Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AP Targets Blog Excerpts With DMCA Notices

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the out-of-cite-out-of-mind dept.

The Media 131

Ian Lamont points us to The Industry Standard, which reports that the Associated Press has filed DMCA takedown notices against news site 'The Drudge Retort' for excerpting portions of AP news releases. The site's creator, Rogers Cadenhead, has posted his analysis of the letters sent to him by the AP. Employees of the AP have defended the notices in posts on various blogs, saying, "We get concerned when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that you and others have cultivated so well."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I am conflicted (1)

Sergeant Pepper (1098225) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786651)

I hate The Drudge Report. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with excerpting news stories. I don't know who to root for...

You are also confused (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23786681)

The Drudge Retort != The Drudge Report

Re:You are also confused (0, Redundant)

Sergeant Pepper (1098225) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786695)

Haha, this is true. This is, apparently, what comes from not paying enough attention.

Re:You are also confused (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23787511)

Considering the unlikelihood of the /. editors actually editing an article, reading "Retort" as a typo was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Re:You are also confused (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787937)

Actually, the typo is in the original article too. Maybe they're inserting typos on purpose so they can do a search for verbatim reposts of the article and claim "IP infringement!" just like map companies would put fake towns on the map so as to spot copy-cats.

Re:You are also confused (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787975)

Oops - my bad - it's not a typo. The link is to a site called drudge.com, not drudgereport.com - looks like someone is typosquatting drudgereport with both drudge.com and drudgeretort.com.

Domain name: drudgeretort.com

Registrant Contact:
      World Readable
      R.L. Cadenhead

      PMB 120, 1093 A1A Beach Blvd.
      St. Augustine, FL 32080-6733
      US

Domain name: drudge.com

Registrant Contact:
      World Readable
      R.L. Cadenhead

      PMB 120, 1093 A1A Beach Blvd.
      St. Augustine, FL 32080-6733
      US

Here's the "Real McCoy"

Registrant:
Drudge, Matt
      ATTN: DRUDGEREPORT.COM
      c/o Network Solutions
      P.O. Box 447
      Herndon, VA. 20172-0447

      Domain Name: DRUDGEREPORT.COM

  Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
            Drudge, Matt ez53n5895yz@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
            Matt Drudge
            ATTN: DRUDGEREPORT.COM

Re:I am conflicted (2, Informative)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788249)

Why? I know liberals and conservatives who like it - if nothing else, for the bizarre links. Helps fill in when Slashdot gets slow...

Re:I am conflicted (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788583)

What is wrong with the Drudge Report? Or the Drudge Retort?

I use the Report as a great start page in Firefox. Quick rundown on news, and lightweight.

The Retort is sometimes funny.

WTF is with so many people looking at everything through a prism of politics nowadays?

Re:I am conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23788921)

I agree with your sentiment as to being conflicted over the fair use issue.

There is another important element to the case other than "fair use" and copyright that is nearly a century old, and that is the revived doctrine of "hot news", a species of the tort of misappopriation. This was CREATED by AP in the INS v AP case 248 US 215 (1918).

It is a branch of the law which some believe is a a very specific part of copyright at the time of the decision, Judge Brandeis noted that the Congress had specifically rejected giving copyright protection to "news" as it was tantamount to giving copyright protection to "facts"

The INS doctrine has evolved over time but is really a species of unfair competition law, and seeks to protect the "time sensitive" value of newly uncovered data. It has assumed an enormous role in the database laws which have remained in a state of legislative gridlock in the US for over ten years.

AP was accusing it's competitors of "scooping the freshness of it's news stories" by exploiting time differentials between the east and west coast. They wanted to recoup the investment that had been made in gathering the news and established a precedent which has survived and been revived.

It is interesting that AP have also sought to invoke this doctrine in addition to the DMCA copyright laws.

Re:I am conflicted (1)

devjj (956776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23789105)

The truth is the truth, and they didn't do anything wrong. Justice requires doing what's right even if you don't agree with it.

Just another attack on Fair Use (5, Insightful)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786673)

Unless you steal an entire article, but just excerpt reasonable snippets, you are exercising your 'Fair Use' right under copyright law.

Don't forget the attribution!

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (5, Interesting)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786759)

That's exactly the problem. People "excerpt" the body of the article (change the headline and omit the byline) without reference or attribution in their "blogs" all the time.

Searching for a news story produces hundreds of results on blogs that are just copies of one article, and it becomes frustrating when you want to find more information rather than just repeats of the same exact article text. A blog isn't an AP newswire feed (where it makes sense for a local newspaper).

Just link to the original at a persistent source. Blogs that are regurgitation and not reference are basically just Internet cholesterol, and if you step past your vein-popping at the mere mention of a DMCA takedown notice for a moment, people should be able to appreciate the effort of a news organization clearing the clutter. This is material that is available for free from any number of outlets. It's not about free speech or fair use in the slightest. It's about controlling distribution to improve quality of online news--not censorship, or commentary, or any other conspiracy.

