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!

Court Upholds AP "Quasi-Property" Rights On Hot News

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the discarded-lo-these-90-years dept.

The Courts 169

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A federal court ruled that the AP can sue competitors for 'quasi-property' rights on hot news, as well as for copyright infringement and several other claims. The so-called 'hot news' doctrine was created by a judge 90 years ago in another case, where the AP sued a competitor for copying wartime reporting and bribing its employees to send them a copy of unreleased news. The courts' solution was to make hot news a form of 'quasi-property' distinct from copyright, in part because facts cannot be copyrighted. But now the AP is making use of the precedent again, going after AHN which competes with the AP, alleging that they're somehow copying the AP's news. The AP has been rather busy with lawsuits lately, so even though the AP has a story about their own lawsuit, we won't link to it."

cancel ×

169 comments

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

I call it plagiarism (4, Informative)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976389)

Instead of this fancy legal term of "hot news", I use another term for what AHN is doing to AP: "plagiarism". According to nolo:

putting your name on someone else's work is still plagiarism and is unethical within artistic, scientific, academic and political communities

I guess the press is not one of those communities. I'm not a big fan of lawsuits: I was sued once by a company that wanted to put me out of business and they almost succeeded. Being right doesn't matter, it's whoever has the deepest pockets.

So in this case, I'd much rather have the community (the readers) shun AHN. It's important for everyone to know what is going on, and let the public make their own choices.

--
FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net] -- where geeks are their own boss

Re:I call it plagiarism (5, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976647)

At what point does this end though? You can't own a fact.

It's currently raining in NY (c) AP 2009?

Re:I call it plagiarism (2, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977201)

Now that you've already posted it in public, it's not "hot" news anymore.

An Introduction to Anal Masturbation (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977377)

It's four thirty a.m. and the house is asleep.

I. . . am not asleep.

I am crouched in the bathtub in a frog-like stance, small puddles of urine and liquid shit at my feet. I'm leaning forward, gripping the side of the tub and biting my knee, overwhelmed by a mixture of pain and pleasure as I piston a dildo in and out of my ass.

You see, I really love anal masturbation.

Ever try it? No? You should.

Doesn't matter who you are. God gave all of us, male and female, an abundance of nerve endings in our rectum - and one life to live. So why don't you go ahead and test out the equipment? Have some fun. No point in having a gun sitting on your shelf your entire life and never killing anyone, right?

But I realize there's a fairly persistent misconception among guys that I'm gonna have to dispel before we go any further:

Stimulating your own ass is not "gay."

That notion doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean, how could anything you do to your own body be gay? Nobody ever freaks out in the middle of jerking off like "Holy fuck, I've got a fistful of cock! I've gotta cut this gay shit out!" Well, what's the philosophical difference between playing with your dick and playing with your ass?

There is none.

Look fellas, here's the scoop:

If you have a girl wearing a foot long strap-on, smacking your face and screaming "WHO'S MY BITCH?!?" while she pounds your asshole until it bleeds, that would be a *heterosexual* act. Girl on guy. Simple.

Now if it's a guy that's fucking you, that would be homosexual. And if you're doing it to yourself, well, that's plain old masturbation.

But listen - if you're still sitting there being stubborn, all macho and uptight going "My ass. . . is EXIT ONLY!!!" then lemme just ask you a question.

You know that feeling you get when you take a really big shit?

You know what I'm talking about. You're sitting on the couch, eating Cheez-Its and watching Larry King, when all of the sudden you feel that familiar burning. . . so you get up and bound off to the bathroom all bow legged, clenching your sphincter real tight, and then you furiously rip off your boxer briefs and plop down on the seat just in time to let a huuuuuuge thick turd come sliding out of your ass?

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!

That feeling.

That tingling, chills up your spine, this-is-absolutely-the-pinnacle-of-human-existence feeling.

Well guess what. That's the feeling of a massive rod moving through your rectum, tickling those wonderfully abundant nerve endings. You love it. It's okay. We all do. It doesn't make you a fag. Or at the very least, we're ALL fags. So indulge yourself.

(Yes, I understand that said feeling is partially due to the sensory experience of toxins leaving the body, which is unique to defecation - but the operative word here is "partially." You like the log movement, too. Don't try to argue.)

So anyway, now that you've decided to be bold, and not a homophobic pussy, and poke around the cornhole a little bit - good for you. But there's something you should remember. Anal masturbation is just like playing the accordion, or shooting a jumper, or really anything else that's worth doing. That is, it requires practice.

You see, back when I was a kid I would get curious and stick a finger or a toothbrush up there, but I wasn't fucking around with anywhere near the kind of pleasure I'm achieving now. It was uncomfortable even. So I worked on it.

And conversely, I know I'm still far from expertise in this particular discipline. I don't claim to be an ass master. There's a whole world of lengths, girths, textures, and vibrations that my eager browneye has yet to inhale.

But since I have honed my skills to a pretty decent level, I'll share with you my current technique. Without further ado:

Anonymous Coward's Anal Masturbation Technique

What You Need:

1. Lubricant of your choice
2. Fake cock (eight inches, approx.)
3. Ridged anal wand (seven inches, approx.)

Procedure:

1. Apply a generous amount of lube to your index finger, and swirl the lubricated finger lightly around your butthole. Add another drop or two of lube, and then simultaneously push your finger into your butthole while pushing back with your anus muscles.

2. Slide your finger into your ass up to the knuckle and feel around for turds. Unless you're an anorexic, you probably will come across one.

3. Circle your finger around your anal walls pressing outward, as if you were an umpire signaling a home run. You should be near the toilet, because this is intended to stimulate a bowel movement. Once you've shit, and your rectum is empty, then you're ready for some heavy duty fun.

4. Lube up a second finger and slip them both into your poopchute. Let your asshole get comfortable with the new mass, and then begin to pump a little. Repeat with a third finger if you so desire.

