9 ms·

Woot To The AP: Nice Story About Our Sale — You Now Owe Us $17.50

314 points by dwynings 16y ago

vegasbrianc 16y ago
Typical double standards by the AP. Great to see Woot having some humor with the matter.
- FiReaNG3L 16y ago
  The AP just act like the dinosaur they are, no wonder they're worried about going extinct
  - _delirium 16y ago
    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?
    - dtf 16y ago
      They're the bad guys, just like that other non-profit trade association, the MPAA. We can hate on them while still loving our newspapers and movies.
    - URSpider94 16y ago
      Two good places to start are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press and http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html 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.
iag 16y ago
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 16y ago
  I totally agree =) Woot should get a good pat on the back. I curious to see whether AP responds.
ynniv 16y ago
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.
- iamdave 16y ago
  It's TechCrunch.
- chime 16y ago
  It brings the story to attention, just like HN does. TC does it with link + headline + text + discussion. HN does link + headline + discussion. I don't see a problem with that. Edit: Why the down-votes?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Probably because you can say the same thing about all blog spam.
    - superuser2 16y ago
      Not really. TechCrunch is in my Rss reader; Woot is not. Most blogspam is on little unheard-of blogs to make a few bucks on ad revenue from that particular post; TechCrunch serves as an aggregator, kind of like HN.
      - vollmond 16y ago
        The difference to me is that HN doesn't reproduce the content of the source - interesting discussion here tends to drive me to the source site, giving them the benefit. TC gives enough info and commentary in their summary that I rarely go to the source, robbing them (in a way of speaking) of my eyes.
        superuser2 16y ago
        Sometimes they quote/summarize too much rather than directing you to the source, I'll grant you that, but as a website TC still has its place. If I want information about who's getting funded/doing what, that's where I go. I don't think it should cease to exist. But I agree with you that aggregators shouldn't link to sites like TC, but rather the original source.
pushomikuor 16y ago
"The AP just act like the dinosaur they are, no wonder they're worried about going extinct" Yeah right, that is exactly how I also feel about AP. http://exzorders.com/ http://exzorders.com/.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
VengefulCynic 16y ago
The only thing better than this would be if Woot took the AP to Small Claims Court over the bill.
- URSpider94 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    You're missing a third possibility: take the case to court and, lose.
    - Cowboy_X 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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.
JadeNB 16y ago
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.
- CrazedGeek 16y ago
  Woot's telling the AP that, if they buy the two-pack of headphones and send Woot the receipt, Woot will let the $17.50 citation charge slide.
- David 16y ago
  Visiting woot.com might clarify things. Woot's business (from their FAQ page: http://woot.com/WhatIsWoot.aspx 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 16y ago
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.

314 points by dwynings 16y ago

vegasbrianc 16y ago

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

FiReaNG3L 16y ago
The AP just act like the dinosaur they are, no wonder they're worried about going extinct
- _delirium 16y ago
  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?
  - dtf 16y ago
    They're the bad guys, just like that other non-profit trade association, the MPAA. We can hate on them while still loving our newspapers and movies.
  - URSpider94 16y ago
    Two good places to start are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press and http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html 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.

iag 16y ago

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 16y ago
I totally agree =) Woot should get a good pat on the back. I curious to see whether AP responds.

ynniv 16y ago

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.

iamdave 16y ago
It's TechCrunch.
chime 16y ago
It brings the story to attention, just like HN does. TC does it with link + headline + text + discussion. HN does link + headline + discussion. I don't see a problem with that. Edit: Why the down-votes?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Probably because you can say the same thing about all blog spam.
  - superuser2 16y ago
    Not really. TechCrunch is in my Rss reader; Woot is not. Most blogspam is on little unheard-of blogs to make a few bucks on ad revenue from that particular post; TechCrunch serves as an aggregator, kind of like HN.
    - vollmond 16y ago
      The difference to me is that HN doesn't reproduce the content of the source - interesting discussion here tends to drive me to the source site, giving them the benefit. TC gives enough info and commentary in their summary that I rarely go to the source, robbing them (in a way of speaking) of my eyes.
      - superuser2 16y ago
        Sometimes they quote/summarize too much rather than directing you to the source, I'll grant you that, but as a website TC still has its place. If I want information about who's getting funded/doing what, that's where I go. I don't think it should cease to exist. But I agree with you that aggregators shouldn't link to sites like TC, but rather the original source.

pushomikuor 16y ago

"The AP just act like the dinosaur they are, no wonder they're worried about going extinct" Yeah right, that is exactly how I also feel about AP. http://exzorders.com/ http://exzorders.com/.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

VengefulCynic 16y ago

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

URSpider94 16y ago
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 16y ago
  You're missing a third possibility: take the case to court and, lose.
  - Cowboy_X 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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.

JadeNB 16y ago

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.

CrazedGeek 16y ago
Woot's telling the AP that, if they buy the two-pack of headphones and send Woot the receipt, Woot will let the $17.50 citation charge slide.
David 16y ago
Visiting woot.com might clarify things. Woot's business (from their FAQ page: http://woot.com/WhatIsWoot.aspx 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 16y ago

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.