The New York Times’ Saul Hansell has now written three articles defending the Associated Press and their attempts to broaden content rights beyond what copyright laws allow.
The A.P., in short, doesn’t want anyone quoting more than four words from their articles without paying, and they’ve been threatening to sue (and actually suing) parties who do quote articles.
Hansell wrote his first article over the weekend, outlining the A.P.’s strategy of defining rules outside of existing copyright laws for the use of their content. In a second article, he criticized bloggers who reacted negatively to that policy (our response was to ban the A.P. from TechCrunch and our sister sites).
Then in a third article today (maybe let sleeping dogs lie?) Hansell comes back once again and suggests that Digg, who is clearly in the A.P.’s crosshairs, is on A.P.’s side in this fight. In a comment to that article, Digg CEO Jay Adelson contradicts the article, saying “We are not supporting A.P.’s position, by any stretch.” It’s not clear if Jay simply didn’t understand the issues in his interview with the NYTimes, or changed his mind later.
But this is just too much. The A.P. is so clearly wrong in this situation that the NYTimes’ position looks ludicrous on its face. The fact that a source (Adelson) is retracting statements he made to Hansell suggest somewhat sloppy journalism. And the worst part of all is the fact that the NYTimes is a part owner of the A.P. and sits on their board of directors. This financial conflict of interest was not disclosed in any of Hansell’s articles.
To be fair, Hansell is a legendary journalist and I doubt he cares one bit about the conflict one way or the other (in other words, it doesn’t affect his judgment). And the NYTimes is also a direct competitor to the A.P., mitigating the ownership issue. But it’s time for the NYTimes to put this story to bed, or at least start disclosing their interests. If they don’t, they risk appearing nothing more than a mouthpiece for the A.P., not a balanced publication.
Update: Saul Hansell responds in the comments:
Hey Mike–
Since when is reporting two sides of an issue by definition defending one side? The fair use doctrine of copyright law, not to mention the hot news doctrine of New York State common law, is both complex and unsettled. As you and others point out, there is a clash between traditional business models and the emerging conventions of the Web. In any case, they interest me, so I write about them.
Best
Saul
so where else can i go to get the latest on startups since TC changed their niche
Glad I’m not the only one who noticed that…
In solidarity to #1 & #2, why don’t you stick to what you know best and report on startups?
May as well hop on the bandwagon with #1, #2, and #3. Get back to writing about startups.
The AP is full of Bigots and politically incorrect corrupt propagandists.
Racist, bigot, completely biased, paid off liars and sleeze buckets.
Hey Mike–
Since when is reporting two sides of an issue by definition defending one side? The fair use doctrine of copyright law, not to mention the hot news doctrine of New York State common law, is both complex and unsettled. As you and others point out, there is a clash between traditional business models and the emerging conventions of the Web. In any case, they interest me, so I write about them.
Best
Saul
Since when has TechCrunch been only about startups. Their about page says “TechCrunch, founded on June 11, 2005, is a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies. In addition to covering new companies, we profile existing companies that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new web space.”
As far as profiling existing companies making an impact on the new web space I’d say the AP story is all about that.
A blog on pure who’s launching what would get pretty dull very quickly
Conflict of interest in what would seem to be shills in a given conversation is a definite problem.
Makes me say some stupid and mean shit when it happens.
MA, the fact that you’re accusing someone else of “conflicted reporting” with a straight face is pretty ridiculous. You frequently remind commenters that you and your employees can write whatever the f you want, and you have no duty or obligation to be impartial whatsoever. Are you arguing that the NYT is in a different position from TC? They have some moral duty or obligation to be impartial that you don’t have? Please clarify.
What is weirder that the Digg comment is that the Reddit story on the subject doesn’t seem to allow ANY comments. WTF? [Related to Open Reddit? Strange coincidence?]
This is going to be a very short lived story. There are laws on all of this already, and the AP is trying to go beyond them.
The first time one of these lawsuits is thrown out because no law has been broken, the story is dead.
reg – I don’t understand your comment. We’ve always religiously disclosed conflicts of interest. And we have very few.
Saul, you’re distorting the two sides, badly, in favor of the AP. You said Adelson “takes a view that is a bit different than the content-must-be-free orthodoxy that has been thrown around so violently over the last few days.” Whose orthodoxy exactly? Here’s what I feel is “orthodox”: short quotes are fair use. You shouldn’t charge people to use 5 words, as the AP does. Neither Arrington nor Jarvis said the AP must give everything away.
