Woot Asks AP To Pay Up For Quoting Woot Blog Post Without Paying [Updated]

from the a-bottle-of-awesomesauce-please dept

Tue, Jul 6th 2010 8:50am — Mike Masnick

There are so many reasons to love Woot, including their recent awesome letter and video about their acquisition. But, even better may be that in today's Woot offering, they mock the Associated Press for its coverage of the Woot acquisition, because the AP just happens to have also copied text from the awesome Woot letter. Now, that's all well and good for most publications, but this is the AP that we're talking about. The same AP that threatens bloggers for copying headlines and snippets. The same AP that insists it needs "hot news" to protect others from "free riding" on its work. And, most importantly, the same AP that has a famously ridiculous pricelist for quoting five words or more from an AP article.

It appears the folks over at Woot noticed this price list, and noticed that the AP report on its acquisition copied more than five words. And thus, the smart folks at Woot calculated that the AP owes Woot $17.50 for quoting Woot without permission (though, they'll take buying today's deal as payment instead). Of course, I would have probably added a "hot news" freerider surcharge as well. After all, people reading the AP story now no longer had any reason to go to Woot directly to find out the news. Hell, at least folks like us linked directly to Woot's letter. But that's far too neighborly a thing for the AP to do. Instead, it just quotes with no link at all.

Update: An apparently upset AP media relations person has contacted us to ask us if it's a "slow news day" (answer: no, not at all -- why do you ask?). Also, according to the AP, the article also shows that the AP spoke to Woot's CEO on the phone, and that, apparently, makes what the AP did okay. If only I had known that the AP's fair use quoting rates had an exception for "we spoke to you on the phone." Unfortunately, I don't see those exceptions anywhere. Perhaps I'm missing them. The AP would also like to remind us that it's reporting on the oil spill in the gulf. No, I don't understand this non sequitur either, but that's how the email concludes. In the meantime, I'm still wondering if the AP paid Woot for the news of reporting on them. If not, isn't the AP "freeloading" on the newsmaker? Or do the rules the AP sets out for everyone else not apply to the AP?

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: fair use, quoting, woot
Companies: amazon, associated press, woot

57 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 8:54am

Er....
"The same AP that insists that swears..."

...that maintains that holds that asserts that contends that presses that reiterates that repeats hat vow....

Man...they must REALLY mean it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xyro TR1 (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:12am

I will be adding this to the growing list of reasons why Woot is one of my favorite companies of all time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  Amen to that. Woot is full of win and awesome.
  
  And Mr Masnick, don't forget to have some leet flakes. They go very well with the awesomesauce for breakfast. =)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beta (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean it's winsome and awful?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:13am

Ha! Seriously, why are those pushing 'hot news getting paid for' not seeing that it would go from zero to clusterspank in seconds flat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  "Ha! Seriously, why are those pushing 'hot news getting paid for' not seeing that it would go from zero to clusterspank in seconds flat?"
  
  They are probably creating contracts that allow the "Old News Industry" to work as it always has in an attempt to prevent the blogs and new news types from using their "Intellectual Property". Hot News is a slightly different historical repeat of the record labels attempting to stop file sharing and competition. It wont work and in the end will accelerate the downfall of AP, and the newspapers as they will have a "new Law on their side" to protect them. Fat lotta good it did the record labels.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:24am

Ahhhh....
Hoist on your own petard?

How does it feel AP?
Gotta love it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:48am
  
  Re: Ahhhh....
  As a petard is in accuality a bomb which explodes pretty much not leaving much of the device left upon which to ride.
  The term is "Hoist by your own petard" or more correctly "Hoist by his own petard"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:28am

Pre-emptive TAM
Let me anticipate the TAM response to this:

"Mike, there's obviously more to this story than we're being told. How do I know this? Because the story as it stands makes the big content provider look like a hypocritical asshat and since we know that's not ever the case, one can only conclude that we're not being told the whole story."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze, 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Pre-emptive TAM
  its like seeing double. omg that was spot on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:44am
  
  Re: Pre-emptive TAM
  FAIL
  You used a capital letter and punctuation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bruce Ediger (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
    I personally believe two "Anonymous Coward" trolls exist.
    
    The Troll Formally Known as The Anti-Mike: he/she/it/them does use punctuation, and capitalizes correctly. Writes in paragraphs and makes acerbic straw man arguments.
    
    e e trollings: doesnt use punctuation, doesnt capitalize tends to post one liners predicting the disappearance of mainstream/major media due to unfair, immoral competition from file-sharing networks and "pirates". Tends to believe in the absolute authority of lawyers.
    
