Posted on 11/21/2009 12:38:13 PM PST by rface
Well, it would seem that the AP is all for fair use … when it applies to them........No matter how you slice it, the AP copied Palin's book (without permission), distributed it (without permission) and now stands up to say it was all done under fair use..........
The Associated Press has essentially claimed there is no such thing as ‘fair use’ when it comes to quoting its articles or reprinting its headlines, but when the news organization scans an entire book, then fair use does indeed exist.
Bloggers and news aggregation sites such as Google News have felt the wrath of the Associated Press (AP) for some time now for quoting headlines from the news agency or any portion of its articles. The AP has gone so far as to suggest it would start billing bloggers per quoted word for anything pulled from its articles. While both headlines and small quotes from articles are well protected under the fair use doctrine in copyright law, the AP has essentially ignored the concept with its actions.
Well, it would seem that the AP is all for fair use … when it applies to them.
Talking Points Memo got a look at a weekly internal AP newsletter that details how two AP reporters managed to buy a copy of Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue five days before its release date. The AP staff then ripped the book from its spine and set about scanning the book so that twelve reporters could share the copy and begin fact checking it.
The problem is not with the fact that the AP did this, the problem is with the fact that it is being so hypocritical. No matter how you slice it, the AP copied a book (without permission), distributed it (without permission) and now stands up to say it was all done under fair use. Unfortunatly the AP is technically correct on everything that is being said in regards to its use of the book, but, in the meantime, enemies have been made all across the blogosphere because we are not allowed to quote AP stories without possibly being charged for doing so.
Quoting has always been, and always will be, an essential part of journalism. So long as credit is given, it clearly falls under the fair use clause, and the AP would be well served to remember this. If it can claim fair use, why can’t the rest of us? The problem is that the AP would lose if a blogger was ever taken to court over not paying for using a quote, but does anyone really want to be the test case for that?
The AP needs to remember what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Copy all the books you want in the name of journalism, but stop threatening bloggers for using quotes if it is also in the name of journalism.
-—”Gee. Funny thing that he was elected twice. Guess that doesn’t count.”
Nice try, but he was BARELY elected both times. Nohwere near a Reagan landslide. Face it, he was not a strong candidate for the conservative cause and he was also horribly inarticulate.
And the anti-Bush venom was so strong by the end of his second term that he single-handedly lost many votes for conservatives in the fight against Obama. Many people I’ve known to be rational actually voted for Obama as a reaction to the Bush era.
Being articulate doesn’t translate into being slick or speaking like you’ve camped under the ivory tower. It means being able to convey ideas with linear thought processes. Palin’s speaking style is all over the map. Her brain jumps around from this to that.
-—” Look, if you don’t like Palin for some visceral reason, just go ahead and say so. As in, “I just don’t like her.” Go ahead, you can say it. But there’s no need to make up stuff so as to fabricate a specious reason. Did you ever see the newsreel clips or read the transcripts of any Dwight Eisenhower press conferences...??? “
Your logic is similar to that of a Libbie Obama KoolAid drinker:
1. So what if Ike Eisenhower was a bumbler when he spoke? Does that justify that we should choose someone who speaks in run-on, non-linear sentences? Your logic is just like a liberal who uses one bad to justify another (well if my neighbor is on food stamps and they’re a good person, maybe I should be too).
2. It’s not that I don’t like Palin for visceral reasons and make up stuff. I told you why she won’t make a good candidate (her scattered, run-on verbalizations).
Of course she’s got the right values and she’s a fighter. Those are good things. But on balance, I’m just saying we can find a stronger candidate. You’ll see. I predict the public is going to grow tired of her.
But he was still elected - twice. Which totally negates your argument. Sorry - nice try.
AP = ALL PUKE!
I have now watched the video, along with six others of Congressman Rogers, and he seems at least satisfactory (i.e., an improvement over McCain and Bush, and a HUGE improvement over the socialist we're stuck with at the moment). His votes are also fairly close to my positions on many issues, but not on all the big ones:
# Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
# Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
# Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
I'm a little concerned about his pro-"Stimulus", pro-TARP votes, although I need to do more research before I decide to hold that against the gentleman from Michigan - home to Detroit.
