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
If you quote them without paying, exercising your right to fair use, then you can criticize them all you want.
Much higher resale value.
I don't see this as fair use.
I know that's the status quo, but I don't think it's fair or sustainable.
The only person who is gaining value from this in my opinion is the aggregator. Someone like digg which links to the original article is fine imho; but if they link to another non-primary source without original content/discussion then it's pretty murky waters.
It has nothing to do with SEO, and everything to do with convenience. Think about early /.. Since I enjoyed reading the same kinds of things as cmdrtaco, not having to Lycos (hehe...) news was a pretty big value add. I can go to one URL, get all of the tech news, and save a ton of time.
As far as determining if something 'has value' or not, we can just look at the facts. If an aggregator wasn't adding any kind of value, nobody would be going there. It's not like buying a URL and putting up some ads means you make instant cash. You still have to get visitors to come to your site somehow, and you do that by providing value to your audience.
And I am certainly not claiming that doing any of this sans attribution should be permissible. Proper attribution is crucial and hyperlinks make it so easy that there is no excuse for e-plagiarism.
"While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use."
I hope that it would be. But my non-legal view of the term transformative says aggregation is not.
If you stick to ASCII and take the generally accepted average of 5 letters per English word, the AP are charging $12.50 for 200 bits. VeriSign's "Secure Site Pro with EV" costs $1499 for 256 bits and it's only good for a year!
While I might disagree with the usefulness/pricing of their data considering widely available alternative sources it isn't exactly on par with maligning someone's civil rights :D
But it's not really that big if in 11 years they generated just millions of dollars...
For compliance reasons, please identify the web site where you will be posting or linking this article.
For compliance reasons, please aardvark identify the web site aardvark where you will be aardvark posting or linking this aardvark article.
A new market for Firefox AP de-obfuscation plug-ins?
Sort of like:
That would bring it under the 5 word threshold for which you need to pay, although it would definitely cause havoc with layouts on websites.
The problem is iCopyright, not the AP.
oh wait, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
If only my work were valued at 50¢/word...
"The AP reports that GM's sales are down last quarter, says John Smith."
Then you'd just be quoting a source. Would that be infringement?
iCopyright is the company that provides this Fair Use-violating service and here are some of their clients http://info.icopyright.com/conductor.asp
* The Globe & Mail
* Associated Press
* The Toronto Star
* Ziff Davis Media
* The Boston Globe
Don't just tar & feather AP, tar & feather the whole bunch that are clients of this company!
That's going to make the AP a lot of money I bet.
It's going to be hard to get on without them, but we're certainly going to try our best.
btw, I'm fairly sure there is a legally allowed minimum that you can quote from anything under fair use.
Would AP force the sites to take the comment down or Digg to remove the story?