iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
Featured Headline
GoDaddy Makes Twitter Part Of Domain Registration ProcessImplies all site owners should have accounts
7 comments | Friday, July 3rd
AP Suing Moreover Like It's 1999
By Rich Ord - Wed, 10/10/2007 - 16:29
The Associated Press is suing news-aggregation site Moreover and its parent company VeriSign for copyright infringement for snippeting and linking to its news. This harkens back to the early days of the Internet when news aggregators were routinely legally hassled for linking.
 |
| AP Suing Moreover Like It's 1999 |
 |
>>> What do you think? Provide your perspective on this lawsuit here.
I founded the first news aggregation site on the Internet back in 1996 called NewsLinx which had the slogan, "All the News On the Web About the Web." NewsLinx is now owned by Alan Meckler's Jupitermedia Corporation.
I remember getting personal calls and emails from virtually every site I linked to including the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner, L.A. Times and many others. The calls and emails usually started with the question, "Do you have permission to link to our articles?" Old media legal departments were clearly very green with the Internet. My typical response was, "No, we don't have permission and if you would like us to stop linking and driving traffic to your site just let me know. However, we feel we have every right to link to your articles without permission because the Internet itself is based on the concept of linking."
Much of this law is still not completely settled, but publishers generally rely on the fair use principle that small snippets linking to a story are permissible. Cases like AP vs. Moreover can open a can of worms for the largest news aggregation sites on the Internet such as Google News and The Drudge Report. This likely is the reason that Google signed an agreement with the AP a couple of weeks ago to link to AP stories within Google itself rather than other AP partner sites like CNN.
What would be of concern to Google, Drudge and many others is a rogue ruling by a not-so-Internet-savvy Federal Judge that would put real restrictions on linking to news. So far, the prevailing standard has been the legal concept of fair use. Hopefully, this case is assigned to a judge who realizes that the Internet is based on links. The use of an article title and short summary has been considered fair use in past cases. However, I am not sure if the use of smaller versions of copyrighted pictures regularly used by Google News and Drudge will withstand this fair use test.
The legal filing itself shows a complete lack of understanding of the Internet in general and online news aggregation in particular:
6. Defendants are also trespassing on AP's chattel by using search robots or "crawlers" to retrieve information form AP's computer servers in order to display, archive, cache, store, and/or distribute AP's proprietary works.
To me item number 6 simply defines a search engine. All search engines violate this standard of copyright and this has been deemed fair use. What the Moreover service does is aggregate certain news including news from AP and provide links for people to get to said news. They don't link to news that isn't made publicly available and they don't provide full copies of articles to clients.
The AP's lawyers go to great lengths to build up the copyright value of their first sentence in their articles, called "leads." They state, "Leads are so important that journalism schools offer courses dedicated entirely to techniques for creating them." The first sentences are often the only snippet taken as part of news aggregation link sites like Moreover and Google.
It makes you think that if fair use is narrowed to this extent, no article could quote another article. Or perhaps the AP lawyers would agree that you could quote another article as long as you don't link to that article; thus, a kind of backwards SEO.
The heart of the complaint by AP is their contention that you can't operate a news aggregation site like Moreover (or Google News, Topix, Drudge, WebProWire, Digg and Techmeme) as a commercial venture. Unless you have an agreement with AP to carry their stories, apparently, you can't link to them.
Specifically, AP does not like the marketing approach taken by Moreover because it competes directly with their syndication business model.
36. Defendants vigorously stress the "hot news" aspect of their services. And, as Moreover pronounces in its website-based marketing materials: "For current awareness, news aggregation is far superior to traditional syndication. Why? Increasingly, critical business information appears first, and more often exclusively, on the open Internet. Because Moreover aggregates news already available on the Web, there are no hidden content access charges like those associated with syndicated news services. The result is a fixed, predictable cost structure that delivers a rapid return on investment.
