Carrying Water for the AP, Day 4
June 19th, 2008 by EyeOnWinerDave continues his trend of being the AP’s (still no disclosure of the nature of the business relationship, for what it’s worth) henchman today, excorciating bloggers for trying to defend their fair use rights. Being a sell-out must be hard work.
Almost everyone seems to be making the story bigger than it is
Here’s the point that Dave is missing (intentionally, in my opinion). There is nothing bigger than a news syndicate trying to control the “conversation of the day.” This is one of the fundamental problems that blogging was intended to “route around” as Dave would put it. He suggests that take-down notices are no big deal. “Their lawsuits will not happen,” he says.
He’s right about the fact that no suits are going to happen. He’s wrong to think that’s an important point in defense of the AP. The reason is simple: if you’re a fat cat like Dave and can afford to defend yourself against a big civil suit, the threat of a law suit is no big deal. If you’re an average person, though, you could not defend yourself against even the most frivolous of suits filed by the AP.
The AP won’t be filing any suits to back-up these take-downs. That doesn’t make the situation better, it makes it worse. It means that somewhere in the bowels of the AP, one of two things is happening: 1) they have a team who really believes they have the right to profit froma 5-word quote, or 2) they know they’re going beyond their rights here and that their threats are unenforceable, but they’re sending the legal threats anyway.
For someone who likes to bad-mouth lawyers and scummy lawyer behavior, he’s really missed the boat on this one. This is bullying, pure and simple.
I find this ironic, though:
the bloggers who just want to lynch AP are engaging in the worst kind of discourse, it’s anti-intellectual, they jump to conclusions, ignore information that contradicts their assumptions that’s easily available, and points of view that don’t agree with theirs.
Dave, rushing to the defense of intellectual discourse. He could not have described his typical course more succinctly.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
We know a lot more about Winer than we do about you. Who are YOU shilling for? What company do you work for? We don’t even know your NAME! When you start disclosing, you’ll be in a position to criticize other people for not disclosing.
(Nave edited to reflect the obvious. –eow.)
June 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Hi Dave… erm, I mean “John Mccain”.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Dave, your logic is hopelessly broken.
First, the fact that I don’t disclose (if we assume that I don’t) doesn’t mean that you are exempt from criticism for your failures to disclose.
Second, you can’t disclose that which doesn’t exist. I have no conflicts with respect to this site. The organization for which I work has no interest whatsoever, financial or otherwise, in you or anything else I’ve written about here.
But what I see is this:
1. Dave spends four days “testifying for” the AP.
2. Dave is called out on EOW for not disclosing the nature of his relationship with the AP.
3. Dave attempts to deflect the criticism by using a variant of the “you’re doing it to” defense.
End result? Even if you’re right (you’re not), and I have a conflict I should be disclosing (I don’t)… you’re still wrong for obfuscating and avoiding the nature of your relationship with the AP.
As a side note, you’re also wrong on the issue… so you don’t have much of a batting average in this one.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Dave gives Rogers Cadenhead his due with this text:
“Even Rogers Cadenhead, who I sometimes think as the blogger’s equiv of Al Sharpton, is actively trying to douse the flames.”
(Again without much context to explain…)
When Dave’s lawyer asked for $5000 to be returned and all rights released for a shared web site, Rogers usd his blog to let people know how Dave does business.
I guess Al Sharpton calls for justice using the media… by passing the courts.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:07 am
http://twitter.com/davewiner/statuses/840657730:
“Collectively the tech blogosphere thinks any problem can be solved with a good temper tantrum. This is bullshit. The problem is still there.”
http://twitter.com/davewiner/statuses/840658189:
“Me, I’m trying to get us a whole other class of content, some wonderful stuff. We don’t produce it in the blogosphere. AP and AFP do.”
http://twitter.com/davewiner/statuses/840658453:
“But when you scream at them every time they move, even awkwardly, you make it impossible. And you guys got played by Cadenhead. He’s great.”
It’s funny that Winer thinks his NewsJunk application would pass muster with AP’s lawyers, simply because some AP new media exec he’s pals with told him so. His application makes automated use of RSS feeds and republishes items. Every pro media site that offers feeds has a terms of service that prohibits that kind of stuff.
Unless he’s negotiated with all the sources that feed NewsJunk, he’s fucking nuts to believe it’s some new “class of content” that would be treated as fair use.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Dave’s newsjunk.org site uses an AP article in the same manner on 6/23/2008 that Cadenhead’s site did and was reuqested to be removed:
The site uses the AP “lede” without any change displayed as a link the AP article:
3:33 AM: Obama braces for race-based ads.
and the text included is 39 words cut straight from the head parapgrahs of the story.
A presidential candidate who’s named Hussein and wears a turban? A building that’s called the White House but run by a black guy? Those political images and ideas already have found their way onto TV airwaves and campaign buttons. AP.
NOTE: Dave contacted AP and they told him newsjunk was not infringing in their view.
I don’t get the infringing difference because there isn’t one with the possible exception that Rogers site allows readers to comment in the article without leaving the site and Dave’s does not. It’s a pure list of articles to click through to.
Hopefully, the AP will clarify what they intend to accept from other sites and what they will contest as infringing.
Dave says wait a bit for the AP to come to a fair conclusion… tic, tic, tic. Still waiting. Fair use… fairness… fair weather friends.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Of course, Dave didn’t get his info from their legal department, he got it from a buddy of his