AP Exec Claims That Its Moves Look Stupid To The Untrained Eye... Not Clear On What The Trained Eye Thinks
from the so...-uh,-please-explain... dept
The Associated Press has been doing a ton of questionable moves of late, that certainly look like a clueless organization committing suicide -- but, wait! Jim Kennedy, who oversees strategic planning for the AP, claims that only "to the untrained eye, it looks like we're stupid." But, of course, he fails to explain what it looks like to the trained eye -- because most of the "trained eyes" we've spoken to also seem to think that the AP is being stupid. At best, the AP says: "We're looking forward to a totally new space where we have to get ready to do things in a totally different way. We're trying to be smart business people and we're trying to stay in business." But, that's not clear at all from its actions. In fact, it looks like the other way around. The actions aren't about understanding a new space or doing things in a different way. It looks like it's trying to claw its way back to the "old way" of doing things. And, contrary to what folks believe there, that's not the best way to stay in business.Now, on top of this, the AP has released a rather hilarious FAQ, where it tries to define what it's doing. But, reading through the answers, you get a whole lot of nothing. It claims it's not trying to set up tollbooths, not trying to kill off links and not aiming this at bloggers. Instead, it says that it's (again) trying to prepare for a new way of interacting, and is looking forward to "cooperating." None of this is clear at all. Basically, it looks like the AP still thinks that it gets to define how news on the web will work. The folks there apparently don't comprehend how far past them the internet has already gone. They can try to "negotiate," but if it doesn't fit in with what people do online, it's not going anywhere. Once again, we're in a situation where the AP thinks it has leverage, and it's about to discover it has none.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, jim kennedy
Companies: associated press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It defies easy generalization? So snippets of news are not fair use. Facts are copyrightable?
And this AP initiative is not about hindering fair use rights? So shutting down sites that use snippets and links has nothing to do with fair use? Why, merely because the AP says so? This makes no sense.
And this initiative is about making it easier for consumers to access and engage with news content in more robust ways. Exactly how does threatening an AP member who was using AP authorized materials in an authorized way make it easier for the consumer?! I really want the AP to explain how its actions made it easier for people to access news. Yeah, I know they "apologized" for their idiotic behavior, but they've never sufficiently explained it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And case-by-case, we mean "how many words does it have."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Translation: We don't want to talk about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did you get down to the tenth question? I couldn't get through the first one. And that's the AP? My middle-school son has better writing skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reuters, CNN, et. al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let 'em try
If the AP can convince their clients that they deserve a premium rate so they can finance a voracious legal team to run around suing folks, that is certainly their prerogative.
Personally, if I was a client, I'd start shopping...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everybody here is so wrong!!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/
They pay citizen journalists Dollars or near a dollar to have to write 500 words pieces for their website!! For them to sell. Come on admit it that is so Web 2.0. They will even pay you 40-50 cents for uploading 10-15 minute videos on gardening!
AP = Already Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they are being "bashed" because they have made a lot of moves lately that anyone not in the old style media can see are not doing anything to help the brand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP Idiocy
The AP saying it is going to get legislative and legal help for its "problem" tells me they want to get a law passed that says you must be a paying member to even view their content. That is simply stupid, but they have they money and power to do it - and lawmakers are dumb enough to pass it.
I understand that people are abusing resources. Every day you can find someone who reprints an article verbatim, usually with no link back and sometimes with no credit to the original poster. It has happened since the first book was printed and will continue to happen, no matter the medium.
This FAQ isn't an answer to that. It is a desk jockey's answer to a 20th century problem, with no clue that the world has evolved since the first printing press started pushing out pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I know where they may be heading...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21136.html
FAIR USE Excerpt:
"The AP is working on methods to attach rights information to content as well as create new models for distribution and revenue, she said."
Is it just possible that the Asshat Posse (AP) is thinking about going down the DRM road to nowhere?
Goddammit, AP. Just face the truth. You are a "Wire Service" in the age of the Big Pipe internet and TERABYTES on the desktop. You are no longer needed nor useful. Your endless stories about driver-less SUV's running amok and killing people have no audience. Your blatant liberal political slant is obvious. Nobody wants to be BROADCASTED at by whiny, depressing liberals anymore. Today, you either engage in a discussion or you stay home.
Why is it so hard for you to understand this??
Do all your executives still have their assistants print their emails out on paper for them to read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I know where they may be heading...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very well put. I laughed a little on the inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question 11b
No. It is not aimed at any one company or Web site. We are eager to work with everyone to achieve a fair solution.
That answers the first question. Now about the other one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catching rotten veggies instead of throwing them
Let's attempt to make some suggestions here. The AP's current proposals/methods have been covered sufficiently.
1. Can an arbitrary fraction of an article be set as a working Fair Use standard? 20%, 30%? Everything below that threshold is beneath notice and above it might later become a discussion?
2. I'd like to see the AP publish a Top 5 (or Top 50) Offenders list. I think some transparency around who is doing the most scavenging would be illuminating to all parties. From there, I think we'd all understand the situation better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Catching rotten veggies instead of throwing them
Translation: Please quit pointing out how stupid the AP is. You're embarrassing them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Catching rotten veggies instead of throwing them
Amount is only one part of fair use -- and potentially a small piece of it. I'm not sure defining an amount solves anything.
2. I'd like to see the AP publish a Top 5 (or Top 50) Offenders list. I think some transparency around who is doing the most scavenging would be illuminating to all parties. From there, I think we'd all understand the situation better.
Well, we can look at who they sued: Moreover. They quote headlines and just a few words. So... I don't quite understand the situation any better. They seem quite upset with something that is obviously fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The AP and the Future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP suicide
Sorry, with gross income of $0 I doubt that I will pay them a whole lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't have it both ways
"10. This Web site may from time to time contain links or pointers to Internet sites maintained by third parties. AP does not operate or control in any way any information, products or services on these third-party sites and AP expressly disclaims any responsibility for such third-party sites"
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/terms.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Amount _is_ only one part of fair use, but it's the part that confuses people the most. There's additional clarity with no losers if someone authoritative sets an arbitrary yardstick. The yardstick I suggested is incomplete as #2 brings up.
2. Moreover got sued for syndicating summaries EVERY SINGLE AP story, while adding no editorial to it whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC does pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assoc Content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]