5. Slather lube all over the ridged anal wand. Squat over your tool and press the tip to your now greasy anus. Just as you've done with your fingers, ease the dildo into your cornhole as you push back onto it with your ass muscles. Go slowly, stopping at each ridge and letting your ass adjust to the increase in width, until you have it in as far as it will go.

6. Now it's time to start pounding. I'm not gonna get more specific than that. Do it your own way. Experiment with different positions and rhythms until you find what you like.

7. Once your ass has been thoroughly fucked by the anal wand, it's time to move up to the larger dildo. Again, you're going to repeat the process that you've done twice already, with your fingers and the wand. Entering slowly, pushing back on it, letting yourself adjust, and then starting to pump.

8. At this point your asshole is really loose, gaping even, and it's time to move on to my favorite part. Crouch down, or get into whatever position you feel comfortable with, and hold the fake cock in one hand and the wand in the other. Work the fake cock in and out, building the pace until you are doing a high intensity rectal plundering. Slide it in really deep, pause, then pull it out all the way - quickly jamming in the anal wand to fill its place. The rapid transition from smooth to ridged textures will send waves out of pleasure rippling through your entire body. Then give yourself a nice hard fuck with the anal wand, and repeat as many times as you'd like.

*In carrying out these steps - even if you take the dump at the beginning - you still might at some point fuck the shit out of yourself. This is why I recommend doing it in a bathtub, or on some other surface that is easy to clean. Now at first you might be squeamish about the poo, but I think that as you get hardcore into the pleasure of all this, you'll just naturally get desensitized. Kind of like a heroin addict quickly gets over his fear of needles.

In fact, I've found that the right kind of poo can easily be incorporated into the festivities. Sometimes while I'm pounding away I will feel a sudden rush of heat travel through my ass, and I'll know that I'm coating the dildo with a somewhat viscous liquid shit. At this point in the ass ramming, my pain tolerance is rather high, so I'll simply jam the shitty dildo back up my ass, and let the sudden decrease in lubrication create an effect similar to the aforementioned smooth-to-ridged transition. As a matter of fact, this is probably the most intense sensation that I've come across in my entire anal masturbatory experience.*

So that's how it's done. Quite the activity, I must say. Maybe next time you're feeling bored and restless, you can give it a shot. Unless you're a fucking prude, in which case I'd recommend suicide. Or do a goddamn crossword puzzle, I don't really care.

One more thing I want to say on the subject: I really think anal penetration should be an Olympic sport. Wouldn't that be neat? I mean for Christ sakes, we've all seen how much those little Japanese bastards can eat - can you imagine how much they could stuff up the other end? It could even be a team sport where one of them has to take their partner's entire head up their ass.

Well. . . I don't really know how much support I'm gonna get for my petition to add competitive rectal insertion to the Olympic Games, we'll have to see - but seriously, speed walking? FUCKING CURLING?!? It would be far from the dumbest event on the schedule.

Re:I call it plagiarism (4, Interesting)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977213)

At what point does this end though? You can't own a fact.

You can sue over them though, as the Big sports associations have:

This one covers "Hot scores" [wired.com] .

Back in 1996 this was apparently a controversial thing. Info here about owning facts here [cptech.org] and on the same site here [cptech.org] .

And there are still attempts to sue fantasy sports like this one [yahoo.com] , but I've never heard of this kind of suit being won by the plaintiffs.

Stranger things have been upheld in court.

Re:I call it plagiarism (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977615)

That's a slightly different topic which is statistics.

I bet we can turn this in our favor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977737)

Ok, so they can sue over "hot news" which means every last one of us can sue over hot news as well if it happens to be our own. This means that if the AP were to pick up a story off of a blog and use it without permission, we have their nuts in a vise. And the AP indeed have "borrowed" hot news from bloggers without attribution or compensation.

They don't realize it but now blogging just became a cash-grab with AP as the main sugar-mama.

Re:I call it plagiarism (1)

leicaman (1260836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26978003)

At what point does this end though? You can't own a fact.

It's currently raining in NY (c) AP 2009?

You obviously don't understand the issue. They are not trying to copyright facts, but the expression of those facts, which is, in fact, copyrightable. A photograph would fit this description. And it's clear a photograph can be, and should be, copyrighted. As long as this is a capitalistic country, the ability to make money from one's own efforts must be protected.

Re:I call it plagiarism (2, Informative)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26978139)

At what point does this end though?

It ends at the point you no longer have a competitive advantage from having the "scoop." If I remember the case right, the court correctly noted that the facts can't be copyrighted, and instead carved out a narrow common law right to "hot news" based on a three-factor test I don't remember. There's really not much of a slippery slope here.

!plagiarism (4, Insightful)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976671)

Covering the same story is not necessarily plagiarism, copying it verbatim would come directly under copyright but AFAICT that's not the case at issue.

Anyway:

The AP has been rather busy with lawsuits lately, so even though the AP has a story about their own lawsuit, we won't link to it.

It made for a good joke but the AP doesn't seem to be covering this story (I was going to post the link but I can't find one).

Re:!plagiarism (5, Funny)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977047)

Maybe they sent themselves a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:!plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977107)

those fuckers! this is getting out of hand...

Sounds like they have a copyright claim. (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977461)

If they're reading the AP's articles, then altering them, why doesn't the AP have a copyright claim that the AHI's articles are derivative works of the AP's?

Re:Sounds like they have a copyright claim. (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977963)

Because the AP's articles are derivative works of Current Events.

Re:Sounds like they have a copyright claim. (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26978157)

why doesn't the AP have a copyright claim that the AHI's articles are derivative works of the AP's?

Because they don't get exclusive rights in facts. I could copy all the facts from the leading biography of Pres. Obama and publish my own book based on those facts, and nobody would have a claim.

