Posted on 06/17/2008 2:28:24 PM PDT by shrinkermd
...The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles — as few as five words…
The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.
The AP notice can be found: HERE.
LOL-one word or three?
I wouldn’t quote Ape-Pee as a source for anything except perhaps diarrhea.
It’s gonna make it difficult because AP articles appear in so many outlets we’ll have to do a careful background search just to make sure it isn’t one of theirs.
The boss is not going along with this either.
We’re not going to pay AP’s extortion fees and we’re not going to allow them to control free speech!
Recent AP vs fair use threads ^ | June 17, 2008 | Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2032436/posts
There is a fair use exception -— 15 or 21 words or so -— that they have no enforceable copyright on.
Not sure of the specifics, but the luccianne website is at the limit, and there is not much anyone can do about it.
Associated Press, eh? Is B*** S*** one word or two?
I mean, speaking of scatalogical references.
Thanks for the link. I must have scrolled by. Administrator may end this thread, since JR has a better one.
Associated Press - we’ve been putting the ‘AP’ into ‘CrAP-Cannon’ since 1975
Yesterday, I'm certain there were millions of conversations about AP articles people read on their favorite blogs and forums.
Tomorrow, AP will be almost non-existent as a news source for thousands upon thousands of the sites people actually read.
These old media types are just incredibly clueless. It boggles my mind.
LOL.
Remember the novel, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury where, at the end of the novel fugitives from justice of all ages hide out and "Montag winds up joining an outlaw band of scholars who keep the contents of books in their heads, waiting for the time society will once again need the wisdom of literature...
Does memorizing entire books violate the copyright restrictions?
How about memorizing and transcribing periodical articles?
My understanding has always been that if transcribed from memory there is no copyright violation.
Has that question ever been settled in court?
I remember as children we memorized entire poems and recited them back in class. Were those copyright violations?
Just wondering...
I think this will end up being decided in court, and the AP will lose, and lose bigtime. This demonstrates just how desperate the AP is to hold on to control of the news.
Remember that the AP represents all of the major newspapers in the Country, and if the AP loses, so do the dailies...
Worth watching, and good luck to Matt Drudge...
There is no hard-and-fast word count. Copyright and fair use law are a lot more complicated than that. Relevant factors are how much of the overall work is excerpted, the purpose for it, how it is used, and whether it effects the marketability of their work.
I hate to say it, but I see the AP’s side on this. A lot of FReepers say that FR is their first or even only source for news; if AP stories are posted here in their entirety, that’s an audience that won’t go to the AP’s member or subscriber sites. Do you like to be paid for your work? So do AP staffers.
A little background on the AP: It’s a non-profit consortium of newspapers. Members are newspapers that pay a lower price for the service, and are expected to contribute content in return. Other publications, Web sites, and broadcast outlets are not members but customers.
The AP can dictate any contract terms it wants to its customers, and can request any payment it wants from anyone else, but the AP doesn’t get to define fair use. The only reason that bloggers don’t just laugh at the AP’s definition of fair use is that lawyers are expensive.
This reminds me of when music companies tried to force stores which played music to pay them a royalty.
The way around that was for the store employees to say they were playing the music for themselves, and not for the customers or as a form of entertainment.
Ditto with the AP ruling; it is being ‘quoted’ only to inform a friend of what was in the article; NOT as an attempt at republishing.
In fact, it may direct MORE readers to the full AP article (ergo, the AP will NOT be harmed by people spreading the word).
Is AP's crackdown on bloggers actually a crackdown against defections of its own members?
6/16/08 Posted by Steve Boriss in AP.
The blogosphere is in full boil about one of its own being warned by the AP that it must even more sharply limit the number of AP-written words it uses in its citations of AP articles. One of the biggest blogs, TechCrunch, is even calling for a boycott of AP story citations.But, while the bloggers understandably think it's all about them, I have a hunch it isn't. Rather, it is a shot across the bow of AP's own members that they had better not drop their costly memberships in favor of citing AP articles instead.
Increasingly, AP newspapers are realizing that the Internet has turned their membership into a rotten deal. The not-for-profit AP takes their money and their stories, uses their money to pay for its own staff to write additional stories, then shares everything with all other members, so that the papers are left with no exclusive content on the big stories of the day. This wasn't a problem before the Internet, when readers could only access these stories from their local papers.
So a newspaper trying to cut its costs could theoretically drop its AP membership, keep its exclusive content to itself, and start each big story "According to the AP," lifting as many words as possible then paraphrasing the rest. By cracking down now to limit the number of lifted words, the AP is making the price for defecting members higher. Whether this is a crackpot theory or not, one thing is clear - now that the old model for the relationship between the AP and its members might be hurting members more than helping them, a crackup seems inevitable.
“... educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate”
They don’t ENJOY it. They are not even required by law to PAY a reproduction fee to the copyright holder.
| freedom of the press does not mean freedom from the truth |
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.