Slashdot Log In
AP Files 7 DMCA Takedowns Against Drudge Retort
Posted by
kdawson
on Monday June 16, @11:00PM
from the not-getting-this-whole-blogging-thing dept.
from the not-getting-this-whole-blogging-thing dept.
mytrip points out a blog posting by Rogers Cadenhead, author of the Drudge Retort blog, who says: "I'm currently engaged in a legal disagreement with the Associated Press, which claims that Drudge Retort users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing 'hot news' misappropriation under New York state law." An AP attorney filed six Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown requests this week demanding the removal of blog entries and another for a user comment. The AP material they object to consists of snippets of from 33 to 79 words. Cadenhead claims his lawyer believes that all fall squarely within the province of fair use.
Related Stories
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.

My first suggestion (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Re:My first suggestion (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
AP Stylebook (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My first suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Interesting quote from the AP (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, they have an interesting way of justifying things [nytimes.com]. Pay attention to those last few lines:
That's right. They're saying at least we're not as bad as the RIAA. Where's NYCL?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Interesting quote from the AP (Score:5, Insightful)
An RSS feed delivers summaries of news stories. To create those stories, somebody was paid to go out (outside - you know, leave the computer and keyboard behind?) and gather news and photos. That's qualitatively different than delivering an XML feed, wouldn't you say?
The blogosphere is largely an echo chamber, with no voice (i.e. reportage) of its own. No voice, no echo, no blogosphere... get it? Original news reporting happens outside that sphere, then it gets repeated, via RSS feeds, copy-n-paste etc., within it.
Without actual news stories to quote and make fair-use copies from, bloggers would be left to writing about taking their dog to the vet, or how the baby barfed on grandma's shoes, or whatever.
I mean, look at /. - with no stories to link to, we'd all be talking about Linus's latest kernel module, now wouldn't we?
Reply to This
Parent
And in other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
The length of the quot e not important in absolute (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:The length of the quot e not important in absol (Score:5, Interesting)
"as long as drudge is providing the info where they took the quote stuff from, i don't see how AP has a case in this. They provide a link to original story on AP its not stealing if you are giving the credit to the original writer in these cases."
There's a persistent meme on Slashdot that artists should be happy that their stuff is simply being shared and listened to. If they make even a peep about trying to make a living from their craft, they're branded as greedy businesspeople, not artists.
Looks like people are starting to think the same way about journalists, too. That's sad.
If the Drudge Retort fellow thinks that there's not much value to the AP articles which he excerpts, then great -- he can stop using them, and switch to a news service which is less profit-oriented and which allows free distribution of their content (provided he can find a suitable replacement). But if he thinks that using the AP source material is a benefit to his site and to its readers, he can license it, just like real news sites do.
He seems to be playing it down the middle -- the AP content is worth reproducing on his site, but not worth paying for.
Reply to This
Parent
The AP Has Retracted Its Complaint (Score:5, Informative)
But the AP still doesn't really get it (if it can get away with destroying it, where "it" is "fair use"):
Reply to This
Re:The AP Has Retracted Its Complaint (Score:5, Interesting)
If HTTP included content signing that could at least let the publisher of the link help readers clicking it to see that the target content has changed. Eventually there will probably be a "distributed archiving" system that points at URIs, "content names", rather than URLs, which point at "content location", regardless of whether the content changes.
In the meantime, "fair use" quoting isn't just fair. It's more fair than the content publishers who bait & switch when their original content brings blowback pressure they don't like. AP has to get with the 20th Century laws if it's going to survive in the 21st Century. That's why it's trying to change the laws in the 21st Century, so it can drag us back to 19th Century yellow journalism that pays, but doesn't inform.
Reply to This
Parent
Yellow is better (Score:5, Insightful)
The so-called "neutral point of view" came out of the Progressive Era, and like so many things of that era sold as a way to help the little guy, ended up being an instrument of The Man. Give me bias -- explicitly stated bias -- any day. It's a lot easier to understand that way.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yellow is better (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you must be using a different definition.
I don't disagree with the premise that blogs have allowed for more information (some of it even manages to be factual)
But don't forget that a wide swath of blogs are just echo chambers for misinformation.
Example: Barack Obama is a muslim [google.com]
As of this posting, about half on the front page say he is and half say he isn't
Reply to This
Parent
It really doesn't matter.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The story as it goes is stupid. It would not happen if the Drudge Report was a high school newspaper. This is simply an attempt to quash competition using the DMCA. A government tool provided for their friends to squash anyone that might dissent. Canadians? Listen up... this kind of thing is on it's way to you.
Yes, perhaps this is not about dissent, but the unintended consequences of the law are showing through, and it clearly shows that the law is not in the best interests of the public. It is a bad law. It is being used in this case to stop the freedom of thought and speech.
Seriously, I hope that this whole mess costs them millions in the end. It is not only despicable, it is against all that is good in humanity. Sure, that sounds like a rant, but WE have to start pushing back now, not later when there is no room to do so. Please everyone stop supporting the AP in any way shape or form. They need to just go the way of buggy whip makers.
No, this is not some plea to get you to support the latest l337 cause. This is a plea to get you to support your constitutional rights. Those of you reading this that are not Americans can also help. Make this company fail. The Brits know that what America does, Britain does at twice the speed and volume (more or less) so it is not an issue for a single country. We all need to speak out about what is wrong, always, as a single voice, whether it is Darfur, London, Washington, or Lisbon etc.
Please
Reply to This
Re:It really doesn't matter.... (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Washington Post bans the AP (Score:3, Interesting)
Reply to This
Re:Washington Post bans the AP (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
It is not Fair Use: (Score:5, Interesting)
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
...
A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909, but news, as such, is not copyrightable. P. 248 U. S. 234
As against the public, any special interest of the producer of uncopyrighted news matter is lost upon the first publication. Id.
Reply to This
Re:It is not Fair Use: (Score:4, Informative)
Whether quoting that much is fair use or not is going to depend on a lot more than just the words quoted themselves. Is the quoting commercial? Done for rebuttal purposes? Source-cited? How much of the total work is the quote?
These are factors that may not be easy to clearly decide except at trial.
Disclaimer: I have not seen the 7 cases cited in this story, so for all I know they could be clearly fair use, clearly not, or up for debate.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:I'll say it again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:I'll say it again. (Score:5, Funny)
Please?
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:kdawson, dupe, again. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah because Slashdot's search function is second only to Google.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:what is the deal with "drudge retort"? (Score:4, Informative)
Err... no. Titles are not protected by copyright. URLs are not protected by copyright. Single words are not protected by copyright.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Fair? (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent