Ma Vaffanculo.

To Jim Kennedy, kudos for trying to explain the importance of crediting intellectual property to these obviously stunted individuals who would, no doubt, be angry if someone swiped something they wrote and excerpted them without proper acknowledgment.

To John Proffitt:
You said, “We’re dumping our AP subscription because they’ve largely abandoned Alaska and we don’t need national/international news.” Since when does every American in every town in every state regardless of size NOT need to know national or international news?!? Oh, wait. That’s right. The governor the majority of people in your state elected considers being able to see Russia from her front porch acceptable foreign policy experience that qualifies her to be vice president. Guess that explains that head up your a** comment.

To Steve Rhodes:
You said, “Then why didn’t AP send Roger an email with your guidelines for what you
consider fair use of your stories and begin a dialogue with him.”
How do you know that they didn’t try this avenue before filing? Even if they didn’t, sometimes you have to make an example of someone who is taking advantage of you in an effort to discourage others from doing the same.

To Ian Lamont:
Duh. Get a dictionary and look up the following words: comment and excerpt. No, wait. That might confuse you. Let me just spell it out for you.
The comment that Kennedy cut and pasted onto several different blogs was a response written by himself in his own words. Therefore, (duh again), he wasn’t quoting anyone else’s excerpt and didn’t have to offer credit.

And finally, to frankyT:
Learn to spell and to capitalize the pronoun “I” (among many, many other things) and then maybe someone will take you seriously. I would say that is doing more damage to your freedom than the AP issue. (And “unjust tenants?” Ha ha. Ummm, it’s tenets.)

I could go on putting you in your place, but it’s probably a monumental waste of my time. People who cannot rationally explain why they stand a certain way on a particular issue usually can’t be reasoned with and made to see that they are at least partially wrong. So keep following your own nose and try not to bump into anymore walls while your eyes are closed.

What do you think of that? Pretty darn detailed COSTLY policy!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HELICOPTERS_COLLIDE?SITE=NEGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-30-11-57-20

Be careful though, according to the new policy, there are limits to how long you can link to an article for free.

But while it’s a stronger claim, “Hot News Misappropriation” could be very difficult to prove in the case of selective quoting and linking. This concept applies most strongly “before” news hits the public realm, or at least simultaneously with publication. That’s when the news has the most value, because stealing it at that point CAN cause harm. Imagine stealing a reporter’s story and printing it before it hits the press. Or linking to it in the seconds and minutes (not hours) after the story is distributed by AP. That’s Hot News Misappropriation, as has already been defined in the courts.