Do you know about what write? I think research the AP very do!

What is important, is that not the whole article is quoted. If quoted, it should be distinctly marked with quotes, and referenced to the original website with credits to the author.

When this is done, I think this is promoting rather than “stealing”, and as said before on a previous article on this blog, it is some sort of free advertising for the AP that they should be thankful of.

Four words, ten words, or one hundred words, what does it change? The AP could say it’s a percentage of words from the article, like say 10% of 400 words would be 40, but I hope you see how stupid this could be.

Seriously, “fair use”. As long as the AP is credited, linked, and only a small amount of an article is used what’s the deal, if four words or forty are quoted?

I especially enjoyed this, from your last comment:
“When you look at the actual amounts of content that were at issue with the Drudge Report site”

The AP was not going after the Drudge REPORT:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
They were going after the Drudge RETORT:
http://www.drudge.com/

I can only hope you put as much effort into researching your other comments.

While MBA head Bob Cox hasn’t done an incredible job of marketing the association, it’s still surprising to me that you’ve only recently been enlightened to their existence. (And all this time I thought you were omniscient.)

But at a certain point, someone will have to sit down and negotiate. Don’t like MBA, organize some other association that can represent not the blogosphere, but at least those blogs who are interest in being represented (and defended).

A few things to think about:

Rule 1: Are You Creating Something New or Just Copying?

To say that you’re “just cut and pasting” does not represent the fact that in this instance there was only the copying of a headline and a lede sentence in all of seven instances. Search engines around the world regularly copy as much and sometimes more than listing stories. I do not believe that a headline and a lede sentence in and of itself represents an full and original work of authorship. More than anything else they are statement of facts about now-public events. Facts are not copyrightable. By contrast, the blog entry into which such info is inserted is generally an original work of authorship in its entirety, providing references via headlines and links. I would agree that it’s generally good practice not to cut and paste even that much and to provide additional value-add, but for the purposes of commentary and news it’s hardly out of bounds.
…

Rule 2: Are Your Competing With the Source You’re Copying From?

Well, given that the vast majority of the content in question is not provided and to boot a link is provided to the original source, it would seem that not only is the Drudge Report not competing but it is in fact providing AP licensees a benefit of endorsement for their works that will encourage people to view AP content at its native location. If you look at the visit stats for USA Today, NY Times and Digg, for example, you’ll see that the growth of Digg parallels the growth of these news sites which consume AP content in bulk in lockstep. Bottom line: linking to AP content is good for AP licensees, AP should be looking at how to pay bloggers more for using their content rather than charging them. They do that a bit through services like Voxant, but it’s small potatoes.
…

Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn’t Let You Off the Hook

Nor does it put one ON the hook. It’s good form and with a link it’s an endorsement for which they should be grateful. I agree that crediting an author for use of content that’s not a fair use of it does not provide an exoneration, but it’s a neutral factor in terms of USC 107.
…

Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be

That’s certainly true, and something that all bloggers should consider. I do see large sections quoted in some blogs that are clearly meant to keep people from bothering to go to the source. But if you have a quotation from someone in a news article, again it would seem that a quotation is not an original work of authorship, but simply the fact of what came out of someone’s mouth. It’s something that is public knowledge and is fair game outside of the highly limited and questionable precedents of the NY State “Hot News” law. Within copyright itself, it would seem that quotes that are not from private and exclusive interviews are fair game for fair use.

When you look at the actual amounts of content that were at issue with the Drudge Report site – absolutely miniscule, both in terms of the total number of uses and the tiny amounts of text used – one wonders why this came to light as an issue at all.
…
Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the QuantityTo some degree that’s true, but there is no real guideline on this under copyright law that’s definitive. The main intent is to protect the commercial viability of original works of authorship and to ensure that others to not take those original works in substantial form and claim the right to distribute them. As much as news organizations like to take pride in their lede sentences, they are just well-crafted statements of a key fact, not truly original works of authorship.

People involved in this deserve the benefit of the doubt and hopefully something constructive can come out of this incident yet. But when I look at Robert Cox’ apparently long-standing and relatively prominent background as someone affiliated with conservative news and public relations outlets one wonders as to whether this might have been an instance where a site that was positioned in part as a send-up of the popular conservative site “Drudge Report” might have drawn some fire from friends of conservative journalism who had connections with AP strong enough to draw this to their attention. This may not be the case, but in general AP would not have been likely to have sought out this confrontation without having been notified by someone with a vested interest in impacting the ability of the Drudge Retort site to become popular.

the point is not that it specifically defines number counts or other forms of measure.

The point is that there are guidelines laid out already that have been put into practice for a long time.

The AP, through underhanded means to make it worse, want to change these rules.

What’s funny is, they want to change them for everyone else but apparently not for themselves, just look at andy cochrane’s post.

The AP relies on quoting sources. They should be careful they aren’t painting themselves into a corner.

http://hosted.a...EMPLATE=DEFAULT