AP's legal complaint finesses the fact that Moreover does not actually use more than the headline and lead of their articles. They also fail to mention that Moreover provides direct links to AP and to AP partner websites for every article. The complaint states:
41. Thus, Exhibits F - J show that Defendants are simply copying AP's proprietary material, including the headline and all or a portion of the lead, and delivering it on a real-time basis to their paying subscribers and other users.
The links themselves make it clear to Moreover subscribers that these are not their articles. The links also are a traditional way on the Internet to acknowledge copyright to the publisher of the article. These points are all conveniently left out of the Moreover copyright complaint.
This lawsuit makes the "brilliant" case that:
- You can't use headlines of articles without permission from copyright holders.
- You can't use leads or short snippets of articles without permission from copyright holders.
- You can't run a business that sorts data available to anyone on the Internet like news aggregation sites do.
- You can't use marketing statements like "hot news" if you link to groups of AP articles.
Basically, you can't run a news aggregation business that includes links to AP stories because that competes with AP's paid syndication model, according to AP.
Unfortunately, an AP win here could ultimately subject the entire concept of linking on the Internet to a new legal standard, especially links to news stories and blog posts. If fair use becomes "permission linking" then much of the Internet could be challenged.
The AP seems to think it has a monopoly on high quality content. A legal standard based on this case would mean all linking is subject to approval by the party being linked to.
>>> Comment on this article here.
Download the complaint in PDF formate here:
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/386951?extension=pdf
Implies all site owners should have accounts
7 comments | Friday, July 3rd
-
Is the Search Industry Heating Up?
A lot has been happening in the search industry over the last year. -
What Comes Next in Social Media?
The coming of Oprah and Ashton Kutcher to Twitter brought a whole new... -
How Can I Compete with Oprah on Twitter?
Twitter is undoubtedly one of the hottest spots on the Web. -
Using StumbleUpon to Drive More Traffic
If a social media expert devotes an entire presentation to one social...
Latest News on: WebProWire.com
What’s next: A StumbleUpon for... VentureBeatOptimism about the economy stalls... CNNMoney.com
WiMax Ready To Surge Again InformationWeek - All...
How to Improve IT Cyber Security... eWeek
Sonic Youth takes a swipe at... Seattle Times
     |
74 Comments
thanks for your article.
thanks for your article. Very help me. I will more like visit to webpronews site. :) Fantastic
The bullet is enormous, there is no escaping it.
Wow, I just realized that I just commented on an article that's almost a year old... geez.
No links = no relevence to modern society = useless
If people are scraping AP's stories and presenting them as their own, that would be a legit case. And they'd probably have a case against aggregating thumbnail images, since aggregators aren't just taking a small piece, but shrinking down the full image. But links? They don't want links? Fine. Give them the sword they so desperately want to fall on. Everyone stop linking to them now, and let Reuters and other news services (who don't have their heads up their asses) wipe AP off of the Internet and leave them crawling back to the print industry... you know, because that industry is doing SO well...
First Ammendment
Has the First Ammendment been made null and Void by Public Servants such as AP Courts Congress Senate House of Represenative Governors Mayors Local Police FBI CIA Homeland Security Executive Orders Perhaps But Maybe the Speaking of the words in Open Court Will Prevent Follies of AP and Others Past Present Future There is Little or no Room for perverting or misinterpertation of first Ammendment It Says What it Means and Means what it Say Arguement Against It are Futile At Best Remind AP they would not Exist to Complain of Alledged Infringement if not for First Ammendment Rights of Moreover and Multitudes of Others far Larger than there Little Companies of ASSO.
If the AP is allowed to
If the AP is allowed to restrict the use of their copyright material, on the internet,then we are all in deep Linguine. What would be next, for them? An attempt to control ALL the news? As long as no one is claiming to be the author of such news articles that they provide links to on the internet, I see no cause for an infringement suit. It seems to me they are afraid someone might find fault with the way they present the news, ie: they will lose contol over what the public has access to.
Just my random thoughts.
