whats the legal status if i translate it or use 1337speak?
$12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
61–70 of 70 posts
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a company is a client of iCopyright doesn't necessarily mean they're using the same product/service as AP or employing the same pricing model. iCopyright, like most companies, likely provides more than one product/service.
If you read the page, you could see that all of them are using the same set of products/services, namely iCopyright Conductor which is the reprint/DRM bullshit. Don't just tar & feather AP, tar & feather the whole bunch that are clients of this company!
I think the pricing is more of an issue than the tech. If AP were asking for 12 cents rather than $12.50 for 5 words the reaction might be different. What are the pricing models of these other companies that you suggest are equally at fault?
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always found it quite strange that the people who make the money off an article (assuming diggs/reddits etc are generating revenue) are those who merely aggregate content and submit it to these sites. They add nothing to the equation. I don't see this as fair use.
Aggregators certainly can add value. The aggregator makes a choice of which articles to include vs which to omit. This is an editorial decision. This in turn allows readers to find content of interest to them without having to hunt for it themselves.
That's a pretty interesting position. So basically you are saying someone can take the best of all the articles on the web, without any payment (or even a link), put ads all over it, and the person who wrote the article doesn't get anything, just because they are not as good at you at seo?
I know that's the status quo, but I don't think it's fair or sustainable.
The only person who is gaining value from this in my opinion is the aggregator. Someone like digg which links to the original article is fine imho; but if they link to another non-primary source without original content/discussion then it's pretty murky waters.
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#64So what would happen if a user posted a comment with an excerpt or submitted it to Digg?
Would AP force the sites to take the comment down or Digg to remove the story?
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#65Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#66I sell you 5 words for 10$. Also my words will rhyme and you can resell them. For each time you resell them you get a discount of 2$.
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
It's more difficult to prove, but having been for commercial use doesn't preclude fair-use: "While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Common_misunderstandin...
But is user generated content for commercial use? I mean if bots are submitting it fine, but how do you go about a human submitting something to a commercial site? It's easy if the site says it owns all submissions, but what if it doesn't?
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#68What if you had somebody read the AP article, and then you quote that person?
"The AP reports that GM's sales are down last quarter, says John Smith."
Then you'd just be quoting a source. Would that be infringement?
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggregators certainly can add value. The aggregator makes a choice of which articles to include vs which to omit. This is an editorial decision. This in turn allows readers to find content of interest to them without having to hunt for it themselves.
That's a pretty interesting position. So basically you are saying someone can take the best of all the articles on the web, without any payment (or even a link), put ads all over it, and the person who wrote the article doesn't get anything, just because they are not as good at you at seo? I know that's the status quo, but I don't think it's fair or sustainable. The only person who is gaining value from this in my op…
I'm not going as far as to claim that aggregators should quote whole works entire. Far from it. I'm merely claiming that a compilation (of links, or quotes, or what have you) is editorial in nature in-and-of-itself.
And I am certainly not claiming that doing any of this sans attribution should be permissible. Proper attribution is crucial and hyperlinks make it so easy that there is no excuse for e-plagiarism.
Re: $12.50 to quote 5 words of an AP story
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggregators certainly can add value. The aggregator makes a choice of which articles to include vs which to omit. This is an editorial decision. This in turn allows readers to find content of interest to them without having to hunt for it themselves.
That's a pretty interesting position. So basically you are saying someone can take the best of all the articles on the web, without any payment (or even a link), put ads all over it, and the person who wrote the article doesn't get anything, just because they are not as good at you at seo? I know that's the status quo, but I don't think it's fair or sustainable. The only person who is gaining value from this in my op…
> just because they are not as good at you at seo?
It has nothing to do with SEO, and everything to do with convenience. Think about early /.. Since I enjoyed reading the same kinds of things as cmdrtaco, not having to Lycos (hehe...) news was a pretty big value add. I can go to one URL, get all of the tech news, and save a ton of time.
As far as determining if something 'has value' or not, we can just look at the facts. If an aggregator wasn't adding any kind of value, nobody would be going there. It's not like buying a URL and putting up some ads means you make instant cash. You still have to get visitors to come to your site somehow, and you do that by providing value to your audience.