When I first heard that the AP wants to come with rules for bloggers, so that the latter can’t steal AP articles in their entirety without having to pay for it, I thought to myself ‘that’s logical.’ Now, however, I can’t help but get the impression that the AP is going completely insane over this issue.

Where the group had previously invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and sent cease-and-desist orders to at least one blogger, seeking the removal of excerpted content (in some cases as few as 17 words in length), now the press service has attached an “Excerpt for Web Use” charge for passages as short as five words in length.

The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.

This is freaking hilarious. $12.50 for five words? Are you all insane? Five words, what, two entire paragraphs should be for free. You don’t charge people because they quote 200 words or something. You charge people for stealing your articles in their entirety.

And a question; what’s considered quoting the AP? If President Bush says something, and the AP quotes Bush, are we then not allowed to quote Bush anymore because the AP also quotes him?

Also, should “boilerplate” words count towards the fee? For example, a phrase common among news stories is “[Name] had this to say:” for prefacing a published statement or quote. If the AP runs a story with this phrase, will it therefore cost anyone else $12.50 to use this 10 cent expression?

So what are we going to do from now onwards (just to be safe)? Right, we’re not going to link to the AP any longer.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin tells the AP ‘Show me my money!’

But let’s apply AP standards for the hell of it. I have found two recent examples of the AP quoting from this blog without linking to the quoted posts or obtaining my consent for a usage agreement…

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that half of all those clients published the AP dispatches quoting this blog’s content without prior usage agreement (which would be 3,775) and let’s apply the exact same fee structure AP wants to impose on the blogosphere ($17.50 for 26-50 words). I calculate that the AP owes me:

$66,062.50 x 2 = $132,125.

Patterico:

Now, in a slightly ironic twist, the AP is taking content from a blog site. Namely, mine.

In a news item about the e-mail from Judge Kozinski’s wife that I posted on this site, an AP article lifted numerous passages.

I counted 154 words quoted from my post. That’s almost twice the number of words contained in the most extensive quotation in the Drudge Retort.

Justin Gardner:

First, it’s a complete perversion of the fair use laws to suggest that quoting more than 4 words violates copyright, and AP should know better.

Second, bloggers help AP’s content by quoting it, citing it, linking to it and consequently helping it rise further up in search results. Because what this ultimately does is sends more traffic to their stories…which they can then make more ad dollars off of.

Third, the sooner the AP realizes this, they better. Consider my decision as a way of helping the AP get with reality sooner rather than later. And if the entire blogosphere follows suit, there’s absolutely no way they can sue us all.

Buck Naked Politics:

At first I was all, ‘Whatever; I’ll see what standards they come up with and decide whether to comply.’ I like to be courteous.

But it’s not up to them or the Media Bloggers Association — which I didn’t appoint to represent me — to set legal guidelines or demand protection money.

Kyle E. Moore:

Five minutes is about how long I had to wait for a story covered by the AP to be covered by someone else so I could write on it and not break my AP boycott.