AP Will Sell You a "License" To Words It Doesn't Own 340
James Grimmelmann performed an experiment using the AP's form to request a license to use more than four consecutive words from one of their articles. Except that he didn't paste in words from the (randomly chosen) article, but instead used 26 words written by Thomas Jefferson 196 years ago: If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea. The AP cheerfully charged him $12 to use Jefferson's 26 words. Both Boing Boing and TechDirt have picked up the story so far. Grimmelmann adds an update to his blog: the AP has rescinded his license to Jefferson's words and issued a refund for his $12. They did not exhibit the grace to admit that their software is brain-dead.
Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Funny)
And so we see yet another terminally-ill industry smothering itself with a pillow.
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not.
It's like Comcast charging you for another provider's cable.
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple. AP's clusterfuck of a piece of software they're using to determine what's theirs and what's not is the issue here. Relying purely on software without decent beta testing (which seems to happen more often than not) is one of the most retarded things you can do as a business.
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple.
You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Funny)
I like parent post's concept, but suggest that slashdotters with a little extra pocket change license some RIAA protected lyrics from AP. Then public inform the RIAA and see if we can incite a game of "Let's You And Him Fight".
Could be amusing...
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Informative)
You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
However, you cannot claim that the recipient of such license is not legally allowed to do certain things, when it is clearly false (because of the public domain nature of the source). In this case, upon handing out the "license", AP claimed:
The entire excerpt must be used exactly as written and the copyright attribution footer and link below must be included within the document in which the excerpt is published.
And the footer is:
(c) 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the work is in public domain, you cannot claim copyright to it (you could claim copyright to a derived work, but not the original work verbatim). If so, what AP has done may well be illegal.
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Insightful)
Common Sense, do you have it?
My common sense tells me that it is generally not a good idea to have a fully automated, non-human-verified system that issues legal documents, claims, and threats in the name of the owner.
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, there's only, what, twelve of them, right? That database shouldn't take long to search through every single time someone clicks "submit"...
I realize you're trying to be sarcastic, but-- yes, it SHOULDN'T take long. Just like it doesn't take long for, say, Google to search billions of web pages anytime someone clicks on "Search".
Of course, there is a remote chance that you're right and that it would indeed take too long. But in that case, I'm sorry, that'd be AP's problem; they'd have to come up with another system, one that actually works. Charging for things they don't own just because they can't tell whether they own them is never acceptable.
Put another way: imagine you go to a clothes store, and there's an automated cash register that scans the items you're carrying when you leave and charges you accordingly. Now imagine that the system doesn't know what the store is actually selling and what it isn't, so EVERYTHING you're wearing gets charged to your card. And imagine when you call the store out on it, they argue that they can't possibly know what their inventory contains, so they consider it fair to charge you for every piece of clothing, no matter whether it's theirs or not.
I think most sane people would argue that a) this is not OK and b) that the burden is on the store to find a different, better solution here.
But AP *has* done something wrong here! (Score:3, Insightful)
They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
Well, if their software made sure he already knew AP didn't own the quote, I agree. Please show me the mind-reading code and I'll shut up.
Otherwise, what could have happened is that someone by accident pays AP for a license to use something which AP doesn't own; or even worse, that AP issues an illegal license offer. As someone has already suggested, buy a license to RIAA lyrics from AP; go tell on AP to the RIAA; watch RIAA and AP duke it out in the two-men-enter-one-man-leaves arena.
What AP has done wro
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple.
You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
At which point someone should turn your skull into a fucking canoe with a .50 cal rifle.
Following your logic, I am going to start billing people for fire, the wheel, and cutting blades.
Like bottled water?
charging people for bottled water (Score:3, Informative)
What I find amazing is that people will pay for bottled water, even though a lot of it comes from the water tap. A couple of years ago Consumer Digest tested bottled water from different companies, and some of it was worse than city water. I buy filtered water but I'd rather have a filter attached to my faucet.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
even though a lot of it comes from the water tap.
Yes it does. But THEN it goes through massive processing...
Not according to National Resource Defense Council [linkroll.com].
