AP’s Content Protectionism Strikes at the Heart of Commentary

How can you comment about something, if you can’t provide a bit of background? Not very well.

Yet Associated Press is trying to unilaterally corral the World Wide Web herd of commenting cats.

Christopher Lynn sums up the dispute well:

“As a content creator, I’m all for intellectual property; copying content is the modern day stealing. But the law entitles “fair use.” Sure, the lines of fair use are blurry, but they are up for the judicial system to interpret. By setting their own restrictions, the AP takes the role of legislator and stifles legal discussion. When media companies become large enough that they can intimidate smaller, legitimate news creators, we should all be scared. Instead of looking to silence, the AP (like any modern brand) needs to figure out how to let go and join the conversation.”

When corporations let a lawyer set their agendas for them, they have truly lost touch with the real world.

The insanity of the corporate attempt to extend content ownership to what people think and say about copyrighted content stands in stark contrast to the whole idea of open source software and information.

I’m with Mike Arrington on this one. If AP wants to stifle commentary about its content, it deserves to be shunned by the new media.

I’m also with AP. When bloggers and others rip off photos, video and text from anyone, that person or company has a right to compensation, or to have the material taken down.

AP just shouldn’t try to claim that a phrase fairly quoted from an article is the same as stealing the article. Rogers Cadenhead’s comment about AP’s misplaced content protectionism explains how confused such companies are about the way influence is leveraged in the social media world:

“If AP’s core business is to report the news, blogs and social news sites send millions of people to its articles every day.”