NationStates Jolt Archive

This will probably mean no more Yahoo news links, no more Reuters news links, and you'll have to be careful with your other links.

AP plans on charging blogs and forums on a per-word basis.

Since we're not paying customers (our enrollment is free, and Jolt doesn't really have our billing names and addresses), Jolt will likely be the one socked with the fees.

If other news agencies follow suit, it's likely we won't be able to link to anything here anymore.

The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles — as few as five words…

The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.

This scale is likely only a temporary solution, as it raises a truckload of questions. For instance: Suppose a news source holds a press conference, and makes a statement to several attendees including an AP correspondent. Does the citation of that quote count as an excerpt of an AP story? What if Reuters cited the same quote? Or worse, what if Reuters cited the quote differently, and a blogger noticed the difference and excerpted both for comparison? If the AP citation turned out to be in error, would the blogger still owe?

http://license.icopyright.net/user/offer.act?gid=3&inprocess=t&sid=36&tag=3.5721%3Ficx_id%3DD90VCFA01&urs=WEBPAGE&urt=nullit

So does that mean that we have to rewrite news articles when we want to discuss them on this forum?

Land of the free? Free press? What?

Pathetic.

Intellectual property being used to stifle discussion. Nice.

Luckily, the news cannot be copyrighted. News items reported by AP can be summed up, or rewritten to convey the facts without falling into IP trouble. I guess when crying 'source' we need to be sensitive to the problem, and when reporting news, we need to be looking to alternative sources ourselves.

So does that mean that we have to rewrite news articles when we want to discuss them on this forum?

Yes, and if you link the news story, if you have as few as five words in a row in common with the linked story, Jolt will get billed.

Yes, and if you link the news story, if you have as few as five words in a row in common with the linked story, Jolt will get billed.

No, it doesn't.

Jolt might get sued by the AP, but whether that suit would hold up is another question alltogether. For one, IP protections are jurisdictional. In the US, there are 'fair use' exceptions to copyright which are very similar to those in the UK, and other western nations. The use of a small excerpt from a linked article falls well within that fair use exception.

While it's true that copyright holders granting licenses have extreme leeway when setting terms (terms which license seekers are free to reject and simply not continue attempting to get said license) it is NOT true that copyright holders have more power than legislation to decide what is, and what is not 'fair use'.

The AP cannot legislate, and this is a crock of shit.

That's just silly... really, really it is. Now I understand them not wanting commercial sites to take their stories word for word without paying (because frankly they should be doing their own news stories) but to charge people for linking or using excerps is stupid, not the least for their own profit margin. Seriously, when people read part of a news story in a blog or on a link site those who are interested are likely to click on said link and go and read the full story on the AP site, where they can get lots of ad revenue. By doing this they're just shooting themselves in the foot.

*is thankful she usually uses the BBC as her source*

No, it doesn't.

Jolt might get sued by the AP, but whether that suit would hold up is another question alltogether. For one, IP protections are jurisdictional. In the US, there are 'fair use' exceptions to copyright which are very similar to those in the UK, and other western nations. The use of a small excerpt from a linked article falls well within that fair use exception.

While it's true that copyright holders granting licenses have extreme leeway when setting terms (terms which license seekers are free to reject and simply not continue attempting to get said license) it is NOT true that copyright holders have more power than legislation to decide what is, and what is not 'fair use'.

The AP cannot legislate, and this is a crock of shit.

What's cheaper - Jolt (of which the majority of forum members never link anything from AP except us NS General users) bans links and quotes, or Jolt defends the case vigorously?

It would also be helpful, DK, to post more sources on the issue.

source (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/if-ap-is-right.html)

Here's what AP's Irene Keselman, the co-op's IP coordinator, told the Drudge Retort, according to Cadenhead: "The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of 'fair use.' AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights."

Intellectual property attorneys said the issue falls into murky legal terrain. Last year, Google agreed to a licensing deal with Agence France Presse, which claimed indexing its leads to the wire service's stories amounted to copyright infringement.

"If there was a court decision that said quoting from a news story without doing a lot of commentary was an infringement, then I think a lot of blogs would have to rethink there business model," said Nancy Mertzel, a New York intellectual property attorney with Thelen Reid.

