Free Republic "Issues" (Associated Press)

[American Patriot]

Found this posted:

• Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Suspected Burglars Next Door
  
  Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:59:56 AM · by Resolute Conservative · 1 replies · 19+ views Foxnews ^ | 6/30/08 | AP
  
  

When you click on the link you get this idiotic crap...

This thread has been pulled.

Pulled on 07/01/2008 7:03:27 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason: AP

Okay


Over the course of the last few months, FR is showing a very serious problem.

They have gotten more and more "politically correct", banning people for practically no reason, and leaving others alone for a lot worse issues.

They are refusing to allow any news from certain places... I can't even imagine this is a legal issue since AP crap is posted all over the site.

Anyone know what's the deal with these guys?

[American Patriot]

Ok, a little research netted this.... However, as I said, it's technically not a legal issue. It's extortion. LOL

FUCK AP

We're not going to pay AP's extortion fees and we're not going to allow them to control free speech!
Recent AP vs fair use threads ^ | June 17, 2008 | Jim Robinson
Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:24:04 PM by Jim Robinson

This is our Boston tea Party.


The Associated Press wants to levy a $12.50 and up license fee (aka extortion fee) on any blogger who quotes more than 4 words from one of their propaganda pieces. This is an outrageous attempt to control the blogosphere and free speech itself. To hell with their license fee and to hell with the AP. Any AP article that gets posted to FR will be jettisoned into the harbor posthaste.


Please do not post any AP material to FR excerpted or not.

[Beetle]

I saw something about a story FR posted and AP got their panties in a bunch. And then there was another deal in which FR posted a thread about Obama being Muslim and that got Hussien's panties in a bunch. I don't know if these have anything to do with the above story, but that is all I have heard.

They are becoming more PC. I think they are trying to impress the Bill O'Reilly types and they do not want to look like the KOS. That is my guess thoguh. I didn't get banned, but I did get suspended for saying Berkley needs napalmed. I guess that is kinda rough around the edges, but at the same time is has some truth to it. It is not like Berkley is a friend to the Country it belongs to.

[American Patriot]

It appears this all started with the "Drudge Retort" (Not the Drudge REPORT site)

[American Patriot]

http://www.unassociatedpress.net/

[American Patriot]

Well, I need Ryan's take on this. It's HIS site... Ryan, when you have time... read up.

[American Patriot]

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/16...theyre-banned/
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008...define-fair-us
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/06/12/fu-ap/
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/n...against-drudge
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/fair-use
http://citizenvox.wordpress.com/2008...lic-discourse/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section8

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
Prev | Next

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

How Current is This?

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.

[American Patriot]

Linking to Copyrighted Materials

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...hted-materials

If you publish your work online, you are already in the practice of using links to enhance your content. The Web's basic architecture relies heavily on the ability of webpages to link to other pages to allow natural navigation between related content.


It is hard to imagine the smooth functioning (or even continued existence) of the Web without hypertext links that act as a reference system identifying and enabling quick access to other material. Fortunately, courts generally agree that linking to another website does not infringe the copyrights of that site, nor does it give rise to a likelihood of confusion necessary for a federal trademark infringement claim. However, different kinds of linking raise different legal issues, and the law is not entirely settled in all of these areas. Moreover, some linking activities may expose you to liability for contributory copyright infringement or trafficking in circumvention technology in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Types of Links

Deep Linking: The most straightforward case is so-called "deep linking," which refers to placing a link on your site that leads to a particular page within another site (i.e., other than its homepage). No court has ever found that deep linking to another website constitutes copyright or trademark infringement. Therefore, you can link to other websites without serious concerns about legal liability for the link itself, with the exception of activities that might be contributory copyright infringement or trafficking in circumvention technology (discussed below).


Inline linking: Inline linking involves placing a line of HTML on your site that so that your webpage displays content directly from another site. We now commonly refer to this practice as embedding. For example, many bloggers embed videos from YouTube on their blogs to illustrate a point or initiate discussion. While there is some uncertainty on this point, a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that inline linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link; the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material.


See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (2007). Other courts may or may not follow this reasoning. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision is consistent with the majority of copyright linking cases which have found that linking, whether simple, deep, or inline, does not give rise to liability for copyright infringement. For discussion of these cases, see The Internet Law Treatise. In addition, merely using an inline link should not create trademark liability, unless you do something affirmative to create the impression that you are somehow affiliated with or endorsed by the site to which you are linking. Thus, embedding media in your online work should not expose you to legal liability, with the possible exceptions discussed below.


