12 Bucks To Link To An AP Story?

News comes that the Associated Press, in one attempt to define the nature of content in the new media, is looking to charge online writers for use of their material -- as little as five words, which would cost $12.50.

That would mean that the link I just provided would cost me more than it would run me for a lawyer to represent me if I were sued.

Other things that cost $12.50:

-- A cab ride from my home to my office;

-- A cup of coffee and one slice of buttered toast from Michael's Restaurant (including tax and tip);

-- Two magazines and a newspaper at the airport;

-- 1/2 a pound of organic salmon at a store near you;

-- One color cartridge for my Epson 2400 color printer. It takes eight, by the way;

-- Three movies on my Apple TV (purchased, rental is slightly cheaper).

These are just a few examples. I think you can see that each of these things is of greater intrinsic value than five words from the Associated Press. Of course, you could argue that if they were five very good words, that might make a difference.

Following are several phrases that are five words or under that might be worth at least $12.50:

-- "We the people"

-- "Call me Ishmael"

-- "IN THE BEGINNING..."

-- "My country, 'tis of thee"

-- "The buck stops here"

-- "In God We Trust"

-- "Booyah"

I'd buy any of those for $12.50 for use in my blog. Most of the stuff you see on the Associated Press, however, doesn't quite measure up to that standard, so in this case I'm not quite sure.

I also am somewhat unclear as to whether the AP seeks remuneration for:

-- any words at all;

-- words in consecutive order;

-- punctuation.

For instance, in the phrase, "Six people were killed in the bombing, which was carried out by an unknown militia," is the comma a word? If so, does that explain the $.50 cent addition to the base $12 charge? And is the fee for usage of content between 5 and 25 words (the entry point) shared with the source of the report? Suppose it was the usual unnamed government official. Should he or she receive remuneration if the story goes viral? How about a named source? Worth more?

The Internet is a new playground, of course. These rules are being written as we speak. In that transition phase, I would like to make one thing clear here and now:

If you are reading this post, please feel free to link to it, quote it, massage it, spindle it and mutilate it at will. Please, if you would, make sure to tell people where you got it, of course. I don't mind being ubiquitous, really I don't, but giving credit where credit is due is just plain good manners, even in this undefined and predatory space.

Comments

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

the AP has obviously taken its' cue from paris hilton's effort to trademark/copyright the phrase "That's Hot", proving that great minds think alike ...

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Am I the only one thinking the controlled mainstream media in general rarely offers up material worth reading, let alone paying for? I'll take my lies for free, thank you.

The media behemoths are competing with citizen journalists who are eager to post TRUTH for free. How can they compete with THAT? They can't, so they'll try to shut the internet down by turning it into a pay-to-play proposition. The Golden Rule ("whoever has the gold makes the rules) has worked well for them for generations, with corporations and billionaires defining reality for the rest of us. Those days will soon be over.

Visualize: Dinosaur Media -> EXTINCT. The network approach to getting the word out trumps the old command-and-control methods. Despite all the porny crap out on the World Wide Web the overall balance has been in favor of truth and accountability. And it's been, for the most part, FREE to those with internet access.

I'd suggest fighting the AP tooth and nail, except I have a more economical idea: Ignore them. They can't make us buy what they're selling. Hurrah for the common Hive Mind.

[MrKnuckles]

What if I quote somebody who has already paid cash to quote from AP?

Does that mean I have to pay both quoted sources $12.50 each for the five words, or does the financial burden for my exploitation of the secondary quoter's quote revert the financial burden back onto him for being dumb enough to pay AP big bucks for the 5 words quoted in the first place?

Maybe it will just become easier to do it like FOX Newz does and just make sh*t up... except then I'm going to want to get paid by those who quote my lies!

Ferget it...

[S1m0n]

When AP started posting stories to their own ad-free website, they went into business competing with their customers.

If they're wondering where the revenue went, that's where. If they took the site down, anyone who wanted to link to an AP story would have to link to it on some media outlet's site. The link drives traffic, the newspaper or tv station sells ads, AP gets paid: everyone's happy.

[wagadog]

If AP kills the internets, we'll just have to go back to UUCP listservs. BFD. You can't stop information. Now a lot of services are turning off their NNTP servers, but so what. The original UUCP way was store-and-forward via automated modem calls in the middle of the night. Even if they outlaw P2P (that's my computer connecting to your computers sockets), there's always the UUCP fall-back.

In fact, it would probably be a good idea to start building alternative networks now.

[ibivi]

Don't laugh. The internet is being divvied up so that costs can be attached to almost everything. Just like the banks, the phone, etc.
Sign-ins are nothing. You can adjust it so that the site recognizes you and you don't have to sign in each time. It is only a matter time. So be vigilant because the internet wont be "free" for much longer.

[evekendall]

This makes about as much sense as those news sites that want you to sign-in before they will let you read their stories and see the advertising of their sponsors, in the process driving away at least half of their potential customers who don't want to be bothered with the signing-in process. I still see this sometimes with the NYT and sometimes not. What a stupid business practice: "Let's see now....what's the best method I can use to keep people away from my site? Oh, I know...I'll make them sign in! I only want the registered folks to see my sponsors' ads." Duh.

[dagnome27]

Just another example of how companies are out to "gouge" instead of providing a fair value for fair compentation. $12.50 per quote? Don't make me laugh...

[GatorGrrrl]

So what is a fair value? Right now blogs link to AP content for FREE. So AP pays a reporter $40K a year to cover congress and bloggers link to his work for free. Doesn't seem like fair value to me.

[memphispaul]

Fair use is just that.
Perhaps the AP needs an introduction to commerce & business law. Either that or a refresher in federal district court.

[ObamaEdwards]

I'd love to see the AP try to enforce their stupid charges. Grasping at every straw, this is why news agencies are dying. They should be looking for new ways to use available technology and stay in the game, instead of clinging to a dwindling audience by slapping arbitrary charges onto their material as though it were worth its space/weight in gold.

Salon was clever, when they decided on a "choose it yourself" plan. Readers online can subscribe, or they can watch a brief ad before entering the site. Smart. Because online, no one can hear you huff and puff about not being paid what you think you're worth.

Nice one, Bing.

[Citizen54]

By the way, does anyone know how much a monocle costs?

[Citizen54]

Excellent, Mr Bing.

Perhaps the AP's policies such as this and the price hikes it foisted on newspapers earlier this year will result in a competitive network of local stringers forming to provide accurate coverage around the world... but probably not.
Anyway, I don't think the comma would be considered a word, unless the deal allows them to charge on a per-character basis.

[jamalystic]

It definitely seems the AP will be the looser here. There are reports emanating now that an AP story have almost about 150 words from a blog. What's has beome then to the principle of 'Fair Use'? I upport Micheal Carrington of Techcrunch that the blogosphere should boycott all AP stories until they come to their senses: AP vs The Internet ( http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=156719&F_src=flftwo)