Carl
Linking to news sites, free speech and publicity
Living in a third world has its rewards, the most import is staying away of starving lawyers trying to provided food to their families on somebody else's money. There is a tendency to "own" everything, your very image for instance, what you say, even planting the seeds of food you by at the supermarket will carry legal consequences. Regarding associate press, I wonder if one day, not far it seems, delinquents will make their "job" just to claim legal rights about copyright infringement's. Corn seeds are suing Guatemalan Indians for using seeds from corn genetically altered that were, by chance fertile, but no one had think on paying them for we having corn in the first place. Soon you may not comment what you read in a newspaper, or recommend someone to buy such and such newspaper unless you want to be sued.
AP suing Moreover
Rich, couldn't agree with you more, and I hope this backfires on the AP. I was the publicist/link builder for Moreover.com back in the late nineties, and they were visionary just as you and Newlinx were as to the power of the headline link. If AP hadn't been asleep during headline aggregation's early days, they could have leveraged their name and done exactly what Moroever did and then some. Now they are trying to re-write news linking history, and I hope the judge laughs them out of court.
Eric
The Press, online
Surely the onus is upon the publisher to add value and ultimately benefit from the "loyal" traffic that is generated.
If a famous person dies, that fact is not the unique property of one publisher. The publisher's opportunity is to report it well and add value in a way that foster's loyalty.
The advent of ePaper reading devices for electronic newspapers will inevitably draw a focus upon the need to provide content that people desire sufficiently to pay an affordable price for. Many publishers are failing to take this opportunity correctly and thus only have themselves to blame if they lose out in the future.
When the Internet first burst upon the World, wise people learned how to swim (or rather, surf)with the tide, rather than trying to stem the flow by putting their thumb in one Dyke hole and wondering why the flow just diverted to flood out elsewhere!
I cannot believe that the AP could fail to acknowledge how important the "Management of Change" is to modern society. Doh!
AP? High quality content?
AP? High quality content? Considering the fauxtography scandals in which AP has been associated in recent times - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies - the quality of their content is very much in question. More likely they are looking for ways to force old media gatekeeping onto the new media to shut out dissent and criticism and reintroduce the last century model of 'reader pays'.
News Aggregation Sites
I think maybe the AP people don't read too much on the internet itself. Isn't every internet marketer, from legit industry pro's to the "buy my system and make millions while you sleep" hucksters, recommending to create RSS compliant feed files of your content and ENCOURAGE aggregation? Isn't the idea to create aggregation and links back to your site? Links you don't have to pay for or reciprocate? Many aggregation sites offer readers a fast way to view news from a variety of sources, and only read thoroughly those that interest them the most. If the aggregation site becomes a regular stop for them, soon the aggregated content providers will get some regular visits from those same users. As the world "Greens", the internet becomes more convenient, and traditional newspapers become obsolete and absent from most households, those with more aggregated content all around the internet will be in a much better position to lure advertisers off the printed page and onto web pages. Perhaps the writers and editors at AP are concerned that they will have to do a better job of piqueing readers' interest in just a few introductory sentences instead of relying on their plain vanilla style of "getting the facts straight".
Don't have permission
"No, we don't have permission and if you would like us to stop linking and driving traffic to your site just let me know."
I agree with the above.
Why have a website if you don’t want anyone to link to it?
This is what RSS fedds are about and look at the growth in that.
Maybe it's these business trying to screw every cent out of honest website owners.
Is it they need a new car, house, etc..
Or dose it show just how bad there business is. Stock Holders take warning.
No, we don't have permission
!No, we don't have permission and if you would like us to stop linking and driving traffic to your site just let me know."
I agree with the above.
Why have a website if you don’t want anyone to link to it?
Maybe it's these business trying to screw every cent out of honest website owners.
Is it they need a new car, house, etc..
Or dose it show just how bad there business is. Stock Holders take warning.
link is to webpage as...
Let me start by saying that my understanding of the issue is that Moreover is making money by linking to AP news stories which are on AP websites. This reminds me of T.V. Guide telling people what channel shows and movies will be on. I don't know if T.V. Guide pays all the stations it cites but i doubt it. I can understand a licensing fee if Moreover is offering article content for a price but if they are just serving up links to AP, then there should be no issue.
