AP Charges $12.50 for Quotes of Five Words

[Johonebesus]

The Associated Press wants to charge you $12.50 to quote five words from them
Posted by Patrick at 03:05 PM [6-16]

The Associated Press, having already announced its intention to harass bloggers who publish snippets as short as 39 words from AP stories, has now published a web form through which intimidated parties can give the AP money in return for “permission” to publish as few as five words.

In this spirit, I will shortly be putting up my own Web form through which people can PayPal me money in exchange for my promise to not blow up the moon.

The New York Times, an AP member organization, refers to this as an “attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt.” I suggest it’s better described as yet another attempt by a big media company to replace the established legal and social order with with a system of private law (the very definition of the word “privilege”) in which a few private organizations get to dictate to the rest of society what the rules will be. See also Virgin Media claiming the right to dictate to private citizens in Britain how they’re allowed to configure their home routers, or the new copyright bill being introduced in Canada, under which the international entertainment industry, rather than democratically-accountable representatives of the Canadian people, will get to define what does and doesn’t amount to proscribed “circumvention.” Hey, why have laws? Let’s just ask established businesses what kinds of behaviors they find inconvenient, and then send the police around to shut those behaviors down. Imagine the effort we’ll save.

Welcome to a world in which you won’t be able to effectively criticize the press, because you’ll be required to pay to quote as few as five words from what they publish.

Welcome to a world in which you won’t own any of your technology or your music or your books, because ensuring that someone makes their profit margins will justify depriving you of the even the most basic, commonsensical rights in your personal, hand-level household goods.

The people pushing for this stuff are not well-meaning, and they are not interested in making life better for artists, writers, or any other kind of individual creators. They are would-be aristocrats who fully intend to return us to a society of orders and classes, and they’re using so-called “intellectual property” law as a tool with which to do it. Whether or not you have ever personally taped a TV show or written a blog post, if you think you’re going to wind up on top in the sort of world these people are working to build, you are out of your mind.

----------

The Associated Press: worse than merely foolish
Posted by Patrick at 08:23 AM [6-17]

It’s hard to believe the AP’s recent behavior could be more odious than what’s already been discussed, but on Boing Boing, Cory Doctorow spots further humdingers in their fine print.

First, their licensing system explicitly recruits people to “report piracy”—“you may be eligible for a reward of up to $1 million”! Remember, the Associated Press believes you should have to pay in order to quote as few as five words from their content, so that’s a lot of piracy-reportin’ to be done, junior woodchucks.

Second, their Terms of Use explicitly prohibit you, even if you’ve paid them, from quoting the Associated Press in order to criticize the Associated Press:

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 […]

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.

In other words, no more criticizing AP reporting, not if you’re foolish enough to pay them money and sign off on their terms.

Obviously, professional media-critic organizations like Media Matters for America are just going to laugh at these demands. But failing some really sustained publicity about this stuff (ideally accompanied by intense personal humiliation for the executives who dreamed it up), the AP will certainly manage to intimidate a certain number of net users who happen to be less affluent and well-connected than A-list bloggers and DC-based watchdog groups. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it?

I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this already. Not only is this story all over the blogosphere, it is pertinent to the standard policy of these forums. This Brouhaha started when the AP sent a letter to the author of the Drudge Retort demanding that he delete comments to some of his posts that quoted a few words from AP Articles. They are using the DMCA as justification. Evidently he complied, so they aren't going ahead to sue him. They are meeting with bloggers to try to work out a licensing deal.

Here's some detailed information on the particulars.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Apart from the frankly ridiculous five-word rule and prohibition of "derogatory" use, this is a perfectly sensible move by the AP. Their entire business consists of researching and writing articles and then selling them to publications for quoting or reprinting, so why should internet "publications" get the content for free? I have to wonder what their rules for newspapers using AP content are.

[Darth Fanboy]

Will they still charge the fee even when some hack writer decides to quote message boards and blog postings for most of his article?