Kathleen Williamson, a Tucson-based IP lawyer, offered advice to bloggers:

"If the blogger were my client, I would advise reading the news and then writing one’s own headlines and content just to avoid trouble."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a vast amount of blogging legal tools, with this warning: "There are no hard and fast rules for fair use (and anyone who tells you that a set number of words or percentage of a work is "fair" is talking about guidelines, not the law). The Copyright Act, the EFF says, sets out four factors when considering whether a work is fair use or a copyright violation.

Neesika, how many people would actually have the money to spend on a lawyer?

Most wouldn't.

How many companies would give a shit enough to spend money on a lawyer?

I bet Jolt wouldn't. Especially now that they've been acquired.

The acquisition always begins with cost-cutting.

Fair use (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) in the US...just to give you an idea.


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—


*(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
*(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
*(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
*(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

As pointed out, the four factors are somewhat vague, but caselaw has not gone so far as to say that pulling a headline and sourcing appropriately is a violation of this exception.

Fair use (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) in the US...just to give you an idea.

As pointed out, the four factors are somewhat vague, but caselaw has not gone so far as to say that pulling a headline and sourcing appropriately is a violation of this exception.


You're assuming once again, that everyone has the money for a good lawyer. And can afford to pay for what might be a year or two of service, just to keep from paying a fee.

Most people can't afford a lawyer. And in civil suits, they're not entitled to one from the state.

Stick that in your lawyer pipe, and ruminate on it.

I... I... Beyond a facepalm and a sarcastic "Woo, capitalism!"... I just don't know how to respond to this.

Neesika, how many people would actually have the money to spend on a lawyer?

Most wouldn't.

How many companies would give a shit enough to spend money on a lawyer?

I bet Jolt wouldn't. Especially now that they've been acquired.

The acquisition always begins with cost-cutting.

This is a 'wait and see' sort of issue, DK, no need to get all frothy and apocalyptic about it.

Right now, the discussion is 'what is fair use'. It's a good debate really, because the times, they are a changing. Of course AP wants it strictly defined as 'headlines and anything else we write'. While the news is not the subject of copyright, the standard to achieve copyright is very low...in Canada it is a 'modicum of creativity', meaning, the way you arrange the words in to create a headline is often enough to get you copyright. That's why news agencies can't simply copy one another's headlines outright.

Bloggers and others want the definition to be more loose...quoting and sourcing appropriately, even taking big chunks of news stories and then discussing them. Now, they can claim that they are providing adquate notice of the fact that they themselves did not write the article...but when you look at it, these news agencies sell their pieces, and every blogger who is publishing nearly the whole thing is getting that work for free...as are the readers.

So where is the happy medium? I doubt very highly that it's going to be found at either extreme position.

You're assuming once again, that everyone has the money for a good lawyer. And can afford to pay for what might be a year or two of service, just to keep from paying a fee. No, you're assuming that AP is going to go suing everyone on the internet.

The AP is meeting with the Bloggers Association tomorrow (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article4163512.ece?openComment=true) to bang out some sort of understanding and ground rules for fair use. So far, the AP seems to be acknowledging that launching wholesale lawsuits isn't a productive use of their time or resources, but they want the plagarism (taking nearly all of an article, even providing a source is NOT fair use) to stop. Again, wait and see what happens. The licensing fee AP is proposing seems like an opening move, and frankly, I can't take it very seriously as it wouldn't apply to fair use anyway. Nor can I see any legal support for calling 5 words an infringement of fair use.

You really are a fear-monger, and it's tiresome.

I'm saying that most people and organizations will cave.

Lawyers and courts cost money. Access to the courts is not free. It comes not only with a bride-price, it comes with continuous costs that are often more than an individual litigant would pay if he merely went along with what AP asked for.

A decent lawyer here in the US is going to want 20,000 dollars US up front just as a retainer - and a multi-year litigation will cost you about four or more times that amount per year (unless it's tort, and you're the plaintiff - in which case, the lawyer gets paid if you win or settle, and they get at least 30% of the winnings).

Swing and a miss. Keep dancing, though, DK -- it's entertaining.

This is a 'wait and see' sort of issue, DK, no need to get all frothy and apocalyptic about it.