News Linking and AP
I have been in the publishing industry for three decades. Sampling has always sold more newspapers, magazines, books, and music.
I don't see a great deal of difference between showing a headline and link to the complete web based article and source any differently than a radio personality reading the newspaper headlines and discussing the article on their broadcast program. This is fair use.
AP doesn't have a let to stand on, but it does have the deepest pockets in media. This could be tied-up in court for decades. And, AP hopes that smaller outlets will fear linking to their articles due to the cost of litigation.
Sad.
AP NEWS???????
I know the AP has always been on top of reporting the news but you get it from them for free on any broadcasting station so for them to sue over something as silly as someone streaming or linking to there news is ridiculous in my opinion. I figure they may loose a little income from this but nothing major enough to justify stopping the news from being spread over the internet for sure. I didn't know anyone owned what went on in the world today anyway. The Lord owns all things so if someone would have the right to sure it would be him and we would all be guilty as charged in this case. Fortunately he is a forgiving and loving God and doesn't agree with suing at all. THis is my personal opinion on the matter.
God Bless, Jeff
Damned right the KAKs at AP
Damned right the KAKs at AP are overboard. But it's really of little consequence since ALL the Major Media, including news, are controlled by half-truth spewing KAKs.
I'll be happy to document.
GBF
Old vs. New - same old story
What this seems to me, from what I read, is just another example of 'the well-established' way of doing things butting heads with a new concept that the majority of consumers are going with. Sooner or later, AP and other 'traditional' news media will be forced to go with the new ways of delivering news, or get left behind.
News is nothing more than information being passed to the masses. This is the very core of what the Internet is all about - the exchange of information. As was mentioned in Rich's article about his former website "NewsLinx", if the news companies don't want traffic driven to their website from other sites, those links can be removed. The one that suffers would be the site that was linked TO, not FROM. It's their loss.
Besides, if all of these news companies don't want just anyone reading their articles, then make them subscription-only - whereas a link back would bring users to a generic "you can't read this until you subscribe" page.
Just as the record companies are slow to accept the rising importance of the Internet and "The Information Age", so is the Associated Press and other news organizations. As I said, sooner or later they'll have to adapt or be left behind.
igorance is not bliss...
This is scary...
But I agree that it does show a lack of knowledge about how the internet works. Linking is an integral part of the "net" or "web". I think this article title should be:
"AP Suing Moreover Like It's 1984!"
UDP, anyone?
Back in the days when Usenet was king, there was a special award given to the special people who managed to annoy the good netizens. It was known as the Usenet Death Penalty (UDP). I don't know what exactly was done, or if it was done to anyone, but it sounded good.
Now that linking and snippeting is so ingrained in Web 2.0 as a basic building block of the blogosphere, an uninformed or unenlightened judgment could spell the end of the Internet as we know it.
It should not be too difficult for network administrators to block the IP address range and domain names used by AP from network and email traffic, at least within their own networks. Only passive resistance, nothing illegal please. Let them resort to Gmail. :)
AP Suing Moreover Like It's 1999
As long as the news content is free to access for everybody I do not think it makes sense to impose copyright infringement laws on such issues.
News aggregetion
I am irritated by the myopia of these services. At HotelDesigns we follow leads, create stopries and place news on our site that is often not available elseswhere, yet services like Google will link to some obscure local print newspaper in Alabama, but ignore our genuine news on the web when aggregating under hotel design.
I am further irritated when these kind of services do steal our work that they do not link properly. At www.hoteldesigns.net we have over 100,000 repeat readers reading our original stories. Selected articles are carried and properly credited on a number of websites, and are also used in print magazines, who also credit.
It is irritating when struggling to gain credibility with advertisers in the face of the archaic belief in the printed word when printed on paper, to have to fight the aggregaters, not because they aggregate, but because they tend to aggregate from print sources not the web.
Why don't they believe in the web - especially Google of all people....?