[General Zod]

Apart from the frankly ridiculous five-word rule and prohibition of "derogatory" use, this is a perfectly sensible move by the AP. Their entire business consists of researching and writing articles and then selling them to publications for quoting or reprinting, so why should internet "publications" get the content for free? I have to wonder what their rules for newspapers using AP content are.

I don't see how it's sensible in any meaningful definition of the word. Ignoring the utterly absurd $12.50 per 5 words fee (most professional writers wouldn't earn even $1 per word!), and ignoring the fact that it violates every fair use law up the ass, how could they possibly hope to enforce it in any meaningful way whatsoever? The only way that's even possible is with RIAA guerrilla style lawsuits.

[Simplicius]

I would like to know how these internet publications are obtaining AP content that has not already been published or quoted for public consumption in an established news source.

If AP is trying to charging people to quote AP material that appears, already published or quoted, in established non-AP news publications, then they are effectively profiting twice from the same piece of business, and for absolutely no benefit save to themselves. I fail to see what is acceptable about this.

[Pablo Sanchez]

If AP is trying to charging people to quote AP material that appears, already published or quoted, in established non-AP news publications, then they are effectively profiting twice from the same piece of business, and for absolutely no benefit save to themselves. I fail to see what is acceptable about this.

That's like saying that once a song has been played on the radio (broadcast for public consumption), recordings of the broadcast can be used by anyone in any way they see fit, including to generate profits, without incurring royalties.

I don't see how it's sensible in any meaningful definition of the word.

Because the AP is a cooperative whose operation is funded by support from members (newspapers, TV and radio stations, etc.) and by subscription fees paid by non-members in exchange for access to AP content. The AP has decided that it doesn't want to give away content for free. Big surprise.

Ignoring the utterly absurd $12.50 per 5 words fee (most professional writers wouldn't earn even $1 per word!),

The rate is not a flat $12.50 for every five words, which you would know, had you spent a rudimentary amount of time looking at this stuff. Here's how it actually works, which was linked to from the blog post that Johonebesus quoted.

and ignoring the fact that it violates every fair use law up the ass,

Fair use covers parody, quotation for criticism and review of the material itself (like what MediaMatters does), and scholarly work. Simply reprinting content is not covered by fair use. If a newspaper reprinted or excerpted an AP story without paying for it, the case would be cut and dry. But because something happens on the internet it is a completely different situation, ethically and legally? That doesn't wash.

how could they possibly hope to enforce it in any meaningful way whatsoever? The only way that's even possible is with RIAA guerrilla style lawsuits.

I would expect that their efforts would be concentrated on heavily trafficked for-profit sites like the Drudge Report or Digg, which make tidy sums by compiling news from other sources in a form that's easy for internet users to browse and access. The AP doesn't have the resources to go chasing individuals like the RIAA does, and I doubt they really have the inclination.

[Morilore]

Fair use covers parody, quotation for criticism and review of the material itself (like what MediaMatters does), and scholarly work. Simply reprinting content is not covered by fair use. If a newspaper reprinted or excerpted an AP story without paying for it, the case would be cut and dry. But because something happens on the internet it is a completely different situation, ethically and legally? That doesn't wash.

How many of the bloggers who are about to be harrassed by the AP over this were criticizing or reviewing? Are there really bloggers out there who just copy and paste news articles?

[Faqa]

Fair use covers parody, quotation for criticism and review of the material itself (like what MediaMatters does), and scholarly work. Simply reprinting content is not covered by fair use.

Somebody didn't read the OP...

Second, their Terms of Use explicitly prohibit you, even if you’ve paid them, from quoting the Associated Press in order to criticize the Associated Press:

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 [\b] […]

I do find the tone of the article objectionable, though. It seems more concerned with ranting against Evil Big Business than reporting.

Nevertheless, that quote up there pretty much seals the AP's fate as fucktards, far as I'm concerned.

[Mr Bean]

That's like saying that once a song has been played on the radio (broadcast for public consumption), recordings of the broadcast can be used by anyone in any way they see fit, including to generate profits, without incurring royalties.