The AP is smart here. This is the beginning salvo in what is essentially an attempt to save the news/newspaper industry. The Fair Use doctrine was relevant and fair before the creation of the web. However, the existing doctrine simply does not work in this era of instantaneous reproduction (ie: site-scraping). Clearly, the value of the original content is enormously impacted when the Google News’, Diggs, etc of the world can parasite their success from another’s work and investment. You can certainly make the case that these sites direct traffic to the creator’s site. This is a red herring. The undeniable truth is the parasites are reaping far more value from indexing other’s work than the creator’s themselves. Period. The newspaper industry should and must control the gateway to their content — not Google, Digg, etc. The only chance of survival they have (and a good one at that) is to force local users to access their local news through the creator’s gateway — not an aggregator, not a search engine, not a Digg or its clones. Newspapers have surrendered their “distribution advantage” to OTHER web operators. This was foolish and you can’t blame them for trying to take it back.
I have been finding it a problem with blogs quote complete articles from other news outlets including the AP, and don’t think that should be allowed. Often times a blog will take a complete article put in quote div, and bold the important quotes that they actually want re-iterate. It is kind of lazy reporting, and a function of the blog to not have people leave their website for a website with real content.
Perezhilton probably makes the most of doing this. He will even post the important parts and a have a click for more link that goes to a copy and pasted version on his website still.
I am not defending the 4 word max though, or even the taking of a paragraph if it is being used in a sense to attack and opinion and that whole paragraph is critical. But if the whole story is critical I think linking to the website should be the proper procedure.
Also people complaining about Michael reporting about this are wrong. Since Web 2.0 is defined by all this stupid sharing, consuming, and re-serving content, which always leads to copyright stuff depending on the business.
Its hard to believe the AP thinks they can make-up copyright laws to meet their own needs…….the New York Times looks silly defending them.
Hansell writes that anger in the blogosphere is giving blogs a bad name, but it’s journalism when Michael Powell and Jodi Kantor grab what they need to say what they want.
MA, do you/did you own shares of Yahoo?
The fair use doctrine has been ruled on by count less courts over more than 25 years, every ruling supporting its use in fact how is that exactly complex?
Are we saying that AP in attempting to finding a way to save its hide even through revenues are declining by attacking others without full knowledge of the law is COMPLEX?
Please AP, before you attempt to insult or intelligence again please at least have ful lunderstanding of copyright law..Fair Use doctrine came into being with a little decision about beta vs VHS..
Look it up its part of media history folks..
To get a good perspective on where I see AP going with this you should go back and read an old keynote given by Tom Curley in 2004 to the ONA (Online News Association) http://journali...ives/000079.php
Back when this came out we were all impressed with some of his ideas such as
“content will be more important than its container in this next phase.
That’s a big shift for old media to come to grips with. Killer apps, such as search, RSS and video-capture software such as Tivo — to name just a few — have begun to unlock content from any vessel we try to put it in.”
When in reality maybe we shoudl have paid more attention to quotes such as
“The Associated Press, in this context, might end up “branding” facts such as sports polls or rankings, not just stories and photos; The LA Times and other newspapers will have to compete for eyeballs well beyond the boundaries of their published front pages and Web sites.
So, after we take a minute to get comfortable with this ice-cold shower of “disintermediation,” we need to get cracking at the hard work ahead. And it’s some stuff we don’t fully understand yet — like how to free our great content from those expensive containers we’ve all created — the newspaper, the broadcast and the Web site — and tagging our news for delivery in discrete pieces, on demand. And keeping control of our intellectual property.”
Worth a re-read anyway
Before building up anymore hype around this whole situation, perhaps all of you should note that The A.P. retracted their position. They retracted their DMCA takedown notices to The Drudge Report and stated that they acted “heavy-handed.”
Amit Chowdhry
http://www.pulse2.com
The New York Times, “a balanced publication”
(as balanced as the ‘Fair & Balanced’ network, at least …)
thanks for the laff, Mike.
the disclosure issue you surface is v interesting. I didn’t know that.
again, thanks.
Alternate headline: “Dinosaur takes angry swipe at meteor”
Hey reg, look up the difference between “reporting” and “editorializing”. Hint: NYT (except for the Editorial page) publishes reports, and blogs like TC are editorials. The standards are different because the purpose is different. An editorial is an opinion which can deliver facts, while a report conveys facts WITHOUT bias or opinion. At least it used to be.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the NYT article and am not commenting on whether or not that article contained editorial. Just pointing out the difference and why a blog can rant and rave, and a formal news article can’t.
