Comments on: Associated Press and five little words

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:58:55 +0000

I say that you should understand the Fair Use Doctrine (or whatever it is called in your various countries) and follow that.

In the USA, Fair Use means that you are using the content without permission based on the defense that your use is permissible under the (rather subjective) test outlined in the Copyright Act.

If the AP says you can quote less than 5 words, then that’s a LICENSE and Fair Use doesn’t apply. If you send them money for more than 5 words, than that’s ALSO a LICENSE and Fair Use still doesn’t apply. If you use more than 5 words and don’t send them any money, then Fair Use applies as long as your use can withstand the scrutiny of the statute.

Again, Fair Use does not require permission. In fact, they can demand that you not use their work and you are authorized to use it anyway, under the act, as long as your use is a Fair Use.

By: Michael Walsh

Michael Walsh — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:34 +0000

You know what this means don’t you? Since the AP says it will charge $12.50 for quotes of 5 words or more, than toss in THREE AND FOUR WORD QUOTES by the truck load from AP articles. They can’t charge you for that if those are the guidlines, right?

Actually the right way is just to ignore them, and simply quote someone else. It’s not like these ninnies are the ONLY source of information we have at our disposal.

A WWII Quote, from General McAuliffe, when he was given an Ultimatum by the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge, he responded with a one word reply, One which we should use in response to the AP:

NUTS!

election-coverage.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:27:05 +0000

How are they going to know if someone on some obscure site posts a five word quotation? Are they going to google every five-word permutation of all their articles? And what if the site in question isn’t indexed?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:48:01 +0000

Another one of these idiot ideas on how to make the internet pay them. That is if the users of the net would just co-operate. Doesn’t matter that it runs afoul of fair use rights…someone has to pay us. Sound familiar to anything similar? The old do as we say, not as we do?

Of course it is by their way of viewing ok for them to do the same thing that they want paid for by others. After all, it’s news! Thing of it is, all this news is someone elses lives, their words, their thoughts, their ideas. What the news once did well, which is investigative reporting, is seen about as often as albinos. Most of it is someone elses ideas and words too. Sure they repackage those words to slant it for their own bias and purposes. Still doesn’t change the source didn’t originate with them. So when they gonna start passing out these $100 bills for reuse of others words and deeds? Bet they jump through that hoop.

*btw. A couple of times lately, I’ve actually been able to open a few articles without waiting excessive time frames. Mostly I give up as they are just too long to wait. Sometimes they never do open up, even after 10 or 15 minutes. So this is the first article I’ve read in two days. The first one to open in fact. I tried three days on one other article. Never did get it to open. The rest above this post in articles I have just given up on trying to read. Time frames don’t work for me. After two years of having it set as so, I will be changing my home page off of this site. If I can’t read the articles, the site isn’t of benefit. I see none of these problems with /. or the rest of the sites…only here.