Slashdot Mirror
AP Harasses Own Member Over AP Youtube Videos
DrEldarion writes "The Associated Press, who has been acting very bipolar lately about Google News (they get paid by Google for their content, and then complain about Google 'stealing' that content), has another issue with not knowing what their association is up to: they set up a channel on Youtube, and then threatened an AP affiliate for embedding that content."
You pay a parking license to go to someone's garage, and then get towed for parking in someone's garage!
If this is an attempt to steal money from Google, it certainly is stupid.
Who is Associated Press' tech consultant, they either need to listen to them, or actually hire one. They also need a lawyer who knows what that new fangled invention 'the Internet' is and also how people relate to it.
Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
None of these tactics will get people to buy more newspapers. I don't know what will, but I sure don't want Google to set a precedent for linking to asshats who can't be bothered to spend 3 minutes to edit their robots.txt if they hate it so much. But of course they won't do that. They don't want a solution, they just want money.
The problem is, as with organizations like the RIAA, once you pay them off, you just fund their lawyers to go after others who want to make use of fairuse. This is as big threat to a free internet as any national firewall or net neutrality.
I just can't see a future in these organizations suing the pants off of anyone and everyone in sight. It doesn't appear to do anyone any good, not even the rights-holders benefit in the end since they just turn themselves into litigation businesses. If this isn't a reason for far-reaching copyright reform, I don't know what is.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Anyone who has worked in a medium to large organisation will know how hard it is to find out what someone in the same building is doing, let alone some affiliate.
Art is the mathematics of emotion
Goddammit. You forget to log out for two minutes and jerkface co-workers are uploading AP owned media on your YouTube account and allowing embedding. Status = currently sending out cease and desist letters.
Or he could punching an Arm in the Dick - much more effective if you ask me! :o
If the RIAA has taught us anything, no one likes strong arm tactics and poorly thought out legal maneuvering. Seriously, suing an affiliate? That will really help them turn around the economic slump by attracting a large customer base. Seriously, give me a break.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Tracing that back through to some original poster and then identifying that poster as legitimate or not is going to be difficult
You'd think that somewhere near the top of the list of "authorised users" would be "Our Own Goddamn YouTube channel". That part shouldn't have been difficult. That the group checking for infringement weren't aware of the legit YouTube channel, and didn't comprehend what embedding it meant, suggests that the group looking for infringements is on more of a "shoot first, don't ask questions" approach. We take it for granted that fair use is dead, but having a department seemingly set up to block all use is beyond a joke.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Or he could punching an Arm in the Dick - much more effective if you ask me! :o
Intel however, has to date not yet managed to do this.
Necessity is the mother of invention. There'd be no changing a broken system if crises like this didn't come up and stress it. I'm curious to see how much further this can go (in general, not just regarding AP) before some really big shit hits the fan.
mmmm...forbidden donut
The Associated Press has asked the government to examine Google News and other content aggregators, claiming they contribute insufficiently to their income.
"The newspapers put their content up on the web for free and then Google, the freeloading bastards, tell people where to find it. We told them to pay up or stop using our stuff, and they said OK, they'd stop using our stuff!
"We need federal regulation to bring back balance, 'balance' defined as being able to make them give us money because we want it. You'd think the Internet wasn't invented to give news agencies and record companies free money!"
The press group argues that traffic from search engines doesn't make up the cost of producing the content. "Ad revenue has collapsed, so search engine traffic doesn't bring in enough views to pay for itself. Our inability to sell ads is clearly Google's problem."
The AP suggests the exploration of new models that "require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both on our own site through advertising and 'at the edges' in the world of search and aggregation. Basically, they should just give us money because we want it. And the music industry too. How about a bailout? Go on, gi's it."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
these guys got their heads so far up their own arses, they don't have a clue. Nothing will fix their current financial crisis, they brought it on themselves. Thriving on bad news, and candy coating it just to make another buck from a news paper. Serves them right, assholes
It worries me when the free flow of political and economic information is going to start becoming the newest IP/DRM battleground because people who produce information simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that information is now cheaply and easily reproducible and their old business models are defunct. All sorts of de facto censorship could very easily occur now under the guide of "protecting their business," especially given the tight mingling of media companies, the government, banks, etc.
