Slashdot Mirror
AP Will Sell You a "License" To Words It Doesn't Own
James Grimmelmann performed an experiment using the AP's form to request a license to use more than four consecutive words from one of their articles. Except that he didn't paste in words from the (randomly chosen) article, but instead used 26 words written by Thomas Jefferson 196 years ago: If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea. The AP cheerfully charged him $12 to use Jefferson's 26 words. Both Boing Boing and TechDirt have picked up the story so far. Grimmelmann adds an update to his blog: the AP has rescinded his license to Jefferson's words and issued a refund for his $12. They did not exhibit the grace to admit that their software is brain-dead.
Should be changed to "$.46-a-word" press.
DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
I'm afraid Mr. Grimmelman has a severe English comprehension deficiency. The instructions are a single sentence, clear as day. It says paste the article text you want to use. Not " paste whatever you like, and if our javascript form counts the words for you then consider it assertion of copyright by us.".
The Associated Press collects articles from reporters all over the world. I doubt those reporters submit articles royalty-free. How does the AP tie licensed text back to the article it applies to? Clearly they don't bother.
Good point. And they did refund the money. I guess the flaw is assuming that the user wants to play by the rules, and I suppose we'd be complaining even at the unnecessary restrictions to account for the users who do not. We can make any machine look stupid when we misuse it.
The beef here I think is that they have the 'audacity' to sell the license... but now that I think about it, it's still a much better system than trying to contact a real person and deal with it. Still, I don't think it should be too hard to have a JavaScript check to see if the words come from the actual article. At the very least that might help prevent people from accidentally misquoting it if they are silly and type by hand or copy the wrong article or whatever.
DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
All this tool does is count the number of words in a block of text. Every word processor and text editor I can think of has this feature already built in. And the premise that the copyright owner should be able to charge on a per-word basis (especially in text made up largely of quotations from other sources, as most AP articles are) is truly preposterous.
But I think his point was to ridicule the ridiculous assumption from AP that they should be able to restrict access to and license on a per-word basis any text "more than four consecutive words" in the first place. The Jefferson quote helps him make the point. The fact that the software is basically just a word counter adds a level of lol, but I don't think that was the main point of this experiment.
We can make any machine look stupid when we misuse it.
Rule #1: Never trust user input.
Still, I don't think it should be too hard to have a JavaScript check to see if the words come from the actual article.
LOL @ Javascript
They need a database of every AP article ever published.
Then they can either hash the pasted text & try to find
the source or they can require you to provide a citation.
Either way, you don't want to do that client-side with javascript.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
No, it's not.
It's like Comcast charging you for another provider's cable.
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple. AP's clusterfuck of a piece of software they're using to determine what's theirs and what's not is the issue here. Relying purely on software without decent beta testing (which seems to happen more often than not) is one of the most retarded things you can do as a business.
Why would you put words they don't own into their licensing software? Is it malice or stupidity on your part?
Why bother
I see nothing wrong with what AP did here. This is like complaining that Comcast will let you pay your cable bill even if you don't watch any TV. Yeah, they will. So?
Why the heck is this modded troll? 'troll' != 'i disagree with this person'.
The parent raises a valid point. If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money? The AP's software may be brain dead but to say that this represents an industry "smothering itself with a pillow" rather misses the point.
I would also add that of those cheering the downfall of the AP aren't likely to be too happy with the eventual consequences. The blogosphere may do a fair job of covering Washington (although most of it so slanted to one side or another as to make Fox News look fair and balanced) but the coverage of local issues and politics is sadly lacking.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Why would the AP charge for words it doesn't own? Is it malice or incompetence on their part?
Well, why would anyone request a license from AP for words that AP doesn't own? Is Grimmelmann too incompetent to figure out why the whole premise of his exercise is inane, or is he maliciously trying to portray AP as greedy when their only "sin" here is not making their systems impervious to idiots who would throw their money away?
What if Jefferson's quote had been used in the article?
I think that was the whole point to the exercise...missed by some above. The content provider trying to extort people into paying license fees they may not need. This exercise demonstrates that the content provider in question can't positively identify their own material or material that they can't legitimately claim as intellectual property. They can't conclusively back up the need for anyone to license a particular piece. They're ignoring the context, intended use and trying to rewrite fair use by their own definition.
This exercise exposes that it's a scam, an online shake down. I think it actually works against their IP claims.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple.
You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
To demonstrate how stupid it is. The whole point of the tool is to tell you how much (if any) you have to pay them - if you already know that, what's the point of the tool?
Consider, supposing I want to licence an article, and within that article is a large chunk of text that's quoted from Jefferson or whoever. This suggests that it would happily include those words in the cost calculation. I guess it's their right to charge whatever arbitrary value they like for a whole article, but this is all the more reason for stories like this to be publicised, so that people are aware of how the tool works. Plus, what if someone did want to quote a Jefferson quotation that happened to be in an article? The point is that they'll happily claim ownership, so it's important for people to be aware of how brain dead and simple the tool is.
