Science and Society

I don't know what you're talking about. But I didn't click the link.

Of course, info. should be free. I could care less about the territorial gorillas of cyberspace. AP parameters are simply no concern of mine.

Lost blogger,

You are so funny.
I do too. I'm lazy to read the whole page.

I like to read so I did click and catch the side stories. Being informed is the best way to make a decision on something. I am apt to criticize an article for not giving details or links to a story. Thank You AP for using good journalism for the basis of your storylines. That is why we depend on you to get us the real facts. I have you in my will.

Ned
I think I understand the logic behind this story but I am not sure if I can agree. If an entire story was copied in a blog I could understand why they would be upset ie. loss of readership. But if someone quotes a line or two the effect would be the opposite. If the reader finds the quote of interest, he/she would want to go to the source and read the whole article (in this case I did not due to lack of interest).

The only way I get exposed to the biased reporting of the AP is through blogs. The AP should be thankful that its propaganda is getting out at all!

oh they're just up set cause they cant COOKIE you and spy on your surfing habits

If the NewsMedia actually practiced serious Journalistic integrity in their reporting, actually took the time to pull all the elements together everytime objectively, I dont believe that blogging would have evolved as it has.

Thing is, that the media has in many cases become a mouthpiece, mass political pundits and apologists for political and corporate fatcats who are only interested in spin, and have a vested interest in keeping the American people ignorant and unable to make informed decisions about everything from where their food comes from, to why their petroleum products are so expnensive.

I havent seen one story critical of the Bush Administration's Cabinet members who are mostly big oil reps. Not one, Nothing questioning why there would be any incentive at all, to get the prices down, when its clear that a huge conflict of interest exists.

So I take pieces parts of news stories on the internet, and go back and get other material, from say, the BBC etc. or even books and Put it all together. I include links because I am ethical researcher and writer. No one pays me for my civic mindedness. But then if they did, some political puppet editor might try to censor me or spin my work.

If you want bloggers to stop this, then I suggest the press start doing their job, and not just function as political ad campaigns for the socially retarded on capital hill.

As Obama has pointed out, Change starts from the bottom up. Could there be anything more grassroots than a passionate blogger?

I blog and use stories from AP and other sources with links. Seriously, the AP is really going to complain about their stuff getting out to a wider audience who otherwise does not have the wherewithal to go read it on their own? Wow, talk about cutting off your nose....way to go AP

While I can see both sides, I understand what the AP is concerned with. It's not about restricting the use of their content, but about how much of their content is used without the user posting a link to the original content. If a blogger uses so much of the original AP article that the reader has no need to read that article to get the whole story, then the blogger is violating the fair use doctrine.

An ethical reporter would not do to a blogger what some bloggers are doing to them.

Fair use means, a reasonable person thinks you're copying a bit to make a larger (original) point. I am very, remarkably unimpressed with the AP's behavior in threatening bloggers. Every time I hear about the AP threatening someone, I trust all mainstream media less. So the AP needs to decide, soon, how badly it wants to be taken seriously. This is the context in which I see this whole conversation.

Let's be honest here. There are two reasons that the mainstream media would be upset with the scenario you describe. One of course is money. If the link isn't clicked, they don't get the money from their advertisers. Obviously that is a legitimate complaint and concern. The second is loss of control. Bloggers are a threat to a media that covers up, spins, and redirects attention from criminal behavior by the administration, congress, and business.

That is obviously the more serious concern for the mainstream media and the powers that be. They won't be able to continue to dismiss bloggers as simply uninformed nutbags with agendas while everyday it is demonstrated who was right six months or a year ago and who either missed it or covered it up.

Has anyone else noticed the percentage of "real news" verses "entertainment news" on the ABC website's homepage?

Sundog and Ka'rin are so right!! The AP should be so lucky to have bloggers use them. Also the MSM is owned by corporate interest that filters what is written. The AP should not have the right to decide who is allowed to use their articles for information. Isn't this a "free press"?

I just began reading political blogs in earnest over the past 3 months; pretty new to all of this.

I am amazed at the degree to which the blogs on some of the major newsmedia sites simply pass along (distortions and all)what other bloggers have already "blogged". You get what you pay for...and blogs are free. I always check the more well respected sources.

Its also possible to catch the hint of a story or two before it hits the mainstream press. That is, after the story has been researched and raised above the level of gossip. Seems as if AP should embrace the relationship instead of fighting it.

Considering that the AP is putting their information out in the public space, be happy anyone clicks on any link on the Internet.

of course information should be freely available, but the fact remains that gaining access to credible information cost money. if you want a heap of unverified, highly corrupted, and highly questionable information, one has no further to look than wikipedia...but to hire paid journalists with some sense of accountability and integrity takes money. plain and simple.

I clicked the link.

The AP spends money to procure this information. They do so in order to make a profit. The bloggers are copying the material without permission and thus, causing the AP to lose money. Bloggers that do this are nothing more than common criminals.

quietman, I agree with you. If I find a story interesting, I definately will go beyond the initial story and read what I can on it. If I dont, I wont...that simple. Very often when I read a story on one news site, even without a link to another, I will search out any extra information from other sites, hoping to find more information on the topic. I really dont see that the issue is one to worry over. And in this story...no i didnt click the link!

