31–40 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
chances are there is an AP article that has "This is just disgusting" in it...you are lucky you only used 4 words, 1 more word, and you'd have to pay $12.50
It isn't just the AP, it's also Reuters, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The Boston Globe, and Ziff Davis Media that use iCopyright.
This is just disgusting.
Why? It's still legal to quote them according to fair use, so who cares what they put on their website?
Apparently it's not news: Founded in 1998, iCopyright has generated millions of dollars in new licensing revenue for online publishers, and has seven patents pending in the field of automated copyright licensing and permissions. But it's not really that big if in 11 years they generated just millions of dollars...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It's still legal to quote them according to fair use, so who cares what they put on their website?
You are probably right. But there is another interesting question - is for-profit news aggregation, where you quote a part of the article, fair use? Bloggers do that, user-powered aggregator sites do that, but is it fair use? Because in most cases, the quote itself carries a news value, and those quoting websites are commercial venues. I am just asking...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't just the AP, it's also Reuters, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The Boston Globe, and Ziff Davis Media that use iCopyright.
Well, fuck them all then, $12.50 / 5 words is laughable from anyone, even if it's the ghost of Alan Turing with a terse solution to the halting problem.
Much higher resale value.
Wait wait wait, this is a sensationalist headline. The submitter obviously picked an AP story to frame them as evil. iCopyright is the company that provides this Fair Use-violating service and here are some of their clients http://info.icopyright.com/conductor.asp * The Globe & Mail * REUTERS * Associated Press * The Toronto Star * Ziff Davis Media * The Boston Globe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It's still legal to quote them according to fair use, so who cares what they put on their website?
You are probably right. But there is another interesting question - is for-profit news aggregation, where you quote a part of the article, fair use? Bloggers do that, user-powered aggregator sites do that, but is it fair use? Because in most cases, the quote itself carries a news value, and those quoting websites are commercial venues. I am just asking...