They're not taking down commentaries that quote or reference.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (4, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786849)

I largely agree, except that it isn't just blogs who are guilty of this regurgitation. All the regular newspapers repost the same AP wire story, too, cluttering up google search results just as much as blogs.

Why do wire services still exist? Are we still pretending we get our news from separate sources?

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (5, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786893)

The regular newspapers and news outlets pay the AP for access to reproduce full articles, and also credit the AP for the story. Many blogs just rip whole stories for free and don't even provide proper credit.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (2, Insightful)

Ricin (236107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787239)

Yup, but AP still gets to define the story and how you "ought" to think about it, so they already succeeded. Their job is the mouthpiece, or at best the gatekeeper role IMHO.

Attribution at commercial outlets is generally just as bad I think (maybe not for AP and hey they tow the line anyway so they can be credited alright, it's probably one button, but for smaller sources they're going to bulldozer along just fine then -- I've seen this consistantly while being only a reader of diverse sources, mostly outside the MSN).

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787389)

The overall quality or lack thereof of AP articles is a whole other story indeed.

Do you even know what the AP is? (5, Informative)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23791011)

And I'll repeat that question:

Do you even know what the AP even is?

The Associated Press was started by a bunch of small-town newspapers who individually simply couldn't even begin to compete against the major newspapers (mainly east-coast U.S. newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post). Some of those major papers did allow these small town newspapers to reproduce their stories, but charged extortionist prices for the content.

So instead, a bunch of these much smaller newspapers decided to get together and share their own news gathering resources with each other and try to substantially reduce royalty fees for reproducing content. In a few cases there were "bureaus" that were set up and financed by the collective organization, but for the most part they relied upon a dispersed distribution model where the "members" each contributed stories for the general geographic region where they lived.

There was also a voluntary "significance" rating applied to each story as well, ranging from general human-interest stories (somebody just raised a two-headed snake, biggest ball of twine in Smallville, Iowa) to significant news (war has just been declared or a major world leader has been assassinated). Mainly it was newspaper editors trying to help each other out and fill each other's newspapers with content without having to break the bank with a huge payroll of reporters.

Frankly the AP in my mind represents nearly the spirit of the open source movement in a great many ways, even though it is a commercial entity. You can debate about the current incarnation of the Associated Press and its current operations, but it certainly has an admirable and interesting heritage.

The issue here isn't big bad business vs. lonely bloggers... it is more how a 19th Century American institution based on a distributed content model can adapt to the 21st Century, and how content intended for one medium is being adapted for a much newer medium, where the business model will change.

There are several blogger and web-based distributed news gathering sources that create original content (aka not copy AP stories), but unfortunately most of these bloggers are taking the easy way out and simply doing a direct copy of what is clearly copyrighted work. If these same bloggers would support (and reference) these alternatives, this would have been a non-story at all. Indeed many of these alternatives even post content with a free content license like CC-by-SA or something similar.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (2, Interesting)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787365)

Interesting that AP also doesn't credit the reporter/marketer/PR-dude who actually writes the articles.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787539)

Probably because AP pays them to do this.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788325)

Not good enough. University researchers get paid for their work too, but if the paper doesn't have their name on it, it's got no credibility.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (5, Informative)

BootNinja (743040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788667)

As an employee of a newspaper, maybe I can shed a bit of light on the subject. Generally, if we are excerpting fewer than ten lines of an AP article, we will just attribute to AP, however, if we use more than that, we give a byline to the individual author and AP. I believe this is standard industry practice.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (3, Informative)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787687)

Uh, what are you talking about? While there are a lot of AP stories that are just blurbs, any story they have with significant length to it is credited. Take this [google.com] for example. I work at a radio station that subscribes to the AP newswire and most stories longer than one or two paragraphs have some sort of credit on them. I'm not the news guy though, maybe somebody else can share their experience with when the AP includes bylines. I guess personal preferences may vary, but if I wrote a blurb of a few sentences I wouldn't really care if my name was on it. For everything that counts they seem to usually provide proper credit.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788343)

Here's a counter example [nzherald.co.nz] , but I now conceded the issue is not AP and similar, but my local media removing those details.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (2, Informative)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23789797)

Counter-Counter Example [iht.com] The same story (expanded a bit more than the article you posted) with credit given at the bottom. Interesting example, I had to check several media outlets before I could find a credit. It would appear that outlets getting AP stories aren't required to publish the credit. I guess that's something I've never noticed having usually always seen the story from the source. Very interesting discovery.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787257)

I largely agree, except that it isn't just blogs who are guilty of this regurgitation. All the regular newspapers repost the same AP wire story, too, cluttering up google search results just as much as blogs.

Use a Yahoo news search and that shouldn't be a problem for you.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 6 years ago | (#23789373)

"Lisa, you made me realize the importance of free and independent media. So, I printed my own paper. Although it's mostly culled from wire services."
Barney, Simpsons

What really bugs me (5, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23789661)

In the local city paper in texas, they have a 6", one column story about how someone in Kansas was killed. This person is not otherwise newsworthy.

