Apparently as part of its new effort to flex its proprietary muscle over the Internet, an Associated Press regional manager recently sent out a threatening letter to a country music station for posting A.P. news videos on its website without authorization.
The station’s operation manager humbly pointed out that if the news company doesn’t want websites embedding its videos, it should probably stop posting said videos, with embedding code, to the A.P. YouTube channel.
A.P. may have left the keys to the car in the ignition, but the radio station stole the car!!!
I heard about this yesterday. It's even worse than the linked
article....the station in question is also an AP
affiliate.
Frank Strovel, an employee at the radio station who tried to talk some sense into the A.P. executive Twittered yesterday:
I was on the phone arguing w/ AP today. We were embedding their YouTube vids on our station's site. We're an AP affiliate.
...
Strovel: And we're an A.P. affiliate for crying out loud! I stumped him on that one. . . . What is really shocking is that they were shocked that they've got a YouTube channel that people are embedding on their Websites. He seemed shocked by that. 'Oh, I am going to have to look into that" is what he told me.
A.P. may have left the keys to the car in the ignition, but
the radio station stole the car!!!
Uhh, yeah, no.
The AP has a stand of brochures on a desk with a sign marked "Free:
Take one" and is complaining that people keep stealing their
brochures.
"Uhh, yeah, no."
I actually meant that as a crack on all those who think IP
infringement is stealing.
Sigh.
Sometimes I wish the entire content industry -- Hollywood,
songwriters, publishers, the press, all of it -- would just shut
down so that all you tech-collectivists can frolic in your world of
amateur junk.
In one decade we've gone from "huh, ya think it's OK to download
this song file?" to straight-up scorn for content owners who seek
to protect their work. Watching the evolution unfold has been
breathtaking at times. None of you people cared about copyright
issues 10 years ago. Now you're all passionately anti-IP just
because you started using the frikking Internet.
Seriously -- I wish they'd all just shut down so you can have the
unfettered free-for-all you want so bad. What fun it will be!
In one decade we've gone from "huh, ya think it's OK to
download this song file?" to straight-up scorn for content owners
who seek to protect their work. Watching the evolution unfold has
been breathtaking at times. None of you people cared about
copyright issues 10 years ago. Now you're all passionately anti-IP
just because you started using the frikking Internet.
What the fuck does this stupid rant have to do with the post at
hand?
The example is of an overzealous AP going after its own affiliates
for embedding YOU TUBE VIDEO POSTED BY THE AP FOR THE PUBLIC TO
EMBED.
Also notice that the AP backed down and admitted that there was a
misunderstanding (that's corporate speak for "we fucked up") -- so
maybe you should arm yourself with just a little bit of knowledge
before popping off with irrelevant tirades.
In one decade we've gone from "huh, ya think it's OK to
download this song file?" to straight-up scorn for content owners
who seek to protect their work.
Actually i think this a "Death of Newspapers because they are
idiots" story that just happens to cross over to the whole IP
thing.
Sometimes I wish the entire content industry -- Hollywood,
songwriters, publishers, the press, all of it -- would just shut
down so that all you tech-collectivists can frolic in your world of
amateur junk.
Tom, while this is certainly fodder for another thread, what in
hades does this have to do with the topic at hand?
What the fuck does this stupid rant have to do with the post
at hand?
It has to do with the ongoing drumbeat of mockery/contempt
(A.P. Not Quite Grokking the "Internet") directed at
content producers who attempt to control their content.
Or is there some other reason that we're highlighting some random
misfired letter sent by some random organization?
There's an ongoing effort to paint those who seek control of their
content as clueless, out of touch, draconian, etc. This post is
just the latest example, and it's the reason I left the comment I
left. Feel free to disagree with the sentiment therein, but the
comment itself is utterly relevant to the thread.
Sometimes I wish the entire content industry -- Hollywood,
songwriters, publishers, the press, all of it -- would just shut
down so that all you tech-collectivists can frolic in your world of
amateur junk.
As opposed to all that grammy and emmy winning mediocrity that is
out there now? I would nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize if
you could get American Idol and Survivor off the air.
The AP was out of touch in this case. I'm fairly certain that you can disable embedding on YouTube videos. The AP not understanding the ways they are distributing content is worthy of scorn. If they don't understand new methods of distribution they're using, how can we trust their accuracy in reporting about them?
May all you amateurs who try to produce pop-culture (HA!) outside the system wallow in your YouTube and indie circles. I say, double HA!
Now those internet ruffians are trying to steal my identity. IS NOTHING SACRED TO YOU?!?!
Tom
I don't know if you've ever heard of Trey Parker or Matt Stone, or
Radiohead for that matter, but you should read up. And then kindly
piss off.
That you think some buttoned up exec in Beverly Hills is a "content
producer" is rather funny.
None of you people cared about copyright issues 10 years
ago
20+ years ago I got into these exact same arguments. Nothing, I
repeat, nothing!, has changed in the last 10 years at all. You are
a major idiot.
The center of the argument was copying cassettes back then - or CDs
to cassette.
Problem is, it's like the laws of physics have changed.
It's become essentially free to copy information. Before, when
someone distributed unauthorized copies, they were doing it to make
money. Copies being in limited supply, you could earn something by
supplying them or by bootlegging them. So a bootlegger could
accurately be said to be taking something from the copyright
holder.
These days, you can't make money by bootlegging. What is going on
isn't even bootlegging. It's more like people picking up
self-multiplying manna from the ground. The information is just
lying around instantly accessible, in unlimited amounts.
That's fundamentally different from the classic copyright
situation. In a way, the point of having copyrights has
disappeared, since nobody is providing a service to anyone else by
making a copy. The copy is already freely available. Why exchange
money for a stick someone could have picked off the ground?
Maybe the internet has really created a situation where all art -
all information that can be digitized is public domain. An
un-ownable product, even to it's creators.
Clearly a situation where the assertion of property rights ceases
to make any rational sense. Like trying to copy right the thoughts
that I inspire in your head, and prosecute your brain for
replicating them.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245