Framing: Framing refers to the practice of dividing a web page into multiple sections that use HTML code to pull content from different sources. The law should treat framing much like inline linking for purposes of copyright infringement (see discussion immediately above), but no case has considered the issue of framing in the context of copyright law. Framing potentially raises trademark problems. Depending on how you design your page, a user might be confused into believing that all of the source material is yours. Some plaintiffs have sued websites for framing under trademark and related areas of law, but most cases have settled and the law remains unclear.
Linking to Infringing Works

The situation changes when you knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody's copyright, like pirated music files or video clips of commercially distributed movies and music videos. In this situation, you might be liable for what is known as "contributory copyright infringement." Contributory copyright infringement occurs by "intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement" of a copyrighted work. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 545 U.S. 913, (2005). As long as you do not know that a work infringes someone's copyright, then you cannot be held liable for contributory infringement for directing users to that work. On the other hand, it is not necessarily safe to simply claim that you "didn't know" when the circumstances make it clear the material you link to is infringing. Use your common sense. Fred vonLohman gives the following rules of thumb to help avoid contributory copyright infringement (specifically with reference to embedding videos):"(1) don't embed videos that are obviously infringing, and (2) consider removing embedded videos once you've been notified by a copyright owner that they are infringing." Relatedly, you may be able to protect yourself against claims of contributory copyright infringement by complying with the notice-and-takedown procedures of the DMCA. For details, see Notice-and-Takedown.
Linking to Circumvention Technology Proscribed by the DMCA

Linking also raises legal issues in connection with the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to traffic in technology that enables others to circumvent technological measures put in place by copyright holders to control access to or uses of their copyright work. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), (b). "Trafficking" means making, selling, giving away, or otherwise offering these devices or tools to the public. You can "traffic" in circumvention tools simply by posting them on your website or linking to other websites that host them. For example, in 1999 a Norwegian teenager created a software program called "DeCSS" that allowed users to circumvent CSS, the encryption technology used by movie studios to stop unlicensed playing and copying of commercially distributed DVDs. A number of websites posted the source and object code for DeCSS on the Internet, and other websites linked to them.


The Second Circuit held that hosting and linking to the DeCSS code violated the DMCA's anti-trafficking provisions, and that this application of the DMCA did not violate the First Amendment. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001). This decision is controversial, and it is not clear that other courts would necessarily follow its reasoning. For example, one court has held that linking itself is not enough, and liability requires some more direct tie between the offending websites, such as receiving compensation in exchange for linking. See Comcast v. Hightech Elecs., Inc., 2004 WL 1718522 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2004).


Given the uncertain state of the law, it is best not to knowingly link to sites hosting circumvention software. To be on the safe side, you should also remove user-generated content that links to such postings. This cautious approach may put websites that depend upon high levels of user interactivity in an uncomfortable position, as illustrated by the Digg.com user "revolt" in May 2007.

[American Patriot]

http://license.icopyright.net/user/o...05-29-11-08-34

Check that out, it's AP's "Agreement".

[American Patriot]

And AP's "rules":

Terms of Use Content License Agreement

By checking the "I agree to the Publisher's terms of use" box and clicking "Next," You agree to be legally bound by all of the terms of this Content License Agreement. This is a License Agreement between Licensee ("You") and the Licensor ("Publisher") for use of the Licensed Content ("Content") via the iCopyright system. iCopyright, Inc. is not a party to this Agreement, but will maintain a record of this license for the benefit of You and Publisher. If You are obtaining this license for use on behalf of an organization, You confirm that You have the authority to bind the organization and that the organization will be bound by these terms, and the term "You" shall then refer to You and your organization.
License Grant:

Publisher grants You a non-sublicensable, non-transferable, non-assignable right solely to use the Content for the purposes selected by You using the iCopyright system, and only to the extent that the Content is used in its entirety as delivered to You by the iCopyright system. Except as permitted herein, no other use, copying, display or distribution, in any form, of the Content, in whole or in part, is permitted without the prior written consent of Publisher. You shall not modify, edit, change or alter in any manner the Content, or create any derivative works therefrom, including translation of the Content.
Permitted Uses and Key Restrictions:

When You select one of the following types of permitted use, you shall be permitted to use the Content only in the manner described for that permitted use:

