Culture

Associated Press vs. Internet Aggregators — And Then The World!

by Truemorist | April 6, 2009 at 07:44 pm

1033 views | 47 Recommendations | 7 comments

Guess who's got their back up against the wall and their copyright-clad knickers in a twist again?

You guessed it, the Associated Press, that bastion of the newsiest news the news biz has ever produced is about to wage war against...well...anyone who dares steal their sacred words and perfected online content.

After threatening to charge anyone daring to quote 5 words from an A.P.-produced article back in 2008, before buckling under the blogosphere's pressure, laughter, and overwhelming ridicule, this year the A.P. boys are back at it again.

(Blogging a dead horse, perhaps, guys?)

And this time, of course, it's personal.

The Associated Press is going after aggregators big and small — everyone from behemoth search sites like Google and Yahoo to lesser (but more influential) online link & scrapers like the Huff Po and The Druge Report — no one will be allowed to escape unscathed.

No, this time the A.P., led by its formidable chairman William Dean Singleton, have gotten mad as hell and they are definitely, defiantly, not going to take it anymore.

Singleton had the cojones to stand up Monday, at the A.P. board's annual meeting, in San Diego, and boldly declare: “We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories.”

From issuing take down notices to pursuing legal action against offenders, under the proposed new plan the Associated Press would target anyone who dares to build web traffic on the back of content produced by the A.P. and its cohort.

And what will the A.P. do to counter this search engine and blog-driven tsunami of unfair use? Why, build their own "search-engine-friendly" content aggregation system of course.

Good luck with that guys.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Ravi Dixit

at 23:50 on April 6th, 2009

I restate ESTA's question. and do the five words have to happen in the same order :-)

This is Silly (not verified)

at 05:59 on April 7th, 2009

Whether the articles are posted in their entirety or simply linked to, these aggregator sites are still pushing traffic to AP. This is simply another example of how enterprise organizations "if they were smart" have an opportunity to attune their business model to the reality of modern day sitautions rather than trying to sue their way into a favorable position using yesterday's business model.

Lihsa (not verified)

at 06:15 on April 7th, 2009

I had very much the same response to this news and wrote about it on my own blog:

The War over Words: AP Announces "It Will Take All Actions Necessary"

http://www.geeklawblog.com/2009/04/war-over-words-and-they-saids-words.html

Unruffled (not verified)

at 06:22 on April 7th, 2009

I don't get why they think they have a problem here. Most everything they produce is government/corporate controlled propaganda anyhow, therefore questionable. Seems to me they would LOVE to have others help them spread it -- the more the merrier! This looks like just another ploy to distract. Like all bullies, they need to be continually on the offensive as a means to keep people in fear. How else can they maintain and advance the real agenda of total media (and mind) control? Look at the RIAA file-sharing law suits on citizens as an example of similar behaviour.

Bill Dodder (not verified)

at 13:34 on April 8th, 2009

The AP stopped being good long ago.

StuCop (not verified)

at 16:59 on April 10th, 2009

I love how Arianna Huffington talks up the "new linked economy" but still charges cold hard cash for advertising on Huffpo...a little hypocritical isn't it...and telling...what the banks don't let her pay her bills with links????

Mr. Angry Citizen (not verified)

at 11:45 on April 13th, 2009

And how exactly has the AP been damaged? Given that the Associated Press is a Not For Profit Cooperative I don't know how they have a case.

I think that the bigger issue is that the AP is a monopoly, and that it's "members" are probably engaging in what could reasonably be seen as anti-competitive behaviour that should be looked at by the government.