Right now, the discussion is 'what is fair use'. It's a good debate really, because the times, they are a changing. Of course AP wants it strictly defined as 'headlines and anything else we write'. While the news is not the subject of copyright, the standard to achieve copyright is very low...in Canada it is a 'modicum of creativity', meaning, the way you arrange the words in to create a headline is often enough to get you copyright. That's why news agencies can't simply copy one another's headlines outright.

Bloggers and others want the definition to be more loose...quoting and sourcing appropriately, even taking big chunks of news stories and then discussing them. Now, they can claim that they are providing adquate notice of the fact that they themselves did not write the article...but when you look at it, these news agencies sell their pieces, and every blogger who is publishing nearly the whole thing is getting that work for free...as are the readers.

So where is the happy medium? I doubt very highly that it's going to be found at either extreme position.

I'm saying that most people and organizations will cave.

Lawyers and courts cost money. Access to the courts is not free. It comes not only with a bride-price, it comes with continuous costs that are often more than an individual litigant would pay if he merely went along with what AP asked for.

A decent lawyer here in the US is going to want 20,000 dollars US up front just as a retainer - and a multi-year litigation will cost you about four or more times that amount per year (unless it's tort, and you're the plaintiff - in which case, the lawyer gets paid if you win or settle, and they get at least 30% of the winnings).

Swing and a miss. Keep dancing, though, DK -- it's entertaining.

Can you afford a lawyer?

If you had the choice between coming up with 12.50 to pay the AP, or being in court with either no lawyer at all, or a lawyer that cost you 20,000 dollars to start, which would you choose?

Ideals are nice, but money talks.

Of course, you could also stop posting - that's free.

Can you afford a lawyer?

Not all lawyers are quid pro quo; there are those who are pro bono.

I'm saying that AP will cave.

Lawyers and courts cost money. Access to the courts is not free.
Fixed.

Not all lawyers are quid pro quo; there are those who are pro bono.

Most don't do civil pro bono. It's expensive, and takes up a lot of time.

Can you afford a lawyer?

If you had the choice between coming up with 12.50 to pay the AP, or being in court with either no lawyer at all, or a lawyer that cost you 20,000 dollars to start, which would you choose?

Ideals are nice, but money talks.

Of course, you could also stop posting - that's free.

You're scaremongering, DK. It's getting old. It will be years before any kind of decision is made, and here you are chicken little-ing NSG. I won't have to choose, and neither will you.

Fixed.

Hardly. The AP is pushing to see how much they get.

Did the RIAA cave yet? Eh? How many people were sued and couldn't afford the lawyers' fees? Most?

Hardly. The AP is pushing to see how much they get.

Did the RIAA cave yet? Eh? How many people were sued and couldn't afford the lawyers' fees? Most?

For one, filesharing is murky legal waters when it comes to the internet. This is a fair use case. Second, they aren't suing man on the street Joe Blow, they'd be suing groups like bloggers. Bloggers have more of a medium to gain support and funds.

Land of the free? Free press? What?

Well, evidently, it's the "land of the quite expensive press" now.

For one, filesharing is murky legal waters when it comes to the internet. This is a fair use case. Second, they aren't suing man on the street Joe Blow, they'd be suing groups like bloggers. Bloggers have more of a medium to gain support and funds.

Actually, filesharing is in much more clear cut legal waters. There is no fair exception use when it comes to music in most Western jurisdictions. That means no, you can't play 30 seconds of a song without having to pay the royalty fee, and you certainly can't download or upload full versions without violating copyrights.

The only big issue with filesharing has been jurisdictional...where are the servers, whose laws apply if the filesharing isn't happening in your jurisdiction and so on.

This issue is not so much 'murky' as 'not bright-lined'. Courts are going to be reluctant to set a word cut-off and say 'okay, under this is fair use'...because it might not be. There is a need to strike a balance between the work that goes into creative pieces, and a need for the dissemination of information.

"Chicken Littleing"...I like that, Intangelon.

you'd think people/bloggers/posters linking to and quoting news articles would be viewed as a positive thing for any news agency. it raises their profile and can help raise their market share. but nooooooooooooo....


at least i can be confident that the BBC wouldn't do such a thing

Actually, filesharing is in much more clear cut legal waters. There is no fair exception use when it comes to music in most Western jurisdictions. That means no, you can't play 30 seconds of a song without having to pay the royalty fee, and you certainly can't download or upload full versions without violating copyrights.

