|
The AP is launching an all out assault on any use of its content that is not licensed (purchased) for use by Internet publishers and search engines. As I have said in the past, the AP is not just focusing on the blatant violators such as spam blogs or sites that quote paragraphs without attribution or link. On the contrary, the AP is specifically going after bigger mainstream blogs, Internet publications and believe it or not search engines such as Google.
Do you agree with the AP’s actions? What do you think?
The AP believes that desperate times call for desperate measures and that means demanding royalties from any company profiting from any aspect of their content. When Google links to an AP story in a search result with an Adwords ad on the page the AP expects to be paid. Include a rewritten headline link to an AP story Matt Drudge and you will be sued for payment by the AP. Add a paragraph snippet of content from an AP article in your PaidContent.org blog post and be ready for a call from an AP lawyer demanding their share of your ad revenue.
From the AP’s perspective, the concept of fair use is primitive and counter to their desperate desire to prevent their demise in an ad supported Internet content economy. The Associated Press Board of Directors, which is made up mostly of newspaper executives, has issued a member call to arms against anyone and everyone who misappropriates AP content.
The release quotes AP Chairman Dean Singleton who spoke at the AP annual meeting in San Diego, "The news cooperative would work with portals and other partners who properly license content – and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don‘t." Mr. Singleton added, "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories."
Exactly what misguided legal theories Mr. Singleton was referring to became more clear as reports and interviews were published by other media. The New York Times quotes AP executives as stating, "They were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report". In other words, they are challenging the long held assumption that search engines or news aggregation sites have a right under fair use principles to republish headlines or small snippets of content without permission or payment. Should the AP be paid? Comment.
If you don’t believe the AP is really going after Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s Live Search for republishing AP content in search results read what Sue Cross, a senior vice president of AP told reporters as printed in the New York Times:
" When asked if The A.P. would require a licensing agreement before a search engine could show specific material, Ms. Cross said, “that could be an element of it,” but added, “it’s not that formed.”"
Obviously, the AP doesn’t consider a link that goes with the republished headline or snippet sufficient payment. The AP’s stated goal is to make it illegal either through the courts or by new laws to link (with a quote) to copyrighted content on the Internet without the permission of the copyright holder. However, in the case of the Drudge Report where most headlines are rewritten, apparently even a link to their content without permission may need an AP license agreement.
If the AP is successful, and they clearly believe they will be, then the Internet will be changed as we know it. Linking (with snippets or not) to the content of others could become a permission based concept where one only links (and quotes) after they have received the appropriate approval.
If content owners like the AP can sue search engines for unauthorized use of their content and win a share of their ad revenue, then the Google apple cart could be turned upside down.
>>> Is the AP justified in their fight? Should search engines share their revenue with content providers?
—— —— ——
Author Perspective: The author of this article, Rich Ord, is the founder and CEO of the iEntry Network which includes this publication, WebProNews. In 1996 Mr. Ord started NewsLinx.com which linked via republished headlines to selected Internet business and tech related articles as they were published. NewsLinx was the first news aggregation site of its kind and spawned many similar sites such as Topix.net, Techmeme and Google News.
News aggregation was not understood or immediately appreciated by most mainstream news organizations in early 1996. At that time most newspaper websites only published a fraction of their articles online and many were experimenting with pay-for-access concepts.
Soon after the launch of NewsLinx, Mr. Ord was contacted by numerous news organizations including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, etc… asking if NewsLinx had permission to "deep link" directly to stories within their site. The answer given by Mr. Ord was that the Internet was based on links and that NewsLinx was really no different than a search engine and therefore had the right to republish headlines and link direct to the article web page.
However, to avoid action on what sounded like legal threats to Mr. Ord he offered to stop including their headlines at their request. The typical response in 1996 was that they did not want NewsLinx to stop publishing their headlines and linking to their articles.
I get the feeling the AP is under the false assumption that if people don’t get their AP stories elsewhere, then they’ll go straight to the source to start getting it.
This may have worked a few years ago before the social media explosion, but I sincerely believe that people won’t give a damn. They get their media from Google, Yahoo! Home Page, and DrudgeReport not because of the AP stories, but because it’s convenient and familiar. They should consider their next step carefully because if they think their readership won’t plummet by dropping the hammer, I fear they’re sorely mistaken.
In Canada the Canadian Press is loosing subscribers in a steady stream. The likes of AP and CP, Reuters, et al are discovering their dinosaur heritage and will be facing extinction in due course of time as a result of the internet. Good riddance. Maybe true journalism will breathe some new life in their absence. It follows they (news wire syndicates) will stop at nothing to destroy the thing that is destroying them.
” When asked if The A.P. would require a licensing agreement before a search engine could show specific material, Ms. Cross said,
Perhaps someone should explain to these AP execs that if they succeed in outlawing links to their content they won’t get found at all in the search engines and they will disappear off the face of the internet (aside from paid ads). These guys seem to have a warped view of how the internet works. When someone links to your content it IS payment because it brings you more traffic and increases your search rankings which in turn brings you more traffic. Without traffic you aren’t going to make any sales.