1st... WHO CARES????
2nd... This creates the impression that the world is a lot more dangerous place than it really is.
3rd... again.. who cares? This isn't a famous person- they have no ties to texas... there is no reason for it to be reported anywhere in texas.

It's like talking about how wild monkeys are attacking a village in india last year.

I want my local paper to have local news. Heck, tell me about the flood control changes they plan ahead of time (instead of afterwards)- tell me about something happening in other texas cities.

The national stories should be in a national section and should be significant- not random.

Really bugs me.

And its not just print being lifted (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23791003)

Many blogs copy photos from legitimate news sources, that
alone may be suspect but even worse, fail to at least
attribute the source and/or photographer.

A few years ago I wasted my time explaining this issue to
the owner of this site [michellemalkin.com] . For a few
days after there was an effort made at giving proper
credits. But I guess it was just too much work. Given
her sites popularity and her own work on TV you would
think she would be more careful.

You need to RTFA (3, Informative)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786973)

if you RTFA the cited articles DO properly link the story, posting the relevant excerpts to save a little time and bandwidth, and to clarify exactly which part of the story is relevant to the discussion.

It most definitely is an attack on fair use.

the sites are not plagiarizing the AP, they are posting quotes with relevant links.

Re:You need to RTFA (5, Informative)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787363)

No, if you actually paid attention, the site in question is a pure reposting of AP content headlines, ledes, and bodies. This is what AP is objecting to. Not the comments or discussion that it sparks, and not actual commentary provided by authors on the site in question. In fact, had you truly read the article, you'd see this:

"AP wants to fill in some facts and perspective on its recent actions with the Drudge Retort, and also reassure those in the blogosphere about AP's view of these situations. Yes, indeed, we are trying to protect our intellectual property online, as most news and content creators are around the world. But our interests in that regard extend only to instances that go beyond brief references and direct links to our coverage.

The Associated Press encourages the engagement of bloggers -- large and small -- in the news conversation of the day. Some of the largest blogs are licensed to display AP stories in full on a regular basis. We genuinely value and encourage referring links to our coverage, and even offer RSS feeds from www.ap.org, as do many of our licensed customers.

We get concerned, however, when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.

In this particular case, we have had direct and helpful communication with the site in question, focusing only on these issues.

So, let's be clear: Bloggers are an indispensable part of the new ecosystem, but Jeff Jarvis' call for widespread reproduction of wholesale stories is out of synch with the environment he himself helped develop. There are many ways to inspire conversation about the news without misappropriating the content of original creators, whether they are the AP or fellow bloggers.

Jim Kennedy
VP and Director of Strategy for AP"

Re:You need to RTFA (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787545)

look, he provided links to all the damn posts they were complaining about.

I challenge you to actually look at them and distinguish them from typical posts and replies in /.

Re:You need to RTFA (4, Interesting)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787909)

From what I saw the retort posts had "zero" of their own content. Basically someone at the retort would post the headline from an article, a few sentences from the article. And that's it. Comment away!

There was no "So Yahoo is running a story on..."
It was actually just a piece of Yahoo's story. So I can see the issue and they certainly did not look like a typical post and reply here on /.

Re:You need to RTFA (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787977)

look at this linked analysis [cadenhead.org]

See that big blue thing at the beginning of his first example? that's called a hyperlink: to the AP post.

Re:You need to RTFA (1)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788213)

See my post above yours? The one you replied to. Yeah, that's it.
It wasn't questioning the existence of a link. So I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me.
Also, please stop calling that analysis. The dude who wrote that is involved in the issue. He is presenting his side of the story, he is not providing analysis.

Re:You need to RTFA (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788755)

and your opinion is the AP, a massive cog in the media machine which is firmly in the hands of all 6 people in the united states.

guess which one I trust more.

Re:You need to RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23790111)

And they still can't tell the difference between cutting and copying. *sigh*

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (2, Interesting)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786975)

That's exactly the problem. People "excerpt" the body of the article (change the headline and omit the byline) without reference or attribution in their "blogs" all the time.

That does not appear to be the case with The Drudge Retort (the site being DMCA'd). The site [drudge.com] appears to have a link to the original story and a short summary. I am not familiar with the site though so maybe they are talking about a different section.

replying to myself now that I RTFA (2, Insightful)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787061)

Two interesting points:

The longest quote used was 2 paragraphs "from the end of the article." They don't say how long of an article though.

The article writer attempts to address fair use but just happens to leave out the "for the purpose of comment and criticism" aspect.

Blogs preserve history. (3, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787085)

I quote relevant parts of articles because the AP has a tendency to memory hole their work. Those quotes are required for intelligent criticism. When you can't go back and look at the work, you have nothing but the hot air broadcasters would like you to have. When hundreds of people quote articles, history is preserved for fair evaluation.

yet another attack on Fair Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23787157)

Very true.

