The Assoiciate Press wants to charge you $12.50 to quote five words from them

[Stuart G]

Source: Raw Story, Making Light Incorporating Electrolite.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010341.html

http://www.rawstory.com/

Making Light
Incorporating Electrolite


The Associated Press wants to charge you $12.50 to quote five words from them

The Associated Press, having already announced its intention to harass bloggers who publish snippets as short as 39 words from AP stories, has now published a web form through which intimidated parties can give the AP money in return for “permission” to publish as few as five words.


The New York Times, an AP member organization, refers to this as an “attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt.” I suggest it’s better described as yet another attempt by a big media company to replace the established legal and social order with with a system of private law (the very definition of the word “privilege”) in which a few private organizations get to dictate to the rest of society what the rules will be. See also Virgin Media claiming the right to dictate to private citizens in Britain how they’re allowed to configure their home routers, or the new copyright bill being introduced in Canada, under which the international entertainment industry, rather than democratically-accountable representatives of the Canadian people, will get to define what does and doesn’t amount to proscribed “circumvention.” Hey, why have laws? Let’s just ask established businesses what kinds of behaviors they find inconvenient, and then send the police around to shut those behaviors down. Imagine the effort we’ll save.

Welcome to a world in which you won’t be able to effectively criticize the press, because you’ll be required to pay to quote as few as five words from what they publish.



Read more: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010341.html

---

I am not sure what to make of this.I am putting it out there for you..I got it at Raw Story...It linked me to it.

http://www.rawstory.com/

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. I have no such uncertainty about this... it is the path to fascism

It's really as simple as that.

[mainegreen]

2. It's crap, and will get the legal smack down.

Until they get their balls kicked in though, they are going to go around roughing up all the smaller kids on the playground, demanding their lunch money for protection. Which is exactly what they are demanding: protection money.

[Occam Bandage]

3. "Welcome to a world in which you won’t be able to effectively criticize the press"

Incorrect. Fair use still allows for an indefinite (yet reasonable) amount of a work to be reproduced for purposes of criticism, so long as you are not reproducing more than is necessary for the criticism being made.

This is targeted at people who are simply copy-pasting articles and presenting them with no apparent change in intent.

[EFerrari]

8. Or at people who don't know the rules. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

11. I don't see why there has to be a distinction.

"People who don't know the rules" are a subset of those copy-pasters, as are "People who know the rules and don't particularly care."

[EFerrari]

18. The subset is people who get intimidated and don't c&p

because they fear retribution.

[Cleita]

4. So what about if you cull the information and rewrite it in your own words?

Can they do that then?

[leftofcool]

5. Nope, that would be plagiarism

[EFerrari]

6. No. It wouldn't be plagiarism. Hey, Cleita.

I can reword like a mofo and so can you. Maybe we should put up a translation site just to piss off Authorized Propaganda. :)

[leftofcool]

10. Be my guest but I think I am educated enough to write

my own work without copping the work of others.

[EFerrari]

17. That isn't the issue. Getting news out is. n/t

[leftofcool]

19. I think a good blogger and writer can get news out using the AP

guidelines of so many lines or words. Some of the best blogs I have read use very few quites to make critical points.

[EFerrari]

Researchers use each other's work daily.

We put it in our own words, give credit where it's due and cite sources. If it's not just regurgitation, we call that scholarship.

[leftofcool]

24. Yes, but the copyright holder still gets to decide who

uses the work, not to mention distribution of the work which is another little factor in copyright laws. I don't agree with what AP is doing, just saying, they have all the power to make the decisions

[EFerrari]

27. No, the copyright holder doesn't get to decide.

Intellectual property law decides.

[Cleita]

21. It may get to that. LOL n.t

[ima_sinnic]

12. no, plagiarism is exactly copying and not giving credit but passing it off as your own

so what is suggested, rewording, is exactly opposite to plagiarism and is perfectly acceptable and there would not be anything "they" could do about it, AFAIK.

[leftofcool]

15. So, you can re-word anyone's book

pass it off as your own and get away with it? Might want to check with those who have tried that and got caught.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. Not if it's a work of fiction

If you used a text as a resource to learn about something, you could then apply that knowledge into your own writings though.

In this case we're talking about news articles which are based on reported bits of information. You then apply that information into your own writings.

[leftofcool]

25. Yes, citing the sources you used, giving credit for the work used

and staying within the guidelines set forth by AP which has all the power to decide who uses their work and who does not.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. It's not the same

If you learned about The Battle of Culloden from history books, then chose to write an article about said war using your own spin and interpretations, that's not plagiarism.

If you learned about the Iraq war from the local news, then chose to write an article about said war using your own spin and interpretations, that's not plagiarism.

[EFerrari]

23. The AP is publishing books now?

[leftofcool]

26. No that I know of, but a book is the same as an OP

or a journalistic piece as far as copyright laws are concerned.

[Hannah Bell]

29. if it's news, it's not an "idea," no copyright on news events, just on

the wording.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. I don't think they could do anything.

In reality it's no different than what one news agency does when another breaks a story. They mention the facts and give it their own spin.

Personally, AP's spin is one of my least favorite. They just happen to have the largest market share and as such are the most used. I much prefer Reuters as a source.

Also, I would imagine that web hits to news outlets subscribing to AP would fall if they continue to follow this course. Which would lead to a loss in ad revenue by those AP subscribers.

[anonymous171]

7. I say fuck 'em.

[Hannah Bell]

31. Me too. Newsgathering monopolized by a few corps, & you can't

even quote them without paying?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. TITLE SEVENTEEN of US Copyright Law and FAIR USE

but this is par for the course, and they want to destroy the critics

[leftofcool]

13. But the proof of fair use is on the user, not the copyright holder

unfortunately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. This will end up in court, mark my words

[leftofcool]

16. No doubt

but when was the last time a judge sided with us little folks?

[wtmusic]

32. The proof is "on" the plaintiff in a civil action

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Hannah Bell]

30. when i was in school, you could quote as much as you liked, as long

as you credited the source.

Then "fair use," which limited even duly credited material.

Now this - pay, even for snippets.

It's bullshit.

[karynnj]

33. It will make life a bit harder

We would have to write the parts that we want to highlight in our own words and then put the link for credibility (?)'s sake.

[superconnected]

34. This was removed from LBN. WTF.