1. Free Uses, Including Advertiser-Supported Email, Print, and Save Uses - You may use the Email, Print and Save links associated with the content, if any, to email the designated number of recipients, print the designated number of copies, and/or save the article in the iCopyright-provided reading room, for the designated length of time, free-of-charge. You may not email, print, or save the content by cutting and pasting it. You may not exceed the number of Emails, Prints, or Saves stipulated and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity.You may not remove or alter the publisher's branding or copyright notice, or any ads that accompany the content. You may not publish the Content on a website, Intranet, or in any other physical or electronic medium and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity.
2. E-mail Distribution - You may Email the Content to Your designated recipients using the iCopyright system or Email the Content to Yourself and forward it through Your own Email system to the number of designated recipients. You may not Email more recipients than the quantity licensed and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity. You may not publish the Content on a website, Intranet, or in any other physical or electronic medium and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity.
3. Photocopies and Quick Prints - You may make the designated number of photocopies of the Content using the photocopy master delivered to You by the iCopyright system, or order physical prints to be delivered to you. You may not make more copies than the quantity licensed and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity. You may not make additional copies of the quick prints delivered to you. You may not publish the Content on a website, Intranet, or in any other physical or electronic medium and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity.
4. Republication - You may republish the entire article in a print publication or online publication that meets the criteria of the owner of the article. You may not distribute the article to more recipients that the quantity licensed and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity.
5. Excerpt - You may save, print, copy, display and transmit an excerpt exactly as it is provided to you by Publisher.
6. Photo Reprints and Web Reprints - You may use photos or graphics only in the manner in which they were supplied to you by iCopyright in the designated number or for the designated duration. You may not exceed the number of photo reprints or the duration of web reprints and You may not grant such right to any third person or entity. You may not remove or alter the publisher's branding or copyright notice.

Payment:

In consideration of the rights granted to You under this Agreement, You agree to pay the Licensing Fees specified in the order form. You hereby authorize Publisher and/or its authorized agent to collect the fees due from You under this Agreement by invoice or by debiting such fee to Your credit card entered on the Order Form. You warrant that You are the rightful owner of the credit card and are authorized to use such credit card. You further warrant that You are at least 18 years old.
Intellectual Property:

All rights with respect to the Licensed Content, Publisher name and trademarks, including, without limitation, all copyright, trademark and database rights, shall remain the sole property of Publisher and/or its licensors. You will not remove, conceal or alter any copyright, trademark or other proprietary notice on the Content. All rights not specifically granted to You under this Agreement remain with Publisher and/or its licensors. You will provide Publisher or its agents with reasonable assistance in connection with any such incident. Except as specifically authorized in this Agreement, You shall not use the Publisher's name or marks without prior written consent from the Publisher. Any use by You of the Publisher's name or marks will inure to the benefit of Publisher.
Required Credit Line:

The Content delivered to You by the iCopyright system under this Agreement contains the Publisher's logo, copyright notice and credit line containing a unique alphanumeric number. You may not remove these elements when printing, copying, displaying,transmitting or making any use of the Content and you may not authorize any third person or entity to do so.
Third Party Consent:

You are responsible for obtaining any clearances from any third person or any regulatory or government body which are required by applicable law for Your use of the Licensed Content and, in particular, You are fully responsible for obtaining at Your own cost any necessary rights clearances from third parties relating to the Content of a photograph prior to displaying the photograph, including (by way of example only) clearances from people whose images appear in the photograph and/or clearances in respect of buildings, works of art, public monuments and/or other inanimate objects which appear in the photograph and which may be protected by copyright or privacy rights. Publisher accepts no responsibility for obtaining and/or assisting You in obtaining clearance of any of these third party rights and You will not use any photographs until You have obtained these clearances. You will provide Publisher with evidence that these clearances have been obtained at Publisher's request.
Derogatory and Unlawful Uses:

You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content. You shall not use the Licensed Content for any unlawful purpose, and You shall comply with all laws and regulations. Without limiting the foregoing, You represent and warrant that the Content will not be utilized in association with gambling or the distribution, promotion or sale of pornographic, racial or political Content, propaganda or product.
Warranty and Liability Disclaimer:

