3 ms·

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.
      - chc 16y ago
        Given how flippant Woot is about this, and how hard the AP would fight if this actually went to court (since having to pay every source would damage its business model way more than people copy-pasting does), the bottom-right quadrant may as well not exist. The AP wants that outcome even less than we or Woot do.
    - wildwood 16y ago
      I don't think small claims court is usually seen as a setter of precedent... :) Maybe they could sue for 17.50 plus some punitive damages (or emotional distress or something), to push it into civil court. Imagine the briefs and testimony you'd get from the Woot staff. :)
- philwelch 16y ago
  Stare decisis--the legal doctrine upon which binding precedents are made--is not something that I think would apply to small claims courts. You wouldn't have a precedent unless it reached a federal appeals court. Also, since copyright is federal law, you may need to sue them in federal court to begin with. Do the feds even run small claims courts? I don't think they do.

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.
    - chc 16y ago
      Given how flippant Woot is about this, and how hard the AP would fight if this actually went to court (since having to pay every source would damage its business model way more than people copy-pasting does), the bottom-right quadrant may as well not exist. The AP wants that outcome even less than we or Woot do.
  - wildwood 16y ago
    I don't think small claims court is usually seen as a setter of precedent... :) Maybe they could sue for 17.50 plus some punitive damages (or emotional distress or something), to push it into civil court. Imagine the briefs and testimony you'd get from the Woot staff. :)
philwelch 16y ago
Stare decisis--the legal doctrine upon which binding precedents are made--is not something that I think would apply to small claims courts. You wouldn't have a precedent unless it reached a federal appeals court. Also, since copyright is federal law, you may need to sue them in federal court to begin with. Do the feds even run small claims courts? I don't think they do.