    Of course, the possibility exists that the same committee writes both trolls' messages, as they both assume that RIAA/MPAA/AP/Big Book Publishers can do no wrong. I think the difference in style of argument (straw man for ex-TAM, arguments from authority for e e trollings) means that two different people, probably both male, write the posts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
      In that case there are at least three. I work with one of them. He writes in a "lowercase with some small amount of punctuation" style. He also doesn't believe a word he writes, he just likes to troll. I'll probably get kicked when we go to lunch for outing him though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RD, 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        "In that case there are at least three. I work with one of them. He writes in a "lowercase with some small amount of punctuation" style. He also doesn't believe a word he writes, he just likes to troll. I'll probably get kicked when we go to lunch for outing him though."
        
        So he just plays "devils advocate" for the fun of it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drop, 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        Troll =! devil's advocate
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        No, he's a jackass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        You spelled fucking moron wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        hi mike. why not sign in when you insult people? to scared?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        See, total fucking moron!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        I think that's the first time I've been accused of being Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
        It gets really old, really fast. Much like the work of our little ac.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chocota (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
      Ha HA HA you make laugh 'cause I think the same thing about "Anonymous Coward". The first time I started to read Techdirt news, I like "Anonymous Coward" comments, but I got confuse about the Dual thinking in his comments, in favor and against whatever Mike writes in the article, so I got tired of it that I don't pay attention to whatever comments He/she/They does/do. I think He/She/They hates/hate Mike
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
      "e e trollings"
      LMFAO.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 6:14pm
  
  Re: Pre-emptive TAM
  You forgot to mention the day of the week and how that somehow means something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:40am

Well...
"Hell, at least folks like us linked directly to Woot's letter. But that's far too neighborly a thing for the AP to do. Instead, it just quotes with no link at all."

To be fair Mike, I clicked on your link and it took me to the AP story. There in the first line is a link to both amazon.com and woot.com. They don't link to the letter, but they did link to Woot. Still, they probably should have linked directly to the letter...... but at least it's something....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:47am

What the AP asks of us
Now, did the AP demand payment from others for using their 'copied' story from the Woot press release? Do they claim copyright on their article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: What the AP asks of us
  How would that work?
  
  They have...... "Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved"..... written at the bottom of the page. Can you Copyright something you copied all or in part without giving the original credit?
  
  I must admit I'm a little confused on this...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re: What the AP asks of us
    "How would that work?
    
    They have...... "Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved"..... written at the bottom of the page. Can you Copyright something you copied all or in part without giving the original credit?"
    
    If they did this, its a blatantly illegal copyright, and is far more heavily frowned upon by the judiciary than simple infringement (like file sharing). This is an illegal co-opting of not just a "copy" but the ACTUAL copyright of a work. This is not only highly illegal, but it can get you into all sorts of big trouble, and its also REALLY hypocritical of the AP to do this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What the AP asks of us
      People like the AP don't get in trouble for that. For them, it's ok to issue a quiet apology and move on (until the next time they do it in about a week). For the rest of us, we must spend 63 years in federal PMIA prison.
      
      Seriously, are there any examples of serious meaningful penalties against a major media corporation for false copyright claims? I would like to see it if anybody knows, because I've never heard of it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - redwall_hp (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 12:23pm
    
    Re: Re: What the AP asks of us
    I'm too lazy to reread the AP article... If they put quote marks around the verbatim quotes and properly attributed their source, no. But if they didn't, then that would be plagiarism. (Which is what copyright law is really supposed to protect creators from, rather then being used as a cudgel to prop up a business model.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 3:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What the AP asks of us
      But if they didn't, then that would be plagiarism. (Which is what copyright law is really supposed to protect creators from, rather then being used as a cudgel to prop up a business model.)
      
      Copyright law is about copying, not attribution. An act could be plagiarism but not copyright violation, or vice-versa, copyright violation but not plagiarism. As far as I know there are no laws against plagiarism in the US.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: What the AP asks of us
  I was not very discriptive, what I mean is. If AP has Copywritten the story, to include the quote, can someone else use the same quote without paying AP?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 9:59am

ROFLMAO
"and we think you’ll like how they help you shut out the irritating sounds around you (such as, maybe, people yelling about the actual meaning of “fair use”). We also think you’ll like how that second pair of Sennheiser MX400 In-Ear Headphones will allow you to have one set for home and one set for the office, especially since you’ll probably get sick of going through all the voice mails from your pals UPI and Reuters saying “HEY DID YOU SEE YOU GOT MENTIONED ON WOOT TODAY LOL GREAT BUSINESS PLAN NEWZ DUDZ!” The AP, when you just want to listen to music and drift away to some controversy-free happy place, we promise you, you’ll find the Sennheiser MX400 In-Ear Headphones will hit that sweet spot just right."