Except as noted, the AP business model is the equivalent of selling songs to radio stations not to the public. It's a horrible comparison since the AP does not sell news direct to consumers they sell it to business who in turn deliver it(I've never been charged for news yet) free to consumers.
(Note:Yes Commercials are a way to "charge" the customer and newspapers and one or two websites cost money, but I don't pay for that yet remained better informed than a great deal of the public through this handy tool called "google news")

Because the AP is a cooperative whose operation is funded by support from members (newspapers, TV and radio stations, etc.) and by subscription fees paid by non-members in exchange for access to AP content. The AP has decided that it doesn't want to give away content for free. Big surprise.

Except as noted it does, it just does it second-hand, once someone buys an AP subscription they can do what they want it with. Also they have their own website they give away news from.



Here the giant issue you missed Pablo
Repeat after me, Bloggers are not media organizations they may make that claim to it, and they make get mentioned and interviewed on actual infotainment services like the major three cable services, and there may be bloggers for major news organizations as well. However independent bloggers(As is the case here).. they don't have broadcast licenses, they don't have press badges(*) they are not news outlets.
Thus they are not bound by the same laws.

Simply discussing a news piece on the intertubes is not a reason to be charged money for it. Even if it's on your own website and you gave it a fancy name.


*There are acceptations to this as noted some people do work for a news orginzation and do double duty as a free blogger and there are a rare few paid bloggers but the vast majority of bloggers are just some guy(Or gal) with a website, some free time, a opinion on issues and motivation.

[General Zod]

Because the AP is a cooperative whose operation is funded by support from members (newspapers, TV and radio stations, etc.) and by subscription fees paid by non-members in exchange for access to AP content. The AP has decided that it doesn't want to give away content for free. Big surprise.

So why doesn't the AP simply stop selling articles to outlets that republish them and sell subscriptions directly to the reader?

The rate is not a flat $12.50 for every five words, which you would know,
had you spent a rudimentary amount of time looking at this stuff. Here's how it actually works, which was linked to from the blog post that Johonebesus quoted.

So instead of a flat $12.50 they charge an incremental increasing scale? Which changes my point that it's grotesquely overpriced. . .how?

Fair use covers parody, quotation for criticism and review of the material itself (like what MediaMatters does), and scholarly work. Simply reprinting content is not covered by fair use. If a newspaper reprinted or excerpted an AP story without paying for it, the case would be cut and dry. But because something happens on the internet it is a completely different situation, ethically and legally? That doesn't wash.

If their definition of what constituted "republishing" was clear and unambiguous, then that would be one thing. On the other hand if they mean simply posting an article on say, a message-board or blog to discuss it, that's entirely different.

I would expect that their efforts would be concentrated on heavily trafficked for-profit sites like the Drudge Report or Digg, which make tidy sums by compiling news from other sources in a form that's easy for internet users to browse and access. The AP doesn't have the resources to go chasing individuals like the RIAA does, and I doubt they really have the inclination.

Which sort of makes the attempt at instating this policy a bit asinine, doesn't it?

[CmdrWilkens]

Ignoring the utterly absurd $12.50 per 5 words fee (most professional writers wouldn't earn even $1 per word!),

The rate is not a flat $12.50 for every five words, which you would know, had you spent a rudimentary amount of time looking at this stuff. Here's how it actually works, which was linked to from the blog post that Johonebesus quoted.

and ignoring the fact that it violates every fair use law up the ass,

Fair use covers parody, quotation for criticism and review of the material itself (like what MediaMatters does), and scholarly work. Simply reprinting content is not covered by fair use. If a newspaper reprinted or excerpted an AP story without paying for it, the case would be cut and dry. But because something happens on the internet it is a completely different situation, ethically and legally? That doesn't wash.

Reprinting the work for criticism and review is EXACTLY what they are trying to stop. Their terms of service, as helpfully pointed out, prevent you from using their own words to criticism them (which is a fiar use violation). Moreover what they sent the takedown notices out over were 7 items totaling no more than 79 words each which were presented to offer review and discussion abotu the matters contained. It would be highly unbelievable that this does not constitute fair use.