A couple of years ago Consumer Digest tested bottled water from different companies, and some of it was worse than city water.
All they found was a higher bacteria count in bottled water...
The NRDC found more than just that, they found:
"Contaminates of synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic were found to exceed the allowable limit
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Funny)
Shout-out to all Slashdot physicists! Anonymous Cowards have mod points!
Now we know where all those mod points have gone. The discovery of the century: Dark Modpoints Finally Explained!
Re:Goodnight, Sweet AP. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such piece of software. AP makes no claim that their software does that, nor anything like it. Their software counts the number of words in a passage you provide. That's all. I appears to achieve this simple task perfectly. Whether this is due to good beta testing, we can only speculate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like Comcast charging you for another provider's cable.
No, and I think most denizens of Slashdot would understand this: it's like Comcast (or the AP) having a bug in their software.
Yes, and I think most denizens of Slashdot would understand it's not a bug when something is compleatly left out, such as having software check whether the operator has the rights to sell a license. Furthermore it's not a bug when validation is left out of a program, it's poor programming. It would have been quite easy for
parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing wrong with what AP did here. This is like complaining that Comcast will let you pay your cable bill even if you don't watch any TV. Yeah, they will. So?
Why the heck is this modded troll? 'troll' != 'i disagree with this person'.
The parent raises a valid point. If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money? The AP's software may be brain dead but to say that this represents an industry "smothering itself with a pillow" rather misses the point.
I would also add that of those cheering the downfall of the AP aren't likely to be too happy with the eventual consequences. The blogosphere may do a fair job of covering Washington (although most of it so slanted to one side or another as to make Fox News look fair and balanced) but the coverage of local issues and politics is sadly lacking.
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see somebody at the AP raising an eyebrow and asking "So you want to pay us $12 to promise not to sue you for using text in the public domain? Uhhh OK we promise." It's the researcher that's baiting them and causing problems; there's no problem on their end.
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the suggestion that it's brain-dead would work with your analogy thus. It's like going to a gas station and walking around a gas station that only sells Doritos and handing them a bag of Kettle Chips. Presumably, their system should read the bar code and tell you that they aren't sold there (how can it figure out how much to charge if they don't sell that product).
If you offer to license part of an article, you would similarly expect the AP system to at least do some sort of sanity check to see if the text you're quoting came from that article.
What if you made up a quote like "Today, Reuters announced they were declaring bankrupcy" and licensed it from the AP. Could you then attribute that quote to the AP? Do you think their system should allow that?
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh, what a total non-story this is. It's an estimation tool, people. If you're dumb enough to use it in the wrong way, then... you know, hooray for you.
It's like a tool on a carpenter's website to get a fence built. Fill in what material you want, how high the fence will be, the perimeter of your block, and whether you want it finished or painted. The site gives you a quote for the fence. Then ring the carpenter, say "I've got the money now, can I pay you BEFORE you do the job?". Give the carpenter the money, and OH HA HA MR CARPENTER I SURE TRICKED YOU I JUST PAID YOU TO BUILD A FENCE FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S NOT EVEN MINE THAT IS THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR I AM SO CLEVAR.
Err.. yeah, good for you, I guess. Want a cookie?
How is this noteworthy?
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:4, Funny)
I still don't get it.
Can I please be provided yet another analogy? I'm too stupid to read the article and understand the meaning of the words contained therein.
Maybe something involving cars. Thanks.
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:4, Informative)
How are they SUPPOSED to license it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait a second. Its NOTHING like that.
Its more like the AP hired some developer to write a tool license out its twenty three kajillion words of content automatically and told them they wanted it done by Tuesday. Do you really expect someone to write code that would contextually differentiate public IP content from private on the fly? Really?
While we are wishing for silly shit, I wish I was really the one in the penguin house in the story with my best grits spoon.
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh, what a total non-story this is. It's an estimation tool, people.
