Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

AP Goes After Bloggers Under DMCA

Posted by Liza Sabater, Culture Kitchen at 12:01 PM on June 13, 2008.


The AP is trying to eliminate the fair use rights of bloggers using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Rogers Cadenhead, founder and publisher of The Drudge Retort, has been Cease and Desisted by AP News for publishing fragments of their syndicated news articles and reports.

Yes, fragments, not the whole articles. Go to Rogers' site to read the reasons given by AP.

Adding a quote to a blog post is very much like the sampling of a hook or a beat on a song. It's why so many people were opposed to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's not only that albums like Beck's Odelay or Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet would never had happened. Documentaries, archival works, opinion or scholarly writing would be all but non-existent if it means that now journalists, bloggers, historians and scholars would need to pay publishing houses for every single quote and/or sample they need for their work.

That's why I blame Hilary Rosen, the woman who became the face of the RIAA and the lobbyists who successfully paid Congress to pass the DMCA. Granted, I applauded her for her recent "I am not a bargaining chip" post, in re: the other Hillary (La Clinton), but it doesn't mean La Rosen gets a free pass.

The DMCA's main purpose is to circumvent due process by saying that trade laws trump civil rights law. So a corporation's right to make money from their "product" however way they want trumps the rights of individual citizens who would want to express themselves freely about said product through comment, parody, sample or quoting.

The DMCA throws the onus of proving Fair Use on the individual "speaking" the copyrighted materials and not on the owner of the copyright. It was an unprecedented move and one that many consider anti-constitutional since it basically allows for individuals to be considered guilty of copyright infringement until they prove themselves only in a court of law to be innocent.

Rogers gives us the perfect example of how the "corporate bottom-line trumps free speech" shenanigans is rationalized by AP using the DMCA:

Here's one of the six disputed blog entries:

Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she expects her marathon Democratic race against Barack Obama to be resolved next week, as superdelegates decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall. "I think that after the final primaries, people are going to start making up their minds," she said. "I think that is the natural progression that one would expect."

If you follow the link, you'll see that the blog entry reproduces 18 words from the story and a 32-word quote by Hillary Clinton under a user-written headline. The blog entry drew 108 comments in the ensuing discussion.

I have all the expertise in intellectual property law of somebody who's never been sued, so standard disclaimers apply. But I have difficulty seeing how it violates copyright law for a blogger to link to a news story with a short snippet of the story in furtherance of public discussion.

AP feels otherwise. In a June 3 letter, AP's Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator Irene Keselman told me:

... you purport that the Drudge Retort's users reproduce and display AP headlines and leads under a fair use defense. Please note that contrary to your assertion, AP considers that the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation.

Keselman reverses the definition of fair use and claims in the take down that citizens only have the right to fair use if they pay for it : AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights.

In other words, unless you pay for the "sample" you don't have the freedom to speak it in your work. You can't comment it, you can't opine on it, you can't analyze it, dissect it, fisk it if it means you are not paying for the right to do so. In effect, AP is trying to extend the rules of music sampling to text.

Well thank Hillary Clinton, now a blogger at Huffington Post and it's Senior Political Editor, for fucking around with free speech. Instead of pussy footing with the Human Rights Campaign, Hillary Clinton and Arianna Huffington's blog, she ought to be working to undo the constitutional damage she brought to our country.

So in Rogers Cadenhead's mess with AP, don't just blame the Bush administration and the DMCA. Blame Hilary Rosen as well.

Digg!


Unbelievable: How Much Do You Think Cindy McCain's RNC Outfit Cost?
Whatever you're guessing, you should probably be guessing higher.
September 4, 2008.
U.S. Promises to Stop Treating Nelson Mandela Like a Terrorist
Bush takes 90-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner off terror watchlist.
July 2, 2008.
Detained Immigrants Continue to Die in American Custody
In ICE Prisons, alleged status violations can be a death sentence.
June 19, 2008.
Michelle Obama gets a War Room of her Own
Aspiring first lady plans ambitious outreach to voters.
June 17, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Typo in second to last paragraph?
Posted by: Artaraxl on Jun 13, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the penultimate paragraph, should "Clinton" be "Rosen"? It certainly seems like this must be a typo:

Well thank Hillary Clinton, now a blogger at Huffington Post and it's Senior Political Editor, for fucking around with free speech.

Clinton a blogger at HuffPo? Say what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I had mixed emotions - like if my mother-in-law had driven off a cliff
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 13, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in my brand new convertible.

Since somebody has to waste the time and money to defend this specious crap, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy - but this is something I never expected to say - ever:

I'm on Drudges side in this.

Copyright and patent law are two areas that need serious pro-consumer revamping. The basic - and valid - original purpose of both has been perverted bu the mega-corporations, Disney, the drug companies, the genetic patenters and so on.

Another example of the sellout of the average citizen to the special interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi am the author! The article was published incorrectly
Posted by: Liza Sabater on Jun 13, 2008 2:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's a broken blockquote and there's a correction typo in the last paragraph.

please go to the original for the edited version.

thanks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So why do we even have English classes?
Posted by: BobS on Jun 13, 2008 4:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is beyond even surreal. Generations of English teachers have worked diligently to teach students how to quote and cite short passages in their essays and term papers.

Now thanks to the very visible hand of the so called "free market", it appears that all of this time and effort was wasted.

Silly me, I've always thought that quoting and citing from major news organizations was a form of free advertising for them, especially with web linking where lazy readers can just click rather than trudge over the local library and go through stacks of musty newspapers and magazines to see the original articles.

Maybe I'm really dumb, but I don't see the advantage to AP here.

