Slashdot Mirror
AP Files 7 DMCA Takedowns Against Drudge Retort
mytrip points out a blog posting by Rogers Cadenhead, author of the Drudge Retort blog, who says: "I'm currently engaged in a legal disagreement with the Associated Press, which claims that Drudge Retort users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing 'hot news' misappropriation under New York state law." An AP attorney filed six Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown requests this week demanding the removal of blog entries and another for a user comment. The AP material they object to consists of snippets of from 33 to 79 words. Cadenhead claims his lawyer believes that all fall squarely within the province of fair use.
Is to figure out if it's six or 7.... article says 7, summary says 6.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Prepare to see "fair-use" to be vindicated, and AP running with it's tail between it's legs...
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/2228232
Is the search function really so hard to use?
Before we're aggressively posting AP quotes everywhere just to prove a point?
SourceForge, Inc. files 32,819 DMCA notices against its daughter site, Slashdot.org, for blatantly reproducing its own stories, such as this one.
The real Drudge site links directly to stories, and doesn't keep "snippets" or other content. This guy needs to wise up.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If you want to be considered a real journalist, GO OUT AND FIND NEWS ON YOUR OWN, and write something ORIGINAL about it.
Merely pointing to or cut and pasting someone else's original thoughts does not make you a journalist. When you depend on SOMEONE ELSE to write something, you are merely a parasite, unoriginal. What if I released the Linux code as "my own", would you say "oh look at him, he's a coding genius"? Or would you tell me to write my own code?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
DMCA in this case refers to the Dupes Make Cmdrtaco Angry
The first time I wanted to visit this Drudge site I'd heard about, I punched in the obvious url and ended up at the "retort" instead. Isn't that some kind of copyright violation? I know that parody is considered fair use, but the "retort" doesn't seem to be primarily about parody.
All will agree that this is fair use if drudge retort quote 79 words out of 790. But this is less defensible if the quote is 79 words out of say, 91.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
But the AP still doesn't really get it (if it can get away with destroying it, where "it" is "fair use"):
--
make install -not war
The law doesn't allow you to keep your safe harbor if you don't take it down.
You can put it back up after a counterclaim is made, but I don't expect the proper counterclaim to be filed.
IMO, the fact that they could do so is evidence, and damn strong evidence that the system is broken. Not broken a little bit, but completely broken.
The story as it goes is stupid. It would not happen if the Drudge Report was a high school newspaper. This is simply an attempt to quash competition using the DMCA. A government tool provided for their friends to squash anyone that might dissent. Canadians? Listen up... this kind of thing is on it's way to you.
Yes, perhaps this is not about dissent, but the unintended consequences of the law are showing through, and it clearly shows that the law is not in the best interests of the public. It is a bad law. It is being used in this case to stop the freedom of thought and speech.
Seriously, I hope that this whole mess costs them millions in the end. It is not only despicable, it is against all that is good in humanity. Sure, that sounds like a rant, but WE have to start pushing back now, not later when there is no room to do so. Please everyone stop supporting the AP in any way shape or form. They need to just go the way of buggy whip makers.
No, this is not some plea to get you to support the latest l337 cause. This is a plea to get you to support your constitutional rights. Those of you reading this that are not Americans can also help. Make this company fail. The Brits know that what America does, Britain does at twice the speed and volume (more or less) so it is not an issue for a single country. We all need to speak out about what is wrong, always, as a single voice, whether it is Darfur, London, Washington, or Lisbon etc.
Please
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The Washington Post is boycotting the AP over this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061600340.html
Consult the AP stylebook.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
as long as drudge is providing the info where they took the quote stuff from, i don't see how AP has a case in this. They provide a link to original story on AP its not stealing if you are giving the credit to the original writer in these cases
I'll exercise fair use rights. Don't hold your breath.
TechCrunch, a "WashingtonPost.com Partner" banned AP stories. HUGE difference.
AP Targets Blog Excerpts With DMCA Notices
They must see these points as survival matters.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The so-called "neutral point of view" came out of the Progressive Era, and like so many things of that era sold as a way to help the little guy, ended up being an instrument of The Man. Give me bias -- explicitly stated bias -- any day. It's a lot easier to understand that way.
According to the NYT article, The Associated Press believes that: "As content creators, we firmly believe that everything we create, from video footage all the way down to a structured headline, is creative content that has value," and "We are not trying to sue bloggers," Mr. Kennedy said. "That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do." Bringing up music theft and suing Grandma into the discussion really helps clarify your goals !