Where did you get the "estimation tool" analogy from? From reading TFA, it is clear that he wasn't just told that he'd need to pay "about $12" to license this. No, he was actually asked to pay $12, paid, and received a license. How is this an estimation tool if it actually sells you stuff? It is an automated sale system that sells stuff that its owner is not entitled to sell. Furthermore - and much worse - said automated system also makes legal claims in the name of its owner - "(c) Associated Press. All rights reserved" - that are outright false.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you made up a quote like "Today, Reuters announced they were declaring bankrupcy" and licensed it from the AP. Could you then attribute that quote to the AP? Do you think their system should allow that?
Quick! Someone do this before the AP fixes its software! I bet they'll spend the next year or two sorting through the fallout of such an attribution...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, obviously.
"Do you think their system should allow that?"
If I tell you "The sentence in question is 7 words long.", do you interpret that as authorization to claim I said it? MSWord does word counts, does that mean I can attribute anything I type into it as an official MS position? Does Chewbacca live on Endor?
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
While I can see the argument that it's unfair to charge for a license to words they don't own, it does raise other issues. There's a risk of them selling a license to something that's copyright which they don't own. What use is a licensing service if you still have to do due diligence afterwards?
Secondly, even where they did cover an event, they may end up selling rights to quotations or even speeches they don't own.
Here's an example: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEgzmDPlmhHVfmc1U9rZXLmsQiuwD999J9Q00 [google.com]
An entire speech by Obama four weeks ago, reprinted by the AP. The final line reads "Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. "
Did the AP write the speech? They claim copyright over it and reserve all rights to it. Presumably they'll happily charge many hundreds of dollars to anyone wanting to reprint it to. Now to most folk, a speech by Obama would be obviously not owned by the AP, but what about quotes from other people?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, just like when the ATM hands me £20 notes instead of £10 notes, it's fair game for me to keep it.
Oh wait, it's not. The law has shown that actually, even if the company gives me the money, it's not my right to take it, if it was reasonably given by mistake.
So when it's an individual who makes the mistake, and a company takes advantage, why should that be any different? It's not appropriate to take advantage of a faulty ATM, and it shouldn't be appropriate to take advantage of a faulty input
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, taking the piles of money that people leave on my doorstep is taking advantage.
The guy is knowingly paying the AP for something free. They're not taking advantage of him. And even if someone was legitimately stupid enough to pay the AP for Thomas Jefferson's material, it's not their fault. Should I erect a fence around my doorstep so people don't leave piles of money?
Re:parent is not trolling, get a clue mods (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The parent raises a valid point. If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money?
Are you serious? You don't see a problem with the AP selling a "license" to use content that it doesn't own in the first place? What if you go to some random article, say written by the BBC or CNN, and maybe you're not paying attention (I know, journalists not paying attention, it's a stretch but stick with me) and you go to get a license to use that text from the AP, which they happily sell to you and give you a bunch of copyright info etc to use which says that you are legally allowed to post that conte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see an idiot not following directions and getting what he deserved.
I see an idiot who doesn't understand the broader implications. There is such as thing as fair use. AP however wants to deny fair use.
Falcon
Free press (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the going rate is $.46 per word, I'm in the wrong line.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This whole mess could be fixed by simply... [please deposit 25 cents]
Copy and paste the article text you want to use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you try it? When I clicked on the licensing link "Click here for copyright permissions" the URL was tagged with a key: http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D99RNEOO2 [icopyright.net]
Those numbers appear to be different for each article.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does the AP tie licensed text back to the article it applies to?
They do it by not paying royalties -- they do it by buying a license to distribute the article to others.
Let's say that you're, oh, a novelist with a 100,000 word novel, and a choice of how to get your payment. You can get paid 10% off the top for every one of your $10 books sold, OR you can get a $.10 a word for the right for the publisher to print your novel, and keep all the profit (or risk) to themselves.
If you're Stephen King, and can expect to easily sell way over 10,000 copies, you insist on the fi
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think virtually all book publishers only give money up front as an "advance against royalties." Often the figure is based on an estimate of how many copies will actually sell. If you write a computer book, for example, you'll probably never see much in the way of royalties beyond the original advance, because the publisher will be able to predict the market for your book and compensate you appropriately. I've heard of few instances where modern book publishers pay by the word. Magazine publishers, on the other hand, often do -- but then, the lengths of magazine articles are usually dictated by the magazine's editors.
