Update on the “AP vs. Bloggers” Fiasco
June 19th, 2008 by Chief NutRobert Cox, President of the Media Bloggers Association, rightfully flames Gawker blogger Ryan Tate. Although I found the post to be rather harsh, I can’t say I would have been less upset over the superficial research and hyperbolic statements made by Tate in his post. The reality is someone needs to work with the Associated Press to get this resolved and to get their collective heads screwed on straight. I, for one, am appreciative of the MBAs efforts to make the future world of blogging less fraught with legal entanglements. No, they’re not just self-appointed guardians of the blogosphere.
Why should this matter to you? If you’re going to integrate blogging into your corporate marketing plan (and you should consider doing so), you’ll need to be aware of the various copyright and legal pitfalls facing you. Until this situation gets resolved, the issue of copyright infringement is muddy, at best. Stay tuned.
6/20/08 Update: Outspoken Tech Crunch voice, Michael Arrington, files a counter-take-down-notice after APs Business Writer, Seth Sutel, snags 22 words from his blog without permission … dramatically underscoring the APs ridiculous position of filing suit against bloggers who take snippets of copy from their stories.
This is an interesting issue. The AP “fair use” issue is similar in many respects to the recording industry’s recent crusade against illegal file sharing. The AP and the RIAA are both clinging to their old business models and are using the law to avoid having to change.
Like the RIAA’s problems with file sharing, the ease of copying and republishing information over the Internet has diminished, or is likely to diminish, the demand for AP’s content. However, rather than embracing this change and looking to alter its business model to take advantage of technology, the AP is seeing this is a zero sum game; i.e. allowing the use of their content, in any form, takes money out of their pockets.
Frankly, I see the AP’s stance as being less supportable than that of the RIAA. You may take issue with the RIAA’s tactics and its judgment in alienating its potential customers, but they are at least taking action against people who had no rational explaination for their conduct other than the avoidance of paying for someone else’s work. Conversely, the conduct that the AP is alleging to be infringement is most likely protected under the fair use doctrine. Unfortunately, somebody will need to risk a large judment and spend a ton of money to prove that it is fair use. However, this has always been the case when large players with somethign to lose have pushed the envelope of the law. For example, if the motion picture industry hadnt sued Sony over the recording feature of the first Betamax and lost, all VCR’s would likely have been play-only units.
Comment by Michael Persson - NH Patent Attorney — June 27, 2008 @ 4:44 pm