Tuesday, June 17, 2008


This post by Mark Glaser on the Associated Wankers is mostly fine, but it briefly veers off into silliness.

However, many blogs have taken this case too far themselves. Michael Arrington at TechCrunch says he’s banning links to AP stories and there’s been a petition to boycott the AP among bloggers. The New York Times’ Saul Hansell rightly points out that blogger boycotts won’t amount to much, and that bloggers should take up the AP’s offer for constructive conversation instead of destructive hyperbole.

The AP started this off with legal threats and lawyerly nastygrams. While not "destructive hyperbole," it was, you know, "destructive." As in, we're going to sue you and take your bank account. That's a bit more nasty than, you know, calling them goatblowers. People who lack legal teams are responding the way they can, by ratcheting up the rhetoric.

More to the point, as Glaser realizes in an update, the AP is full of shit here and there's nothing to talk about. If they want to take this to court, they can, but there are no guidelines to be negotiated here. They don't write copyright law or get to determine its precise boundaries. It isn't for them to determine what is legal fair use and what isn't.