In their hopes to grab money wherever they can they fail to see the larger context and will find themselves on a little island with hardly any visitors. If the AP doesn’t want to participate in the organic nature of the internet they will be the only ones to lose.
Well AP has definitely not calculated the power of the Google. In fact in the past few years, Google has emerged to become the world’s largest stakeholder in search engine industry. I think the AP will end up loosing its own ranking and consequently the reach and page ranks.
If they want to get paid for content, they should place it behind a password protected entry, and charge for subscriptions. Simple. The search engines cannot crawl or redistribute their content, unless they intentionally post it in their ‘open’ area.
Forcing the internet to conform to one corporation or industry is wrong. Hear that RIAA?
As far as search engines being charged, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on. Now, reuse is a completely different story. Just like any other copyright material, video, music, etc. republishers should not expect it for free. Currently they aren’t legally allowed to republish network television programs or sports video, NFL, NBA, etc. without a licensing agreement. Any written material, books, magazines, newspaper articles, should be treated equally.
As noted, this would just mean that they would quickly disappear from all legitimate websites.
But I can’t see that the courts are going to over turn “fair use” because of this.
I’m not a lawyer and do not know the legal definition of “Fair Use”.
However, walk into any restaruant, bar, or theatre in the world and hear “background music” whether you want to or not. Every establishment pays a license fee to ASCAP and BMI for the privelege to use popular music, even to have cover bands play. The artists who created this content, music, are compensated through this system.
So why is the idea of paying the AP for their conent sound so awful.
If its their story being used, they should get paid.
Tough times call for tough moves but this one takes the cake. They can expect this to fall like bad dominoes in my view of it. Many advertisers will also bail.
Top of the 10 worse moves in 2009, AP will be at top of list.
Too bad.. I’m sure people that work with them are trying to stop or at least don’t want it to happen.
Pfft!
@Nathan Cheeley
Yes Nathan you’re right. It’s suicide move from AP.
Well, I see corporate greed is alive and well at the AP. Ditto corporate stupidity.
Wake up morons! Greed is not good. Getting your company name and product before the largest numbers possible is. If someone links to your site, an article, etc., they are driving potential customers to you. You should be paying them!
If you can’t keep up with the times, if you wish to remain a dinosaur you will wind up the same place they did. Which is probably for the best. Don’t expect the rest of the world to make up for your own ineptitude and inability to earn enough to keep your company afloat.
Here’s an idea–fire a bunch of your over-paid exec’s, then pay the rest what they’re actually worth. You will suddenly be making more money than you ever thought possible…..
While I can see they want to block blatent copying of their content, expecting to get paid for snippets, quotes & links back to their content will be slitting their own wrists/throats, they obvioulsy do not understand how the internet works
Outstanding! Now maybe all of these website that steal content will go away. The content thieves have been driving newspapers out of business left and right. When all the reporters are gone what content will they steal then. Not sure why it has taken AP so long to do this.
I totally agree with the AP. It costs money to get the news being stolen and a link does not compensate them for the effort and expense it takes to do quality news reporting. Good Bye and Good Luck to the content stealers, FT!
The comment about not being able to rebroadcast sporting events brought to mind an interesting point. If you listen to the legalese spouted during a broadcast it actually includes average joe/jane commenting on the game. Period. They say no “descriptions of the game” can be used without their express written consent. This means that if I say “did you see that play where …..” that is a violation of that legal claptrap.
Technically, sports groups could go after any blogger who discusses a game in detail, especially if there is a play by play type of description.
The AP is following in the footsteps of the idiot entertainment industry. I’m betting others, such as the sports world, will follow suit at some point.
Sounds like AP is driving another nail in their own coffin. The when I access their content on line it is always via a search engine or blog link. When these links stop as far as I’m concerned AP will cease to exist.
Like it or not many people get their news via the internet not from printed sources.
it’s the 21st century, time to adapt or die.
Sounds eerily similar to the music industry… perhaps they should learn from that experience.
As an internet user, I like my aggregated news as well as the next guy. But where do you think that news comes from? The news fairy? Real news organizations (as opposed to aggregators, which offer other people’s work, and general bloggers, who offer commentary in the guise of news) provide content by PAYING people to find the story, do the research, and produce the article. Did you ever read notice the byline on a newspaper article? I’m guessing that better than 50% of them are AP articles. BUT THEY DON”T OFFER IT TO CONSUMERS – they sell the service to other news organizations. All the links in the world don’t mean s**t if the person following the link is not a potential customer, and for the AP and other news organizations that is almost universally true. Personally, I’m ok with paying someone for the work that they do. The internet is a great communications media, but it’s not a license to steal.
Must be nice to be the smartest guy on the planet.
Nobody here would deny that rewriting an entire article is IP theft. That’s not what this is about. We are all professional content providers here. Nobody here is going to defend IP theft.
