the Associated Press used in an article once! I specifically remember that America, worse, game, and laughingstock seem to be trademarked AP words. They never said anything about the order of the words, so you're going to have to pay up.

By: Wizbang

Wizbang — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:03:03 +0000

Hey, AP, Sue This!…

Well, the Associated Press has decided to bite the hand it feeds. It has declared that, in contravention of lengthy legal rulings on copyright, it can charge bloggers who excerpt……

By: Adjoran

Adjoran — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:27:08 +0000

Since “fair use” is the principal issue, when someone begins a side argument based upon a minor issue, it is a useless pursuit.
~
It’s like saying, “Suppose there were no gravity.”
~
The only current guideline for the size of an excerpt qualifying for the “fair use” exemption was the NYT, et al v. Robinson Free Republic case, AFAIK. The standard imposed was 100 words or less, or 25% of the article, whichever was the smaller excerpt, and a link back to the source. But Robinson had been openly defiant of the plaintiffs’ property rights, refusing even to link back to their original reporting and reproducing articles in full after being repeatedly asked and warned not to.
~
There is no reason whatsoever to assume the courts would place so restrictive a limit upon the general public, though. Most bloggers are at least attempting to comply with the law while preserving their First Amendment rights of free discourse. Few make more than beer money off their sites. As a group, they make far more innocent and sympathetic defendants than Jim Robinson did.
~
A court case would be the last thing Big Media would want at this point, I would think.
`
~~~~~~~~~~
`
The AP supplies news feeds to its members for a fee. Originally, it was simply the local reporting from all members being shared over a teletype, and each member had to go through the rolls of paper and decide what they wished to use. Now, AP fields its own reporting teams for major assignments and for overseas duty. It is really only their stories for which AP even owns the copyright. The rest are owned by the members which produce them.

By: THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:54:58 +0000

The Associated Press (AP) Versus The Blogosphere Proves Bloggers Are Winning The Battle For The Title Of “The Press” Our Founders Risked Their Lives To Protect…

A Desparate Associated Press (AP) Seeks To Charge Bloggers For Quoting Portions Of Their Articles
INTERESTING. The Associated Press seems to have no problem at all with grabbing my PUBLICLY syndicated news feed and offering my articles to various news…

By: Tantor

Tantor — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:30:36 +0000

If you buy words from a story by AP that turns out to be of defective quality or enemy propaganda presented as truth, what is their refund policy? Do you get your money back if the story is fake? Or maybe free words from some story in the future that is true? How long do you have to wait for a true story to appear?

What about fake photos? If AP foists some photoshopped photos from some terrorist sympathizer on you as absolutely true, do you get your money back?

I’ve got a lot of questions about this.

By: Wind Rider

Wind Rider — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:18:21 +0000

So, AP to present the AP with the first ever digital darwinism award?

Unless, of course, the New York Times experiences the result of enlightened old school media business model decision making and closes shop first.

And they were probably only aiming for a their foot. They missed and are shooting themselves in the head, instead.

By: The HiWired Blog

The HiWired Blog — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:06:54 +0000

Are they just TRYING to be delinked?…

I figured after the week of fiasco for the AP the couldn’t do anything stupider. I was wrong: The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices……

By: snapped shot

snapped shot — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:59:40 +0000

Holy Cow: AP Caught Stealing from Cookie Jar, Again?…

Blogger Patterico has noticed that the Associated Press lifted 157 words from his blog for one of its recent stories, without compensating him for the exclusive information he provided. This is comical, considering how the Associated Press is in the m…

By: Coronagold

Coronagold — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:46:47 +0000

AP wants $2.50 a word to excerpt its stories now?

Funny, they don’t look Jewish.

By: nottakingsides

nottakingsides — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:23:30 +0000

thuja on June 17, 2008 at 10:05 PM

I’m with ya man. Thanks and I respect all your comments in this exchange.

By: thuja

thuja — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:05:34 +0000

Saying that AP shouldn’t charge fees because it would hurt their business would be an illegitimate argument against their right to charge fees. It’s not even remotely relevant.

Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t make it “tacky and counterproductive”. Nice diversion though.

nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 9:41 PM

I think most of what we have said is due to miscommunication. It’s not that we necessarily agree, but it seems we were both more responding to phantoms we saw in each other’s argument, and I’m probably more guilty. For the record, I completely agree with what you say is “not remotely relevant” above, so we have common ground. I’m sure there’ll be some opportunity in the future to explore the details we actually disagree on. Let’s have each other’s respect until then.

By: nottakingsides

nottakingsides — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:41:41 +0000

thuja on June 17, 2008 at 9:05 PM

I gave numerous reasons following that. You wrote a few paragraphs disputing them, remember?

In regards to the actual use of “legitimate” I said this:

The only legitimate argument against AP’s new policy is “fair use” issues. Why not discuss that more?

I should have added “& property rights”, and used proper grammer but I still stand by it.

Saying that AP shouldn’t charge fees because it would hurt their business would be an illegitimate argument against their right to charge fees. It’s not even remotely relevant.

Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t make it “tacky and counterproductive”. Nice diversion though.