That's exactly the problem. People "excerpt" the body of the article (change the headline and omit the byline) without reference or attribution in their "blogs" all the time.

Searching for a news story produces hundreds of results on blogs that are just copies of one article, and it becomes frustrating when you want to find more information rather than just repeats of the same exact article text. A blog isn't an AP newswire feed (where it makes sense for a local newspaper).

Just link to the original at a persistent source. Blogs that are regurgitation and not reference are basically just Internet cholesterol, and if you step past your vein-popping at the mere mention of a DMCA takedown notice for a moment, people should be able to appreciate the effort of a news organization clearing the clutter. This is material that is available for free from any number of outlets. It's not about free speech or fair use in the slightest. It's about controlling distribution to improve quality of online news--not censorship, or commentary, or any other conspiracy.

RTFA (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23789705)

They're not taking down commentaries that quote or reference.

That is exactly what they are doing.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23786907)

With his tax breaks directed only at the richest, you can expect to see more of this if Obama wins :(

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (-1, Troll)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787223)

Unless you steal an entire article, but just excerpt reasonable snippets, you are exercising your 'Fair Use' right under copyright law.

If you steal the article, it's a theft issue, not copyright at all, because when you steal it, the original is gone. Did you mean make an unauthorized copy?

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787477)

It's often tempting to nab a whole article when a site is known to frequently move information around, or delete it entirely... you know, like AP. Perhaps if they provided an iron-cast permalink people would stop C&Ping the whole file.

Re:Just another attack on Fair Use (1)

gbh1935 (987266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23790849)

If they were able to kill excerpting, then sites like slashdot would lose their main content driver...

Does this mean.. (4, Interesting)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786755)

that /. could fall within the AP's sights as well? I glanced drudge.com and it looks like they have even less of a story on their front page than /. does. Of course here most (if not all) of the stories are prefaced with "According to..." or some other similar wording with a link back to the article.

Re:Does this mean.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23787039)

that /. could fall within the AP's sights as well? I glanced drudge.com and it looks like they have even less of a story on their front page than /. does. Of course here most (if not all) of the stories are prefaced with "According to..." or some other similar wording with a link back to the article.

Technically, /. is doing the exact same thing, the differnce? /. would fucking bury the AP if they tried that shit here, so the answer is of course to go after someone with less means to defend them selves, get a couple of good precedents on record THEN go after the big boys.

Of course this is just another case of large corporations thinking they can litigate them selves into higher profits. They can't all they will do is alienate their customers and see their revenue go down.

My ONLY news site is /. Anywhere else only sees hits from me when I decide to RTFA, a lot of people i know work the same way they never actually GO to a news site on their own, they followed TFA links from their feeds and Aggregator.

Sites like The Drudge Retort are basically free advertising for the AP, but they'd rather sue.

Something truly unfortunate must happen to peoples brains when they put on a suit because it seems corporate execs never seem to quite have a grasp on how the real world works.

Re:Does this mean.. (1, Offtopic)

dogbowl (75870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787495)

/. would fucking bury the AP if they tried that shit here, so the answer is of course to go after someone with less means to defend them selves, get a couple of good precedents on record THEN go after the big boys.
Methinks you aren't that familiar with the Drudge Report. It is most definitely one of the 'big boys'

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/drudgereport.com [alexa.com]

Re:Does this mean.. (1)

dogbowl (75870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787519)

oops.. just RTFA'd and realized my mistake......

Re:Does this mean.. (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787527)

This isn't the Drudge Report. Different site, different owner. The name is a play on the Drudge Report.

Re:Does this mean.. (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787933)

/. would fucking bury the AP if they tried that shit here, so the answer is of course to go after someone with less means to defend them selves
If /. were pushed far enough, I have no doubt we would unleash a deluge of memes of truly biblical proportions.

Re:Does this mean.. (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788191)

Technically, /. is doing the exact same thing, the differnce? /. would fucking bury the AP if they tried that shit here ...
Bwahahahaha!
Remember when /. caved to a bunch of fsckin' clams ?

My ONLY news site is /.
That's just sad...

(Ummm, remind me again, how popular/important is /. [alexa.com] ?)

Re:Does this mean.. (4, Interesting)

TheFamilyGuy (1307415) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787071)

Any RSS feed for that matter can fall under this description. Should igoogle be banned for copyright infringement since I choose to get my news from various sources all on my google home page? This is absurd.

Re:Does this mean.. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787565)

Does iGoogle repost the entire article? If they are, they shouldn't be, they should at most be posting a relevant snippet, then if you want to read the story, then you can click through to get the story from a news source that subscribes to said wire service. All I've seen through iGoogle is a headline.

Re:Does this mean.. (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788105)

Does iGoogle repost the entire article?
Does the Drudge Retort repost the entire article? No. They quote a couple sentences and link to the original.

If they are, they shouldn't be, they should at most be posting a relevant snippet, then if you want to read the story, then you can click through to get the story from a news source that subscribes to said wire service.
That's exactly how it works at the site in question. The AP's accusation is nonsense.