The Washington Post has 1680 AP stories up right now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=test&
Some niche tech site called "tech crunch" -- as far as I can tell an offshoot of valleywag.com -- has banned the AP. The WashPost just "reprinted" that on their site.
Way to pay attention to what you're reading, faggot
Um... so I can give credit and it's not considered stealing? I'll remember that next time the RIAA comes after me.
"But your honor, I attributed the songs correctly!"
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
That said, they have an interesting way of justifying things. Pay attention to those last few lines:
That's right. They're saying at least we're not as bad as the RIAA. Where's NYCL?
Two arguments... First that including an excerpt with a link reduces clicks: As anyone who has ever been linked on the front page of Slashdot or Digg or Google News can tell you, this is the diametric opposite of the truth. Unless they begin using 30 word headlines, which is impractical for a number of reasons, including the first paragraph or a summary is the best way to get readers interested in a story.
Second... For the sake of argument, let's say the first point is in fact true. The links in question on Drudge Retort point to Yahoo and Fox News pages containing syndicated AP content. While AP still owns the content on these pages, the bottom line is they were already paid for that content...in other words Yahoo and Fox News are the ones suffering directly from this alleged click reduction since they paid for the content but don't get the ad impressions.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. and... International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918)
...
A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909, but news, as such, is not copyrightable. P. 248 U. S. 234
As against the public, any special interest of the producer of uncopyrighted news matter is lost upon the first publication. Id. IANAL, but... isn't this, like, Journalism 101? It was their own damn case, AND THEY WON!!!
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
If nobody is trying to take credit for the snippets of news stories they're quoting (i.e. claiming they're the original authors) then the AP can just suck it up and stop being crybabies about it. For fuck's sake, if that's the case then if my own journal was public instead of friends-only, I'd be in court for the remainder of my life fighting off dozens of news sources! More utter, complete bullshit, I say; the AP must be borrowing pages from the RIAA's playbook.
Witness the powerful association people have between controversial claims and Drudge. No one has yet corrected or even mentioned the ironic and Freudian misspelling of "report" in the headline.
Undoing mod via suicide post
Un EP etturney feeled seex Deegitel Meellennioom Cupyreeght Ect tekedoon reqooests thees veek demundeeng zee remufel ooff blug intreees und unuzeer fur a user cumment. Zee EP metereeel zeey oobject tu cunseests ooff sneeppets ooff frum 33 tu 79 vurds. Cedenheed cleeems hees levyer beleeefes thet ell fell sqooerely veethin zee prufeence-a ooff feur use-a. Bork Bork Bork!
I so want to hear something like this read in court as evidence! "My client will show beyond a shadow of a doubt how many Borks constitute fair use."...
Learn to read.
From Our Partner[techcrunch]
The Washington Post has not, would not, and never will boycott the AP.
They also wouldn't say "ban", where "boycott" is the proper word.
Please help metamoderate.
It's only evidence of such if it actually causes non-infringing content to be removed.
And even then, the evidence is only anecdotal. If 7 non-infringing items get removed from the internet and 3,000,000 infringing items get removed from the internet without anybody having to go to court, that's a system that, on the whole, works pretty well. Or if the system allows service providers to let their users post whatever content they want unfiltered and at low prices because the service providers don't have to worry about being sued by content holders, that's also a system that, on the whole, works pretty well.
To have evidence that the system is fundamentally broken, one would have to know how often the DMCA is used to remove legitimate content and the cost of processing DMCA requests, and compare that to how much illegitimate content would be hard to remove and the costs of exposing service providers to liability for it - and then compare that cost/benefit to the cost/benefit of other possible ways of handling copyright infringement on the internet.
Of course, that would involve some actual research and critical thinking.
Erm, I mean, DAMN THE MAN!
paintball
Bloggers signing petition here, articles and blogs being consolidated and generally a short term clearinghouse and consolidation point for the saga here - http://www.unassociatedpress.net/ -
but for reasons that should be fairly obvious, given the rules a Slashdot, I am not able to reply without resort to AC or creating a sock, and I hate socks.
Anyway, what is you definition of a handful? On one side: one is less than a handful; and on the other side: 66 is more than a handful.
cheers
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Not that I agree with the APs stance ( looks like fair use to me ) but if the Washington Post has a large number of staff writers, and they don't need the AP, then it would seem this stance is less about a moral stance and more about reducing the impact of the competition.