This is about a strictly defined legal concept called “fair use” which is absolutely essential to the very fabric of American society as it supports a little thing called the first amendment.
If AP has publicly posted information I have a right to “fair use”. This does not mean that I can reprint it. But what I can do is say “according to an article by the AP blah blah blah, click here to read the full article”. This is called fair use and has been defended in court on many occasions. If the AP doesn’t want me to have fair use they need to stop posting information publicly. Legal precedent is clear. Posting information on the internet without securing it by password is the electronic equivalent of placing it on a bulletin board outside your office. Fair use applies.
Of course securing their site will only hurt them. Sooner or later someone will buy the info and post it, and we’ll just credit the article to the buyer and send the traffic to their site instead of AP. In the end news is news, and the courts have said over and over that not only do I have the right to spread the news, I also have the right (in fact I have a responsibility) to site the source of the information.
AP has nobody to blame but itself for it’s inability to expand it’s consumer base to adapt to the new economic realities of the digital world.
Just one knuckleheads point of view.
The idiots who run this company can watch as their web traffic and subsequently their stock prices PLUNGE.
This is a genie they cannot put back in the bottle. And people who have used their content with attribution and a link back have driven a HUGE amount of traffic to their web properties. If another, smarter outfit, like Reuters or similar, puts out a TOS that allows content use as long as there’s attribution and a linkback I betcha that will put the AP out of business in a very short time. With the press, you’re only as good as your readership numbers.
Well the way I see it is you have a bunch of highly educated Harvard executive types that don
AP is unfortunately following a business model from the last century. We have moved into an online, digital age where information is distributed in a different manner. This also means that there are many more sources of information available. Their brand is a representation of a certain amount of reliability, but with others not charging as AP wants to… they will just fade into obscurity as are many of their newspaper customers.
The AP is treading on dangerous territory. Everyone should have learned from the now hated by everyone RIAA. An all out assault on anyone and everyone’s quotes and links could seriously backfire against them. Dare I say it could even put the AP out of business?
The AP is going to have to compromise. Whether they do it fairly and now or whether they drag it into court and spending a ton of money is a decision they should make now.
I think courts would decide that a headline and a simple link is fair game for everyone, and that would be really expensive for the AP.
What the AP needs to do now is draw the line and spell out which entities can do this and that and what entities cannot do this and that.
While it’s not right for companies to take advantage of linking, it’s not right for the AP to say you can’t either.
I would personally consider a third party description of the article with the link to be totally fair use. However, a directly copied sentence or more by itself is the grey area. If a blogger talks about the subject and then quotes from the article within the blog post, that has always been considered fair use and nobody has ever had a problem with that when the author was given.
And the amount of those quotations from the article is also questionable. It also wouldn’t be fair for the AP to say you can use two sentences but you can’t use a paragraph. This is because one or two sentences can easily make up a whole paragraph in a newspaper column.
Hi Rich – Your perspective on this matter is unlike anyone else’s in the world, since you started this whole mess with Newslinx back in the day
Frankly, I was happy the big media morons didn’t want you to link to them, as that provided more slots for you to link to URLwire.com site announcements, which you did, and which helped me build that brand. Big media’s clueless loss is the little guy’s gain.
I think what they are trying to do really stinks and the way I feel about it is no matter how it all turns out we should just cut them out entirely.
Don’t link to their content, don’t buy their products etc.
Let that be their legacy.
Hell No. These old bags are just demanding entrance into the new media. They should have jumped, but they where set in there ways. I imagine a drowning man will try to grab onto whatever he can. Desperate times indeed.
I decided to take a look at the AP homepage only to discover that the coding they have on the index doesn’t include noindex nofollow which means they publish stories that search engines are being directly told to follow.
Big mistake on the part of AP; if they are saying that no search engine should scrape the content they should at least “pretend” that they have tried to prevent it before putting out such a blanket statement like they did.
It is like inviting a guest over for dinner and then saying at the end of the evening, you owe me 20 dollars because you ate here at my request.
Recode your page, or as another poster said earlier, put a password in place before story links can be followed by a search engine and anybody else.
If they dont want search engines to list them, google, yahoo… should ban their sites from the search results.
I completely agree. If you want to go out and do real hands-on, live, in-person research and then report on that, do it. Otherwise, pay or you are a thief.
… seriously.
To paraphrase from a non-so-popular former U.S. politician, AP’s maneuvers are “the most desperate [efforts] of a doomed regime.”
As well, “Desperate times, call for desperate measures.”
Who the hell do these late adaptors think they are??!??!
I AM now going out of my way to link to AP stuff their lawyers will get a virtual tea bagging ….
Life sucks when you lose control , right AP?!? LOSERS
Please I beg everyone link to AP stuff as your way off saying FOFF
The best way to fight them is to do exactly waht they are asking-
Everyone should completely stop sending traffic to them – Newspapers are a dying breed and soon the Ap would have no
customers and no traffic.
The Ap will then have only two choices, either reverse course and
start paying for links or sell out to Google ?