Situations like this (and all sorts of permutations seem to crop up everyday) really illustrate how much of a Gordian Knot IP is.
You all know what the solution is.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Anyone see the CEO on Charlie Rose last night?
Rose asked him for details on how he was planning on executing the control that he said they wanted.
His response was long, but the most important part was one word: Beacon
He wants to "embed a beacon" in the news to let them know where it is being used.
Um. Good luck with that...
Flash - a-ah - saviour of the universe
Flash - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us
*ducks*
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Clearly, any business that doesn't want to get sued needs to stay far away from AP. Clearly it's become dangerous to do business with them.
I guess if the AP wants to stay in the news business, they'd better start shopping for a printing press.
This is clearly some ladder-climbing scheme by some jr. executive.
When the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, it's time to cut them both off.
They're using their grammar skills there.
So big in fact, the right hand doesn't know what the left one is up to.
When it became illegal to own people those that depend on slavery found new ways to own, not people, but everything about the person.
Own his land, you own him.
Bury him in debt and own his debt, you own him.
Throughout history people have alwasy sought ways to make slaves of their neighbors, now in the 21st century the method is:
Own his thoughts, you own him.
Thought crime is the new tool to make slaves of people; how dare the slaves think without permission. Think only what we tell you to think. We people exist for the benefit of the master, in this case businesses.
Goverment as king, business as the fiefs, the executives as the lords, and we the people have become intellectual share croppers; and have been returned to our proper place as slaves\pesants\serfs... Steal from the pesants and profit, steal from the master and suffer his wrath... The knights have been replaced with lawyers and history repeats itself...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Even in colonial times.
One person bought a newspaper, and then proceeded to tell the story to all of his friends, associates, etc...
It wasn't until the small-town atmosphere went away that newspapers were able to become the big businesses they are (were?!) today. News readership requires a *certain level* of interaction - too much, and no one reads the stories; too little, and there's no point in reading the stories (with whom would you discuss the news?). The problem is that getting the mix right is more art than science, so when someone reproduces their stories, they err on the side of retaining control; they attempt to shut the copiers down.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I once interviewed for a job at a MLM's headquarters. One of the major responsibilities was to make sure the independent reps weren't implying they were the real company on the web. Considering the size of the AP, I don't find it unreasonable that they would employ someone to search for copyright infringement.
the youtube video thing is pretty funny, but
has anyone seen AP take shots at google? lines like
"The Associated Press, who has been acting very bipolar lately about Google News (they get paid by Google for their content, and then complain about Google "stealing" that content)"
i just can't find anything to back that up. of course they're upset over sites stealing content, but i can't find any stories that have them pointing fingers at google. it seems like news site guess-making and bad writing (shame slashdot for front paging that).
the only one that seems to be naming google is murdoch, and he's not affiliated with the AP
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think the AP are bad people, however they have some very "by the book" people who don't do the research.
Case in point, employee benefits that are useless to employees who don't live in the lower 48.
This is just more of the same failed to do the research. The AP member in question probably got C&D'ed by someone looking for AP content to send C&D's to, without checking to see if that content was approved or not.
And remove all AP News sources from their indexes. They thought it was horrible when Google was merely paying them and referring hits. Wait'll they see what happens when Google stops paying and their ad-revenue grinds to an abrupt halt.
Yeah, 'do no evil' and all, but this isn't blackmail or extortion if the IP-holder essentially requests it. Fuck the intellectual property holders that can't figure out how to sell their IP successfully. It's up to consumers to decide how and what to pay for, not legislature and lawsuits.