But the AP is wrong, wrong, wrong and does not get to determine established Fair Use on it’s own (editorial).
Mike, I spoke with Jim Kennedy this afternoon, and some of what you say here is wrong. I’d like to get a chance to speak with you about this. I tried calling earlier but your voicemail box is full. It’s possible I have an old number. Could you reply to my email, and let’s try to work together to solve this problem. Of course I have a conflict of interest, so do you, so does the NY Times. That doesn’t mean we can’t defuse this situation. Thanks.
@14, ATL is right.
AP’s real targets are Google and likewise who can pay, not those bloggers who may simply stop quoting AP. AP just try to grow a de facto standard beyond current copyright regulations.
Michael Arrington needs to chill out and stop sensationalizing.
Interesting article. If you liked this you might want to check out http://www.read...ex.php?rta=blog
Wow. This is the same NYT that wrote the Yahoo article Arrington went on and on about.
I just recorded a 14-minute podcast explaining what I learned today talking with Jim Kennedy at AP.
http://www.scri...apMessDay3.html
Dave
paul – no, i don’t own shares in any public company directly, i invest in a mutual fund but i have no idea what stocks are owned through that.
I really hope you push this issue of the AP stealing story ideas and not giving links/credit to the original bloggers. That issue is far worse than even the fair use stuff. The AP is acting totally unethically.
Hey Mike, As I recall, you wrote three articles slamming me an extolling the virtues of your house guest a while back, and that was a smaller issue than the AP’s current issue. Would someone not find you behavior at least as conflictive as the NYT has been? Second, I have known a great many journalists and I recall extremely few of them who cared much about what boards their bosses sat on. The Washington Post did a series we call Watergate and I bet the writers did not much care that theor publisher was having regular lunches with Henry Kissinger while they were assaulting Kissinger’s boss.
Mr. Hansell,
A paycheck buys at least two things: labor and loyalty. You are an employee of NY Times (a publication I highly respect), and you have been understandably taking the side of NY Times which is a part owner of AP, even though you claimed to “write about both sides”. Your writing on this AP issue so far has come across as something like a FOX News reporter “struggling” to be fair about any Democratic political candidate.
Mind you, for us bloggers to avoid AP, as Mr. Arrington has urged us to do, is a self-defense move now. A take-down notice in blogosphere is akin to a grenade, and AP has just lobbed a few in a fellow blogger’s direction, so the rest of us have no choice but to run away from AP and its trigger-happy lawyers.
@ mike – thanks for that disclosure – very interesting. you should have led with that when everyone thought you were trying to get MSFT/Yahoo to go.
@ beefcake – thanks so much for the tutorial. i had no idea that all newspapers are completely free of opinion and are just factual reports. that’s really interesting. now tell me, why is it that old white dudes like the WSJ so much? and why do smelly liberal arts faux-hippies like the NYT?
the lines you are trying to draw don’t exist. the NYT can write whatever the fuck they want, as can TC.
Shel – ok, so what you’re saying is that the NYTimes is so above reproach that they no longer need to disclose conflicts of interest.
Dave, listened to your podcast. I appreciate that you disclosed that they’ve been helpful to you in the past. But the facts you state are just wrong. Kennedy is restating reality. Read the first nytimes article and the quotes from him.
It’s fine if the AP wants to retreat, but rewriting history is bullshit. And you’re rewriting it for them.
Dave:
just checked the quotes. see this from the first NYTimes article:
“And he said that he still believes that it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones.”
http://www.nyti...media/16ap.html
i mean, does what they actually said on the record mean anything to you?
see this post on their shakedown of Topix
http://www.mark...the_answer.html
And its happening right now with moreover. more on that later.
Mr. Winer,
It’s nice that Jim Kennedy has so many friends defending him. I just wish that Mr. Kennedy would personally show up in this space and once and for all clarify what AP will do, moving forward. If you are his friend indeed, tell him to come up here, because we all would like to hear from him directly.
Mr. Kennedy has so far only said AP won’t sue bloggers the way RIAA sued grandmas and kids. Well, I bet Mr. Kennedy wished that AP had gone after grandmas and kids, instead of the bloggers, because grandmas and kids don’t fight back.
To repeat the words of Jeff Jarvis: “Back off AP, because we won’t.”