Woot is a hoot :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 10:56am

Time to buy something
I think it is time for me to go buy something at Woot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:19am

it is always a slow news day at techdirt. slow news and short bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  Can we add a button that says "The opposite of insightful and/or informative"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    yeah, it's called "thomas posted".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You forgot to tell him to fuck off and die. Rookie mistake!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:40am

so back to the story.

woot makes the mistake of confusing when they are news from when they deliver information.

woot being bought out is news, straight up. the comments made in the official blog are essentially a press release, an announcement. ap quoted from that, not in whole but in very small part, as they might quote from any other press release or news conference.

it would be no different from one newspaper quote from another regarding it being bought out, sold, or what have you. it is news, plain and simple, about an infomation company.

the story, as written, is a news story, but the story itself is not "news about ap". so someone copying it to another site would in theory be violating copyright.

what woot deserves from this is to specifically not get covered in the future. perhaps even amazon can be ignored for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 11:48am
  
  Re:
  ap quoted from that, not in whole but in very small part
  
  And that activity is exactly what the AP says requires payment. For everybody but the AP anyway.
  
  PS I know this is a troll, I'm just responding in case any real people are reading and don't fully know what's going on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 7:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no, you missed it again. ap isnt making news, they are reporting it. very different. woot is making news in this story, and thus it is open for reporting.
    
    i know subtle differences dont got over well on techdirt, but come on. the difference is obvious, and more importantly, woot is just trying really hard to get coverage at this point. i would say that they have a website i would never visit as a result.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 7:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry. Fair use doesn't exist according to the AP, except for the AP, of course. Try again next time, TAM.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 6 Jul 2010 @ 1:06pm

How much would it of cost to repost the AP's email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TW Burger (profile), 6 Jul 2010 @ 1:12pm

The Irony is Wonderful
It's hard for me to understand how the old guard press fails to see that "Hot News" protection will soon be used against them. As they lose more and more market share and reduced revenue leads and to lack of resources, newspapers will need to "borrow" headlines from blogs and web news sites that have gathered, investigated, and reported current events and issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 6 Jul 2010 @ 1:27pm

this is everywhere....
Did AP email every news outlet on the internet asking if it was a slow news day? I've seen this on a million different sites! Haha! I think some big news channel should drop AP. Oh wait, they already did! Dah-hah!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: this is everywhere....
  You know why. because it's MONDAY!!! Wait, that means it's not Friday. Uhm... I wonder. Well, I give up trying to figure out TAM's logic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: Re: this is everywhere....
    Actually it's Tuesday, that's not the point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 1:50pm

Amusing that the AP spokesman that showed up in a previous post about the AP's Hot News stupidity hasn't yet worked up the guts to show up this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, thanks to the comment below (with the TechCrunch link), I remembered that that spokesman's name was Paul Colford. I also found out that he is the one who wrote the laughably stupid email.
  
  I guess that explains why he isn't in the comments this time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:02pm

It would be nice if you time stamped your updates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:07pm

"An apparently upset AP media relations person has contacted us to ask us if it's a "slow news day" (answer: no, not at all -- why do you ask?)."

I wonder if this slow news day doctrine applies only when others ask about the AP not paying up but it doesn't apply when the AP asks others to pay up? Or maybe it only applies on Tuesdays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:26pm

Update!
http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/06/ap-woot-oil-spill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seth Brundle, 6 Jul 2010 @ 2:54pm

That's awesome that they asked if its a slow news day (shouldn't they know?).

Next time I quote AP I will make sure to call their CEO first.

Obviously if AP considers this appropriate and scalable circumvention then they will make their CEO available for anyone to do the same on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BoloMKXXVIII (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 4:26am

AP
They sure are earning the first three letters of their name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry in Detroitap19990601@aol.com, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:17pm

Do AP journalists exist
Actually, I've come of the opinion that a majority of AP journalists are fabrications; The people do not exist. Take an AP journalist with a distinctive name and do a Google search or Pipl search. No public figure should be that confidential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contus, 22 Sep 2010 @ 2:07am

Thankz
I really enjoyed this post.. All the tracking informations are nice.. comments also nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cleanmasterpc, 20 Jul 2016 @ 10:32pm

I am very glad that found your post. Keep posting more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]