No. I'd say this is the right place for this post.
The AP is pissed that their antiquated business model no longer exists. The AP is behaving more and more like a bully
I've been watching these suits and although I am not a judge I don't think that what Moreover or All Headline News is doing is even illegal.
From I can see is AP is throwing around alot of lawyers claiming "Hot News" ... AP Is proving themselves to be nothing more than a bully and a litigous one at that.. Anyone recall the Getty Images Fiascos!
I don't know that "Hot News" exists like AP is claiming.. Moreover and All Headline News have some very strong arguements in their recents motions and briefs that seriously challenge AP.. You can pull their motions and briefs up on lexis/nexis. Law geek reading!
Content and copyright board is the wrong place for a copyright and content discussion? Where should it be?
I never link and copy anything from these *big bullies* including wikipedia (although wikipedia copied few articles from my site and rewrote with nofollow credit link but I'm not gonna sue them). Just use common sense. There is plenty of stuff left to write with no competition or whatsoever.
Eventus, I respectfully disagree.
There is an update on this link from AP (emphasis added by me):
|Jim Kennedy, a vice-president and director of strategy for AP, sent a statement out about the Drudge Retort situation: |
"The AP wants to fill in some facts and perspective on its recent actions with the Drudge Retort, and also reassure those in the blogosphere about AP's view of these situations. Yes, indeed, we are trying to protect our intellectual property online, as most news and content creators are around the world. But our interests in that regard extend only to instances that go beyond brief references and direct links to our coverage.
The Associated Press encourages the engagement of bloggers -- large and small -- in the news conversation of the day. Some of the largest blogs are licensed to display AP stories in full on a regular basis. We genuinely value and encourage referring links to our coverage, and even offer RSS feeds from www.ap.org, as do many of our licensed customers.
We get concerned, however, when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.
There is more worth reading added to the original link.
More, from E&P, which quotes the NYT:
|Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The AP, now tells the Times that the news organization has decided that its letter to the Drudge Retort was “heavy-handed” and that AP was going to rethink its policies toward bloggers. |
“We don’t want to cast a pall over the blogosphere by being heavy-handed, so we have to figure out a better and more positive way to do this,” Kennedy tells the Times, adding that the AP would sit down with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association.
It's difficult to find an actual price on licensing content from the AP. iCopyright is their rights manager and their site says that it would cost "hundreds to thousands" per month for their media package. Why would anyone pay that when they could just use another source? If the AP is going to turn into RIAA just drop them.
|It's difficult to find an actual price on licensing content from the AP. |
This is a major problem with AP. Even their newspaper clients have this gripe. I predict this will change this year.
|There is plenty of stuff left to write with no competition or whatsoever. |
It's not that people don't have enough to write about. Sometimes, when you cover a particular industry sector, for example, you want to write about what's new and current.
|This is a major problem with AP. Even their newspaper clients have this gripe. |
Newspapers in Ohio have formed an alliance to share complete articles among themselves. I suspect a lot of newspapers are looking for ways to minimize their use of the AP. The AP took a beating over the past years with their altered news photographs, dubious sources in the Middle East, etc.
This is hilarious to me. A news syndication company that doesn't want people to discuss and link to their news items.
Well I think they probably will and do want people to discuss, link to etc their content. But I don't think they want people copying paragraphs of content or pasting entire articles.
I reckon their initial reaction was off.
I have to say some bloggers (forums as well) are terrible for doing this, we often find entire articles - including the photo posted on blogs. Sure they have a link back but so what. People will usually just read the story there (judging by referrals). Especially now when the line between a CMS, Blogs etc are all blurred and many commercial blogs about and even "non-commercial" blogs seem to have plenty of ads.
I reckon the AP will put a word limit or something like that...which seems like fair use anyway.
The more I read the what is happening, and AP's responses and claims the more I think that this is litte more than the AP's attempt to coerce and strong-arm individuals and smaller competitors into paying for unnecessary licensing. A modern day protection racket if you will
The AP is trying to achieve through threat and cost/weight of litigation what it cannot achieve through normal business. I seriously doubt that AP's assertions and allegations are winable...
I am sure that the AP is ticked that their business model is gone. That bloggers, and online news are eating their lunch.
The Internet has obilterated their business model.
Perhaps these the agonal contortions of a dying company? I don't know...
Pretty simple solution, I'll stop quoting AP stories or quote another source quoting the AP. :)
I don't think the Web has destroyed their business model as such. I think it presents challenges to any news agency. Afterall they make by far the largest part of their money in other forms of syndication...as do PA, Reuters, DPA, AFP, etc. Also if you think the AP is pricey try the PA in UK or licensing photos from the premiere league :-)
They obviously have to come to terms with people quoting a headline or paragraph. But I think bloggers and sites also have to be aware they cannot go pasting three or four paragraphs from someone's story without permission. A short quote and a link, sure. But people do go over the score.
Also some of the sites concerned in this are quite big and should really be paying if they are using significant amounts of material. AP are cheap compared with Reuters and others...in my experience.
I think news agencies will have to work out how to license material online a little better. Especially if people continue to migrate from newspapers to online. Though it seems to me, from running a news site, that we are long way from that happening...certainly in terms of revenue.
But their biggest challenge is that people will not usually buy ten newspapers per day but they might visit ten sites. So the same syndicated story is worth less to the publisher as their reader is not isolated. This means it is more beneficial for them to write their own story.
But then their problem is they cannot afford to have reporters and stringers all over the globe (if any at all) so they need a local veted source for the story...but then how can they pay both for a writer to create original copy and the source service and still make money.
Currently what happens a lot is that sites just write the story as their own and don't mention the agency. But "widgetnewstoday" clearly don't have someone in Sichuan or Gaza so they are usually using an agency as a source. It comes to the fore when a big error comes through a wire and is not corrected for a while.
The problem with that is if newspaper circulation really bombs and most news is online how can the agencies make any money if other sites are just riding their coat tales without the costs of having people on the ground etc.
I can even think of several, I won't mention them, 'news agencies' who I know for the fact do not have any reporters actually on the ground. They just rewrite content from AP, Reuters etc and sell it for less.
Interesting times I think.
[edited by: FattyB at 1:58 pm (utc) on June 17, 2008]