And the concubine media won't say a word without this:
Posted on 07/13/2009 1:12:01 PM PDT by Nachum
But... is it "time sensitive"?
Only after they rename that section ALMOST TIME SENSITIVE NEWS
As I have mentioned on FR before, the "hot news" legal doctrine applied perfectly to AHN because they write their stories under AHN, as original material. If any / much of that was lifted from AP stories without crediting AP as a source (a crucial, deciding factor in the doctrine) it is considered misappropriation and misattribution of original material.
This is not the case on FR and similar sites, where attribution (to AP and other sources) and link to original story is required and followed by participants, i.e. there is not only no attempt at passing off the story as original source, but rather the strong desire to attribute the story to its authors and distributors (AP et al).
Misappropriation and misattribution of the source of news story is at the heart of 1918 "hot news" case of International News Service vs Associated Press, as well as AP vs AHN. Nothing could be further from "hot news" doctrine than posting and attributing AP story and link on FR.
Sample of AHN news article byline:
Philips Brings Optimism To Consumer Electronics Sector With 2Q Net Profit; Tops Estimates Mayur Pahilajani - AHN News Writer
New York, NY (AHN) -
Thank you for posting that. I was getting down the thread and thinking, “oh man, I’ll have to post clarification for those who can’t read the story itself or understand the important elements of the doctrine.”
Thank you very much for that explanation. I wasn't clear whether this ruling would affect "fair use" which I believe is a very good principle to keep and, of course, that FR is based on.
Thanks again! Very helpful.
IIRC, the AP is who said the AHN vs AP case used the issue of “hot news.” I don’t see it. Misappropriation is a straight copyright violation issue and has nothing to do with whether a story is new or old.
That said, the Dinosaur Media is working overtime with the ambulance chasers to try and find a way to extend copyright to news itself.
True. And, of course, they want to start charging fees for things that are, by law, to be free of charge for the benefit of an educated, civil society.
Desperate times, desperate measures. You don't suppose they'll get so desperate that they'll try publishing objective journalism again, do you? You know, actually improving the quality of their product???
The ambulance chasers are driving toward a goal of requiring everyone to consult a lawyer before saying or writing anything.
Oh, wait!
And the concubine media won't say a word without this:
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=2381
The Platform: What’s a Fair Share In the Age of Google?
Thanks!
They are trying to close the can of worms, but the distribution technology that enabled AP's and others' economic model of selling "news" has changed dramatically, from mechanical to electronic. Instead of trying to adapt and leverage the new technology model they are trying desperately to cling to laws just as outdated as the technology that gave birth to their enterprises.
abb, your comparison with RIAA is very apt, above (product and distribution in the age of new technology) applies to them almost exactly, except they at least represent the original content that can be and usually is copyrighted, while AP's only content is "news".
You need to be on our Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™ ping list. We have been following and studying this issue extensively for over three years.
You are correct. It is a mechanical issue of distribution more than anything else. In our research, we saw a near-exact phenomenon in the early 1930s when newspapers tried to prevent radio from reporting news. For a while they succeeded - see “The Biltmore Agreement.” Radio was too popular (and so is the interweb thingy) and managed to build itself enough political clout to tell the newspapers to buzz off.
This effort by AP is akin to what the Scriptors must have said to Gutenberg 500 years ago when confronted with that newfangled printing press.
One other point. The only product of the AP (or any other similar purveyor) is words.
That’s it. Just words.
And try as they might, they will never copyright interactive human communications.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis - Times change and we change with them
If AP can't or doesn't want to change their mentality, the longer it tries to fight that, the less relevant it will become and will suffer more economically. Blogs are now getting a larger share of distribution of original content and third-party "news" with original (or "stale") commentary, and that's expected to continue. How are they going to fight those who hasn't paid fee to AP first, but nonetheless are commenting on the "news"? Trying to haul them into court will only make them the laughing stock and completely destroy their business model.
BTW, you might want to consider a "dinomedia" as a keyword for all your Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™ threads, to make them easy to follow. I sometimes put it in, when I see your posts.
Well done!
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.