The AP is notoriously litigious about even quotes from their articles -- they threatened to sue Christian Forums for quoting articles in posts, even with attribution -- and now they're upping the ante.
Note to self: do not use any AP stories in blog entries and posts. Reuters has the same crap anyway.
The AP is notoriously litigious about even quotes from their articles -- they threatened to sue Christian Forums for quoting articles in posts, even with attribution -- and now they're upping the ante.
That is ... just staggeringly stupid. Not that I typically post news links, but geez, now I probably won't at all from AP.
One would think in this age where news print media is going the way of the dinosaur, they would be catering a bit to those who, um, read their shit and want to discuss it. Bad move AP.
They seem to think this move is going to protect precious print journalism from them intertube vultures because the papers won't have to spend money on their own copyright protection software, and those nasty bloggerses won't be able to profit from side adverts on AP content.
Yeah. Crazy. I'm looking forward to seeing that software hacked in some amusing fashion.
Since as we all know the best way to deal with a new market is not to change but to apply DRM to your work and sue everyone that gets in the way in a desperate attempt to hold on.
Of course maybe it would be easier to sell if the AP actually had quality journalism.
The AP is suing Fairey (of Obama "Hope" poster fame) over copyright infringement, ironically the photographer of the image is Suing the AP over copyright infringement claiming the AP has no right to the copyright of his image.
The AP is a chop shop, basically. I interned for the AP one summer when I was in college, and 99% of the writing was cribbed from local reporters and the Italian national newswires. The irony of the Fairy lawsuit is repeated every day, a thousand times a day, all over the world.
Ongoing battle to figure out how to increase monetization of the internet so they can make money off it. Ads work but the cost they can charge for ads has gone down because the internet is covered in ads now. Ads are also based on traffic- when they start charging traffic drops massively, so they end up dependent on subscribers who are paying to not see ads. I think it will end up much like a lot of sites- premium option and the free option, with the free part working that border-line of do I really want this content? Because I have to wade through a shit-ton of ads loading and popping and blinking- is it worth it to pay premium or should I just go somewhere else?
Here at of course it is simply the initiation fee and mob influence that gets you into the supersekret forum.
While I don't have an answer, I think they should take a long hard look at the recording industry. People are still willing to pay for content, but are much less likely to take crap from an industry. Force people to pay for fluff or make them wade through some complicated system and they will just go somewhere else.
One thing the print industry seems to be failing at is good content. I haven't canceled magazine subscriptions just because I was getting the content online but because the content was small and poor. The writing was poor, the subjects boring and the magazine half the size and yet with the same amount of ads.
I dunno if they're still doing it, but a few years back, the record labels started seeding all the big filesharing services with phony versions of popular songs that degenerated into obnoxious electronic noise ten of fifteen seconds in. Maybe the AP could start publishing the real news in print and spread made up bullshit online. On the other hand, that would require that their real news was easily distinguishable from made up bullshit...
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Ah yes, it is the RIAA/MPAA strategy for fortune reversal. First, identify where consumers went for your content in the good old days: in this case, newspapers. Second, identify where they go now: the internets. Now, come up with a solution to please the old media and annoy the new by implicitly (or what the hell, explicitly) suggesting that consumers are criminals. Voilŕ! Newspapers aren't dying because they cling to an outmoded business model! No, now they are dying because you are kind of a criminal.
Has the AP Finally Lost It?
Re: Has the AP Finally Lost It?
of course it is simply the initiation fee and mob influence that gets you into the supersekret forum.
Linear Mode
