I always thought it would have been us that got him sued.

"Our new policy on AP stories...they're banned"

pALEPHx wrote:

"Our new policy on AP stories...they're banned"

I concur. They should be banned here, too.

Fuck the Associated Press.

Fuck 'em in the A.

sofaking wrote:

Fuck the Associated Press.

Cuidado, wouldn't want to make a target of our one and only advertiser.

Rogers C should contact the EFF. They have taken up handling the leaglities for many fair use DMCA cases. Especially the ones where media companies try to expand the range of DMCA with test cases against the small potatos.

A pet project of theirs is to try and give some teeth to the provisions of the DMCA that make it illegal to file false DMCA claims.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-17 14:08:58)

The Associated Press wants us bloggers to purchase a license from them for permission to quote 5 words from their stories. Ok guys, good luck with that. Recently they threatened some D-list bloggers in order to put the fear of god into everyone, but it backfired, naturally.

http://gawker.com/tag/media-bloggers-as … ssociation

That's nasty.

choad wrote:

The Associated Press wants us bloggers to purchase a license from them for permission to quote 5 words from their stories. Ok guys, good luck with that. Recently they threatened some D-list bloggers in order to put the fear of god into everyone, but it backfired, naturally.

http://gawker.com/tag/media-bloggers-as … ssociation

That's nasty.

The comments below the Gawker piece are well worth your time, y'all.

Hey rcade,

Even Michelle Malkin is on your side and has taken up your case. Bet that is the first and last time that will ever happen.  Check out her calculations for what the AP owes her using their own formula for charging any quote above 5 words.

Hey, Associated Press: You owe me at least $132,125!




Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-18 16:27:13)

In the ruckus about the Associated Press’s campaign to prevent blogs and other Internet sites from using what it considers too much of its material, one of the biggest sites that could be affected is Digg, the news site where readers determine what’s worth reading. So I figured that Jay Adelson, Digg’s chief executive, would be as up in arms about the A.P. as the rest of the blogosphere.

Nope. (source)

Twenty-five words are "too much?" No wonder this has been compared to money-grabs by the RIAA. Something as limited as five words can't even claim originality. For the most part, I always thought the AP existed to provide the "story nubs" that later became real articles after they were researched or embellished with supplementary material (interviews, imagery, etc.). When the AP reports, these are--or should be--quite literally "matters of fact." Would they now claim that they have exclusive ownership over events as they occur, as if the prose value of their reporting is anything more than basic journalism? (who, what, when, where, et al.)

rcade wrote:

It is kind of a shame that Cruel.Com didn't become the thing that nearly got me sued.

Well it wasn't for lack of trying I'll tell you that much.

Even Michelle Malkin is on your side ...

Is it wrong to say that every time I see Malkin on TV I have the strongest urge to correct her? That's one steaming hot pundit. I don't care if she's bad for the country.

pALEPHx wrote:

choad wrote:

The Associated Press conceded in a statement released earlier today, "We've fired any remaining editorial staff who betrayed any competence at all and we've doubled the size of our legal staff."

See how it works?

What is your attribution?

Don’t call further attention to Choad’s unpaid use of AP’s material; it could result in his being sued!

fnord wrote:

Don’t call further attention to Choad’s unpaid use of AP’s material; it could result in his being sued!

Well, that's my point, really. Not that Choad should be sued, obviously, but that the AP--which is generally regarded as one of the primary "wire services of record"--has more people on the ground across the world. Does that mean they 'own' every incident to which their manpower bears witness, as if all news is a private event and the mere communication of occurrences is something that now bears a fee?

In a way, they have the right idea, but it's too soon for its time. If they think bloggers are really the forefront of newsgathering and dissemination, they're barking at ghosts. A very limited number of blogs 'break' news, but rather have witnesses with their brand of slant at coordinated events (consider Wonkette, which essentially avoids AP-lagiarism by rewording everything in a snarko-sensationalist manner). A blog can still post conjecture without independent verification and not fear retribution...only potential loss of readership. The better blogs are, indeed, being run like mini news agencies, but they still can't claim the same captive audience that the Associated Press has developed.

The penultimate idea, I suppose, is that they don't create news, or even relay it in an original fashion. Trying to group themselves with a different arm of the publishing industry is going to cause them not to improve, but to implode. On the bright side, the adverse name recognition they've given sites like Little Green Footballs is probably worth its weight in reader gold.

I have to admire rcade's skill in using the same jiu-jitsu here that he used against Dave Winer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi … 8124.story

LAT gets in the act.  And, I hate METALLICA.  Fuckwits.