Re:Does this mean.. (2, Insightful)

siwelwerd (869956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788005)

No, here we have "editors" who make sure the submissions do not accurately represent the content of the actual link.

fpZ 3oll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23786765)

BSD aadicts, flame Os don't fear the this post up. In a head spinning It there. Bring troubles of Walnut FUCKING USELESS

"We get concerned when we feel the use..." (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23786779)

Yeah? Well I get concerned when the Jews are out back going through my shed, but damned if I can get the cops to come over when I call to report it!

Out Culture (1)

Pazy (1169639) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786789)

The articled says "[The Culture] you and others have cultivated" now correct me if I'm wrong but that implies they are not part of this culture so how can they proclaim that quouting things isnt part of our culture? No one knows a culture better than those immersed in it. As far as im concerned quouting is also fundamental to the internet, then again thats just me.

Re:Out Culture (4, Informative)

snkline (542610) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786961)

I've only glanced at TFA, but it seems they are not taking issue with them quoting, but rather with them quoting misleadingly, i.e. without attribution. Without reference to the source, or even worse, without referencing the fact that you are quoting something else. For instance look at the example Cadenhead uses. It has a link to the article, followed by a quote from the article. But there is no indication that the quote is a quote! It is essentially being passed off as original commentary on the content of the article, even if that isn't what the author intended.

Too bad (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23786801)

The AP is so reluctant to take down the fake photos they so often publish.

Re:Too bad (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787561)

That was Reuters.

Cite it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23786989)

It seems to me this issue could have been avoided simply by properly citing the original article.

Every writing class you have ever taken since high school has taught you that if you use "excerpts" (which is all this guy said his users did), that you cite the original source.

Pretty basic.

Re:Cite it (2, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788141)

Every writing class you have ever taken since high school has taught you that if you use "excerpts" (which is all this guy said his users did), that you cite the original source.
Like, for example, by putting a prominent link above the excerpt, so any reader can click the link and go directly to the original source to see the excerpt in context?

Good (0)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787069)

It's about time some of these news organizations acted to protect their copyrights. It's one thing for a blogger to cut and paste out bits of an article for analysis and context. It's quite another to cut out large sections - or the entire thing - and then collect advertising revenue off the work of others.

I see this far too much. Time for a beat-down.

Wackos on teh intartubes has slowly beat into my head over the last decade the rationale for DRM. All I want is for writers, musicians, artists, and other content creators to retain their copyrights and DRM keys. Yes to DRM; no to centralized distribution monopolies.

Re:Good (0)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787135)

Get off slashdot then.

there is at best negligible difference between the structure of drudge and /.

I think it's time for you to put your money where your mouth is and not post here.

Re:Good (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787167)

Don't worry. I stopped regularly posting here some time back. Perhaps you'll not even see me again. But if you'd like to be certain of that, I suggest you foe me and set your comment prefs to -5 for foes. And I'll just disappear from your view.

Re:Good (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787231)

I considered my post a bit harsh, but the point still stands.

how on earth can you rain derision on drudge when /. has essentially the same format?

your support for "impossible dream" of using DRM to steal our rights and sell them back to us didn't help in eliciting a fully rational response either.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787309)

A) Not Drudge. It is the "Drudge Retort", a counter-site to the drudge report. But don't worry, when one of my articles got picked up by the Drudge Retort, I too was confused and thought I'd made the Drudge Report's FP.

B) I'm a writer. My copyright is mine, not yours.

C) Look up "fair use" and see if duplication of large sections of a copyrighted work has ever been acceptable prior to the advent of digital technology. It wasn't.

I like digital distribution. I hate thieves. Especially of my work, because when people steal stuff I worked hard to create, it pissed me the fuck off. It would piss you off too, had you done that work.

Re:Good (0, Troll)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787467)

you have a peculiar notion of property.

apparently you feel entitled to own things you sold to other people just because youre a writer.

I think the people who built your house should be allowed to firebomb various rooms because they dont like how you use them, and you should be presumed guilty until proven innocent on this regard so you have no recourse when they do so.

now die in a fire you disgusting parasite on the back of society.

Re:Good (0, Troll)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787963)

you have a peculiar notion of property.

apparently you feel entitled to own things you sold to other people just because youre a writer.

I think the people who built your house should be allowed to firebomb various rooms because they dont like how you use them, and you should be presumed guilty until proven innocent on this regard so you have no recourse when they do so.

now die in a fire you disgusting parasite on the back of society.
I have plenty of karma to burn, and i'm happy to do it to out one of the few disgusting corruptors of society who believe in forcing DRM down our collective throats.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23788067)

Stupid cunt

Re:Good (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#23790917)

pparently you feel entitled to own things you sold to other people just because youre a writer.

I wrote it, I retain copyright, it is mine.

Not yours. Not "society's".

Mine.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787971)

If you actually RTFA and followed the links enough, you'd see there is a good difference between what /. does and what this drudge retort was doing.