THE LIABILITY OF PUBLISHER AND ANY OF ITS LICENSORS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM YOU. NEITHER PUBLISHER NOR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS IS LIABLE FOR INAPPROPRIATE OR ILLEGAL USES OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL OBTAINED THROUGH THE ICOPYRIGHT.COM SERVICE. NEITHER PUBLISHER NOR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS NOR ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AFFILIATES, OR CONTENT OR SERVICE PROVIDERS SHALL BE LIABLE TO YOU OR OTHER THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF USE OF SERVICE OR INABILITY TO GAIN ACCESS TO OR USE THE SERVICE OR OUT OF ANY BREACH OF ANY WARRANTY. AS SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. IN SUCH STATES, THE RESPECTIVE LIABILITY OF PUBLISHER, ITS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AFFILIATES, AND CONTENT OR SERVICE PROVIDERS' RESPECTIVE LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY SUCH STATE LAW. YOU, AS A USER, AGREE THAT USE OF ICOPYRIGHT.COM IS ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.
PUBLISHER AND ITS LICENSORS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, PUBLISHER INCLUDING ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND CONTENT AND SERVICE PROVIDERS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES SUFFERED OR INCURRED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PERSON ARISING OUT OF ANY FAULTS, INTERRUPTIONS OR DELAYS IN PUBLISHER CONTENT OR SERVICES, OR ANY THIRD PARTY SERVICES, AND ANY INACCURACIES, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENT. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT, THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES, CONDITIONS, GUARANTEES OR REPRESENTATIONS AS TO MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IN LAW OR IN FACT, ORAL OR IN WRITING. ALL CONTENT IS LICENSED "AS IS".
Indemnification:

You agree to indemnify and hold Publisher, and its licensors and service providers and their officers, directors, employees, agents and providers harmless against any claims that may arise out of or are related to this Agreement.
Hold Harmless:

This is an Agreement between Licensee and Publisher. iCopyright, Inc. is not a party to this Agreement and shall have no liability in connection with this Agreement. You and Publisher each agree to indemnify and hold iCopyright, Inc. harmless against any claims that may arise under or are related to this Agreement.
Termination:

This agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by destroying all e-mails, photocopies, reprints, e-prints and other forms of the Content in your possession. This Agreement will terminate immediately without notice from Publisher if You fail to comply with any provision of this Agreement. Publisher reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publisher's reputation. Upon termination of this Agreement, You will immediately cease duplication or reuse of the Content, and will delete all copies of the Content that are within Your control. The provision entitled "Indemnification" above will remain in full force and effect notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement. The agreement by You and Publisher above under the provision "Hold Harmless" above will remain in full force and effect notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement.
Severability:

Should part of this Agreement be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect for any reason, the remaining portions survive. Delay or failure by either party in enforcing this Agreement at any time will not constitute a waiver by the party of its rights or remedies.
Force majeure:

This Agreement may be suspended or terminated due to events beyond the control of either party.
Entire Agreement:

This Agreement represents the final, entire, and exclusive agreement between You and Publisher relating to the Content and the iCopyright service and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings relating to the Content or service. No modification, amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be made by either party except by a written agreement signed by all affected parties.
Governing Law:

This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction where Publisher has its headquarters, without giving effect to any conflicts of laws principles.
iCopyright Customer Support: support@icopyright.com
© 2007 iCopyright, Inc. All rights reserved.

[American Patriot]

The Associated Press to Set Guidelines for Using Its Articles in Blogs

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/bu...TzrJhriDaB+xcg
By SAUL HANSELL


Published: June 16, 2008


The Associated Press, one of the nation’s largest news organizations, said that it will, for the first time, attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.’s copyright.
Related Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web

Bits: The A.P., Hot News and Hotheaded Blogs




The A.P.’s effort to impose some guidelines on the free-wheeling blogosphere, where extensive quoting and even copying of entire news articles is common, may offer a prominent definition of the important but vague doctrine of “fair use,” which holds that copyright owners cannot ban others from using small bits of their works under some circumstances. For example, a book reviewer is allowed to quote passages from the work without permission from the publisher.


Fair use has become an essential concept to many bloggers, who often quote portions of articles before discussing them. The A.P., a cooperative owned by 1,500 daily newspapers, including The New York Times, provides written articles and broadcast material to thousands of news organizations and Web sites that pay to use them.
Last week, The A.P. took an unusually strict position against quotation of its work, sending a letter to the Drudge Retort asking it to remove seven items that contained quotations from A.P. articles ranging from 39 to 79 words.


On Saturday, The A.P. retreated. Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The A.P., said in an interview that the news organization had decided that its letter to the Drudge Retort was “heavy-handed” and that The A.P. was going to rethink its policies toward bloggers.


The quick about-face came, he said, because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet.


The Drudge Retort was initially started as a left-leaning parody of the much larger Drudge Report, run by the conservative muckraker Matt Drudge. In recent years, the Drudge Retort has become more of a social news site, similar to sites like Digg, in which members post links to news articles for others to comment on.