Rcade, hope all of this plays out well for you.  BTW.... why don't you freshen up Retort a bit?  It looks old, and tired.

Just Sayin'.

Dusty

Taint wrote:

As I was reading a post by Pale with a link to Reuters, I noticed they're encouraging blogs to link to their site.

If you open a story on the http://associatedpress.com website and click Post, you can embed any AP story on your website, too.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

some guy says the Retort was posting full AP stories without attribution.

I do not, however, see a smoking gun so whatever.

What a douche.  If we take his story at face value, he things AP is getting a bad rap because this was the timeline:

 
1. Somebody posted one or more full AP stories instead of posting excerpts.

 
2. AP issued a takedown notice.

 
3. Rcade looks at the content and sees that it is indeed copyright infringement and takes it down.

 
4. AP starts issuing takedown notices for things that clearly fall under the fair use exception.

 
5. Rcade puts a post on his blog and seeks the help of the Media Bloggers Assn.

 
6. Hilarity ensues.

Somehow in this guy's mind that means

It is very important that people understand this because it makes clear that the AP is not on some wild rampage through the blogosphere, lawyering up to to go after every blogger who quotes an AP story in any way. Yet that is how this story has been portrayed including by a lot of people who should know better but are having too much fun bashing AP.

I couldn't disagree with him more.  The AP already had a history with Rogers and knew that he would cooperate on issues of copyright infringement, but it's when they started trying to ratchet up the standards in an attempt to get around the fair use exception they got a well-deserved rogering of their own at the hands of the Internet-using public.

Robert Cox can choke on a bag of his namesake (unless he's into that sort of thing).

tojo2000 wrote:

The AP already had a history with Rogers and knew that he would cooperate on issues of copyright infringement

At the risk of offending many of you, horseshit.

Drudge usually seems to run on autopilot and its inmates often appear to have - how do I say this tactfully? - shit-for-brains. I've never quite understood why but Drudge attracts tards who make the lamest of our own provoceteurs Einsteins by contrast. Only time I've seen verbatim thefts here, or previously on cruel, is when they're located behind tedious registration walls. And most of y'all, I've noticed, consider it a matter of pride to find gems in the rubbish that passes for news and at the very least, rewrite the lede.

I'm thrilled rcade prevailed but let's not take leave our senses.

Last edited by choad (2008-06-19 23:37:08)

tojo2000 wrote:

Robert Cox can choke on a bag of his namesake (unless he's into that sort of thing).

If i've inadvertently started some kind of "meme" then i apologize profusely.

choad wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

The AP already had a history with Rogers and knew that he would cooperate on issues of copyright infringement

At the risk of offending many of you, horseshit.

Horseshit?

choad wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Are you saying that Rogers has a history of not taking things down when confronted by copyright owners?

Nope but a history of indifference to its posting, yes. I'm guessing that will change now. For the record and far as I know, high-street's only had one copyright infringement complaint and I never actually saw it.

I suppose.  It's definitely easier to be vigilant after the takedown notices have started.

choad wrote:

Nope but a history of indifference to its posting, yes. I'm guessing that will change now. For the record and far as I know, high-street's only had one copyright infringement complaint and I never actually saw it.

In 10+ years of web publishing I had never received a DMCA takedown or similar copyright-related legal demand until AP contacted me last month. I wasn't indifferent to full-text copying on the Retort, and had on several occasions told users directly to stop doing it, but the DMCA and CDA give safe harbor to web hosts who do not exercise prior restraint on their users.

When the AP contacted me, I added code to my site that makes it easier for me to spot full-text copying when I'm considering stories for the front page. I also made an announcement to users without naming AP:

http://www.drudge.com/news/107676

I figured that would be enough, but their lawyers decided to use the DMCA to press their belief that short excerpting is not fair use. I remain amazed that they didn't realize how that would be received publicly by bloggers and others who hate the DMCA.

rcade wrote:

choad wrote:

Nope but a history of indifference to its posting, yes. I'm guessing that will change now. For the record and far as I know, high-street's only had one copyright infringement complaint and I never actually saw it.

In 10+ years of web publishing I had never received a DMCA takedown or similar copyright-related legal demand until AP contacted me last month.

Please forgive my insulting tone. My local office holding felons have my head in a vicegrip and everything squeezes out sour. Probably no better anywhere else but this is home.

The takedown demand high-street received concerned a publisher's naughty images, as you might expect from our deviants.

I'm not optimistic, regardless, so enjoy it while you can, guys. See anything questionable, please push it out of view first and we can always chew it over later.

Rcade, again.... clean it up, put some pics on it.  You'll be surprised at the leap in usage.  heh.

D