Bob Simpson
The BobboSphere

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AP is Crap anyway
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Jun 13, 2008 5:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't tell you how many stories I see in the local paper that are nothing but hatchet jobs from the AP. Use the news, not the other way around. how is anybody going to prove copyright when the story is all over the place. bloviating is not a good advertising gimmick. more and more writers from the AP are bought and paid for by the right wing smear machine. their work shows it. And none of it is worth copying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AP is Crap anyway Posted by: Lauren
» RE: AP is Crap anyway Posted by: lenioui
» RE: AP is Crap anyway Posted by: lenioui
Perhaps I am Misunderstanding things...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jun 13, 2008 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the blogger, other than writing the title, make any contribution to the story or did she just copy that small segment of text from AP?

AP has no claims on the quote, that is available to anyone. They do have claims to the text written by the author.

If the blog poster provided some sort of commentary then it is fair use. If the blog poster merely linked to the story and copied a segment of text out of the story then it probably isn't fair use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both Sides to Free Speech
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 14, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is Our Constitutional right to make an Ass Out of ourselves in the Public Square.That Being Said, It then becomes Public Domain. Teh only thing required is to give Credit to the source.
'You have the Right to remain silent. anything you say can and Will be held against you..." This clearly states your words become available for Public Use( Granted a Double edge sword- but still Legal to use your own words in a Public Setting)
Just because theygranted you a Piece of Paper from some University is not Testiment to your Morals, Ethics or true comprehension of the Subject.
Also Add Rosens name after Clinton's to the list of Corp Whore InfilTRAITORS of the womens Movement. Her Statements and Afflitations should get her Run off Media for Propragenda and Disbarred for Malpractice(She does have a Licenses right or does she just Play One on TV?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plagarism
Posted by: LouisFallert on Jun 14, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I hate to be on the AP's side on this in any way, I've been a college student for a while and if I turned in a paper like that blog quote, I could get an "F" and even be expelled. There is no attribution except for the title being in a different color. It could be argued that such a link is the equivalent of a footnote, but since the linked text can be short-lived, it is not a very good way of attributing the material.

It would not take that much to turn it into a piece that, to me, would obviously be fair use:

Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week

Acccordin to MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Writer, Hillary Rodham Clinton says she expects her marathon Democratic race against Barack Obama to be resolved next week, as superdelegates decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall. "I think that after the final primaries, people are going to start making up their minds," she said. "I think that is the natural progression that one would expect."

And if they are using material from a dubious source like the AP, a blogger should distance themselves from the original.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plagarism Posted by: djnoll
DRUDGE??!!
Posted by: grolaw on Jun 14, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drudge is the "Walter Winchell" of the 1950's (in his own sick little mind) - let the DMCA grind him and his Fedora into right-wing hate paste and drive him away from the Internet and all public attention.

This man is an addled chump who broke the Monica Lewinsky non-story in 1998. For that act, alone, he and his website should fade away - he's had way more than his 15 minutes. A decade of right-wing spew is 10 years too many...

We'll repeal the DMCA some day - but today the target richly deserves a sound thrashing in Court and the accompanying wallet-ectomy.

Let's hope that Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reily fall to the DMCA *NEXT WEEK*!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DRUDGE??!! Posted by: grolaw
grindermonkey
Posted by: grindermonkey on Jun 14, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This dispute is less about money and more about writing talent. Pivotal to the latter is the topic selected. Blogs should be plowing new ground instead of reworking the dust bowl of the Associated Press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give And Take
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jun 14, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a fondness for writing (although I am not a writer). I would have to say that attribution is very important if a sentence or more is lifted from a previous work by someone else.

That said, if using an *attributed* work is still grounds for being sued, I would have a really hard time with that.

Hey, if any of my work was copied and used, even for profit, by a blogger or other writer, I would actually be HAPPY about that -- or at least if my words were not twisted to mean something I disagree with. Why people in our society feel they need to sue over "intellectual property" is a mystery to me. It's F***ing information! Information just is. Intellectual "property" is not a tangible item that should belong to one person or another. Sorry, but, geez, some people are so greedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are Bloggers Biting the Hand that feeds them?
Posted by: rhibowman on Jun 14, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are lots of problems here:

Bloggers follow different rules than traditional media where sources must be properly attributed.

The AP is losing its grip on how news is written, attributed, distributed, etc. thanks to the Internet. This means they are also losing their grip on their purse strings.

The AP can squash most anyone in the court system and has been a champion for First Amendment rights. Bloggers need a great pro bono Constitutional Law attorney.

The Supreme Court has kept their mits off of the Internet, but maybe it's time for them to define bloggers role in the world of journalism.

It will, indeed, be very interesting to see where this goes, if anywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it's unenforceable on a large scale.
Posted by: Longdream on Jun 14, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And therefore won't hold up against repeated challenge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Clintonian Bullsh*t
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 15, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons- Both if them- would pimp your little sister if they thought it would give you an advantage. The DMCA is but one way the second and third terms of George H.W. Bush (Bill Clinton) screwed America over.

A DLC Democrat is a Repugnican by another name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Cannot Copyright Facts, Only the Way You Present Them
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Jun 16, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Associated Press is way, way off-base with its copyright claims on its news product. News is, by definition, a collection of facts. Courts have ruled for decades that facts, in and of themselves, cannot be copyrighted. Only the manner in which those facts are presented can be copyrighted.

Any blogger who has a thorough command of the written English language can easily re-write an AP or Reuters or any other news service's story into his or her own words and still present the facts. Journalists at newspapers have done this for decades.

The AP's decision to go after The Drudge Retort may have more to do with the blog's failure to credit the AP as the source for the material posted on its site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]