Since we post AP articles indirectly via other sources, how does that effect us ‘posters’ here on FR?
More from Cadenhead here:
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/3372/ap-settles-dispute-drudge-retort
I’ve actually kind of enjoyed not seeing the AP for the past few days.
Maybe we should simply refuse to publish anything from AP, and let the places to which they syndicate this stuff know that syndication with AP means the death of their story.
If AP wants to be print media only, let it pay for it. We can live without it. Believe me, if bloggers and sites all over the world refuse to accept AP stories, the shoe will be on the other foot.
Reference Ping
A response to Allahpundit regarding the FR policy might be useful.
Also the sites Free Republic links to that feature AP material have ads. A click from a Free Republic user will generate revenue just as well as a direct access to the original site. APs' position deprives their customer of those hits AND income.
They are working against the economic interest of their customers and themselves and do not have enough knowledge of the internet to see it.
Here we go again with that magic "Media Bloggers Association" that no one is a member of...
That’s how I read it, too.
Don’t back off, Jim. There are alternate sources. You were doing AP a favor with your links to their stories. They’re just too dumb to recognize it.
As the dinosaur media dies, they should accept all the little favors they can get.
My guess is that freeperdom is such an extensive network that there are a million ways to bypass the AP.
Just last week Free Republic scooped the entire media establishment in the US when americanintokyo posted a thread about a Japanese earthquake virtually in the middle of that earthquake.
Free press is not free press.
News is copyrighted?? LOL! So is air.
"..In a hint that the battle with bloggers isn't over, Candenhead wrote on his blog that "we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use" if AP guidelines he's seen don't change.
In related news, high profile tech blogger Michael Arrington said he has sent the AP a bill for a passage of a blog post the news unit used when reporting on the issue.
A Huffington Post blogger also wrote Friday that a story she wrote about the impact of security regulations for gays was used by the AP without attribution..."
If AP continues to be hard assed the bold will land on them as Michelle Malkin wrote below.
That's much more immediate than an advertising boycott. I'm hoping it's more effective as well. Time will tell.
The AP is making the case that they are selling information. And, frankly, it's difficult to refute that argument.
Although IANAL, it appears that we're going through something of a rehash of INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE v. ASSOCIATED PRESS , 248 U.S. 215 (1918) updated for current laws. When information is the product, not the wording, then you can't even summarize the info without infringing.
If this is the case, though, it would impede the members of AP from generating content, as they would then have to be cautious of how they gather their own information.
I think it's a shame that FR doesn't have the resources to stick up for Fair Use, but, of course, many FReepers have shot us in the foot already by trumpeting that they "get their news from FR!" If the purpose is to comment on something, then Fair Use is valid ("to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism"), but when it comes to getting your news...then it's not Fair Use, and the information provider should be paid or not used.
Please make a prominent link from the Latest Articles page to a thread, special page, or something about the latest posting policy. Thanks in advance!
I have no doubt that the Ass. Press won't back off, but while it would probably be a slam-dunk to pull FR and you into court for that first violation I suspect it will likely be one of the "social" news-sites -- the ones that breathlessly hang on every publicists pronouncement of the latest dirt. And in that they may indeed have a point, after all there was and is valid reason for copyright on fiction. Once they have that case in hand, combined with the FR stipulations, the Web becomes bereft of valid discourse and political discernment.
Political speech is different. Granted, they send their people all over at some expense in order to gather the story. But the First Amendment was crafted to ensure Political Speech belongs to the People, not the one with the deepest pockets. Try getting into any House or Senate press conference. You can't -- you're not "a member of the 'Press Corps'" and your citizenship rights do not apply.
I think I remarked that we would rue the day that you were forced to knuckle under to WaPo and LaSlimes back then -- that day is now much, much, closer, and my ongoing tagline remains true.
So, we make up our own headlines and quote unnamed sources and make inferences, just like they do.