So we can't link or talk about AP articles without their permission?
I thought the whole point of news was to report it and give credit to the source...I just love the way new fangled news works...

So the AP is still going to dictate what constitutes fair use, eh? Am I surprised? Not really. But, what, with the riaa and mpaa practically demanding money if you so much as leave a music cd or dvd in your player. Because in their world that would apparently constitute intent to "distribute" (to the next person in your house to come along and play the disc?) So then I guess we shouldn't talk about the news. lol

It's all about copyright. Everybody wants to copyright everything. And on top of that they want it forever as well. It's nice the AP has come to an agreement "for now". Our largest issues with these laws changing in favor of the corporations is the fact that the lawmakers campaigns are paid for by these companies. Maby not directly but they are. Also a lot of them are so old they don't understand/care what it is doing to society as a whole.

No question that the AP's making a strategy move .

At they name Copyright Named Licensing Agent for Reuse of Associated Press Content Published Online</a>

AP has determined that they consider to be fair-use to be exactly four words. More than that and you pay $12.50 - $100. This is pretty hypocritical considering that AP journalists help themselves routinely to much more than four words from blogs and websites in the name of "fair use".

AP takes this a step further and under the license pricing and terms of use for iCopyright they place language that raises eyebrows and limits free speech.. Pretty unusual for an entity that lives and dies by freedom of speech protection.

iCopyright License Excerpt:
Derogatory and Unlawful Uses: You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content."

------
I think that any reasonable person would see a strategy in play and is very much at odds with rights they flaunt daily.

AP is large and may not be a monopoly in the strictest sense, perhaps <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly">oligopoly</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte">cartel</a> is a better description.

Is the AP behaving ethically and morally? Are they being a good citizen? Many say they're not.

AP's strategy and behavior raises lots of questions and concerns:

The Poynter Institute on it's blog asks: <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31">AP v. Bloggers: Hurting Journalism?</a>

Pajama's Media Asks: <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-the-ap-good-for-america/">Is the Associated Press Good for America?</a>

Perhaps the question we need to ask is: "Is the AP <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil#Evil_in_business">evil<a>?

The AP is the government controlled propaganda machine, just as is the bbc, fox, cnn ect.

real news:

http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/

http://www.fsrn.org/

http://www.eff.org/

http://www.aljazeera.com/

---

Ap lame lame lame.

Stupid Stupid Stupid it is called freedom of speech here in the u.s.a you just try to go after a blogger here in the u.s.a we will sue the crap out of you just because this guys a wimp doesn't mean others will be.