Lastly the"policy" they are attempting to foist is designed to force bloggers and other to pay for the content which they have a right to utilize under fair use (that is content for criticism/paradoy/scholarly discussion). Its blatantly illegal.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Except as noted, the AP business model is the equivalent of selling songs to radio stations not to the public.

Yeah, I know that, which why I used the example of radio in the first place. The radio station pays a royalty to play a song, and anybody with a radio can listen for free, and the listener can even make recordings from the radio if he wants... but he hasn't got the right to make lots of copies of that recording and distribute them for his own purposes, including profit, without paying his own royalties.

I thought this would be clear, but I guess I should stop using analogies, because there's always somebody who can't put it together.

It's a horrible comparison since the AP does not sell news direct to consumers they sell it to business who in turn deliver it(I've never been charged for news yet) free to consumers.

The fact that you personally use Google News to get the news for free doesn't mean the news is free.

Except as noted it does, it just does it second-hand, once someone buys an AP subscription they can do what they want it with.

Sure they can, but I fail to see what entitlement this gives a third party who never paid the AP one thin dime.

Also they have their own website they give away news from.

Which is their prerogative, but again I don't see how this obliges them to allow a third party to profit from their work without charge.

Simply discussing a news piece on the intertubes is not a reason to be charged money for it. Even if it's on your own website and you gave it a fancy name.

The issue that the AP is facing is that websites and blogs that reprint AP content in full represent an alternate, free source of that content to newspapers, TV stations, and other organs that actually pay for the AP to operate. Now, they can say "ZOMGLOL information is free" and sacrifice all the profits from the internet, or they can try to get some of the money that their work is earning. So far the only site threatened with anything is the Drudge Report, which is a for-profit enterprise.

Obviously there's a line between sites like Digg and Drudge Report, which are clearinghouses for information where the proprietors do nothing but repost articles from actual sources and derive a steady profit for directing people to the actual news, and personal blogs where people might want to discuss the news. One is the equivalent of a conversation with a friend, the other is a commercial enterprise wherein somebody makes money on the work of others without kicking anything back. We'll see how that plays out.

So why doesn't the AP simply stop selling articles to outlets that republish them and sell subscriptions directly to the reader?

The Associated Press doesn't stop selling articles to outlets because the AP is a non-profit cooperative to which many of those aforementioned outlets belong. The purpose of the AP is not to serve the consumer directly, it is designed and operated by the media outlets to provide them with journalism. Circumventing the news media and selling directly to readers would defeat the AP's purpose.

So instead of a flat $12.50 they charge an incremental increasing scale? Which changes my point that it's grotesquely overpriced. . . how?

Well, for starters, it changes it by demonstrating that you were wildly wrong about how much it cost. Additionally, I don't assign much value at all to what you personally consider "grotesquely overpriced." You're going to have to find some way to compare it to a market value (say, by figuring out what rates the actual subscriber newspapers pay the AP), which is going to be up to you, since you're the one making an affirmative claim.

If their definition of what constituted "republishing" was clear and unambiguous, then that would be one thing. On the other hand if they mean simply posting an article on say, a message-board or blog to discuss it, that's entirely different.

I agree, and as I stated above, that needs to be clarified.

Which sort of makes the attempt at instating this policy a bit asinine, doesn't it?

Only if they actually ever intended to sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who was quoting them on the internet. More likely they were hoping to get some of their money back from major operations like Drudge and get a foot in the door with respect to mainstream outlets who currently pay the AP only for the initial reprinting of their content, and nothing when they put the same stuff on their websites.

Faqa:
I did read the article as well as the terms of use it linked. I ignored that detail because it is explicitly stated--contracts are funny like that--that it is an agreement between the Licensor (the AP) and Licensee (somebody who pays for the use of that story), and therefore has no application with respect to somebody who does not sign the agreement and is following Fair Use requirements.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the Associated Press, a journalistic organization whose existence depends upon free speech, is going to use that clause as a weapon to bludgeon its critics.