/. submissions are often quotes from an article along with some commentary. The retort's posts has no commentary, and were 100% made up of pieces from the article. And presented in a manner that did not make that clear.

What I find the bestest is how much of a cocky ass you were about this when didn't even bother to have a clue what you were talking about.

Re:Good (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788039)

If you actually RTFA and followed the links enough, you'd see there is a good difference between what /. does and what this drudge retort was doing. /. submissions are often quotes from an article along with some commentary. The retort's posts has no commentary, and were 100% made up of pieces from the article. And presented in a manner that did not make that clear.

What I find the bestest is how much of a cocky ass you were about this when didn't even bother to have a clue what you were talking about.
The irony is so potent here I can't help but smile.

Since you seem to be so intent on your vendetta as to pursue me to other threads, I'll again post the link to the analysis [cadenhead.org] showing they did in fact link the article, and post excerpts in the same way /. does.

Re:Good (2, Informative)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788119)

That's isn't analysis, that is a person involved in the dispute making his case.

And furthermore, read what I actually wrote. I didn't say they did not link to the article. I pointed out that *UNLIKE* slashdot their "postings" had *NO* commentary. None. Zero. I don't mean the user comments. I mean scroll up on this page and find "Ian Lamont points us to The Industry Standard..."
Now replace everything in that article submission with a paragraph from the linked article. Then just link the headline to the article.

Do you get it yet? That were not citing an article. They were taking a section of an article and using that as their "entire" content that people could respond to.

Lastly, you are a paranoid freak if you think I know you from Adam let alone have a vendetta against you.

Re:Good (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788145)

I'm sorry no I dont.
that's subjective.

I in fact prefer greater fidelity in the summary.

I once submitted and had accepted a story about the dangers of voting machine hacking.

I'm a leftist but I believed the problem was serious for both sides and framed the summary in a very neutral manner.

The version that made it to the front page was nothing like what I submitted, and presented the issue as a right wing conspiracy.

Aside from that, I never mentioned adam, who is paranoid again?

Can't wait to cut-paste-edit your post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23790857)

Hopefully, when I read the Slashdot post about the EFF taking up this case to clear up what exactly are the boundaries of "fair use" here.

Then I will be able to cut-paste-search-and-replace your first sentence:
    "news organizations" -> "the public"
    "copyright" -> "fair use rights"

With regards to the rest of your post: you didn't even bother to investigate the 7 cases in question:

> cut out large sections - or the entire thing

The reason the AP is contending this is not "fair use" is totally different --- in the blog posts in question there was practically no content added to the quoted material, which itself was a very small part of the linked articles.

> Yes to DRM

I suppose you meant "DRM which works". No such thing, especially for written works, which I understand is what you produce.

> Wackos on teh intartubes has slowly beat into my
> head over the last decade the rationale for DRM.

Wackos in real life have slowly beat into my head the rationale for easy space travel and practically free non-polluting energy. That doesn't mean I'm going to get them....

I guess that you, and I, should probably gear up to actually deal with reality.

Re:Can't wait to cut-paste-edit your post (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#23790933)

Enjoy your dada-esque experiment with scissors and eink.

A) I read the article. Go screw.

B) Yes. Some bloggers have been stealing AP content and then collecting advertising revenue from the work of AP staff. I call that theft.

C) Yes. I mean DRM "that works". I am believe that DRM hardware based solutions are workable and will take hold in the market at some point in the future. I used to oppose such an outcome. Not any longer.

D) I'd like a non-polluting free energy solution too. But it looks like nuclear reclamation is the only solution to that problem. Unfortunately, now we're off-topic.

Ah, AP (2, Insightful)

Ricin (236107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787165)

that beacon of independent journalism lazily quoted around the world without question or any original research by the quoting parties (all news outlets who I'm sure pay them for their feed, how 1980s).

Poor them. For once the message may have been cut-and-pasted a bit too (un?)skewed for their tastes, or who knows, have contained actual unbiased truth (Dog help us!)

Poor them.

Yup they surely need the fascist DMCA to make sure they will remain the number one source of the whole truth and nothing but the truth for the people. No thought crime allowed. After all, this is a new time.

Poor them.

My Heart Bleeds (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787247)

> We get concerned when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when
> others are encouraged to cut and paste.

Fair use. Learn to live with it.

> That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based
> culture of the Internet that you and others have cultivated so well

Whereas AP articles, of course, are just chockfull of links.

Re:My Heart Bleeds (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787583)

Fair use. Learn to live with it.

No. Fair use might be two or three paragraphs, not an entire news article.

Whereas AP articles, of course, are just chockfull of links.

Sour grapes much? If you don't like it, don't link to their stories or photos. Or, you know, go out and do your own journalism.

Re:My Heart Bleeds (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787945)

> Fair use might be two or three paragraphs, not an entire news article.

What article might that be?

> Sour grapes much?

You think I want them to link to something of mine? ROFL.

> If you don't like it...

They needn't link if they don't want to, but but it seems hypocritical of them to attack others for not doing so.