But Rogers Cadenhead, the owner of the Drudge Retort and several other Web sites, said the issue goes far beyond one site. “There are millions of people sharing links to news articles on blogs, message boards and sites like Digg. If The A.P. has concerns that go all the way down to one or two sentences of quoting, they need to tell people what they think is legal and where the boundaries are.”


On Friday, The A.P. issued a statement defending its action, saying it was going to challenge blog postings containing excerpts of A.P. articles “when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste.” An A.P. spokesman declined Friday to further explain the association’s position.
After that, however, the news association convened a meeting of its executives at which it decided to suspend its efforts to challenge blogs until it creates a more thoughtful standard.


“We don’t want to cast a pall over the blogosphere by being heavy-handed, so we have to figure out a better and more positive way to do this,” Mr. Kennedy said.
Mr. Kennedy said the company was going to meet with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association, a trade group, and others. He said he hopes that these discussions can all occur this week so that guidelines can be released soon.
Still, Mr. Kennedy said that the organization has not withdrawn its request that Drudge Retort remove the seven items. And he said that he still believes that it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones.


“Cutting and pasting a lot of content into a blog is not what we want to see,” he said. “It is more consistent with the spirit of the Internet to link to content so people can read the whole thing in context.”


Even if The A.P. sets standards, bloggers could choose to use more content than its standards permit, and then The A.P. would have to decide whether to take legal action against them. One important legal test of whether an excerpt exceeds fair use is if it causes financial harm to the copyright owner.


“The principal question is whether the excerpt is a substitute for the story, or some established adaptation of the story,” said Timothy Wu, a professor at the Columbia Law School. Mr. Wu said that the case is not clear-cut, but he believes that The A.P. is likely to lose a court case to assert a claim on that issue.


“It’s hard to see how the Drudge Retort ‘first few lines’ is a substitute for the story,” Mr. Wu said.


Mr. Kennedy argued, however, that The Associated Press believes that in some cases, the essence of an article can be encapsulated in very few words.


“As content creators, we firmly believe that everything we create, from video footage all the way down to a structured headline, is creative content that has value,” he said.


But he also said that the association hopes that it will not have to test this theory in court.


“We are not trying to sue bloggers,” Mr. Kennedy said. “That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, I suspect this is a matter of the "Tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut down."

FR wanted to be big and get noticed. They got big and got noticed.

Additionally, they are an LLC and they collect "donations". Donations which are non-tax deductible because they are a business. So, in short they are a business that is bringing in (I believe) over $200,000 a year through their "Freepathons" with Jim and John Robinson getting paid from those donations. I can see how the AP (and others who are excerpt only) would not want another business profiting from their work which they have to pay their employees for.

This is a lot different from we who are a small site, not classified as a business, and is frankly run at a loss (i.e. None of the staff get paid and in fact help pay site expenses out of our pockets through personal time donated and money).

Also, I believe it to be important that we post entire articles for preservation's sake. After all, how many times have you read an article from one source only to have it go away a couple weeks later. I can think of two examples off the top of my head of this, Yahoo news and the WSJ.

[Beetle]

I guess you could use four AP words and not have to pay. What idiots. They should allow excerpting because it is kinda like advertising for them.

Ummm nope.

I tried it.

I typed in "Fuck you Associated Press" and it told me that I could not use those four words... LOL

[American Patriot]

Michelle Malkin weighed in...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/17...-least-132125/

Hey, Associated Press: You owe me at least $132,125!

By Michelle Malkin • June 17, 2008 10:37 PM




(Photoshop credit: The Ugly American)

The Internet firestorm over the Associated Press’s heavy-handed attempt to bully bloggers over fair use article excerpts has been absolutely schadenfreude-licious. Now, it’s time to turn the tables. If your blog or blog commenters have ever been quoted by the AP, listen up: It’s time to prepare a bill and demand payment.


First, a quick recap: AP showered a left-wing site with cease-and-desist letters, prompting many political and tech sites to boycott AP content. The latest uproar involves the AP’s pricing scheme charging bloggers $2.50/word and then scaling for excerpt usage. Here’s a screenshot of the media giant’s web usage agreement:





So they wanna play that game?


Ok, let’s play. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course. Unlike the AP, bloggers appreciate getting linked and excerpted. That is how we roll in the 21st century.
But let’s apply AP standards for the hell of it. I have found two recent examples of the AP quoting from this blog without linking to the quoted posts or obtaining my consent for a usage agreement. In April, AP quoted from the comment thread in this post about Absolut’s Aztlan vodka ad:

More than a dozen calls to boycott Absolut were posted on michellemalkin.com, a Web site operated by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. The ads sparked heated comment on a half-dozen other Internet sites and blogs.