No joke. The AP's coverage is right here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977517)

You're incorrect. The first story has a link to the AP story which is here [ap.org] .

I just hope they don't sue me for that.

Re:No joke. The AP's coverage is right here. (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977943)

Thanks, I guess it's because the story is a week old!
I didn't try to look that far back, their search interface isn't very useful.

it is not plagiarism (4, Informative)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976853)

The press isn't one of those communities because the press doesn't deal in the kinds of concepts you can plagiarize. If AHN copied AP text verbatim, you might say that they plagiarized the writing, but then they would get sued for copyright infringement. But they are merely stating the same fact as a fact stated in an AP news story, and it's a fact that, unlike a scientific experiment, didn't require creativity to observe--it merely required presence.

So, I don't think it's plagiarism.

Re:it is not plagiarism (3, Informative)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977011)

The problem with this is that AHN isn't present. They are merely lifting AP stories.

If they were at a new-event, there is no problem with them creating their own copy (words) and publishing. The entire news industry is based on exactly this.

The problem with AHN is that they are not sending reporters to stories, they are merely copying AP stories.

The Associated Press actually is set up for exactly this purpose (other outlets using their stories); but AP wire-service subscribers are held to certain rights and conditions as per the license/subscription agreement. This allows the AP to continue to operate (financially) and continue to produce those stories which AHN could not produce on their own (without hiring the staff to actually go to the location of these news-happenings).

Re:it is not plagiarism (2, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977187)

The problem with this is that AHN isn't present. They are merely lifting AP stories.

The problem with AHN is that they are not sending reporters to stories, they are merely copying AP stories.

I see what you did there.

But what if they weren't just getting their facts from AP stories? What if they also got facts from another hot-news source that had information the AP didn't? Shouldn't they be able to combine the facts from two stories in a new narrative to create a more complete story?

It seems other useful actions may run afoul of this, including providing a translation service. Are only the people who read a hot news item's original published languages deserving to be informed?

I read the news today, oh boy!
"Sir, I represent the Associated Press. I have a court order demanding an immediate halt to this unauthorized repackaging of our hot news item."

Re:it is not plagiarism (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977897)

But what if they weren't just getting their facts from AP stories? What if they also got facts from another hot-news source that had information the AP didn't? Shouldn't they be able to combine the facts from two stories in a new narrative to create a more complete story? It seems other useful actions may run afoul of this, including providing a translation service. Are only the people who read a hot news item's original published languages deserving to be informed?

Well, isn't the point that they're NOT doing these things? If they were, perhaps the suit would not have come up...

Re:it is not plagiarism (2, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977383)

You have to consider what is best for society. If news is unprotected, then it's in everyone's best interest to copy the facts from another source. It's a prisoner's dilemma, and unfortunately greedy companies ALWAYS choose to defect, which means anyone who isn't a sucker will have to either defect as well (leaving us with no source for news whatsoever) or change the rules of the game (which the AP is trying to do).

More power to them.

OT: your signature (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976879)

I'm just curious as to why you manually add a signature to your postings (a link to some website), rather than use the standard signature mechanism that automatically adds it, and allows a reader to disable all signatures if he is not interested in them.

Re:OT: your signature (2, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976941)

and allows a reader to disable all signatures if he is not interested in them.

You answered your own question.

Re:OT: your signature (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977423)

and allows a reader to disable all signatures if he is not interested in them.

You answered your own question.

I'd just like to hear it from the person actually doing it, in order to decide how to respond. Why would someone want to bypass a user's preference to not see signatures, especially since it requires extra work?

Re:OT: your signature (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977521)

and allows a reader to disable all signatures if he is not interested in them.

You answered your own question.

I'd just like to hear it from the person actually doing it, in order to decide how to respond. Why would someone want to bypass a user's preference to not see signatures, especially since it requires extra work?

There is a script floating around which will automatically insert a sig on slashdot posts. It doesn't have to require ongoing work.

Re:OT: your signature (1)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977535)

It's called ignorance (mine). Most posts I read here have a signature, so I sign my posts just the same way I was doing it 2000 years ago on Usenet (except it seems that one line is the etiquette here, versus 4 lines - good choice by the way, one liner is better).

And then one day you realize that you don't have to type it by hand, there is a feature (is it under preferences or profile I guess).

Re:I call it plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977135)

I guess the press is not one of those communities.

Just figure that out?

I can't count how many times I've seen a news story "break" on one channel, and then 10 to 15 minutes later Fox News suddenly has it as well, then MSNBC, etc. (not necessarily in that order).

Fox especially gets under my skin, because they rarely have a story first, & after ignoring stories for hours when they finally start airing it the first words out of the talking heads is "The question we've ALL been asking is..."

But ya, pretty much all the major media outlets plagerize each other. I guess I always thought the whole point of the AP was so various newspapers & radio broadcasts could all have "breaking" news from limited sources without getting into these kinds of fights about who "owns" the news.

Oh well, throw them all back into the pool with the other sharks. Most of their "news" is horsecrap anyhow, almost always horribly spun out of all proportion, and designed to simply piss off as many viewers as possible.

Re:I call it plagiarism (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977151)

Instead of this fancy legal term of "hot news", I use another term for what AHN is doing to AP: "plagiarism".

That's a reasonable characterization. But since there is no law against plagiarism, and the effects of a court manufacturing such a sweeping law (contrary to free speech), would almost certainly get the ruling rapidly overturned by a higher court,

So by coming up with the "hot news" concept that seems specific enough, the ruling's likely to stand for a long time, or at least "long enough"

What the hell is "AP"? (0)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976445)

What the hell is "AP"? It's common practice to at least explain the acronym once in a text. As of now, this blurb means nothing without following the links. Is AP a person (unlikely because of the age, but still)? A company? A newspaper?