The only big issue with filesharing has been jurisdictional...where are the servers, whose laws apply if the filesharing isn't happening in your jurisdiction and so on.

This issue is not so much 'murky' as 'not bright-lined'. Courts are going to be reluctant to set a word cut-off and say 'okay, under this is fair use'...because it might not be. There is a need to strike a balance between the work that goes into creative pieces, and a need for the dissemination of information.

"Chicken Littleing"...I like that, Intangelon.

That makes much more sense than I would. And is a much better point.

For one, filesharing is murky legal waters when it comes to the internet. This is a fair use case. Second, they aren't suing man on the street Joe Blow, they'd be suing groups like bloggers. Bloggers have more of a medium to gain support and funds.

Most bloggers don't make any money.

Most bloggers don't make any money.

One man v One man with rabid supporters.

Who would you take on?

you'd think people/bloggers/posters linking to and quoting news articles would be viewed as a positive thing for any news agency. it raises their profile and can help raise their market share. but nooooooooooooo....

My thoughts exactly. I've seen my share of /facepalm worthy corporate decisions, but this one made me laugh.

Most bloggers don't make any money.

Irrelevant by the way. Fair use exceptions don't give non-profit or no-profit violators a pass to take more than any other class of person claiming fair use.

No, it doesn't.

Jolt might get sued by the AP, but whether that suit would hold up is another question alltogether. For one, IP protections are jurisdictional. In the US, there are 'fair use' exceptions to copyright which are very similar to those in the UK, and other western nations. The use of a small excerpt from a linked article falls well within that fair use exception.

While it's true that copyright holders granting licenses have extreme leeway when setting terms (terms which license seekers are free to reject and simply not continue attempting to get said license) it is NOT true that copyright holders have more power than legislation to decide what is, and what is not 'fair use'.

The AP cannot legislate, and this is a crock of shit.

Agreed. Most time you only have to worry about it if you are making money off of it. Are they going to sue very high school and college students that writes a paper? When using material such as this you would have to cite and give credit to the source. They will not be able to enforce this against, students, universities, and even jolt.

Agreed. Most time you only have to worry about it if you are making money off of it. Are they going to sue very high school and college students that writes a paper? When using material such as this you would have to cite and give credit to the source. They will not be able to enforce this against, students, universities, and even jolt.

They won't be able to enfoce all of it.

Don't take me wrong...if you cut and paste the bulk of an article, even sourcing it properly, you are most likely not engaged in 'fair use' of that copyrighted work.

The AP, however, is claiming that even cutting and pasting 5 words is a breach of fair use. Extreme.

What will end up being the guiding principle for these sorts of situations is going to be something in the middle.

High school or university level students cutting and pasting large portions of another person's work, even sourced... are likely going to run afoul of academic standards in any case.

Irrelevant by the way. Fair use exceptions don't give non-profit or no-profit violators a pass to take more than any other class of person claiming fair use.

No, we were talking about bloggers having the money to defend themselves.

If you don't have money, you have no legal defense in civil court.

*snip the excellence*

"Chicken Littleing"...I like that, Intangelon.

Thank you. Have mind, will coin.

Is this the part where they set the constitution on fire and declare us the U.S.S.A,?

No, we were talking about bloggers having the money to defend themselves. Sorry...but we were talking about the definition of fair use etc. You are the only one who refuses to enter the actual debate, choosing instead to harp on 'lawyers and lawsuits'. I should have rememberd how single-minded and impervious to logic you actually are, and realised that of course you wouldn't be discussing the actual issues with anyone, simply repeating yourself ad naseum as usual. I apologise for overestimating you. Won't happen again.

If you don't have money, you have no legal defense in civil court.
Yes yes, blah blah blah. If you have nothing more to say than 'OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GET SUED AND LOSE OUR HOUSES', do you mind just going back to the UMP discussion on Nazi mom? Thanks.

Okay, I really have to tear myself away from the internet, no matter how amusing this day has turned out to be. Perhaps Neo Art will tag in and beat you up some more, DK.