The real question is, would people go to the link to the AP story anyway? How many people would visit the link without the excerpt? The excerpts will probably get *more* people to click the link than would have otherwise, and that's a great thing for the AP.

I do not think I have ever read a blog, but from what I hear about these folks they seem to be extremist on both sides that seem to feed our worsest sterotypes.

Ned,

I see a problem here that no one, not even you, has bothered to address: standard journalistic practice.

When I was involved with the news business many years ago while still in school, we were taught to use the "pyramid" writing process: tell the whole story, in the shortest amount of words possible, in the first paragraph. Then in the following paragraphs begin by giving the details, with those details becoming finer and finer as you went. That way, if an editor had to cut the story for any reason, that cut could be made at the end of any paragraph without materially hurting the integrity of the story.

Of course, some of us found ways to confound that principle at times, but that basic idea still controls. Therefore, if a blogger excerpts anything at all from the first paragraph of anyone's article, a case could be made that the entire story had been plagerized. While I don't ever want to see that happen, in theory it could. It's going to be interesting to see what comes from all this.

= 30 =

AP is attacking the Fair Use Doctrine to gain a couple of bucks. It won't work. Excerpts of stories with links increase their hits and widen AP's power. This attack by AP is both foolish and counter-productive.

As a journalist myself, I of course agree that bloggers should adhere to the same copyright laws that the rest of us use. When a blogger (or any writer for that matter) uses material that he or she did not create and does not properly credit their source - that is plagiarism, pure and simple. It's no different than downloading music and not paying for it.

Working out a clear definition of fair use is the right decision. Suing someone who runs a small blog is not--makes no sense on any level. How many visits does the Drudge Retort get? How many actual page reads? A lawsuit at this level is bullying to get an advantage without having that clear definition in place.

I hit the link and read the article.

As for the comment on all bloggers being extremists... wonderful how makes this judgment after confessing that he's never read a blog!

Jacob Russell's Barking Dog

The real heart of the matter here is this: the AP is trying to monetize blogging and create a revenue stream for themselves.

They are doing so with the blunt instrument of the threat of litigation, knowing full well that their targets cannot afford a lengthy and expensive court battle. In short, they know they will win by default because they can afford to have dozens of lawyers on retainer and almost no typical blogger can afford to do battle with them.

That is their "concern." Nothing more or nothing less.

"As a journalist myself, I of course agree that bloggers should adhere to the same copyright laws that the rest of us use." - Mike

This goes both ways, Mike.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a sportswriter has lifted ideas, sentences and in a couple of cases complete paragraphs from my blog and claimed the work as original and theirs.

Why not let nature take its course...
What we are discussing is very basic and primal. It is the natural order of things vs. man's order.
The the answer will present itself shortly, no matter how painful it is for us.

I think the news organizations would welcome bloggers driving traffic to their story/site! A line or two from the story and a link encourages a reader to click the full article link. It's often used on the internet. So here we have fair use from the law and common practice -- isn't this enough? I have seen some sites put disclaimers (mainly sports commentary sites) that any duplication of any portion of a story is not permitted. Since there's no relationship between the blogger and the site, the blogger has not "signed" away his/her rights, so it's unenforceable.

The AP wants to charge per word and, the problem is, the doctrine of Fair Use does not come with a word count.

Fair Use absolutely applies here and AP's corporate policies don't trump federal copyright statutes.

All this proves is that there is no such thing as a "free" and objective press. They are controlled by profit and will say and do anything to maximize it.

This is a tricky situation. On one hand information is much like an idea, free and should be made available to everyone. But the quality of the information is what is at stake.

I'm a mass media student and look highly upon the Associated Press because of its codes of conduct. The codes are there to ensure proper story coverage and accuracy. Bloggers can aid but also hinder both coverage and accuracy but bloggers also broaden the spectrum of what is covered and can reveal details not covered by the AP. Its hard to say who is right. One way to help is to educate those taking in stories, issues, and events is to know if the source of communication is reputable.

Information is free from public libraries if you don't have a procrastination problem in getting those hard copies back. But in terms of personal computer use, it can't be. You have to pay monthly for your ISP and a sizable amount for the computer itself. There's also a non-monetary price to pay in the way of junk e-mails, cookies, and privacy concerns. So I think it's largely a myth that information is free for us on the computer.

As far as AP copyright issues go, that's a concern most of us PC users don't need to have.

kathy
Actually you are part right. We subscribe to the NY Times because its cheaper than having it delivered and you can print out the crossword puzzles larger so that our tired old eyes can read them. If you wan't to read science papers you normally also have to subscribe so It's not free. But before I buy a paper or a subscription I wan't to know if it's woth the money, so the abstracts are free. I look at blogs the same way. Do I wan't to read through the whole article or is it a waste of time. The blogs let me know with a few sentences if it's worth the time or not.

Ned
June. 23, 2008
NEW YORK - A news discussion site and The Associated Press have resolved a dispute over an AP demand that the site remove some of the news agency's content.

Note from Ned--

Thanks, Quietman, for keeping me up to date. I'll confess I was distracted with other stories today. I did a bit of poking around, and it doesn't sound as if any AP guidelines have yet come from this dispute. But we'll see if it all leads to something.