
Woot To The AP: Nice Story About Our Sale — You Now Owe Us $17.50 - dwynings
http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/06/woot-ap/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook
======
ynniv
Does TechCrunch add anything to this story? Seems like we could have just
linked to Woot.com instead of a page of quotes and a quip that TC doesn't talk
about the AP.

~~~
pavs
I can't help but feel that TC has become the ebaumsworld of tech blog. Nothing
interesting, intellectual, relevant; just grab whatever you find on the
internet, copy paste 90% of the contents and BAM you have a blog post.

I think TC suffers from the same disease as Gizmodo, where the "authors" are
encouraged to do whatever they want as long as it brings in traffic. They get
bonus on traffic, who cares if its silly even for high-school standard.

~~~
jkincaid
This is totally false. We don't get a bonus based on traffic, and we never
have (and hopefully never will).

~~~
Retric
Are you defending TC or Gizmodo?

~~~
terrellm
I assumed he was defending TC since he states that he is a writer in his
profile here on HN.

------
iag
Wow props to Woot to sticking it to AP. The woot writers should write a book
of all the funny comments that couldn't go on the front page. It must be
pretty epic.

~~~
madmaze
I totally agree =) Woot should get a good pat on the back. I curious to see
whether AP responds.

------
vegasbrianc
Typical double standards by the AP. Great to see Woot having some humor with
the matter.

~~~
FiReaNG3L
The AP just act like the dinosaur they are, no wonder they're worried about
going extinct

~~~
_delirium
An interesting study I wish I could read is: who exactly _is_ the AP, and what
motivates them? They aren't a for-profit company with the normal ownership and
corporate structure, but a cooperative of newspapers. But surely it's not
something as nebulous as "all newspapers in the U.S., acting collectively"
that makes the decisions; I'd imagine most newspapers in the US see the AP
roughly like we do, as this entity that someone else runs, who they just get
content from and don't have any real control over. But then who makes the
decisions, what influences them, and why?

~~~
URSpider94
Two good places to start are <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press>
and <http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html>. As you mention, AP is a
cooperative, owned by its members. Member organizations both contribute
content to the AP (often by default), and get the right to re-print or re-
broadcast its content.

As with most cooperatives, the AP is a separate (not-for-profit) corporation,
with its own board of directors primarily comprising executives from its
members, and its own CEO, Tom Curley. Given that, I would expect that the AP,
as an organization, acts in its own self-interest. One could imagine that this
includes defending its IP against re-use by those who are not paying for it.

------
VengefulCynic
The only thing better than this would be if Woot took the AP to Small Claims
Court over the bill.

~~~
URSpider94
That would be a priceless win-win situation. Either AP would have to take it
on the chin and pay up to Woot, or fight the case, win, and create precedent
that fair use of online material in a news report is not a copyright
violation.

~~~
mahmud
You're missing a third possibility: take the case to court and, _lose_.

~~~
Cowboy_X
Losing would "create precedent that fair use of online material in a news
report is not a copyright violation," which is the whole crux of this joke.
"Losing" the court case would force AP to change their (questionably legal)
terms of use.

~~~
mahmud
I think you and I are calling a boolean variable by opposite names. What do
you mean by "lose"?

I was solely addressing the missing options, and approaching the matter
strictly from a truth-table perspective :-)

AP has two options: pay up, or go to court. Where each has two outcomes,
"Success" or "Failure" from Woot's point of view. If AP pays, it's a success,
if it doesn't and ignores it's a muted failure, since Woot doesn't need the 18
bucks. If AP goes to court and wins (i.e. doesn't have to pay) it's a success,
but if it loses and is forced to pay, then that will do nothing but establish
that online content should be paid for.

It seems like you and the parent are ignoring that nasty bottom-right
quadrant.

If this wasn't a joke, and Woot pushed the issue to court, and "won", they
risk being the first jackasses to sell everyone's online freedom for $17.50.

~~~
chc
Given how flippant Woot is about this, and how hard the AP would fight if this
actually went to court (since having to pay every source would damage its
business model way more than people copy-pasting does), the bottom-right
quadrant may as well not exist. The AP wants that outcome even less than we or
Woot do.

------
JadeNB
I am embarrassed not to be able to decode what's going on here. The backstory
and such, yes, I understand, but what's this about an e-mail receipt for
headphones? Did Woot buy headphones and bill them to the AP? Is Woot saying
that the AP has to go out and buy the headphones themselves, then prove that
they've done so?

I know that it's a joke, and I (think I) get the major thrust of it, but I
just can't seem to understand what's the actual suggested mechanism of the
alternative payment scheme.

~~~
David
Visiting woot.com might clarify things.

Woot's business (from their FAQ page: <http://woot.com/WhatIsWoot.aspx>) is
about selling one item a day, at a really good price. The Sennheiser
headphones are today's item... and in that space where they're calling out AP,
they usually talk up the day's product. They work in the sales pitch later in
the text, though it isn't included in the TechCrunch article.

So their alternative payment is buying their product instead of paying them
directly. (But really, it's just a lead-in to the marketing pitch they usually
have. I think. It's my first time there, too.)

------
GBond
I like concept here of creating controversy and buzz and shifting the
attention to selling. The blog post serves 2 purposes: sticking it to AP AND
selling the latest Woot deal.

They did something similar with the Amazon deal announcement with the Kindle
deal.