The AP is absolutely right
The AP is absolutely right to demand licensing fees. Do you think those stories generate themselves? News reporters historically have been paid modest incomes to do the important service that they provide for our democratic society.
While Google, Yahoo and other online entities are making money recycling content that originates from traditional media sources, newspapers and traditional sources are losing money, and therefore are forced to cut staff. News departments in general are being slashed across all forms of media. For example, I believe there are now only TWO newspapers with journalists stationed in Iraq. This means we are only getting first hand information from increasingly limited viewpoints.
With loss of income from classifieds and other traditional advertising revenues --- that are now going online -- it is only right that Google and other major companies should pay to use the work of journalists and other professional writers.
AP Legal battle
AP is right according to me. They pay journalists to write the stuff. Why should anybody else have a free 'lunch and dinner' at their cost.
based on the highly talented journalists' output , all others will be earning ad revenue. Why not AP ?
The pay per click scheme of Google and others is also a big scam. A website is loaded with Ads for which the website gets paid a pittance, whereas visitors to the site are lured away by those ridiculous ads.
The advertisers are raking in billions at the 'intellectual cost' of others like AP.
If unauthorized syndicating is done , AP should be paid.
Best regards
Should be some kind of kickback but not much
I think that the AP has a certain right to ask for something in return for providing news, however, it should be a very small licensing fee and perhaps a type of google adsense like fee for each website display. It gets into a whole new use of web statistics at the web server level. I don't think the AP should bankrupt or hassle anyone. If they want more money, they should legislate laws and create new technology.
(the last post didn't have my website link, maybe you can delete it)
AP
The way I see it, a snippet with a link to the full article at the publishers website is no more than an ad (free one at that) for the site being linked to.
Where is the content here? It't a teaser to read the full story at THEIR site, the content is ONLY at their site. Like if you read the first sentence of the story you have a full sense of the whole issue and don't need to bother to go to the AP site to find out more. In fact you have to do that.
It's no different than an ad, when I create a banner ad for XYZ product/service/site, I entice the person to go and find out more at my site.
So to you people that agree with the AP's position, would you try to shut down someone who wanted to create some ads for your business on their site, for FREE? Would you call it copyright if they quoted your site or product description in the ad and linked to your site? This is all baffling to me.
Should be some kind of kickback but not much
I think that the AP has a certain right to ask for something in return for providing news, however, it should be a very small licensing fee and perhaps a type of google adsense like fee for each website display. It gets into a whole new use of web statistics at the web server level. I don't think the AP should bankrupt or hassle anyone. If they want more money, they should legislate laws and create new technology.
Moreover/AP story
This isn't about "linking." It's about MoreOver taking full-length AP articles and sending them to subscribers in clear violation of any sort of "fair use" argument. Really, you should read up on things before going off o na rant.
The taking of full length
The taking of full length articles is not part of AP's complaint from what I have read. Where is that in the lawsuit text? AP is suing for copying headlines and "leads" from articles and making money in the process. This is not any different that every other news aggregation site including NewsLinx which which was the first to do this in 1996.
Rich Ord CEO, iEntry, Inc. Publisher of WebProNews
Work Product
Using a copyrighted work product without permission -- for one's own commercial benefit -- is not fair use (and never has been), and linking to the whole article doesn't lesson the infringement.
Big Surprise
Big surprise. Knew this was going to happen soon enough.
Now that the world is waking up to hoe much MONEY there is to be made with traffic, content, and linking, the scrap is on for WHO OWNS WHAT, who gets to do what, etc. etc.
I can even see the Internet causing a huge amendment to the "fair use clause". Pretty soon you won't be able to type the word Google or Amazon in a post or article. If you want to mention their name, you have to use a special "image link" with their permission of course.
As we go on, the big companies will be lobbying Washington even more than in an effort to have legislation wipe any dreams the lone-webmaster has of making a living online.
Sounds really far-fetched I know, but just wait and see all the little guys they try and squash over the next decade.
It will be ORIGINAL or.....go to jail.
TZ
Post new comment