Sorry...but we were talking about the definition of fair use etc. You are the only one who refuses to enter the actual debate, choosing instead to harp on 'lawyers and lawsuits'. I should have rememberd how single-minded and impervious to logic you actually are, and realised that of course you wouldn't be discussing the actual issues with anyone, simply repeating yourself ad naseum as usual. I apologise for overestimating you. Won't happen again.

Yes yes, blah blah blah. If you have nothing more to say than 'OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO GET SUED AND LOSE OUR HOUSES', do you mind just going back to the UMP discussion on Nazi mom? Thanks.

You're the one refusing to acknowledge that lawyers have an effect outside of the courtroom.

Take the RIAA for instance. They know that individuals can't afford a lawyer, and when threatened with lawsuits, will either pay up or lose in court. Badly.

If you don't have a lawyer, all of the stuff you mention is meaningless. And the AP knows this.

They know that most bloggers and posters can't afford a lawyer. And that some sites will find it cheaper to pay than fight. Once again, making your "fair use" ideas completely meaningless.

You're refusing to engage on that point all through the thread, because you know it's true.

lol

Let's see. AP's ability to successfully pursue and sue anyone on the Internet who quotes their articles... versus the ability of everyone and anyone on the Internet to quote their articles.

Hmm, which moves faster.... spam, or lawsuits?

The Internet will win this one, regardless of whether AP can successfully sue anyone at all. It's just no contest.

I mean remember when they made downloading MP3s and stuff illegal, and then no one ever downloaded MP3s? Yeah. Me neither.

Call me crazy, but it seems like Lolspeak may finally have its place in the world. u cant has billinz if werdz not teh samez.

Call me crazy, but it seems like Lolspeak may finally have its place in the world. u cant has billinz if werdz not teh samez.

lol, iz hax!:p

I can imagine that going on...

Is this the part where they set the constitution on fire and declare us the U.S.S.A,?

Who knows? Blair is starting a faith organization, Clinton expects to be VP.

USSSA (United socialist states of soviet america)

And to AP (Bring it on you facist nazi pigs)

Thank you for your time.

You're the one refusing to acknowledge that lawyers have an effect outside of the courtroom.

Take the RIAA for instance. They know that individuals can't afford a lawyer, and when threatened with lawsuits, will either pay up or lose in court. Badly.

If you don't have a lawyer, all of the stuff you mention is meaningless. And the AP knows this.

They know that most bloggers and posters can't afford a lawyer. And that some sites will find it cheaper to pay than fight. Once again, making your "fair use" ideas completely meaningless.
Of course, all it takes is one person who can afford a lawyer to actually go to court and then fair use matters quite a bit.

Who knows? Blair is starting a faith organization, Clinton expects to be VP.

*Lifts glass of vodka* To our glorious Comrade Clinton! :p

Besides, how would AP be able to know when people are stealing their articles?

Besides, how would AP be able to know when people are stealing their articles?

Google.

Google.

And apparently they're offering $1 million to internet 'snitches'.

Snitches get stiches, bitches!

But seriously. No way is every snitch going to get $1 million. Who does AP think they're fooling? Seniors? Seniors don't even know what the internet is.

And apparently they're offering $1 million to internet 'snitches'.

Snitches get stiches, bitches!

But seriously. No way is every snitch going to get $1 million. Who does AP think they're fooling? Seniors? Seniors don't even know what the internet is.

Probably $1 million to fund all their internet snitches.

'Good work snitch, here's a shiny penny'

Am I the only one who thought the title was asking us to stop quoting Andaras Prime?

Am I the only one who thought the title was asking us to stop quoting Andaras Prime?

Absolutely not.

Could just quote the BBC or Euronews a bit more, hint hint.

The AP is apparently going to arrange some sort of meeting with bloggers to create play nice rules.

The following article states:

AP sent a legal

Here is the source:

AP (http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/wn_061608b.html)

The AP is apparently going to arrange some sort of meeting with bloggers to create play nice rules.

Wouldn't the "rules" depend on laws of the land?

At least here quoting - even rather long - parts of copyrighted text is considered legal IF the source is clearly mentioned (a criterion which, for example, a hyperlink would satisfy).