At AP's annual meeting they name
iCopyright Named Licensing Agent for Reuse of Associated Press Content Published Online

AP has determined that they consider to be fair-use to be exactly four words. More than that and you pay $12.50 - $100. This is pretty hypocritical considering that AP journalists help themselves routinely to much more than four words from blogs and websites in the name of "fair use".

AP takes this a step further and under the license pricing and terms of use for iCopyright they place language that raises eyebrows and limits free speech.. Pretty unusual for an entity that lives and dies by freedom of speech protection.

iCopyright License Excerpt:
Derogatory and Unlawful Uses: 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."

------
I think that any reasonable person would see a strategy in play and is very much at odds with rights they flaunt daily.

AP is large and may not be a monopoly in the strictest sense, perhaps oligopoly or cartel is a better description.

Is the AP behaving ethically and morally? Are they being a good citizen? Many say they're not.

AP's strategy and behavior raises lots of questions and concerns:

The Poynter Institute on it's blog asks: AP v. Bloggers: Hurting Journalism?

Pajama's Media Asks: Is the Associated Press Good for America?

Perhaps the question we need to ask is: "Is the AP evil?

"were... over... that... in... off."
"the... what... to... an... in"
"in... in... in... in... in" (order deliberately rearranged to obscure source)
"with... with... with... with... with" (again, order deliberately rearranged to obscure source)
"while... as... about... just... ticked"
"extension... long... strip... research... sustain" (this one is almost obscene. It reads like certain spams I get.)
"promising... e-mailed... prize... millions... donations" (another story that sounds suspiciously like some spams we all get.)
"foot... pursue... hit... car... misdemeanor"
"searching... around... a... few... companies"
"top... cop... stop... chop... shop"
"range... soaring... high... far... increasing"

Please apply all bills to OTB. While the OTB management is certainly not responsible (rimshot please) AP is more likely to get paid by them than me.

Yet charging for quotes in collusion with "leftists in Congress" to bring the fairness doctrine to blogs does make sense to you?

Second response on an afterthought;

If the goal was to silence political blogs, can you think of a better way overall to do it? Assuiming all this is simple stupidity, they could hardly have done better had they been trying.

At which point, other reasons start getting explored.

I never suggested it was a "smart" move. Clearly, AP is lacking in the smarts department - - at least of late.

Hmmm... well, stupidity is always a fair enough reason, and one I can pretty much accept... if we've played out every logical avenue... Yet, stupidity making this far into policy doesn't strike me as the frist answer I'd arrive at, as a matter of logic... particualrly an entity as old and apparently as profitable as AP has been.

I guess my analytical side likes to work from the asumption that there's some smarts atatched to, and some logical reason for, the behavior of a business, even if that reason is less than ethical. Mostly, I guess because if the actions are not rooted in logic, then they become impossible to logically explain.

Stupidity as a policy driver, however, is certainly less sinister in it's implications, but somehow doesn't seem as likely to me.

Sorry, that doesn't strike me as a smart move, even if you take your offering at face value.

Yet charging for quotes in collusion with "leftists in Congress" to bring the fairness doctrine to blogs does make sense to you?

Sorry, that doesn't strike me as a smart move

I never suggested it was a "smart" move. Clearly, AP is lacking in the smarts department - - at least of late.

They need money. The $6 million the members save will be $6 million AP doesn't get.

Sorry, that doesn't strike me as a smart move, even if you take your offering at face value.

Think of it this way; the ad revenue they might have gotten from the traffic we send their sites also now falls under the heading of moeny they wont get. Even assuming everyone jumps on board with the price schedule as laid out by AP, the money doesn't come close to matching what they had before they started up with this nonsense.

Think about the exposure ads on an UP contented page get from one instalanche. much less the thousands of hits from links from blogs. All that disappears, now, far outstripping what they might ahve made.

Sorry, Golum. I give you high marks for trying to think this through, but I don't buy it.

1. It's the most important factor according to some legal commentary.

2. It is not at all clear what the market impact of quoting AP stories is given the odd business model of AP.

3. While I think Joyner is correct that most fair use determinations are situation specific on the other factors, a judicial determination of AP's economic model might be quite far-reaching and damaging to AP.

Here's one possible explanation:

[AP’s new packaging and pricing structure for newspaper members] constitutes the most important overhaul of AP’s pricing in the history of the cooperative. It will reduce assessments for 80 percent of papers; about 10 percent will remain the same; and, about 10 percent will see an increase, although it will be phased in. AP estimates [the new structure] will save member papers about $6 million.

They need money. The $6 million the members save will be $6 million AP doesn't get. The above excerpt (had it not come from an AP press release about AP) would have earned them $25.

Barring such, however, it seems to me that we’ve run out of logical reasoning to explain the AP’s actions, here. Thus does Holmes’ axiom apply:

… when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. …

Hmmm?

Must everything always and in every case for you be a "leftist" conspiracy? Can't something just be a regular conspiracy, like Area 51 aliens, or that Elvis is alive and living in the UP with James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and JFK's brain?

(!)