IP: More on AP not wanting one sentence quoted from articles

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I think this has gone just too far, much too far. AP has stepped into bad 
country I agree "A campaign to humiliate AP is the best tactic." to stop 
this abuse. djf

> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
> Previous Politech message:
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-02398.html
>
> **********
>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:32:13 -0500
> From: "Malla Pollack" <L10MXP1 () wpo cso niu edu>
> To: <declan () well com>
> Subject: Re: FC: AP reportedly doesn't like quoting one sentence from
>         articles
>
> Hi
>    I am a pro-public domain intellectual property specialist.  What AP
> is doing is leveraging the "take down" provisions of 17 USC 512 to chill
> public speech.  This is the outcome many academic commentators dreaded
> when the section was enacted.  See, e.g. Malla Pollack, The Right to
> Know?, 17 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 47 (1999).  To limit this hazard, we
> need to make a clear record of exactly what AP (and other copyholders)
> are alleging to be copyright violations.  I would appreciate affected
> parties sending me such details for compilation. Unfortunately, I do not
> have the resources to litigate these fights. I would suggest as
> possibilities the ACLU or Prof. Pam Samuelson at Univ. of Cal.,
> Berkeley, School of Law.  Public ridicule has sometimes worked as
> Politech readers should know.
>
> Malla Pollack
> Northern Illinois Univ., College of Law
> DeKalb, Illinois 60115
> 815-753-1160; (fax) 815-753-9499
> mallapollack () niu edu
>
>
> **********
>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:22:48 -0400
> From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVY () citizen org>
> To: <politech () politechbot com>, <declan () well com>
> Cc: <holovacs () 1st net>, <copyright () ap org>, <info () ap org>
> Subject: Re: FC: AP reportedly doesn't like quoting one sentence from articles
>
> I respectfully disagree with a few of the assumptions made here:
>
> Paul Alan Levy
> Public Citizen Litigation Group
> 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20009
> (202) 588-1000
> http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
>
> > > > Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> 08/16/01 10:48AM >>>
>
> SNIP
> > > How much publicly available description of these restrictions do you
> > > have here? Especially do you have a quote of the way that AP worded their
> > > demands?
>
> > I don't have access to any of that information. Even if I did, I
> > doubt I would be allowed to tell people - this is lawyer stuff, and
> > so it's all probably confidential.
>
> It is up to About to decide what it wants to go public with, but there is 
> no legal requirement that a person receives an outrageous demand letter, 
> that the sending party ought to be embarrassed about, to keep the letter 
> secret.
>
>
> > But it is unlikely that About would have told us to remove the AP
> > stuff from our sites (and, when it was brought up, say that we need
> > to be careful about what appears on the forums) if they didn't think
> > that AP had a case. Demanding this of the Guides creates both more
> > short-term work and more long-term work. It's annoying for everyone
> > and doesn't serve any good end otherwise.
>
>
> "had a case":  well, could AP file the lawsuit without facing Rule 11 
> sanctions for frivolous litigation?  And so, could their lawyers pursue 
> the matter against About, recognizing that AP has a much deeper 
> pocket?  yes, probably.
> But would AP win in the end?  I should hope not.  Of course, as this 
> comntinues, this is a fact-intensive analysis, and maybe About wants to 
> avoid facing this kind of litigation (or this kind of lawyer read whenever 
> a quote is used) and finds it easier to tell its Guides not to do it at all.
>
> A campaign to humiliate AP is the best tactic.  Let's get that demand 
> letter public!
>
> **********



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/