A Human Right
"as long as drudge is providing the info where they took the quote stuff from, i don't see how AP has a case in this. They provide a link to original story on AP its not stealing if you are giving the credit to the original writer in these cases."
There's a persistent meme on Slashdot that artists should be happy that their stuff is simply being shared and listened to. If they make even a peep about trying to make a living from their craft, they're branded as greedy businesspeople, not artists.
Looks like people are starting to think the same way about journalists, too. That's sad.
If the Drudge Retort fellow thinks that there's not much value to the AP articles which he excerpts, then great -- he can stop using them, and switch to a news service which is less profit-oriented and which allows free distribution of their content (provided he can find a suitable replacement). But if he thinks that using the AP source material is a benefit to his site and to its readers, he can license it, just like real news sites do.
He seems to be playing it down the middle -- the AP content is worth reproducing on his site, but not worth paying for.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
If you've only got 91 words of content then you shouldn't get any copyright protection for mere journalism.
A work of journalism that short just isn't going to inventive enough.
It's exposition, not poetry.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, for "journalists" it's even worse.
Artists actually create. Since journalists are supposed to work with
"facts" the ability for them to "create" anything is dramatically reduced.
The shorter the work gets the harder it should be for a factual work to
contain anything unique enough worth bothering everyone else with copy-
right restrictions.
The notion that any random rambling (like this crap here) deserves
heinous copyright protection is ultimately very counterproductive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Choke on it and die.
The irony of this is that it is a news agency ignoring the First Amendment rights of others telling "the news of the news".
I worked for the AP from 2001 thru 2004 as a software engineer. I met Jim Kennedy at that time, who recently said this:
"It is more consistent with the spirit of the Internet to link to content so people can read the whole thing in context."
Believe me, this guy doesn't know the tubey thing from a hole in the ground. To see him preach on the 'spirit of the Internet' is preposterous. He doesn't get it, his colleagues don't get it, and really, there are few left there to get it (trust me, most of the 'good' software engineers have long since fled the AP).
It's sad to say, but what used to be the world's voice of freedom has devolved into back-biting, politicking disaster with a hemorrhaging business model.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Well seeing as how the dude's blog is ripping it's own name off from someone, it doesn't seem like he cares all that much about respecting other people's rights.
I mean heck... "Drudge Retort"? With all the successful blogs which are out there, trying to rip off someone else's name (even someone as odious as Matt Drudge) seems pretty unnecessary.
In my opinion, anyone whose first name is a plural deserves what they get. :P
Stop! Dremel time!
Since when has the drudgeretort been anything but a joke site? Did someone buy the site from the original owner?
Sounds to me like syndicated columnists. Such people are paid for.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
--
make install -not war
Drudge Retort accused
Of copyright infringement;
Film at 11.
I hadn't heard of it before today. I find it hilarious that someone obviously thinks the Drudge Report is too conservative and needs a response from the left. Drudge Report is the most balanced blog out there (which I guess is faint praise on a radical internet).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
> An RSS feed delivers summaries of news stories. To create those stories, somebody was paid to go out
Right, but a primitive RSS feed is exactly what they sell (and a literal one for sites like Google). _ALL_ the content in RSS feeds is written by someone! The whole business they do is to sell a list of stories to someone. That they have better content than most RSS feeds is not my point.
> The blogosphere is largely an echo chamber, with no voice (i.e. reportage) of its own.
Well, then you haven't read blogs like Groklaw, have you? The only way they're different from the AP is that the AP is more organized and professional. It's a matter of degree, not kind.
I don't have anything against the AP (other than disliking their huge list of restrictions that you can find mentioned at the bottom of their stories), but I don't know how long they'll last like this. I'm not saying what should be, only what is. I think they're on the way out, but I also think that we have to look towards the future, not the past.
Fair use is (1) a legal defence in a copyright violation case, not a right;
From Wiki:
"The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107".
From the US Copyright Office:
"Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."
That summarizes section 107. And 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Here's Standford University Library's Copyright and Fair Use section, with court cases.
So long as only a small part of an article is used it is covered by Fair Use. For more here's what Findlaw has to say, including When Copying is Okay.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ok, you're right. As a doctrine fair use is not a right.
FalconShould there be a Law?