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (2, Funny)

KrimZon (912441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976471)

Maybe they're like the NN equivalent of an AC on SD or something.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976477)

What the hell is "AP"? It's common practice to at least explain the acronym once in a text. As of now, this blurb means nothing without following the links. Is AP a person (unlikely because of the age, but still)? A company? A newspaper?

Associated Press. Often times when an article is about a specific topic, certain common acronyms can be left out. For instance, would you complain if a Slashdot article summary about the latest Intel processor did not explain what the acronym "CPU" stands for?

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (2, Informative)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976481)

AP = Associated Press, the biggest, baddest news syndicate out there.

That being said, you're absolutely right. The full, unabbreviated name should have been in there at least once.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (3, Funny)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976709)

That being said, you're absolutely right. The full, unabbreviated name should have been in there at least once.

Indeed. I'd quote the relevant passage from the AP Stylebook regarding the use of abbreviations, but they seem to have locked it up behind a paid-content wall.

Take THAT, thriving black market for standard news industry reference materials!

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976483)

The "AP" is the Associated Press. It's probably the largest news gathering organization in the world.

--AC

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (5, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976489)

It's the The Associated Press [wikipedia.org] , a wire service [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

StormySees (1481403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976491)

AP is the "Associated Press". It's a not-for-profit Co-op that creates articles for TV, radio and newspapers.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977217)

not-for-profit ?

Surely you jest... what are they doing placing content behind pay walls and suing authors of news over reporting "hot news" for, if that's truly the case...?

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (2, Informative)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977501)

Standard disclaimer: IANAL

"Not-for-profit" != "takes in no money".

Not-for-profit is more of a legal/accounting designation than a vow of poverty, and lawsuits are often to get an court ruling against improper/undesirable behavior, rather than win lots of money.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976511)

It's " Associated Press [wikipedia.org] " they're talking about.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976539)

Associated Press

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976725)

Associated Press. (%Insert link to Wikipedia article.%) (%Insert random fact or two about AP.%) (%Insert funny comment to try and get modded up.%)

Ah, thank god for my Slashdot comment template engine.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977055)

I know your being cynical, but if you:

a) answered the question
b) put interesting facts in
c) put relevant link in
d) entertain people in the process

Hell, you deserve to be modded up.

This post meets a & d, but misses b and c so should still do ok. But overuse this particular d and it will cease to entertain which just leaves a, and there is no shortage of a's, which means this template, if it remains unfilled will start out funny, but as the funny wears off your moderation will trend towards redundant. ;)

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26978033)

y so srs?

You forgot to mention... (0, Redundant)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26978247)

e) say something about the post being modded up. It's sort of like a reverse Fight Club, or a reverse "first rule": if you want to be modded up, always talk about being modded up.

It also seems to work backwards, too. If you want your post to be modded up, the magic words are, "I know I'll be modded down for this, but..."

Like this post, for example. I know it will be modded down. Nobody would ever mod it funny or insightful.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976869)

Ask yourself: Why are you asking this question?

Are you trying to contribute to the discussion on the subject of the summary/article? (Are you trying to burn/earn karma points?)

Are you being lazy (not using Google or Wikipedia to find out for yourself)?

Or are you mis-directing a request to the forums here, when they should go to the Slashdot admins?

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977661)

I didn't know what AP meant either meaning it's 2 vs 1.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (4, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976967)

There's a point where the ubiquity of an acronym is so much that it doesn't NEED explaining. Do you need me to type that I live in the United States of America (USA)? Or would you get it from the context of what I was saying because it's a common acronym? The AP has been around for so long and has it's name in so many places that I'd think almost all people reading it would know it.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977279)

It's still good form to explain an acronym once. Yeah, I got the AP part, AHN [allheadlinenews.com] required a quick Google. Not that Slashdot is going to win any journalism awards (or any other awards for that matter), but pendants have to have something to complain about.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977723)

... but pendants have to have something to complain about.

"That jeweler really should have made me an eighth of an inch longer"

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977345)

True, but AP means so many other things depending on the context. When I was in highschool, AP meant "Advanced Placement". In the technology namespace, it means "Access Point".

Assuming people on slashdot are going to be familiar with acronyms from the journalism namespace is not really appropriate in my opinion.

Still though, googling for "AP" gives the answer on the first hit, or (god forbid) clicking the link to the article.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

Celc (1471887) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977525)

Now it might be because I'm living in another country or maybe it's just me but I had too think for a few seconds to figure out what it stood for aswell. I'm curious if it really is such an obvious ackronym too the rest of the world, I rarely se anything but reuters and TT over here.

Comparing the ackronym USA with AP is so absurd I can't be bothered qualifying why.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977109)

I find it fairly ironic that people reading a NEWS site don't know what the AP is, yet would probably not bring up this point if the article were about DARPA, or IIS, or CGI...

Worse yet is that those of you that don't know the AP probably would have no problem identifying TMZ* (tabloid news), and what it is without knowing the full name behind the Acronym.


*for the record, TMZ stands for "Thirty Mile Zone", which is old film-industry speak for the Hollywood area of LA.

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977299)

Thank you for explaining what TMZ means. I've wondered everytime I've seen it displayed. Not that I give a flying crap about the stuff since it's like something a teenage girl would banter about with another teenage girl.
"like, oh mah god... you should see brad pitt's ass. and him next to angelina jolie, oh... mah.. god... BRANNNNgelia! Totally."

Re:What the hell is "AP"? (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977263)

Try this:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ap [lmgtfy.com]

But seriously...with the context of the writeup...how in the hell could you not know who the AP is?