Re: (Score:2)
The Associated Press collects articles from reporters all over the world. I doubt those reporters submit articles royalty-free.
Really? I have never heard of a news reporter earning royalties. Reporters who want royalties write books.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they do. In fact, they pay to submit those articles.
The reporters are paid by member newspapers, who submit their articles (if they're deemed noteworthy) for the AP to distribute. The AP can then do whatever the hell they want to with them. A good portion of the time some overworked schmuck at the AP office goes through and rips out all the local quotes, and locally relevant text (so as to make it more applicable across the country) and, having changed the story more than, say, 20%, they pull the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a non-story. Some dude wanted to prove a point no one should care to prove. And he did.
Maybe the real point isn't done yet. Maybe the real point is that tech-news places will post any drivel they can find as news that they can flimsily relate to "your rights" and technology.
If that is the case I eagerly await his follow up story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The beef here I think is that they have the 'audacity' to sell the license... but now that I think about it, it's still a much better system than trying to contact a real person and deal with it. Still, I don't think it should be too
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:5, Insightful)
We can make any machine look stupid when we misuse it.
Rule #1: Never trust user input.
Still, I don't think it should be too hard to have a JavaScript check to see if the words come from the actual article.
LOL @ Javascript
They need a database of every AP article ever published.
Then they can either hash the pasted text & try to find
the source or they can require you to provide a citation.
Either way, you don't want to do that client-side with javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to ruin the funny with your so called "english comprehension."
Anyway, it is still pretty funny that they "revoked" his "license" instead of laughing it off or pointing out that the real failure was his.
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think his point was to ridicule the ridiculous assumption from AP that they should be able to restrict access to and license on a per-word basis any text "more than four consecutive words" in the first place. The Jefferson quote helps him make the point. The fact that the software is basically just a word counter adds a level of lol, but I don't think that was the main point of this experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
True - I considered writing "The Jefferson quote, however out of context..." but I figured that was a separate issue...
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true. Jefferson's 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson concerned itself with inventions and patents, which had been an area of special interest to Jefferson as he was 1) an inventor; 2) Secretary of State during a period where he had responsibility for reviewing patent applications and issuing patents; 3) opposed to monopolies as a general rule.
However, it is widely recognized that Jefferson's argument, which is made at a very high level, is perfectly applicable to copyrights. After all, copyrights and patents are more closely related to one another than to, say, trademarks, or anything else, and at that high of a level, the underlying logic is basically the same.
Hanlon's razor (Score:2)
Why would the AP charge for words it doesn't own? Is it malice or incompetence on their part?
Re:Hanlon's razor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To demonstrate how stupid it is. The whole point of the tool is to tell you how much (if any) you have to pay them - if you already know that, what's the point of the tool?
Consider, supposing I want to licence an article, and within that article is a large chunk of text that's quoted from Jefferson or whoever. This suggests that it would happily include those words in the cost calculation. I guess it's their right to charge whatever arbitrary value they like for a whole article, but this is all the more rea
Re:Hanlon's razor (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That someone decided to pay the AP for a worthless license and the AP decided to issue a worthless license doesn't mean anything. No laws were broken. No trust broken. No rights violated. The person did this with intent to gain a worthless license even. He got what he paid for.
What if the guy had used a paragraph from Dr. Phil's latest book?
The AP accepted money and offered a license for a copyright they do not own.
That is a contract and is arguably fraud.
It's not as simple as "asshat does something stupid".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He *offered* to pay them for words they don't own and they accepted his money since the mechanism for doing so does not check ownership. It's simply a word count.
Actually, no, it does apparently check ownership (or at least tries to). If you RTFA and see the screenshot therein, you'll see that the system added the following attribution footer to it:
Excerpted from AP Sources: Military-civilian terror prison eyed as published in Associated Press
and then there's another footer underneath that claims:
(c) 2009 Associated Press
And the thing goes on to claim that excerpt can only be used exactly as written, and with both footers intact.
