5 ms·
This is just disgusting.
by Oompa 17y ago
This is just disgusting.
- vaksel 17y agochances are there is an AP article that has "This is just disgusting" in it...you are lucky you only used 4 words, 1 more word, and you'd have to pay $12.50
- jws 17y agoYou are correct… http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_200957.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_200957.html contains the four word quote.
- omouse 17y agoIt isn't just the AP, it's also Reuters, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The Boston Globe, and Ziff Davis Media that use iCopyright.
- anigbrowl 17y agoWell, fuck them all then, $12.50 / 5 words is laughable from anyone, even if it's the ghost of Alan Turing with a terse solution to the halting problem.
- hyperbovine 17y agoHmm. I'd pay that. Much higher resale value.
- dotcoma 17y agoRidiculous and suicidal, I would say.
- omouse 17y agoNot really, other newspaper/magazine companies are doing it too, it isn't just AP as the submitter would like us to believe.
- Alex3917 17y agoWhy? It's still legal to quote them according to fair use, so who cares what they put on their website?
- greyman 17y agoYou are probably right. But there is another interesting question - is for-profit news aggregation, where you quote a part of the article, fair use? Bloggers do that, user-powered aggregator sites do that, but is it fair use? Because in most cases, the quote itself carries a news value, and those quoting websites are commercial venues. I am just asking...
- Alex3917 17y agoOne of the four things that can (safely) make something fair use is if it's transformative, which news aggregation is.
- jhancock 17y agoIs there some case law or legislation you can point out that aggregation counts as transformative? I hope that it would be. But my non-legal view of the term transformative says aggregation is not.
- Kaizyn 17y agoThen you will have to make up a new headline/title for the story that wasn't taken out of the article.
- trapper 17y agoI've always found it quite strange that the people who make the money off an article (assuming diggs/reddits etc are generating revenue) are those who merely aggregate content and submit it to these sites. They add nothing to the equation. I don't see this as fair use.
- joeyo 17y ago
- delano 17y agoIt's their data. They can do whatever they want with it.
- semiquaver 17y ago"It's my business, I can refuse to hire blacks if I want to."
- delano 17y agoI fail to see the connection.
- le_dominator 17y agoHaha that's a bit of a stretch! If it's their own internal data and they want to monetize it in this way, the market will decide whether the price they set is worthy of the product being sold. While I might disagree with the usefulness/pricing of their data considering widely available alternative sources it isn't exactly on par with maligning someone's civil rights :D
- lutorm 17y agoYes. But they also can't prevent others from doing what they want with it, within the law of course (ie fair use).
- mgunes 17y agoIt's every bit as arguable that it's data generated by the commons, which they merely aggregate and circulate.
- tjmc 17y agoIt is, but it's a bargain compared to a Verisign SSL certificate. If you stick to ASCII and take the generally accepted average of 5 letters per English word, the AP are charging $12.50 for 200 bits. VeriSign's "Secure Site Pro with EV" costs $1499 for 256 bits and it's only good for a year!