This just in... (3, Funny)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976513)

... I'm about to be sued by Associated Press for this hot news item. More at 11

Re:This just in... (0, Troll)

antispam_ben (591349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976571)

Scum at 11

Fixed that for ya.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976721)

Self-fulfilling prophecy [wikipedia.org] FTW

New Internet Rules (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976523)

If it can be taken, copied, borrowed, whatever - it will be. It is not physically or technically possible to prevent this from happening.

That means you are left with civil court remedies, which generally take too long to get anywhere and the penalties may be wholly out of line with the benefits. Basically, you can drive your competitors out of a billion-dollary business and get fined a million dollars. Sounds like a great business plan.

Alternatively, civil court remedies can be wholly out of line the other way, where the benefit to the offender is $1000 and they have to pay a $250,000 fine.

We have spent the last 20 years educating the population that "borrowing" and "sharing" is good and fine and as long as it is on the Internet nobody is harmed. Can we not understand that this is going to carry over into all walks of life. If it is OK to share music across the planet at home then at work it is going to be OK to share web content, or any other content you can lay your hands on.

Plagiarism? Sure. But people buy term papers on the Internet all the time, so don't expect they will feel any shame about this sort of activity either.

Sharing is not plagiarism (3, Interesting)

Geof (153857) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977077)

I just thought I should point that out. Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Sharing does not imply plagiarism. The vast majority of copyright infringement is *not* plagiarism.

One of the foundations of international copyright (and an aspect of it not strongly respected by the United States) is moral rights, including the right of the author to be given credit. I find it ironic that vigorous enforcement of copyright actually creates an incentive for sharers and borrowers to obscure the source or credit of material. This makes their activity harder to detect, and easier for them to defend ("I got this from AP" is kind of a dead giveaway).

If copyright law was closer to actual social practice, this kind of plagiarism would likely be much less common.

Personally, I find clear cases of plagiarism to be utterly dishonest and far worse than sharing.

Re:New Internet Rules (1)

merreborn (853723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977095)

We have spent the last 20 years educating the population that "borrowing" and "sharing" is good and fine and as long as it is on the Internet nobody is harmed. Can we not understand that this is going to carry over into all walks of life. If it is OK to share music across the planet at home then at work it is going to be OK to share web content, or any other content you can lay your hands on.

I think even much of the anti-copyright crowd is still against the idea of attempting to profit off someone else's work via plagiarism.

There's a difference between me emailing the text of an AP article to a few friends, and posting the same content on my website without attribution or permission, and raking in advertising dollars.

Re:New Internet Rules (1)

DMalic (1118167) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977305)

Agreed. I wouldn't use the term "still", though. There's a clear difference between redistributing material which was originally envisioned by someone else and trying to take credit for it. It's quite possible that taking a stronger stance against redistribution and the creation of derivative works leads to the proliferation of works which don't give credit because it would expose them to legal liability. See: the entire dungeons and dragons universe.

Re:New Internet Rules (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977165)

Plagiarism? Sure. But people buy term papers on the Internet all the time, so don't expect they will feel any shame about this sort of activity either.

That seems to be insidious and corrosive though. You better hope that any physician you get had better scruples than that. The same goes to your car mechanic or commercial airline pilot too. You don't want people that should have failed those tests to go on and get employment, which could have devastating consequences.

Re:New Internet Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977917)

If it can be taken, copied, borrowed, whatever - it will be. It is not physically or technically possible to prevent this from happening.

The same is true for anything for which a law is written. It is not physically or technically possible to prevent larceny, robbery, or assault. It is not physically or technically possible to prevent fraud, misrepresentation, or unjust enrichment. It is not physically or technically possible to make people honest, fair, and reasonable.

That's never the point.

Just because it is easy to do something doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for it.

We have spent the last 20 years educating the population that "borrowing" and "sharing" is good and fine and as long as it is on the Internet nobody is harmed.

Come now. No one can honestly believe that line. "Borrowing" and "sharing" is sometimes acceptable, and being on or off the Internet does not automatically flip the switch one way or the other.

You can't "share" someone else's tax returns or "borrow" their car without their permission. Even if they let you have some limited use of it, say, giving you permission to borrow their tile saw, doesn't mean that you can share it with others or let others borrow it without the consent of its rightful owner.

There are certainly uses for copyrighted material that are acceptable. There is a further set of uses that should be acceptable. But there is a limit. No one is harmed? That's simply not true--it's quite plain that the balance between the helpful aspects of file sharing and the harmful aspects is one that operates in a fairly narrow band. Yes, sharing helps to publicize artists and songs--but this is only true if that sharing remains limited such that there is a way for them to maintain their revenue stream.

If you have too much sharing, then there is no longer a means for sales. Filesharing, though, is not the kind of casual, friend to friend sharing that happens to introduce social acquaintances to new music, nor is it the act of letting a friend or coworker borrow a DVD. It's a massive, arms-length, complete substitute for the commercial system and in no way does anyone using it have a legitimate belief that they are entitled to do so.

Frankly, it's not for you or anyone else to judge how they choose to profit from their creations. If they want to sell very limited copies for money, then the market should decide whether the set of rights is worth the money. If they want to give it away free of charge, with a very limited set of rights, so that they can monetize the conveyance of other rights, then they're providing a clear benefit for a group of people who only need the limited set of rights, rather than forcing them to pay for more than they need. If they want to give away free copies with very permissive sets of rights, because they have some alternate source of income, that's great, too.

It's not for people to overstep their authority simply because they can do it easily. If they disagree with how a particular thing is limited, they should find an alternative and not simply take what isn't theirs--it's nothing more than simple greed and dishonesty, and regardless about how you feel about the seller, that flagrant lack of integrity on the customer's part is more symptomatic of what's wrong with modern society.

Borrowing and sharing is good, yes, if you have permission. Taking because you can has never been a justification in and of itself, for anything, and neither has the subjective declaration that "nobody got hurt!", doubly so when that is plainly untrue.

