- 1
- 2
AP Battles Blogs
So the question becomes, do the blog enthusiasts who fail to read for comprehension constitute a group that would otherwise go to AP? AP could argue that even summarizing, rather than quoting, an article amounts to enough for these jackasses that they no longer feel the need to go read the AP article, thus diminishing the AP product's value to the media outlet paying the AP bill.
However, those alleged cutting-and-pasting bloggers could equally point out that their time-pressed audience is all the more likely to visit the AP when a blogger puts the link in front of them. If reading source materials is so inimical to this audience, those who comprise this audience probably not going to go to seek out the original AP product themselves. Even if their likelihood of visiting the AP is increased only because they might click on a link by mistake, that's extra cash in AP's pants pocket.
And, to be fair, part of why people read opinion blogs is so that we don't need to do all that reading and digesting ourselves. There are, after all, only so many hours in the day.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: loriw @ 06/22/2008 3:54:11 PM
Comment: I do have to say that those bloggers that cut and paste the same post to every blog for every article are annoying. If you can't respond directly to the content of the article or to another post your just wasting the reader's time. One person reapeatedly and randomly posted a quote from HRC to one article. Fortunately, bloggers got her to quit. Be pertinent or be quiet. Report abusive language or clearly abusive material.
That's why I prefer newseek's blogs because you can report abuse.
Posted By: thebillenator @ 06/19/2008 4:18:55 PM
Comment: There are a couple of big issues at play.
First this isn't just a 'Blogging" issue. It directly impacts all online communication.
Second is "fair use" and in general the AP is looking like it is trying to force the online community into accepting draconian licensing that is arguably not required. This is especially bad since the AP routinely paraphrases, excerpts and lifts content for the news articles they publish.. Bloggers are publishing proof
There are a couple of big issues at play.
First this isn't just a 'Blogging" issue. It directly impacts all online communications.
Second is "fair use" and in general the AP is looking like it is trying to force the online community into accepting draconian licensing that is arguably not required. This is especially bad since the AP liberally paraphrases, excerpts and lifts content for the news articles they publish from others.. including from the blogs, but also from other news papers and news entities.
Third: What you don't mention is that AP has online forms that claim to pay for using more than four words of text.. So the AP has essentially set a defacto standard that to them fair use is four words of text. Using five or more will cost you $12.50 to $100. This is eyebrow raising and to be blunt, no company gets to set what is fair use.
Fourth: Given the shown behaviour of AP using other's work they look like hypocrites. They need to abide by the exact same standards.. They're not special.
No wonder people are mad...