That's true. Jefferson's 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson concerned itself with inventions and patents, which had been an area of special interest to Jefferson as he was 1) an inventor; 2) Secretary of State during a period where he had responsibility for reviewing patent applications and issuing patents; 3) opposed to monopolies as a general rule.
However, it is widely recognized that Jefferson's argument, which is made at a very high level, is perfectly applicable to copyrights. After all, copyrights and patents are more closely related to one another than to, say, trademarks, or anything else, and at that high of a level, the underlying logic is basically the same.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"AP's clusterfuck of a piece of software they're using to determine what's theirs and what's not is the issue here. "
There is no such piece of software. AP makes no claim that their software does that, nor anything like it. Their software counts the number of words in a passage you provide. That's all. I appears to achieve this simple task perfectly. Whether this is due to good beta testing, we can only speculate.
No, it's not.
It's like Comcast charging you for another provider's cable.
No, and I think most denizens of Slashdot would understand this: it's like Comcast (or the AP) having a bug in their software. Is the lesson here that organizations should have clauses in their contracts that their programmers are liable for any and all injuries to the organization's reputation caused by bugs in their software? Frankly, I should hope not. But that sure is the way we're pushing.
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple.
You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
At which point someone should turn your skull into a fucking canoe with a .50 cal rifle.
Following your logic, I am going to start billing people for fire, the wheel, and cutting blades.
Like bottled water?
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
I see an idiot not following directions and getting what he deserved.
I see an idiot who doesn't understand the broader implications. There is such as thing as fair use. AP however wants to deny fair use.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That someone decided to pay the AP for a worthless license and the AP decided to issue a worthless license doesn't mean anything. No laws were broken. No trust broken. No rights violated. The person did this with intent to gain a worthless license even. He got what he paid for.
What if the guy had used a paragraph from Dr. Phil's latest book?
The AP accepted money and offered a license for a copyright they do not own.
That is a contract and is arguably fraud.
It's not as simple as "asshat does something stupid".
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is just like when you get up an go to the zoo, and buy an ice cream cone with vanilla and strawberry ice cream, and you go into the penguin house and when you are in there a polar bear breaks out if its cage and you are trapped in the penguin house with you ice cream cone, and you notice that Natalie Portman is sitting next to to you covered in hot grits, and then, like, the polar bear breaks down the door and as he comes in...
Wait a second. Its NOTHING like that.
Its more like the AP hired some developer to write a tool license out its twenty three kajillion words of content automatically and told them they wanted it done by Tuesday. Do you really expect someone to write code that would contextually differentiate public IP content from private on the fly? Really?
While we are wishing for silly shit, I wish I was really the one in the penguin house in the story with my best grits spoon.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Heh, reading the comments to this story and my conclusion is you guys are a bunch of fucking idiots. Anyone with any common sense, including a judge, would immediately note that you're supposed to use text from the article you're claiming to be taking excerpts from. And anything else is the user being an idiot trying to game the system. Common Sense, do you have it?
- These characters were randomly selected.
Common Sense, do you have it?
My common sense tells me that it is generally not a good idea to have a fully automated, non-human-verified system that issues legal documents, claims, and threats in the name of the owner.
You're absolutely right. They should validate the submitted text against every single AP article ever copyrighted.
I mean, there's only, what, twelve of them, right? That database shouldn't take long to search through every single time someone clicks "submit"...
Seriously, people. AP hasn't tried to claim copyright over the submitted Jefferson quote. They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
My sig can beat up your sig.
I mean, there's only, what, twelve of them, right? That database shouldn't take long to search through every single time someone clicks "submit"...
I realize you're trying to be sarcastic, but-- yes, it SHOULDN'T take long. Just like it doesn't take long for, say, Google to search billions of web pages anytime someone clicks on "Search".
Of course, there is a remote chance that you're right and that it would indeed take too long. But in that case, I'm sorry, that'd be AP's problem; they'd have to come up with another system, one that actually works. Charging for things they don't own just because they can't tell whether they own them is never acceptable.
Put another way: imagine you go to a clothes store, and there's an automated cash register that scans the items you're carrying when you leave and charges you accordingly. Now imagine that the system doesn't know what the store is actually selling and what it isn't, so EVERYTHING you're wearing gets charged to your card. And imagine when you call the store out on it, they argue that they can't possibly know what their inventory contains, so they consider it fair to charge you for every piece of clothing, no matter whether it's theirs or not.
I think most sane people would argue that a) this is not OK and b) that the burden is on the store to find a different, better solution here.
They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
Well, if their software made sure he already knew AP didn't own the quote, I agree. Please show me the mind-reading code and I'll shut up.
Otherwise, what could have happened is that someone by accident pays AP for a license to use something which AP doesn't own; or even worse, that AP issues an illegal license offer. As someone has already suggested, buy a license to RIAA lyrics from AP; go tell on AP to the RIAA; watch RIAA and AP duke it out in the two-men-enter-one-man-leaves arena.
What AP has done wrong (unless their code can read minds) is enable something very wrong.