You mean like using law for raising cafe standards, and banning domestic oil drilling and refining, rather than the techncical answer of opening up our oil fields for drilling?

Only in your example, you're suggesting that instead of implementing a legal measure to reach outcome A, we should use a technological measure to reach outcome B.

If there were a technological means accomplish exactly what CAFE and drilling bans have accomplished, then by all means lets use them instead of having to enforce laws. But if such a tech exists, I don't know about it.

Using legal procedures when a perfectly usable, cheap and easy technical solution to the problem exists would be about the absolute stupidest thing to do.

[snark]
You mean like using law for raising cafe standards, and banning domestic oil drilling and refining, rather than the techncical answer of opening up our oil fields for drilling?
[/snark]

That whole line of thought got me to wondering if this whole comlaint by AP wasn't a result of some of their client sites/stations complaining about the costs involved with an instalanche?

Using legal procedures when a perfectly usable, cheap and easy technical solution to the problem exists would be about the absolute stupidest thing to do. So yeah, you're probably right.

The U.S.A. government has a nice "fair use" description (See http://www.copyright.gov).

On that page, the US Government states, "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work" and describes the 4-prong test in Section 107.

Namely, in determining "fair use," the courts will look at:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The problem with the AP's move here is as follows:

The AP will be driving bloggers to the source of the quote rather than to the news agency or agencies for the story. The bloggers will be avoiding news agency comment and coverage and will, in effect, be covering the story on their own.

Just as the AP can cover news events (public speeches by presidential candidates, etc.), so can anyone else. Do you have to be present to use such information? If the material is not copyrighted, no "fair use" is needed to fully quote the document.

Remember, plagiarism is "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work" (See Wikipedia). Note the correct use of a cite.

I simply don't see the long-range planning by the AP in their current posturing. Regarding a statement by a person, I do not think the AP has any legs to stand on... Does the AP own the Copyright to all statements made by Fox News or other individuals? Even if they do, "fair use" still applies.

Of course, it has to be "fair use." Just as you don't want the AP to take all of your stories and "steal" your readers, the AP wants to protect their "bottom line" as well. Copyright is good, as is "fair use."

That whole line of thought got me to wondering if this whole comlaint by AP wasn't a result of some of their client sites/stations complaining about the costs involved with an instalanche?

Glenn aside, We've seen stuff Boortz has linked melt the servers in question, as well as what makes it out to places like Memeorandum.

Might this explain why they wanted a summary and no link at all?

Sorry, I kind of glossed over the article and started right in with Bit's comments. I'm just not paying enough attention today, my fault.

If I was worried..... (Shrug)....

But it really doesn't work that way, does it? Any "agreement" by major media players doesn't have the force of law, and could actually be overruled or expanded by a legal ruling.

Hmmmm. I don't suppose that anyone has noted that all this takes on that appearance, already? If you as a company were unhappy with the way the thing fell out, in terms of 'fair use' and wanted to shift the sand in this little bowl, how would you go about it?

I, for one, would like to see some consensus build up on what constitutes “fair use” in the Internet age. My preference would be that they be established by organizations like the MBA (of which I’m a board member) working in cooperation with major media outlets such as the AP rather than via the courts, regulatory agencies, or Congress.

But it really doesn't work that way, does it? Any "agreement" by major media players doesn't have the force of law, and could actually be overruled or expanded by a legal ruling. I agree with the general point that "Fair Use" needs to be better established, but the way to do so is through legislation or legal ruling, else there is no real legal effect in the long run.

And yes, the AP is being incredibly stupid in this action.

[snark]
Of course I got this one. I read James' original post!
[/snark]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But really, this was already covered in the quoted article, so I was really surprised that this point was misunderstood.

Sorry, I kind of glossed over the article and started right in with Bit's comments. I'm just not paying enough attention today, my fault.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But really, this was already covered in the quoted article, so I was really surprised that this point was misunderstood.

During last week's kerfuffle over use of AP content, bloggers who felt bullied by its move against the left-leaning Drudge Retort (not to be confused with The Drudge Report) urged an AP boycott. Apparently AP executives are worried that bloggers are m...