Re:New Internet Rules (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26978115)

If you have too much sharing, then there is no longer a means for sales.

No, that's going too far. People sell copies of public domain works all the time. Go to any decent bookstore, and you'll find copies of Dickens, Hugo, Twain, etc.

Frankly, it's not for you or anyone else to judge how they choose to profit from their creations.

Well, to some extent it is. The people empowered the government to enact copyright laws meant to benefit the people. Copyright doesn't originate from authors, and is not meant to serve their interests, save as a mere means to an end. (Much like how a farmer might give his mule a carrot to encourage it to pull a cart to market, but wouldn't waste a carrot on the mule for no self-serving reason)

Ultimately, we set the rules, and we set them to benefit ourselves. The trouble we've been having lately is that our representatives, who are supposed to be acting in our interests, have been corrupted or confused, and are not only acting as dictated by third parties, they are often acting against the public interest. It's a problem that demands our attention.

I have no problem with authors profiting from their work. But if they wish to profit by means of a monopoly that prevents everyone else from using their work as we see fit, then there's a pretty big problem. Why would I ever give an author such power unless I gained more by doing so than I lost? Thus, how they choose to profit from their work becomes a question I, and everyone else, needs to judge, since apparently no one else has our interests in mind.

Thus:

If they want to sell very limited copies for money

If they want to sell very limited copies for money, it's ultimately up to everyone else to decide whether those limits ought to be enforceable, or even respected. You can apply DRM to a copy of Shakespeare, if you like, and I can break it, if I like. If you want a copyright, you'll have to convince me that it leaves me better off to grant you one.

It's not for people to overstep their authority simply because they can do it easily.

It's a factor. Copyright law must serve the public interest in encouraging works to be created and published, with as few restrictions on those works as possible, for the shortest period of time. That is, getting the most bang for our buck. But it also needs to conform to social norms. It's always good for the law to be obeyed not only out of respect for the law, but because people would be apt to engage in that behavior anyway. When law and norms conflict, people tend to follow norms. When people disrespect one law, this can breed disrespect for more; that's dangerous. And since the law is meant to serve the people, the people are usually in the right in these matters. Sometimes it is worth trying to change social norms -- the civil rights era is a good example of this -- but it often isn't -- such as Prohibition. I'd say that copyright is one of those laws where it needs to submit to norms, rather than the other way around. Thus, piracy amongst individuals, not acting for profit, really ought to be made lawful, since virtually everyone seems to do it anyway, while commercial piracy, which most people are opposed to, could remain infringing.

-it's nothing more than simple greed and dishonesty

I fail to see the dishonesty. As for the greed, sure. So what? Copyright is based upon greed. It incentivizes authors to create, by playing on their greed for the money that the temporary monopoly can direct toward them. And it exists because the public has a insatiable greed for more creative works, and for those works to be as unrestricted as possible, as fast as possible, so that they can be acquired for free, and freely used. Don't dis greed.

Borrowing and sharing is good, yes, if you have permission.

In the context of creative works, at least, it is always good, regardless of permission, except when it is self-defeating.

Message (2, Funny)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976529)

Let us all fight for our quasi-rights while living under this quasi-dictatorship.

Re:Message (4, Funny)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976737)

Can we instead quasi-fight for our quasi-right to quasi-party?

Re:Message (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976893)

This is making me feel a bit quasi...

Re:Message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977041)

Can we instead quasi-fight for our quasi-right to quasi-party?

I'm quasi-with you!

Re:Message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977681)

Quasi-Kick it!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Message (1)

mpaulsen (240157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977697)

"Can we instead quasi-fight for our quasi-right to quasi-party?" That should be slashdot's quasi motto.

Some more analysis links (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976861)

As usual, I find that the decisions and writing of Judge Learned Hand to be some of the most insightful. From his extensive writings on free speech (which O.W. Holmes borrowed heavily from), to the present matter:

from Harvad Law (emphasis mine):

The Second Circuit was very hostile to INS for many years. Justice Learned Hand agreed with Justices Holmes and Brandeis and was quite overt in getting his colleagues to circumvent INS. An example of this deliberate resistance was Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp., 35 F.2d 279 (2nd Circ. 1929), involving two competing silk manufacturers. Plaintiff Cheney requested an injunction barring Doris from copying patterns used in dress design during the eight to nine month fashion season. Cheney relied on INS, saying its situation was analogous because the considerable expense involved in designing the patterns couldn't be recouped when the defendant copied the patterns with no similar expenditure and sold them for lower prices. Affirming the District Court's denial of an injunction, Justice Hand noted that because of the short season life of the patterns, design patent protection was impractical and they would likely lack the requisite originality to qualify. Nor did the patterns qualify for copyright protection because they flunked the conceptual separability test. Justice Hand said that, although it seemed unfair to not provide a remedy to Cheney, it was not up to the judicial system to extend a patent- or copyright-like monopoly in the absence of legislation authorizing it.

But this doesn't really matter anyway, since if you read on in the link I provided, you'll see that federal common law was abolished, so what matters is the specific state law. New York common law establishes strict criteria for the application of the misappropriation doctrine to "hot news" (see National Basketball Ass'n v. Sports Team Analysis & Tracking Systems, Inc. [fmew.com] [warning: site is ugly as sin] for how a recent plaintiff's claim was found to be lacking)... and this seems to meet all of it. It made me chuckle, however, that in that link one of the biggest supporters of the defendant in that case was the AP.

At any rate, I think we need to have either sweeping federal law specifically creating this property, or we need to have no right to "hot news" as quasi-property. The problem with the latter is then there is no incentive to do fact reporting at all, since it would be impossible to recoup the costs of it. The idealist in me says "Boo to treating information as property" but the realist in me says "Yay to having paid reporters".

