Are bloggers biting the hand that feeds them?

Is the AP trying to chill bloggers, make some extra dough or simply exert their demigod-like power over the burgeoning blogging community? Or, is this legitimately about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights?

Check out these articles (don’t forget to read the comments):

AP Goes after Bloggers Under DMCA, by Liza Sabater on AlterNet.org

AP sends anti-Drudge blogger a DMCA takedown notice, by Tim Conneally on BetaNews.com

AP Threatens News Aggregation Site for Short Excerpts, by Marshall Kirkpatrick on ReadWriteWeb.com

AP targets bloggers over story excerpts, by Jordan Golson on The (Industry) Standard.com

While I’m at it, here are links to information on the laws in question:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, U.S. Copyright Office Summary (PDF)

The (Common Law) Doctrine of (Hot News) Misappropriation (circa 1918), by Michelle L. Spaulding of Harvard Law School (Last rev. 3/98 )

Here’s the deal, in summary:

The AP doesn’t want their hard work copied without being properly paid for it, and who blames them; who would? They spend a great deal of time and money gathering news around the world for the benefit of their readers. At the same time, traditional readership is down which means circulation is down so advertising revenue is down.

The AP isn’t saying bloggers can’t use their material (read their response below). But, they are asking those who want to use their material to go through the proper channels or face the consequences. For information on how to obtain re-print permission from the AP, click here.

The media world is changing and the AP doesn’t have a grasp on all of the strings. Old-guard newspaper cronies are sweating through their designer suits and checking their collective pulse. Change is scary, especially when you created the world you operate in, especially when you’re old and, perhaps, edging on antiquated.

But, let’s not forget: The AP is a champion when it comes to fighting for First Amendment rights; if they’ve got a beef, they have zero problems with a Supreme Court challenge. They employ top-notch journalists and editors. They pour money into news gathering. And, besides the times they staple it to the ground, the AP is all about lifting the government’s veil.

Face it: where would bloggers be without the Associated Press?

What’s got the AP so worried?

They are boggled because they aren’t sure how to reach readers under 40. We don’t want to buy our news, we expect it to be free and on-line. We often don’t have home phones so random survey calls, made in an effort to figure out how to capture our attention, won’t work and snail-mailing questionnaires won’t work either because we won’t read or respond to them.

And, most importantly, we’re voting and spending money so they feel they really must reach us to tap into our buying power, by directing us to paid advertisers, and voting power, by influencing our opinions.

If bloggers copy the AP’s work, what does the AP get out of the deal? Not money for their services– the AP is a news-wire service after all; not money from advertisers; not increased circulation; not access to young minds or their wallets.

Translation: money; they won’t make as much money.

But, bloggers link to the full-text of the AP’s stories so what’s the problem?

The AP, and all of the media outlets who pay to use AP stories, thank you for the traffic and search engine help, but:

What if readers don’t follow blogger’s links to the full articles because they read the stolen snippet and feel they’ve read enough? If they don’t follow the links, how will they ever see the advertisements that pay the bills? If advertisements aren’t seen the advertisers will disappear, and then what will happen to the 160 year old organization?

The reality is readers have limited time and attention for the vast amounts of information available in print, on T.V, on-line and from other sources. The AP is accustomed to being thenews source in America and around the world. If bloggers copy a few key elements from an article, even if they link to it, readers might not bother to read any further, and the cycle of decline will continue.

Elephants are frightened of mice.

Bloggers are threatening the AP’s business model by changing the way news is debated, distributed, attributed and written. So, it is easy to understand why the AP feels the need to push their thick thumbs into the shoulders of bloggers, offering their new brand of journalism, who may not understand rules about attribution (how to properly cite sources), copyright laws, intellectual property laws, etc.

Also, bloggers often don’t have editors or publishers to contend with, nor do they have stockholders shaking fists in their faces. They are unregulated and can write whatever they please, link to any site they want and express their opinions, whether they have any bearing on the issues or not, anonymously. Blogging rules, if there are any, are much, much different than those the traditional media abide by.

But, does that make copying content O.K.? Is it reasonable for bloggers to infringe on the rights of others in the media without experiencing some push back, especially considering the state of the old-school media outlet’s bottom line?

Court battle looming?

Let’s be clear: the AP can stomp mice if they choose to because they realize very few people or companies have the resources to challenge a court battle all of the way to the Supreme Court, which is where First Amendment issues– and that’s what this is, an argument about press and speech (often collectively called “expression”) freedoms– are decided.

These types of decisions are most often made by the Court because the First Amendment is so tightly entwined with the basic principles of what it means to be an American lower courts tend to defer their judgement to the big dogs in an effort to stay out of trouble themselves.

But, whose First Amendment rights weigh more heavily? Bloggers or the Associated Press? Or, will the Court decide bloggers are an official branch of the American media?

The Supreme Court has kept their hands off of the Internet, for the most part, but maybe it’s time they figure out the answers to those questions.

What bloggers need now is a great Constitutional Law attorney willing to work pro bono.

The AP’s response to Kirkpatrick’s ReadWriteWeb post:

“AP wants to fill in some facts and perspective on its recent actions with the Drudge Retort, and also reassure those in the blogosphere about AP’s view of these situations. Yes, indeed, we are trying to protect our intellectual property online, as most news and content creators are around the world. But our interests in that regard extend only to instances that go beyond brief references and direct links to our coverage.

“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.

“We get concerned, however, when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That’s not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.

“In this particular case, we have had direct and helpful communication with the site in question, focusing only on these issues.

“So, let’s be clear: Bloggers are an indispensable part of the new ecosystem, but Jeff Jarvis’ call for widespread reproduction of wholesale stories is out of synch with the environment he himself helped develop. There are many ways to inspire conversation about the news without misappropriating the content of original creators, whether they are the AP or fellow bloggers.”

Jim Kennedy, VP and Director of Strategy for AP