The problem is that the system is bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would the AP charge for words it doesn't own? Is it malice or incompetence on their part?
Well, why would anyone request a license from AP for words that AP doesn't own? Is Grimmelmann too incompetent to figure out why the whole premise of his exercise is inane, or is he maliciously trying to portray AP as greedy when their only "sin" here is not making their systems impervious to idiots who would throw their money away?
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:4, Insightful)
What if Jefferson's quote had been used in the article?
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to ask the same thing. I've seen plenty of famous quotes show up in AP stories. And, those are just the ones I've seen. AP sucks up and redistributes so many stories, it's virtually impossible for any individual to have read them all (except on the weekends, when it's all just recycled news).
But, if the article is right, they're claiming that quote ran in the AP story AP sources: Military-civilian terror prison eyed [google.com]. If you read the story, it clearly didn't. Or
Re:Copy and paste the article text you want to use (Score:2)
I bet at some point in their history they quoted this same passage of text, and this is what they guy wanted to use.
brain-dead? (Score:2)
I don't think so; the software did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is brain-dead here is the AP thinking that this sort of thing is a good idea in the first place. I can understand them wanting to charge for the use of entire articles in commercial databases or such, but I can't imagine a situation in which you would want to use "more than four consecutive words" (but less than entire articles) for anything that wouldn't be covered by fair use anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but again, if you know you are w/in fair
why is it great? (Score:3, Insightful)
All this tool does is count the number of words in a block of text. Every word processor and text editor I can think of has this feature already built in. And the premise that the copyright owner should be able to charge on a per-word basis (especially in text made up largely of quotations from other sources, as most AP articles are) is truly preposterous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why is it great? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the premise that the copyright owner should be able to charge on a per-word basis
Stop.
A copyright holder can charge on any basis they damn well want. Either you have a valid fair use case, and can ignore them, or you don't, and have ZERO RIGHT to use their work without tehir say-so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand them wanting to charge for the use of entire articles in commercial databases or such, but I can't imagine a situation in which you would want to use "more than four consecutive words" (but less than entire articles) for anything that wouldn't be covered by fair use anyway.
It's worse than that. It's dangerous for anyone ever to use this tool. By using this tool and paying AP for a license to use N words, you might be acknowledging that you believe that any bit of text N words or greater is not covered by fair use. It's better to get wrongly sued for a fair use than to give up fair use entirely.
And so it begins... (Score:2)
APAFIA
There's a market for meaningless licenses. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've known folks whose workplaces used to pay Sun a license fee for Perl ... the same Perl you could download for free (as in beer); and yes, the same Perl that is one of the usual examples of successful free (as in speech) software.
No, they didn't get tech support. They didn't get to file bugs against Perl that would be resolved by a Sun engineer. They didn't even get a custom build of Perl optimized for their Sun hardware. They didn't even get a CD. What they got was an invoice ... precisely what their company's IT procurement process required.
It's idiotic, but there is in fact a market for nothing: if you are correctly positioned as a trusted supplier, there are cases when you can get paid for delivering no product at all, but merely for carrying out the ritual of delivering a product, with all the paperwork thereunto appertaining.
RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
It's idiotic, but there is in fact a market for nothing: if you are correctly positioned as a trusted supplier
Finally! An explanation for the RIAA/MPAA and other association's sense of entitlement that we can all understand!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's a market for meaningless licenses. (Score:4, Funny)
if you are correctly positioned as a trusted supplier, there are cases when you can get paid for delivering no product at all, but merely for carrying out the ritual of delivering a product, with all the paperwork thereunto appertaining.
there's no need to bring religion into this
Re:There's a market for meaningless licenses. (Score:4, Funny)
I've known folks whose workplaces used to pay Sun a license fee for Perl ... the same Perl you could download for free (as in beer); and yes, the same Perl that is one of the usual examples of successful free (as in speech) software.
No, they didn't get tech support. They didn't get to file bugs against Perl that would be resolved by a Sun engineer. They didn't even get a custom build of Perl optimized for their Sun hardware. They didn't even get a CD. What they got was an invoice ... precisely what their company's IT procurement process required...
