We need to keep the focus on Rogers Cadenhead and Fair Use

So Kos uses his blog, just like Michelle Malkin, to parachute on the AP controversy and call himself a hero. In the post not only does he quote an AP article (something I had done earlier that day for fisking purposes), but proceeds to dump on both Rogers Cadenhead, Bob Cox and Ron Coleman for having the temerity to talk with the AP about guidelines :

"The dumbasses at the Media Bloggers Association, of course, are walking right into that meeting because they crave nothing more than creating the impression that they, you know, represent bloggers (they don't)."

This, mind you, after the fact that Rogers had asked for those guidelines. Here's the back story :

• Rogers get C&D by AP. In the C&D there were people posting articles from the AP in their entirety with no comment, no fisking.
• Rogers takes down does articles.
• AP comes back and says it's not enough. They want EVERYTHING from their service taken down. Even short, contextual quotes.
• Knowing this indeed would have fallen into Fair Use territory he asks for clarification.
• Irene Keselman, a lawyer for the AP responds saying that anything more than 5 words has to be licensed.
• Rogers emails people asking for leads on how to deal with this situation.
• I tell him to go to the Media Bloggers Association and deal with Bob Cox since he's helped bloggers in similar situations.
• Bob mediates. Given his relationship with AP, a meeting (that should be happening tomorrow) is called to discuss Rogers' case and his request for clarification and guidelines.
• A boycott of AP is started.
• Saul Hansell writes a story that basically opens the floodgates for attacks, conspiracy theories and tinfoil hatism when he publishes that their meeting to discuss guidelines.
• People fail to remember one of the big online players that's to blame.
• An AP spin that gains further traction by an AP story that is published the next day : Jim Kennedy, the AP's director of strategic planning, said Monday that he planned to meet Thursday with Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, as part of an effort to create standards for online use of AP stories by bloggers that would protect AP content without discouraging bloggers from legitimately quoting from it.
• I interview Bob.
• All the while Boing Boing reports that AP may well indeed be trying to force blogger to pay for the privilege of quoting them, starting with bargain basement price of $12.50 for the first 6 words.

That's basically the story.

It just mystifies me how most bloggers are reacting to the AP spin and then attacking Robert Cox when it should be the opposite. They should be questioning why AP is saying the meeting is about setting standards, when Rogers and Bob have announced the meeting is about taken care of Rogers problems with AP --problems that Rogers want to have solved in part by AP issuing in writing what exactly do they want.

Not only should the boycott not end, but bloggers should be focusing on how AP is coming after Rogers. They need to watch and learn because obviously he is being used as a case study, a fall guy, by the AP.

On the contrary, their attitude is that the MBA wants to talk for all bloggers and for that they should be smeared, punished and destroyed.

Unbelievable.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |