Comments on: $12.50 for Five Words

By: Wrong and Illegal | Xyleme Learning Blog

Wrong and Illegal | Xyleme Learning Blog — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:56:45 +0000

[...] The Associated Press recently decided that they were going to refuse to be quoted on blogs anymore, insisting that even some 35 word or less quotes were copyright violations. It’s wrong and illegal, they say, to quote them directly without paying them $2.50 per word. [...]

By: Thing 10 - Creative Commons | HIES LS Library Blog

Thing 10 - Creative Commons | HIES LS Library Blog — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:02:48 +0000

[...] then we turn around and find that the AP is going to start charging us to use their information! Will Richardson talks about this on his blog. It can certainly be confusing – things are changing constantly. How [...]

By: Maria H. Andersen

Maria H. Andersen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:07:33 +0000

I think bloggers should unite under a creative commons license to charge AP writers when they rip off OUR BLOG POSTS for their news stories.

By: What we have here is a failure to adapt | Wanderings...

What we have here is a failure to adapt | Wanderings... — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:47:20 +0000

[...] $12.50 for Five Words [...]

By: Web 2.0 & Copyright | Joe's Blog, What did you expect?

Web 2.0 & Copyright | Joe's Blog, What did you expect? — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:18:43 +0000

[...] http://weblogg-ed.com/2008/1250-for-five-words/ [...]

By: The K12 Geek » Blog Archive » Sharing at NECC: ISTE’s new hard line on collaboration, or just a misunderstanding?

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:41:04 +0000

[...] that it is imperative to keep things freely collaborative – especially in the recent wake of the AP News fiasco (thanks [...]

By: Mike Del Muro

Mike Del Muro — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:32:07 +0000

So, the AP will have the time to hunt down and track the IP addresses of millions of bloggers who use a few words of a story?

Scare tactic used against the wrong crowd.

By: Thing 4 - Blogging begins with reading | HIES LS Library Blog

Thing 4 - Blogging begins with reading | HIES LS Library Blog — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:51:32 +0000

[...] where I learn about all the tools that can be used in my blog. But I didn’t stop there! Will Richardson is a wealth of information. I have actually been following his blog for about a year now. His [...]

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:35:42 +0000

The present debate isn’t over the right of the AP to maintain its IP and make money off of it. Nobody here thinks that we should be able to copy entire AP articles or that content should just be free.

No matter how much people try to muddy the waters by bringing up irrelevant details and making factually inaccurate arguments, the core truth remains the same: the AP is trying to claim that there is no such thing as fair use, when copyright law very clearly states there is.

By: Alan Kwan

Alan Kwan — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:32:37 +0000

They are just asking to become irrelevant.

By: sylvia martinez

sylvia martinez — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:30:05 +0000

It seems to me that there are two issues here. One is fair use. AP is clearly trying to draw a line in the sand that does not recognize fair use. That seems outrageous and unnecessary. Not sure why they are picking this fight, perhaps it’s just a legal maneuver. It’s easier to defend a hard line and it gives you room to negotiate. I doubt if they really care about us and our little blogs.

And really, do most people quote the AP anyway? Imagine this, if AP “wins” and then an AP story runs in the LA Times, can you quote the LA Times? After all, the AP got their money.

However, beyond fair use, it seems to me they have a right to ask for compensation for their IP. The AP exists as a way for news orgs to gain access to good reporting at a lower cost than sending out individual reporters. AP guarantees quality by paying reporters and managing them well.

Now comes the Internet and everything is so much easier to copy. But the value of a real reporter is still the same, and it still costs money to put a qualified person in Jakarta or Botswana. Are we just supposed to rely on people who happen to be there who will blog for free? Do we just trust anyone with access to a browser? Won’t we then just be at the mercy of reporters who don’t disclose their sources of income/bias?

By: Alex Reid

Alex Reid — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:38:05 +0000

This isn’t about money, at least not directly; that is, I don’t see how short quotes on a blog could really cause a loss of income. Instead this is about the general threat of bloggers to news corporations. As everyone has said, all this is already established under Fair Use and by common law.

In addition, since the news industry receives special protections under the first amendment, it would seem to me that we ought to be able to view their work differently in relation to copyright. What’s the point of protecting the freedom of the press when all it really amounts to is protecting someone’s commercial interests?

I realize that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but perhaps news agencies need to remember that the reason we protect them is because of the importance we place on the information they produce and our ability to discuss it. If we can’t freely discuss the news, then it’s value is greatly diminished.

By: Gary S. Stager

Gary S. Stager — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:25:12 +0000

I’ve offered an alternative model here…

http://www.stager.org/blog/2008/06/possibility-of-doing-good-and-doing.html

By: Amelia Thatcher

Amelia Thatcher — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:16:33 +0000

Silly AP, trying to compete with the Internet. RIAA already tried this, remember?

By: Arthus Erea

Arthus Erea — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:33:22 +0000

Actually, there *is* recourse which doesn’t require extensive legal support. It is relatively easy to file a counter-claim. In most cases, the AP would back down if the counter-claim was filed.

Since few of the cases would actually make it to court, the EFF could support those few bloggers.

The AP just doesn’t have the legal support to file enough claims for this to actually work, especially since member papers are discontented with this heavy-handed policy.