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.

“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.

“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.

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.

(Nave edited to reflect the obvious. –eow.)