“In an Absolut world, a company that produces vodka fires its entire marketing department in a desperate attempt to win back enraged North American customers after a disastrous ad campaign backfires,” a person using the moniker “SalsaNChips” wrote on Malkin’s Web site.

That’s 42 words. Cha-ching-ching-ching.


In May, AP again quoted from this blog, excerpting the column I posted online about the keffiyeh kerfuffle:

The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, “has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.”

That’s 44 words. Cha-ching-ching-ching.


According to the AP, it has:


-1,700 U.S. daily, weekly, non-English and college newspapers;
-5,000 radio and television outlets taking AP services; and
- 850 AP Radio News audio affiliates.


Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that half of all those clients published the AP dispatches quoting this blog’s content without prior usage agreement (which would be 3,775) and let’s apply the exact same fee structure AP wants to impose on the blogosphere ($17.50 for 26-50 words). I calculate that the AP owes me:


$66,062.50 x 2 = $132,125.

(A substantial portion of that sum would go to commenter SalsaNChips, of course. See? Commenting at MichelleMalkin.com pays! Well, theoretically.)


There may be other articles that quoted blog content from MichelleMalkin.com and HotAir.com. I’m keeping a look out.


And there are a few other bloggers quoted recently by AP who should consider sending joke bills, too.


Take Patterico, whose enterprising work on the Judge Kozinski case I mentioned this morning. The AP quoted from one of his blog posts just yesterday. Sample:

A federal appeals court judge under scrutiny for sexually explicit videos and photos posted on a personal Web site is the victim of distortions and “outright lies” published by the Los Angeles Times, his wife charged Monday.


Marcy Jane Tiffany, wife of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, described some of the material stored on the home computer as raunchy and juvenile. Only about a half-dozen files among hundreds had a “sexual aspect,” but they were not pornography, she said.


“Alex is not into porn — he is into funny — and sometimes funny has a sexual character,” Tiffany wrote in a nearly 2,000-word defense of her husband, posted on a Web site called patterico.com.

And it goes on. Writes Patterico tonight:

In a news item about the e-mail from Judge Kozinski’s wife that I posted on this site, an AP article lifted numerous passages.


I counted 154 words quoted from my post. That’s almost twice the number of words contained in the most extensive quotation in the Drudge Retort.
So am I going to be an ass and threaten to charge them, or sue them, or demand that they remove the quotes? Of course not. They benefited from my content and I benefited from their link.

If he did decide to send a bill under the terms of my table-turning fee structure, that would be:
$50 per URL= 3,775 x $50=$188,750.

Dude. That’s a hefty windfall. Sure you don’t wanna reconsider?


More potential blogger debt collectors:
*The Stranger blog
*Actress/blogger Zhang Ziyi
*The Huffington Post
*Musician/blogger Pete Wentz
*A blogger at Glamocracy
*An American Idol fan blogger

If your blog content/comment threads have been quoted by the AP, let me know what your bill would be. If you’d like to design/photoshop a generic joke bill or AP usage agreement plan that we can fill in and send to AP, please feel free to send along!
MSM thuggery is the disease. Mockery is the best medicine.


***


The blogosphere lets it rip:


From Jim Lynch: “Going beyond what has already been reported, the AP has expanded their current position and announced that they now own the rights to all words, phrases and letters of the alphabet, and will be charging bloggers accordingly.” Triple-snort!





Ace of Spades: “Here’s my counter-offer: I will limit the the words actually quoted from AP stories, limiting myself to paraphrase and direct quotes of relevant officials. (AP can’t copyright someone else’s words — at best, they can pitch an unfair trade practices beef, but that’s a harder case to make.) Furthermore, I will no longer provide any links to any AP stories anywhere, and in fact may not even bother to mention the story comes from AP. I will cite instead a “news organization.” If AP wants a link, it can begin paying me $25.00 per link. I charge for advertising. There’s my counter-offer. It’s not negotiable.”


DoublePlusUndead: Fun with ellipses!


Charles Johnson: “If they plan to enforce this mind-bogglingly stupid policy, it will be interesting to see what happens with sites like Digg.com — which are nothing but excerpts from news articles, with hundreds of AP stories being posted every day.”