> ...don't link to their stories or photos.

I don't. I also don't link to anyone else's: I don't "blog".

Re:My Heart Bleeds (2, Informative)

bizwriter (1064470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23790567)

>> > We get concerned when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when
>> > others are encouraged to cut and paste.

>> Fair use. Learn to live with it.

That's not fair use. The copyright statutes are pretty clear that fair use is quoting in the context of doing something like criticism, comment, or teaching. Simply copying without adding something is called republishing, and that isn't covered by fair use.

>> > That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the >> link-based
>> > culture of the Internet that you and others have cultivated so well

>> Whereas AP articles, of course, are just chockfull of links.

Of course they're not - they are putting online their own original reporting and work. If someone doesn't do that, there isn't going to be anything worth quoting in the first place.

Google has AP stories without clutter (3, Informative)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787289)

If you ever want to link to (or even just read) Associated Press news stories without all the clutter of most websites, use Google. For example: news.google.com [google.com] search for roma tomatoes source:"associated press" [google.com] and an example AP story found [google.com] .

Urinating into a gale (3, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787337)

The seven takedowns themselves are unimportant. The AP is clearly trying to produce a chilling effect preventing people from posting excerpts at all with this sort of thing. Unfortunately for them, they can't really do it. The blog owner won't play ball, and the original posters are unthreatened by the notices.

Fair Use (-1, Flamebait)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787381)

is theft :-/

Totally out of touch (3, Interesting)

theshibboleth (968645) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787725)

Whatever the details of this particular case, whenever I hear things like "link-based culture" I just think how out of touch old journalism is with the Web. It's like they can't understand the deeper concepts like shared resources that linking implies.

Most big newspapers didn't really even establish much of an online presence until Web 2.0 was gaining momentum, and they're still trying to catch up. Web sites, like the Los Angeles Times, fear user-generated content like wikis because they can't figure out how to manage them. They don't trust the medium enough to embrace concepts like self-regulated systems that work through tagging, ratings, etc...

It really makes me wonder how these news sites will survive... consider that ABC News' idea of bringing in an online audience was to have someone with a laptop sitting with the commentators/anchors screening messages from Facebook; the internet is supposed to enable direct communication between individuals, not the same filtered meaningless content that's been called news for the last few decades...

Consider too that many wire articles that reference Web sites do not actually link directly to the Web site. Why? Do they not know how? Are they afraid of what people might see, or do they not trust the authenticity of the site? Maybe they just don't like the idea of people getting information directly from sources.

Re:Totally out of touch (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23787947)

I was recently asked by my mother for an "impartial" source on the positions of our two presidential candidates. And by "un-biased" she meant one of the "major" news sources.

I told her flat out it's impossible to get un-biased reporting from the major news sources, and suggested she read the threads here.

I really don't know if I've gotten through to her though. I've mentioned how many liberties we've lost and how hijacked our judiciary, legislature, and media have become in the past 8 years, and when I did she began shutting it out.

Most people don't really want to know about this kind of thing, and that's why these news organizations continue to survive.

They offer a plausible way to continue to hide in the illusion our society isn't royally boned, because if they had to acknowledge otherwise they would have to do something about it, and they're too tired to do something about it.

Re:Totally out of touch (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23789087)

I told her flat out it's impossible to get un-biased reporting from the major news sources, and suggested she read the threads here.


Uh.. here?? I, for one, am a fairly partisan hack, and and so are most of the other political posters in here. You're not going to get anything close to unbiased info on the positions of the candidates here.

Better advice would be to check out the candidates' own websites, which present things in the best possible light for them. You don't have to worry about bias, barackobama.com wears it's pro'Bama position on it's sleeve.

And you could check sites like votesmart.org* which purport to clinically record the votes of elected officials on various issues.

*I haven't researched them quite properly yet, but at first glance, they look pretty unbiased.

Or the states' own pages of voting records, speeches, etc.

A forum like slashdot has way too much noise and general hackery to be very useful for political purposes, except as a guage of a certain sub-culture's reaction to a very narrow list of specific issues.

Just boycott AP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23787989)

Do not link to any AP stories. Do not quote AP. Just ignore AP and let them see a drop in hits and eyeballs, which will result in lower advertisement fees.

Money talks. Hit them in the cash flow.....

Separation of Copyright and Press... (4, Insightful)

gnuASM (825066) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788345)

...should become a central doctrine that every Constitution-loving individual should be touting to their representatives. When items of fact can be controlled through the premise of copyright protection, the *IAAs' will look like a child's prank compared to the censorship of thought and ideas that will arise by extending monopolies to cover facts.

Irregardless of ANY form of creativeness, press is a protection of the People that may neither be hindered nor prohibited by the State, and this includes Congress. Congress is granted the power to extend copyrights, or temporal monopolies on ideas and expression. Press, on the other hand, is a power of the People, which Congress has NO power to hinder.