Meanwhile, the cynic in me says "It doesn't matter, we'll only see the news they want us to see", the paranoid in me says "We'll only see the news THEY want us to see", and the dadaist in me says "News? Art.".

Re:Some more analysis links (2, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976927)

The problem with the latter is then there is no incentive to do fact reporting at all, since it would be impossible to recoup the costs of it.

No incentive at all? So the fact that most national stories that papers do publish don't generally raise such an issue means nothing to you?

The incentive is there. Beat the other papers to the scoop, forcing the other papers to follow rather than lead.

Re:Some more analysis links (3, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977161)

The AP is not a newspaper, it is a newswire. There's a big difference.

It's common knowledge in news publishing that in-depth reporting is disappearing. There have been reporter layoffs coast-to-coast, and more papers than ever are simply paying their subscriptions to the AP or Reuters or another news service, then copyediting the AP article (and crediting the AP, of course). This alone is severely limiting the quantity of quality news (especially local news).

However, facts are facts. Since they cannot be copyrighted, this quasi-property status is all that keeps someone from grabbing the facts from the AP Newswire, and reporting on it themselves. This can be done as quickly as someone who is giving attribution to the AP, so the competitive advantage you allow for (which enables the profit) is moot.

If we work from your example, a publisher protects their profit by use of secrecy. This doesn't work for a newswire, whose very business model depends on others' having access to their reporting.

In essence, there are two levels of publication -- once by the AP to news outlets, and once by the news outlets to the public. No "hot news" provision means that the AP's customers (the news outlets) don't need to pay the AP, or even attribute stories to them. Thus, the AP can't pay reporters, and we have even fewer reporters to dig up the facts.

Eventually, all news outlets will be just like the blogosphere, with a dearth of quality reporting, and endless bloglink circle jerks.

I, for one, appreciate the value of the fourth estate.

Re:Some more analysis links (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977577)

The component which we will lose is local reporting on remote events. I read The Age [theage.com.au] for news in my region. For everything else I browse google news and select the best source.

The Age won't get much advantage from sending reporters to the USA. But historically they only did that because I couldn't buy the New York Times in Melbourne.

Re:Some more analysis links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26977171)

Exactly. A newspapers claim to fame used to be the timeliness of their news rather than the quality of the writing which is being emphasized at many places these days. Timeliness will always be valuable regardless of the amount of copying going on. Newspapers should drop the authors and go back to hiring journalists.

Re:Some more analysis links (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977259)

Newspapers should drop the authors and go back to hiring journalists.

Ha. Newspapers are firing the journalists, because they can get basic news from the AP, or Reuters.

Authors are what sell print media, since that content is not available from the newswires... and they can keep the stories secret until publication.

News reporting is being outsourced to the newswires. Since all the papers get their news from the same sources, timeliness doesn't matter anymore... and the competitive advantage from timeliness doesn't outweigh the cost of a full staff of reporters.

FYI, most quality journalism is the in-depth reporting and analysis you ascribe to "authors" not to journalists. If I just want the news, I'll go online. I subscribe to three papers, for the following reasons:
(1) Local news -- but this is suffering, since small papers are laying off reporters
(2) Quality international reporting -- I pay for a daily that has more unbiased and varied international news than most US papers
(3) Sports reporting and analysis (and this one I'll probably cancel soon, since more & better info is available online)

Maybe I'm an outlier, or an edge case... but actual newsfact reporting is a waste of newsprint, IMO.

I can see it now... (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976895)

Just imagine...

Massive Asteroid Headed for Earth.

In other news: AP victorious in pre-publication motion to prevent competitors from carrying asteroid story.

Re:I can see it now... (3, Funny)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976943)

I say we call Bruce Willis now, and worry about the lawsuit later!

protecting information: here's the deal (4, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976961)

We have IP for a reason: it helps make social structures work better. As a society, we make a little deal, and that deal is a different in each of the 3 broad categories of IP protection: copyright & trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.

In the copyright area, the deal works like this: the Content Creator gets a limited time right to exclusively control profits, distribution, performance, derivatives and use of the work they create as a proxy for the "property right" they would normally get to claim if they had created a physical thing. In return for this exclusive control, the Content Creator gets both benefits, but also pays a downside. The benefit is they get to profit and control the results of their efforts. The downside is that after that limited time is over, the information always gets released to the society at large. In the long run, society benefits from this deal in two ways: it promotes the creation of works based on information: digital media, software, literature, music, movies, etc. ...in today's world - most everything relating to media, computers, and electronic art. The second, important benefit is that society gets all the information after the limited time is over. It all becomes public domain.

Copyright is good, and we need it. Many have argued and manipulated the system to change the amount of time - but that is another story. Many have argued about how much of what one creates can be controlled, and how - and we have fair use cases that cover exactly that.

So we already have the deal. The deal works (some might argue poorly). I don't see a valid need for another, different deal.

Just because AP runs a large business and spends money doesn't mean they (or anyone) can cut a new deal. In this case, the whole idea of "hot news" is about controlling very specific, small pieces of information: scores, facts, headlines. In my opinion after a very brief read: the balance between what is good of society and what is good for the Content Creator is not met.

Re:protecting information: trade secrets (2, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977057)

I do not understand why people are upset. Paranoia? Here's a nickel, go get some tinfoil :)

Unpublished news is like unpublished scientific discoveries or product developments. Trade secrets are property of the employer and the employee giving them to anyone else is simple theft and the receiver is at least a receiver of stolen goods, or may be complicit in the theft.

How can a republisher have any advantage? They have to change the words, most likely reducing accuracy. If they can prepare a prettier presentation, then they've added value.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977149)

We have IP for a reason: it helps make social structures work better. We have only had the legal concept of IP for a few hundred years now. Are you saying social structures didn't work before then? I think the ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and many other civilizations too numerous to mention would probably disagree with you on that one.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (2, Insightful)

Pinckney (1098477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977485)

We have only had the legal concept of IP for a few hundred years now. Are you saying social structures didn't work before then? I think the ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and many other civilizations too numerous to mention would probably disagree with you on that one.