Via Brian at Snapped Shot, who has been entangled in his own blogger battle with AP:



AP has managed to bring left and right bloggers together like never before. Check out Memeorandum:




Macsmind’s tab: $6,300.

Sticky Notes devises a handy quote-a-meter to help you calculate how much you’ll owe AP if you excerpt them. Still looking for someone to make one of these for AP to calculate how much they owe us.
Bob Owens: Where’s my fact-checking fee? Har.

[American Patriot]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html



One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.


Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. 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 distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.


The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”


Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.


When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.


FL-102, Revised July 2006

[American Patriot]

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use⁴⁰

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.

[American Patriot]

Also, I believe it to be important that we post entire articles for preservation's sake. After all, how many times have you read an article from one source only to have it go away a couple weeks later. I can think of two examples off the top of my head of this, Yahoo news and the WSJ.

GOOD! You and I are on exactly the same sheet of music here.

I say Screw Them and their extortion fees.

We don't make money, and actually FR isn't one of the sites that were involved, they simply involved themselves by banning ANYTHING from AP, if you read up there.

In addition, the most important aspect is keeping the history intact, and this was my biggest gripe at Anomalies. NOT MODIFYING POSTS once the users make them.

While it is sure they "own their copyright" or whatever if they write an article, changing or modifying the original content once it is posted is "rewriting history" and we all know how many times people did that crap on Anomalies to make things appear differently than they were at first. For the simple fact that many people changed posts after-the-fact made things sometimes difficult to follow.

Removing the ORIGINAL ARTICLE at a published site is, in my opinion, almost criminal. I've come across this seven or eight times in the last couple of years, going back over some research and finding only a link to an article and a short quote, and the full article is missing.

Personally, I post short excerpts where I can, but in a lot of cases I grab the full article, and try to make sure the original link is there. As much of the article as is possible to post is important since...

1) We don't "make a profit"
2) We are a discussion forum
3) Fair Use laws APPLY to us (and I posted them above)
4) We're a small site and if AP or any one else thinks we're going to kowtow to them and remove content because of a copyright violation, they are full of it. We're not USING their material to make money and we're certainly not taking away their customers (they are doing that themselves!)

I agree with Ryan.

We continue on, and if I come across an Associated Press article I find interesting, I'm posting it.

If you get a letter, Ryan, let me know.

[American Patriot]

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/ Home > Copyright and Fair Use Overview > Fair Use

CHAPTER 9. Fair Use NEXT

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work. Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages. The only guidance is provided by a set of fair use factors outlined in the copyright law. These factors are weighed in each case to determine whether a use qualifies as a fair use. For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income. Unfortunately, weighing the fair use factors is often quite subjective. For this reason, the fair use road map is often tricky to navigate. This chapter explains the various rules behind the fair use principle. To help you get a feel for which uses courts consider to be fair uses and which ones they don't, we provide several examples of fair use lawsuits at the end of this chapter. For educational fair use guidelines, see Chapter 7, which deals with academic permissions. What Is Fair Use? Comment and Criticism Parody Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use The Nature of the Copyrighted Work The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market The "Fifth" Fair Use Factor: Are You Good or Bad? Summaries of Fair Use Cases Cases Involving Text Artwork and Audiovisual Cases Internet Cases Music Cases Summaries of Parody Cases Disagreements Over Fair Use: When Are You Likely to Get Sued?

[American Patriot]

For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission.

I posted that because of that very statement from Stanford's legal teaching section.

Why? Because this is PRECISELY what AP is trying to do. Censor "critics".

[American Patriot]

Bloggers: Big Media Is Watching
As content recognition software gets more sophisticated, expect more copyright-related battles online like the recent AP-blogger flap

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...222_page_2.htm

by Peter Burrows
Story Tools

The Associated Press unleashed a firestorm in the blogosphere earlier this month when it demanded that a political site take down AP content it said violated copyrights. Bloggers, including Michael Arrington of TechCrunch.com and Markos Moulitas of Daily Kos, cried foul, saying the AP's move threatened the free flow of information over the Web. The furor abated a few days later when the AP tempered its demands.

