That's true of bloggers as well. There are bloggers who'll quote whole posts as part of a roundup with little to no analysis of their own. That doesn't help drive traffic.

Well, not of itself, but it does drive traffic for the link it contains, since the more links to a particular site, the better the site is positioned in serach engines and whatnot. Memeorandum, for example is certainly link driven. Even the #%@#%^#&&! scraper sites.

Especially hard to sell if you are providing a link back to their story, and only quoting a portion of it.

That's true... assuming of course that the defendant in such a case can afford to see the case through. And there's the thing; Most of 'em can't.

Michael; In a legal sense, a court would regard lost income as "damage".

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that AP can't prove that the income you receive results in a loss for them. Like I said before, it's not a zero-sum game, which makes it much harder than standard copyright lawsuits.

Well, the issue there should end up being proof on their part that they'd have made that income, AND that you wouldn't have made that income, absent your excepting the story(ies) in question. Both a hard sell, to be sure.

Especially hard to sell if you are providing a link back to their story, and only quoting a portion of it.

Unfortunately, copyright law, as it now stands, and as my limited legal understanding on the matter allows, seems to make the assumpton in favor of the copyright holder, regardless of their ability to prove these other factors.

Well the RIAA's running rough-shod over copyright law lately may make it less friendly for the copyright holder these days.

It's not the "Damage", per se, it's the fact that you're making money that seems to bother them.

Michael; In a legal sense, a court would regard lost income as "damage".

They seem to think it's a zero-sum game, that if you get ad revenue from their story, they are somehow missing out on that revenue, even if they get more generated traffic to their own ads than if you hadn't linked to them in the first place.

Well, the issue there should end up being proof on their part that they'd have made that income, AND that you wouldn't have made that income, absent your excepting the story(ies) in question. Both a hard sell, to be sure.

Unfortunately, copyright law, as it now stands, and as my limited legal understanding on the matter allows, seems to make the assumpton in favor of the copyright holder, regardless of their ability to prove these other factors.

In this case, then, as so many other situations where law and government are concerned, common sense is given the boot.

I would argue that in both the cases you cite,James, you're driving traffic to their sites and therefore to the waiting arms of the ads running there. I fail to see how that constitutes "Damage".

It's not the "Damage", per se, it's the fact that you're making money that seems to bother them. They seem to think it's a zero-sum game, that if you get ad revenue from their story, they are somehow missing out on that revenue, even if they get more generated traffic to their own ads than if you hadn't linked to them in the first place.

It's like the whole net-neutrality debate, where the ISPs are upset that Google is showing you ads over the ISP's network, without Google paying your ISP for the privilege. Nevermind the fact that the ISP gets more money letting you visit Google than they would if they didn't, they're seeing money change hands that they're not getting a cut of, and they think they're entitled to it.

I would argue that in both the cases you cite,James, you're driving traffic to their sites and therefore to the waiting arms of the ads running there. I fail to see how that constitutes "Damage".

It depends. If the excerpt leaves them wanting more, sure. But if you quote the whole thing, not so much.

That's true of bloggers as well. There are bloggers who'll quote whole posts as part of a roundup with little to no analysis of their own. That doesn't help drie traffic.

The obvious extreme is the scraper blog, which automatically republishes entire posts with no commentary as the entirety of the site business model. They're hurting the real blogs.

Some blogs, including this one, frequently have extensive excerpts. But they’re generally set off in obvious block quotes, as is done in this post, and interspersed with significant amounts of original commentary. Admittedly, I have the occasional post with little or no added value, simply pointing to a news story, including an excerpt, and a one-sentence reaction. Usually, this is a breaking news type story that I think my readers, who spend less time than I do combing the news, would like to know about. But no significant blog comes to mind that does mostly that.

I would argue that in both the cases you cite,James, you're driving traffic to their sites and therefore to the waiting arms of the ads running there. I fail to see how that constitutes "Damage".

The AP routinely quotes and excerpts from others under 'Fair Use" claims... However they are not willing to extend that same protection, or courtesy to others.

Oh and don't dare re-write, paraphrase... as that is Hot News infringement.

Now on Friday the AP claims the issue resolved and retreats from the conversation.