Copyright in and of itself hinders the natural dissemination of an idea by restricting the distribution of that idea. Press was expressly included in the first Amendment as an exclusion to the powers of Congress in extending copyrights, that the dissemination of current and historic fact may not be controlled and censored.

If we continue to allow works of the Press to be treated as works protected under Copyright, than eventually we will no longer be allowed to claim the sky to be blue, for a fact to be true, or for 1+1 to equal 2, without infringing copyright and becoming enemies of the State.

Interesting Idea... (3, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788615)

Perhaps news reporting should be given a vastly shorter copyright term... say, 1 week as opposed to "forever" as is currently the practice.

Seriously, how much value does a week-old news article have nowadays?

Copyright is great for "expressive works". It's not really good when applied to "facts".

Valuable to Slashdot (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23790891)

> Seriously, how much value does a week-old news article have nowadays?

It can be used as the basis of the average Slashdot post?

Re:Separation of Copyright and Press... (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23788901)

If we continue to allow works of the Press to be treated as works protected under Copyright, than eventually we will no longer be allowed to claim the sky to be blue, for a fact to be true, or for 1+1 to equal 2, without infringing copyright and becoming enemies of the State.
No John, you are the demons.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RBQIx5jiTsg [youtube.com]

You fail It. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23788491)

the 'community' backwards. To the of the old going First organization to be about doing and Michael Smith Just yet, but I'm this post u4. parts. The current Shouts To the

Blatant Violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23788777)


AP targets bloggers over story excerpts
Jordan Golson06.13.2008

The Associated Press, the not-for-profit news cooperative, has filed DMCA notices against social news/blog The Drudge Retort for posting short excerpts of AP stories. In a letter to Rogers Cadenhead, the owner of The Retort, the AP believes "the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use."

The "AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes 'hot news' misappropriation."

The AP sent DMCA notices to the Drudge Retort, demanding that the site to take down content that the AP believes infringes on its copyright. Seven notices were sent in total, some regarding headlines and first paragraph excerpts, but at least one referencing a two-paragraph excerpt from the end of an AP story. It seems the AP is serious about protecting all its stories from virtually any sort of excerpting.

The Associated Press is a wire service that sells license to reprint stories for a hefty fee to member press outlets. Contrary to what Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb thinks, the AP doesn't have "inbound links" or "search juice" -- only member organizations do. The AP believes that by reproducing AP content without paying for it, the Drudge Retort is diminishing the benefit its pay customers get from its product. That is, why pay for AP content when you can just republish it for free?

This isn't the first time in recent months that AP has resorted to legal action against sites that it felt were misappropriating its content.

In October, the AP sued news aggregator Moreover for fair-use violations. That company, owned by VeriSign, provides news from a wide variety of sources to paying subscribers. The AP charged that Moreover was "scraping," or copying, the full text of AP stories and sending them to Moreover's customers without paying AP for the rights.

Unlike the Retort case, Moreover was accused of commercially using full-length AP stories without any payment. AP believes (correctly, in my non-lawyer opinion) that this is far outside any reasonable interpretation of fair use.

(Disclosure: Nick Denton, founder of Gawker Media and my former boss at Valleywag, was a cofounder of Moreover)

"Fair use" is a legal term-of-art and one that is frequently misunderstood. There are a number of requirements and standards that must be met for a use to be considered "fair" and it is far outside the purview of this article to define it. In fact, it is impossible to define as fair use is generally considered on a case-by-case basis, but these are the most common determinants:

â The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

â The nature of the copyrighted work.

â The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

â The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The AP believes that by posting excerpts of its content, The Retort (and presumably anyone else using AP content without paying) is reducing the value of its subscription service.

There has not been a significant blogger v. mainstream media copyright battle yet, but the Associated Press sure isn't making any friends with this maneuver. Influential media critic Jeff Jarvis slams the organization in a blog posting titled "FU AP". Jarvis has a long-standing beef with the AP about the organization's lack of credit for original reporting and linking when it repurposes reporting from member newspapers.

Jarvis feels the AP is "declaring war on blogs and commenters" and wants bloggers to reproduce the full length of an AP story to show "solidarity" with the Drudge Retort.

(Photo from the Library of Congress)

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23789423)

Isn't this what the news does all the time? Quite often I'll see the Daily Show showing coverage of an event or topic on all the popular TV news channels, and they'll all use the same exact joke or quip.

Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23790787)

This is bullshit and it must end right now.

AP - are you posting the articles yourself? From my analysis, the answer is no.

This will end right now.

An exerpt is not a copyright violation, even if it is in quotes. If you are not even posting the full articles, why are you posting heresy that they are violating your copyright?

Do we need to go over what a link is? You can review that ruling.

Information in text is technically not a digital copyright - a picture, yes, but text no. This is bullshit and I can't even believe that you are trying to blanket statement the internet with DMCA. The act was not intended that way, and I can't even believe that you have the tenacity to even suggest court action.

The AP is what? Non-profit. You are paid from many sources to do what you are asked in a fair manner. This is news, not AP bull.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?