Speaking style is hardly the primary qualification for the Presidency. In terms of priorities, it rightly ranks somewhere south of number ten.
It may be that it helped Obama get elected, but it's a pretty shallow reason for casting a vote. And it doesn't appear to be helping him govern.
2. It’s not that I don’t like Palin for visceral reasons and make up stuff. I told you why she won’t make a good candidate (her scattered, run-on verbalizations).
Why, then, does she attract such large crowds to hear her speak?
Look, I'm not a committed Palin supporter. She's on my list, yes. But, by the time 2012 rolls around, there will be others. I'm not saying I'd necessarily vote for her in the primary, but I wouldn't have any qualms about voting for her in the general (as I did McCain -- who wasn't a bad speaker, I just didn't like what he was saying).
Nonetheless, I'm fascinated by the reactions of the Palin detractors. I simply can't explain it. I've yet to hear a remotely credible reason for such outspoken negativism -- from a Democrat or a Republican, when they've even attempted to voice a reason.
Peggy Noonan and Katharine Parker can't explain it, either...
So, you don't like her. Leave it at that. "Run-on sentences" are frankly a silly reason to form a political opinion.
Would you kindly FReep mail Jim Thompson for me? I would like to request the complete AP articles (no excerpting), posted on this site from now on.
Thanking you in advance...
5.56mm
Reading comprehension skills needed (on your part)...
If you read the thread and my postings, you would understand the intent was RUNNING in 2010 (for the 2012 elections) as most candidates start the process in 2010. Palin has apparently started to run in 2009, but just hasn’t announced it.
If you choose to diss my posting on such an odd, minor technicality, you’ve lost the debate.
As I’ve said to others here, they should at least understand that other potential candidates that will come up. While Palin has the right ideas, she’s horribly provincial and is apt to make more blunders as she continually comes across as ditzy.
I’d rather put my stock in a conservative candidate who comes across as like the Rock of Gibralter as Reagan did. Sure he had misspeakings occasionally, but overall was very dependable to be able to articulate and defend conservative principles.
-—”I have now watched the video, along with six others of Congressman Rogers, and he seems at least satisfactory (i.e., an improvement over McCain and Bush, and a HUGE improvement over the socialist we’re stuck with at the moment). His votes are also fairly close to my positions on many issues, but not on all the big ones...”
Thanks for having an open mind and checking it out. You raise some good points about his TARP/Stimulus votes last year. That’s a tough one! I agree with you that I’m not happy about those votes either.
In an ideal world, we all would prefer a candidate who thinks just like ourselves, but that is so hard to find.
In spite of Roger’s votes on those issues, I would still vote for him over Palin, simply because I think he can be the type of pitbull we need.
Settle down. No personal attacks here.
1. If you can show me where any of my posts have “commie propaganda” I’ll buy you a new car. That’s simply ludicrous. I despise President Narcissus, the marxist usurper (no-birth certificate) of the office POTUS just as much as you do.
2. There is nothing in my posts that would indicate I like BO better than Palin. If you think so, your comments are delusional.
3. What makes this country strong is discussion and debate. Obviously you don’t want to have a civilized debate. Just because someone used to like the candidate of your choosing (in Sept/Oct 2008 I did like Palin), but thinks we can do better than her doesn’t mean I’m a liberal. Why is this so hard to understand?
They were in such a tearing hurry they couldn’t even manually press each page to the photocopier.
nti-alin
Did you get your $300 million from Reid (cadaverous cretin-NV) yet?
Cheers!
You are 100% right, but only because the next Presidential election is in 2012.
I think she has a fair shot at it in 2012.
No surprise there from Liberals. They have always been hypocritical about money. Everyone else must give up some of their wealth, but not them
ap=al qaeda press. Evil bastards all. Need more damage... photo shop... need a quote... make it up... need a lie... print anything put out by the Whitehouse.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.