Subscribe

I have moved to newlyancient.com and will be writing regularly there! Content on this domain is no longer updated, but will be maintained as an archive in its original form.

Tag Archive for 'copyright'

Burying the AP in a Grave of its Own Making

AP Banned

The Associated Press has decided to join the MPAA and RIAA by jumping on the bandwagon of blatantly ignoring existing copyright law. Over the weekend, the AP sent 7 DMCA takedown notices to the Drudge Retort (a parody of the Drudge Report) for short snippets posted on the site. (Update: This isn’t the first time the AP has misinterpreted fair use) For those of you who are unaware, the AP has a long history of trying to squash all competition. By essentially having a monopoly on the news, the AP is able to keep new outlets from springing up where a member paper already is. Then, along came the Internet, where it is impossible to have a monopoly on the news. Of course, the AP has had some trouble with this new market. Their response? Sue everyone in site.

Obviously, these postings are clear instances of fair use. Only 1 of the stories used the original headline and all six were under 79 words. Clearly, these could not replace the original article. In fact, these stories would help the AP by sending traffic their way. For those of you on the edge, here is a quote of a story in question:

Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she expects her marathon Democratic race against Barack Obama [sic] 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.”

This story only uses 18 words from the original story, along with a 32 word quote of Hillary Clinton. It also includes a link back to the original article. Despite falling clearly under fair use, the stories had to be taken down due to the ridiculousness of the DMCA. Once again, the flaws of the DMCA are abundantly clear: it favors huge companies and organizations who are then able to trample over all forms of public debate and opinion. Yet, the associated press claims it is not 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 lead of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes “hot news” misappropriation.

Ummm, what? It is not fair use because it happened to be a news article. Since when did news articles not have to follow standard copyright law? According to the AP, using the headline and the first few sentences only is not what fair use intends. In fact, that is the essence of fair use: quoting a small piece of a copyrighted material to provide commentary or clarification. What would they rather have us do, quote the entire article? No, I think they want bloggers to buy licenses:

The Associated Press encourages the engagement of bloggers — large and small — in the news conversation of the day. Some of the largest blogs are licensed to display AP stories in full on a regular basis. We genuinely value and encourage referring links to our coverage, and even offer RSS feeds from www.ap.org, as do many of our licensed customers.

According to the New York Times, the AP has apparently backed down from the original heavy-handed stance. Looking between the lines, it actually looks like the AP might be gearing up to launch a further onslaught against bloggers. By developing a set of guidelines (stricter than the law allows), the AP will be prepared to send out wide-spread DMCA notices. Unfortunately, most bloggers will have to comply and will not be able to challenge in court, even though they would win there. Interestingly, the AP has still not withdrawn the takedown notice for the 7 original stories. In a rather observant remark, the vice president of the AP draws the clear connection with the RIAA:

“We are not trying to sue bloggers,” Mr. Kennedy said. “That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do.”

And no other organizations have ever tried that? Looks like the AP has decided to follow in the footsteps of the MPAA and RIAA. Fortunately, TechCrunch has a response: ignore all AP stories. Henceforth, we bury AP stories and don’t quote them. I am more than happy to sign onto this and will no longer link to or quote an AP story on this blog. Let’s see how long this copyright strategy lasts if their traffic drops like a stone.

You can find the original stories summarized on this page.

Simon Owens has extensive information upon the AP’s record and interviewed Rogers Cadenhead about the story.

New Media vs. Newest Media

When you boil away all the legalities, perspectives, and masks, the issue of Viacom suing Google is a fight between the old media and the new media. However, what makes this attack pronounced is that up until the web, Viacom was the new media. In the face of the old boys, both Google (think YouTube and gmail) and Viacom (think MTV, Paramount, and Comedy Central) appeal to the hip, young generation. Therefore, they are in direct competition. However, unless Viacom gets its web strategy together, it will remain a relic of the MTV era. The legal battle between Viacom and Google.

In regards to the actual issue at stake here, I believe that Google has the upper hand. Viacom’s case rests upon a ruling by the Supreme Court that Grokster should be held responsible for copyright infringement committed by its users. However, Google has a much stronger case in the safe harbor created by DMCA Title II. The act clearly states that a service provider is not responsible for copyright infringement committed by its users, providing it removes the infringing material upon request. There lies the crucial difference between the YouTube case and the Grokster case. Grokster was created and engineered to allow the sharing of any and all files between users. Due to the easy availability and limited liability, users used the service to create a trove of illegal content. Obviously, Grokster did not take adequate steps to prevent copyright infringement. In contrast to this, YouTube was created to allow average people to share their lives through videos. Users grabbed on to the idea and happily shared videos ranging from science to video reporting. Only a small portion of the vast video archive infringes upon copyright and YouTube removes the infringing material when notified. Google has a sounder legal grounding than Viacom.

As an outcome of this case, I believe that YouTube should improve their copyright notice to include an easier submission process and more information. They could also develop a simple computer-driven backend process. However, I can understand how hard this could be - especially when dealing with videos, a medium not easily understood by computers. Regardless, I feel that any simple check YouTube can create will be welcome. For instance, the way I approach this issue in my own web 2.0 application is that when a user submits textual data a google query is sent out. Then, if a close text match is turned up the article is tagged as possible plagiarism. Once tagged as plagiarism, the authoring user is notified of this and given a chance to defend their case a. Meanwhile, a small alert of possible plagiarism is created which includes a simple vote procedure. If enough votes (as determined by user “value”) are submitted confirming that the content is plagiarized, the content’s author is notified once more. If they do not respond within five days, the content is automatically removed until further notice. Although this procedure is not perfect, it is one way to combat copyright infringement. However, if YouTube were to simply improve their policy page, I believe that should be enough. In this age of social media, I think the masses who create the content should also be the ones who decide if the content is legitimate.