EDIT:
My mistake, I read the "Drudge Retort" as the "Drudge Report."

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, I know that, which why I used the example of radio in the first place. The radio station pays a royalty to play a song, and anybody with a radio can listen for free, and the listener can even make recordings from the radio if he wants... but he hasn't got the right to make lots of copies of that recording and distribute them for his own purposes, including profit, without paying his own royalties.

I thought this would be clear, but I guess I should stop using analogies, because there's always somebody who can't put it together.

Except, the AP does not sell directly to the consumer. Unlike Music stations, you want to make a comparison then you take it to it's logical conclusion. The AP sells only to corporations unlike Music companies who sell to both. Furthermore unlike Music, Fair-copy usage

The fact that you personally use Google News to get the news for free doesn't mean the news is free.

But does it mean I pay for my news? I made this point in my post about commercials. Nice to see you snip my clarification.

Sure they can, but I fail to see what entitlement this gives a third party who never paid the AP one thin dime.

How about a fourth party? Or a Fifth party? How far down can they sue or charge?
Once you tell the 2nd party "do what you want" you have no issue to complain about third parties talking it and running with it.

The issue that the AP is facing is that websites and blogs that reprint AP content in full represent an alternate, free source of that content to newspapers, TV stations, and other organs that actually pay for the AP to operate. Now, they can say "ZOMGLOL information is free" and sacrifice all the profits from the internet, or they can try to get some of the money that their work is earning. So far the only site threatened with anything is the Drudge Report, which is a for-profit enterprise.

Except as noted, the AP sells it information to one party then lets them use the news as needed. If I take the AP story off it's website or where it's reprinted on FOX or CNN's website where does the issue come into it? They are giving it away.

Second Drudge is a for-profit Smear and Rumor site, the fact it sometimes contains actual news is accidental at best.






.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Lastly the"policy" they are attempting to foist is designed to force bloggers and other to pay for the content which they have a right to utilize under fair use (that is content for criticism/paradoy/scholarly discussion). Its blatantly illegal.

Now this is a line of argument that is probably more productive than the "it's too expensive" or "the law doesn't apply to the internet" directions that have come up so far. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't make a real call with respect to fair use, but according to this PBS blogger and Kos himself (who evidently has a JD and specialized in media studies) seem to agree with you.

[Johonebesus]

Some clarification seems to be needed. One: the blog in question is called the Drudge Retort. We aren't talking about Matt Drudge's muckraking site. Two: bits of AP articles were not posted in the main body of the blog, but quoted by commenters in the course of discussions. Three: the AP is not just restricting postings of entire articles, or even of substantial extracts, but of fragments as small as five words.

This is not a case of a blogger reprinting an AP article for the purpose of spreading news. I can see the AP's position on that score. That's why I have never been completely comfortable with the standard here of demanding the quoting entire articles. What the AP is demanding here is that no-one quote any bit of their articles without paying for a license. Not only could they conceivably come after Wong for numerous posts quoting entire articles, they could, using this argument, come after any site where posters quoted a couple of lines from an article in the course of discussion. With their offer of a $1,000,000 reward for reporting violations, this aggressive policy seems pretty excessive.

[CmdrWilkens]

Lastly the"policy" they are attempting to foist is designed to force bloggers and other to pay for the content which they have a right to utilize under fair use (that is content for criticism/paradoy/scholarly discussion). Its blatantly illegal.

Now this is a line of argument that is probably more productive than the "it's too expensive" or "the law doesn't apply to the internet" directions that have come up so far. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't make a real call with respect to fair use, but according to this PBS blogger and Kos himself (who evidently has a JD and specialized in media studies) seem to agree with you.

I must admit I'm a big kos fan and I've been reading through the articles (and the analysis which he linked as well) so the similarity of viewpoints isnot entirely coincidental. That said it comes down to the core of it, I could deal with the non-criticism clause mostly because that relates to a commercial transaction and not a free-speech issue, but what I take truck with is the idea that the AP could issue a dictate as to what constitutes "fair-use" of their material.