Michael,
Most of the reporting on this story is just plain wrong which makes most of the conclusions based on the reporting wrong as well. I was involved in this case before anyone here had even heard of it. In fact, I was involved in this case before Jim Kennedy at AP had heard of it. The facts are a lot more prosaic than the hype. Hate to burst bubbles but here are a few facts to consider:
Backstory on AP – Drudge Retort Issue
http://tinyurl.com/636c7
Robert: okay, but does THIS post say anything factually incorrect?
The facts I’d like to know:
- Did AP demand that short quotes be taken down? (Not long quotes or reproductions — I support AP on challenging those.) Everything I’ve seen points to YES.
- Does AP officially assert “it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones”, as Jim Kennedy stated to NYT?
Mike it seems like you’re quoting someone paraphrasing him, it doesn’t seem like a direct quote to me. And even if he said that, him preferring that isn’t the same thing as them suing.
Basically I think a lot of the assumptions people are making are wrong, but I guess time will tell.
Me, I’m much more interested in knowing what’s going to happen to all the data that’s locked up in Yahoo if all the people who know where the keys are leave. You know the problem with Twitter and the guys who left (Blaine Cook). THis will be a lot worse. There’s a lot more of the infrastructure of the net built on Yahoo than Twitter *or* AP. Now would be a good time to push them on data portability, imho. Plus that’s a place where your influence is at its max.
Anyway, sorry I missed your call, I was out on a walk with my headphones on. By the time I realized the phone was ringing it had stopped, if you know what I mean.
Gabe, I asked Kennedy to look at newsjunk.com while I was on the phone. I showed him how we are linking to AP stories. He said there was no problem. So, imho, 90 percent of the stuff people are angry about isn’t real.
Give ‘em hell Mikey. Shel you are a dope. {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/1BsIw39BAv_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:”Give ‘em hell Mikey. Shel you are a dope. ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/6MTRsequ6x”}}}
Gabe,
[I did not realize your emails were based on this post here, sorry]
“Did AP demand that short quotes be taken down?”
Setting aside that length of a quote is not the sole determinant of whether a fair use argument is valid (warning, not a lawyer), Rogers posted the Take Down Notice on his blog so why even ask this question when you can see for yourself. BTW, there were 10 take down items last week not 7; Rogers failed to put up the last three for some reason. My non-lawyer sense is that 9 of the 10 posts would be really tough for them to win on in a counter claim.
Does AP officially assert “it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones”.
I’ve talked to Jim Kennedy at length since last week and I’ve not only not heard him say anything like this but his thinking sounds to me like its in an entirely different (and positive) direction. My purpose in meeting with AP tomorrow is to see about resolving Rogers case first and foremost because that is what we were asked to do by Rogers. I am not sure where the AP will come out at the end of this but I seriously doubt, based on these past few days, that AP will end up with what you posted as their position.
I agree with Dave Winer on this; chill a bit and see what happens. I will be meeting with AP again tomorrow and expect we can reach out an outcome for Rogers that allows everyone to move on. That’s not the same as an outcome that is considered “perfect” from every perspective. Usually these things end to everyone’s mutual dissatisfaction but we can always hope.
I like and respect Jim Kennedy. I first met him at the Blogging, Journalism and Credibility conference in 2005. He has attended many blogging events. Maybe I am wrong but he sure strikes me as an ALLY within AP not an enemy and if we really want good things from AP we should be supporting Jim not scapegoating him. A simple way to support him right now would be to stand down and see where they end up before jumping to conclusions about where that will be.
PS, of course I realize that is not NEARLY as fun as all this
Last time I looked, the only place the New York times takes positions is on the very editorial page. And I don’t see any way that Saul Hansell, a blogger for the NY Times, can be confused for The New York Times itself. That being the case, Hansell should certainly have noted the link of the Times to the AP.
(Note that when one of Techcrunch’s employees/writers takes a position, it is similarly not the same thing as Techcrunch taking the position)
I think AP is asking for trouble. I think they can easily be replaced with citizen journalism and online video news. I will no longer use any AP article on 217magazine.com, I will simply find free alternatives.
“…there is a clash between traditional business models and the emerging conventions of the Web.”
The clash is between traditional business models and 200 year old copyright law – enshrined as “Fair Use” in 1976. They want t change Fair Use so they can make more money, not because blogs are acting outside Fair Use, or creating new “emerging conventions” of Fair Use.