They also lacked a way to efficiently copy information. IP law, in the form of author's privileges, appeared as early as the 15th century in the west, following the invention of the movable type printing press.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977899)

IP law, in the form of author's privileges, appeared as early as the 15th century in the west, following the invention of the movable type printing press.

It looks like [wikipedia.org] it actually started as publisher's privileges:

Second, Gutenberg's development of movable type and the development and spread of the printing press made mass reproduction of printed works quick and much cheaper than ever before. Before printing, the process of copying a work could be nearly as labor intensive and expensive as creating the original, and was largely relegated to monastic scribes. It appears that publishers, rather than authors, were the first to seek restrictions on the copying of printed works. Given that publishers of music and films in particular commonly now obtain the copyright from a creator (although rarely a book author) as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does creators.

It also sounds like one of the early purposes was censorship:

In 1557, the English monarch, Mary I, chartered a London guild of printers, bookbinders, and booksellers known as the Stationers' Company, probably in an attempt to prevent the spread of the Protestant Reformation. Only Guild members were allowed to practice the art of printing and the master and wardens of the society were empowered to search, seize, and burn all prohibited books, and to imprison any person found to be printing without a license. In return for their role in preventing the publication of books deemed heretical or seditious, the Guild's members enjoyed the economic benefits of a monopoly over the printing industry. From 1557 to 1641, the English Crown exercised authority over printing and the Stationers' Company through the Star Chamber. After the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1641, the English Parliament continued to extend the Stationers' Company's censorship/monopoly arrangement through a series of ordinances and Licensing Acts between 1643 and 1692.

...and modern copyright [wikipedia.org] came about when the law granting the Stationers their power expired and they needed to obtain a new one.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977561)

Sounds strawman-ish. "work better" doesn't have to mean mean things didn't work at all before. Not only that, the landscapes were very different. There wasn't a mass market for prerecorded/preprinted media because it was too expensive. I don't think as big of a proportion of the society worked at creating works of art, books, music, movies either. Before a couple centuries ago, most people's employment was in food production, now, food production employs less than 5% of a modern developed society.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977393)

Copyright is good, and we need it.

Has anyone actually shown that overall creative output increased as a result of the adoption of copyright, like the theories say is should have?

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977749)

I would like to see a good study on this as well.
At least on the surface if you look at employment, a greater percentage of the population is involved in "creative" tasks compared to the past. Historically people were involved in purely labor intensive tasks (eg farming, construction); automation and mass production have rendered these types of tasks obsolete.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977523)

Entities should not legally be allowed to own copyrights for living artists' and authors' work.

the MPAA's member companies should not disallow writers to hold copyrights on their work.

We should not be legally allowed or able to sign away our rights on the dotted line.

Copyright was thought up as a way to protect authors' and inventors' work. It was meant as a way to prevent plagiarism and protect the rights of the original creator.

The whole system has been bastardized and gamed to cut the creators out of their fair share and to protect revenue streams of investors.

Re:protecting information: here's the deal (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977815)

You would destroy the whole idea of "works for hire."
Most creative works are not the result of one person; it takes a large number of people, if each retained the copyright for their portion you would create a bigger legal mess.
People should be allow to sign away their copyright. It's a fair exchange where they get a firm return and not deal with the risk if their product is a commercial failure. The **AA doesn't go to the artist and ask for millions of dollars if their song/movie bombs.

Just re-presenting old facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976975)

From the fine article:

The AP notes that AHN has no news operation at all, and says its employees just browse the Internet scooping up AP copy and re-writing it.

This dude notes that /. has no news operation at all, and says its employees just browse the Firehose scooping up submissions and re-writing it.

So what's new again? Isn't that how most internet publications work anyway? Some organization discovers, and publishes a new / unknown fact, and it gets copied over and over by countless others who didn't do the gruntwork themselves. If that's all that AHN is doing, then they're allways behind on the stories, right? And isn't that the added value for the party (AP) that has the scoops, that their readers get it first?

Okay, two reporters cover the same "hot" story (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977145)

They print it in their respective papers. Which one gets sued?

Re:Okay, two reporters cover the same "hot" story (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977413)

Neither. RTFA.

a "hot news" misappropriation claim is viable when:

(i) a plaintiff generates or gathers information at a cost; ...

(iii) a defendant's use of the information constitutes free riding on the plaintiff's efforts; ...

Re:Okay, two reporters cover the same "hot" story (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977865)

To be perfectly redundant, as a whole lot of others have said, that would be called plagiarism, pawning off somebody else's work as your own. Either way, I believe the dissenting opinion to be the correct one. Chalk it up as another failure of majority rule.

Re:Okay, two reporters cover the same "hot" story (1)

Viperpete (1261530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977837)

They print it in their respective papers. Which one gets sued?

Both of them?

Come on now (1)

lunartik (94926) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977245)

"we won't link to it."

I know you are making a joke, but we shouldn't participate in this bullshit by limiting what we publish [ap.org] .

Another sign of the failing news industry (4, Insightful)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977309)

When all else fails, sue everyone!

And I thought the Ninth Circus liked to... (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977367)

...legislate from the bench.

Seriously, where's the statutory basis for this new property right? Or did they pull all of this stuff directly out of their ass?

Re:And I thought the Ninth Circus liked to... (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977573)

Seriously, where's the statutory basis for this new property right? Or did they pull all of this stuff directly out of their ass?

It's common law. Which is a fancy way of saying the latter.

Copyright is evil (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977587)

Simple really.

I'll wait for the court decision (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26977677)

...and when its in, I'll read all about it in the,....er,.....um.....

Well, maybe not.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?