Yeah, I noticed SQLite allows for the option of purchasing a license, even though it is public domain, for that exact reason - when someone who doesn't get it above you makes you buy a license. Then they charge $1000. Heh.
Which makes me wonder... if it is in the public domain, couldn't anyone sell a license for it? And if that's the case, couldn't *I* sell a license for it, for cheaper? I could sell SQLite licenses for a mere $500!
Anyone know about that?
-Taylor
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You don't get it. No, you charge $5,000 because nobody in their right mind would buy the cheap and nasty version. Oh no, your version is CERTIFIED. (includes certificate on fancy paper)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which makes me wonder... if it is in the public domain, couldn't anyone sell a license for it? And if that's the case, couldn't *I* sell a license for it, for cheaper?
Yes, absolutely. Just so long as you don't claim that you own copyright to it, and that all rights to SQLite are reserved to you exclusively (which is what AP does here).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can sell public domain works. No one can stop you since no one holds a copyright to it.
Hah, nice. That would be a hilarious business.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
No, the issue is not
not surprising (Score:3, Informative)
considering AP is a company that doesn't allow anything resembling fair use is it really surprising tht they would show the kind of laziness demonstrated here? Assuming some court doesn't strike this nonsense down as a violation of fair use rights, the system is completely broken and should be either reformed greatly or abolished.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that most articles have the "(source: AP)" tag on them in most major news outlets. Guess what: they are a damn big chunk of the system.
As for your assertion: morally and by the law of about 100 years ago the answer is yes, today..
Re: (Score:2)
if they can make more by cheating and/or laziness they should be expected to do so. this is not surprising, it is simply the result of millions of years of evolutionary selection- look out for you and yours through means available to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming some court doesn't strike this nonsense down as a violation of fair use rights
Fair Use is not a right. Free speech is a right. Fair Use is a defense against copyright infringement, due to the otherwise chilling affect it would have upon free speech.
And court's can't "strike down" private actions; they simply refuse to recognize them as legally valid.
Fun fact: when you make a contract (like the AP's license), there are three critically important things you should know:
1: Who wrote it. (You or them?)
2: What jurisdiction is covered (Do you just agree that you'd fly out to CA to defen
go easy on them (Score:3, Funny)
That's it... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't even think about stealing this idea. I have it patent pending on it!
Re: (Score:2)
Four words? (Score:4, Funny)
Godfatheads (Score:2)
I think it's delightful that the very thing (the internet) which has caused the various IP Mafia's to go all horse-head on everyone is the same thing that exposes their stupidity.
Re:Godfatheads (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that was the whole point to the exercise...missed by some above. The content provider trying to extort people into paying license fees they may not need. This exercise demonstrates that the content provider in question can't positively identify their own material or material that they can't legitimately claim as intellectual property. They can't conclusively back up the need for anyone to license a particular piece. They're ignoring the context, intended use and trying to rewrite fair use by their own definition.
This exercise exposes that it's a scam, an online shake down. I think it actually works against their IP claims.
Kdawson strikes again! (Score:2)
Reuters text? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reuters text? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be interesting. I've been quoted in several news articles(CP, AP, and AFP). I wonder if they owe me royalties now.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless their license allows relicensing to third parties, they'd likely get sued for copyright infringement and perhaps even fraud.
Wouldn't it be sweet?
Wow, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Four words? (Score:2)
Hmmmmm (Score:3, Funny)
Is it 5 words in a row or do I get charged for any 5 words I pull from the article? If so I would like to grab words "a, the, it, the, and" so I don't end up having to pay someone else even more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I spoke with my wife (who is an attorney) about this, and I may have been a bit hasty.
(1) It wasn't inappropriate for this guy to try this experiment, although the way he announced the result may have been a bit jerky.
(2) If the AP's web site is going to be "dumb" like this, they need a very prominent disclaimer that explains how dumb it is.
(3) If, in light of this discovery, the AP does not post an appropriate disclaimer, then they are clearly in the wrong, because then they would be KNOWINGLY selling lice