But the dustup between the AP and bloggers was just an early skirmish in what's likely to become a protracted war over how and where media content is published online. On one side are bloggers and other Web sites eager to ensure continued access to information. On the other are media companies intent on controlling or cashing in on the dissemination of their stories, videos, and other digital media. One reason: For the first time, content owners are able to track exactly where and how their words and images show up, thanks to an emerging class of technology called content recognition systems.
Manual Tracking No Longer Necessary

The AP, a not-for-profit news cooperative owned by thousands of subscriber newspapers, has been using a system from Redwood City (Calif.)-based startup Attributor. Like other content recognition systems, Attributor's software extracts a small digital fingerprint—a string of bits unique to a given article, song, or video—and collects them in a database. Then it continually crawls billions of Web sites and blogs, much as Google does when a user launches a search, to detect where that fingerprint recurs. In the recent incident, AP had unearthed instances where its content—at times whole articles—was posted to the liberal-leaning Web site Drudge Retort. Other Attributor customers include Thomson Reuters (TRI), Condé Nast Publications' CondéNet, and the Canadian Press. The AP and Attributor declined to comment on the incident.

For a media executive, the appeal of a content recognition system is clear. With a glance, a publisher or studio head can plainly see where, when, and how their content is being viewed. In a demonstration for BusinessWeek earlier this year, Attributor executives showed how many times scenes from The Sopranos had appeared on 20 leading video sites since they first aired on TV. In all, 1,500 scenes from 52 episodes had been viewed 32 million times. For Time Warner's (TWX) HBO, those viewings might have brought in more than $1 million, said Attributor Chief Executive Officer Jim Brock.

Availability of technology like Attributor's represents a sea change for companies that until recently had to track online content manually or hire an outside company to do it. The new systems can automate the job and do it more cheaply. Most big TV and movie studios, including NBC Universal and Walt Disney (DIS), use systems from companies such as Audible Magic and Vobile to monitor the massive traffic at online video sites such as Google's (GOOG) YouTube. Even phone giant AT&T (T) plans to use Vobile technology (BusinessWeek.com, 11/7/07) to help it root out piracy over the Web.

More Ways to Make Money?

But many bloggers, sites, and free speech advocates are concerned over how widespread the technology will be deployed. The software can be programmed to automatically send out "takedown notices" that require sites to remove contested content, and the data it generates could end up being used to build a case against alleged copyright infringers. Viacom, which has filed a $1 billion lawsuit accusing YouTube of violations, is said to be testing Vobile's video fingerprinting technology, and may introduce its reports as evidence if the case goes to trial.

Bloggers have particular cause for alarm. The software could act as a kind of ever-present police, having a chilling effect on writers concerned they'll be dragged into court for inadvertently excerpting too large a chunk of material. "These systems are like magnets looking for needles in haystacks," says Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Assn., an advocacy group. As more media companies adopt content recognition systems, more lawsuits against bloggers are likely to ensue, Cox says. Already, the number of suits against bloggers has surged, to 500 today from 10 in 2004, he says.

Fans of content recognition systems say these fears are unfounded. They say the technology will hasten a flowering of information on the Web. Their argument is that the systems give copyright holders more ways to make money by distributing their content on the Web. Publishers will know which sites are attracting the most traffic using their articles, and can demand a cut on the associated ad revenue. "Without good content recognition, you're negotiating without the facts," says Facebook Chief Financial Officer Gideon Yu, an investor in Vobile. As former CFO for YouTube, he was involved in the failed licensing talks with Viacom that led to the lawsuit in early 2007.
Keeping Tabs on Content

"It's not just about interdiction," says Scott Teissler, chief information officer of Turner Broadcasting System, which has invested in Attributor and is testing the technology for its own use. "It's about finding out how your content is consumed. That's where the interesting opportunities are."

Just ask Sarah Chubb, president of CondéNet.com, owner of sites ranging from the Epicurious.com cooking site to fashion site Style.com to WiredDigital, the online arm of Wired magazine. A few years ago, Chubb enlisted a team of people to scour the Web for unlicensed content use. Now she has a team that does the opposite—figuring out how to get CondéNet's recipes, fashion photos, and other content onto up-and-coming blogs and social networking sites. Her team is using Attributor's system not to issue takedown notices but to spot new targets. "We used to build our sites on the idea that people would come to our home page," Chubb says. "Now, we're consciously trying to put our content in a lot of places. In most of those cases, there's a revenue opportunity for us," she says, adding that she has no interest in using the technology to launch lawsuits.

Still, most customers are still only kicking the tires on content recognition systems. The technology is not perfect; for example, most systems struggle to identify when a clip is being used as part of a book review or political parody, both legally protected uses. And as the AP flap shows, companies believed to use the systems to trammel the spread of information can face a backlash. What's clear is that it's becoming a lot easier for content owners to keep tabs on where their assets are being consumed, and how.

Burrows is a senior writer for BusinessWeek, based in Silicon Valley .