June 16, 2008


Filed under: Business Moves,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance — Tom @ 4:47 pm

The FU stands for “Fair Use.” Mostly.

(Note: Jill of WLST, in a comment below, notes that Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine used “FU, AP” last Thursday. Thanks for the catch, as I had totally forgotten who used it.)

After its attempt to intimidate a web site excerpting its stories was exposed and led to blogospheric calls to stop linking to Associated Press stories, the wire service now says it will decide what “fair use” means (HT Captain Ed at Hot Air).

The Arrogant Pricks at AP act as if they alone can define what constitutes “fair use.” Horse manure. Last time I checked, the AP doesn’t own the First Amendment.

As I said, “FU, AP.”


UPDATE, 10 P.M.: Great point made by a Tech Crunch commenter:

The fundamental problem with the AP is much worse: They don’t link to the people who often discover the stories. Compared to that major violation of Internet ethics, the fair use stuff is minor.

By not linking, the AP is demonstrating a massive lack of principles.

If you really want to affect them though, get a bunch of bloggers not to link to papers that are members of the AP; not just AP stories.

Heaven forbid that anyone leave an AP story for a micro-second to go to a ….. blawwwwwwg!

AP has referred to work by yours truly several times without linking. The one that comes to mind immediately is the case of the resignation of Imam Ahmed Alzaree from the Islamic Center of Cleveland back in October 2007. The Arrogant Pricks’ headline read, “Blog critics force imam to resign at Ohio mosque.” It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with what the man said and wrote. Of course, readers wouldn’t know because the Arrogant Pricks never linked back to source material from me or Patrick Poole — or even, for that matter, Cleveland Plain Dealer Wide Open blog posts I wrote at the time.

UPDATE 2, 10:30 p.m.: At the risk of overdoing the self-importance, I’m going to speculate that this BizzyBlog item, preceded by a couple of days at at Pajamas Media, along with a more comprehensive critique by Steve Boriss a few weeks earlier, might have contributed to the wire service’s current offensive.

This BizzyBlog/NewsBusters item probably didn’t sit well either. Too bad, so sad.



  1. Funny how when a lefty blog is attacked suddenly everyone is all bent out of shape; when a righty blog is shut down by the AP, not a peep.

    I would say the arrogant left at the AP are no different than the arrogant left they are attacking.

    It is fun to watch the left eat it’s own.

    Comment by Mark — June 16, 2008 @ 10:08 pm

  2. Actually Jeff Jarvis said that on Friday and if you read the comment thread, you’ll see that AP responded.

    Comment by Jill — June 16, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

  3. [...] FU AP [...]

    Pingback by AP slams lefty blog, gets hand slapped. | Mark's Soap Box — June 16, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

  4. #1, very good point, though the AP had a half-decent (not totally decent) argument in the photo case a while back.

    I think AP is testing the waters in various ways to see how far they can push the limits. If Obama is elected, they’ll push harder; count on it.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 16, 2008 @ 10:45 pm

  5. Tom – it’s good of you to note this because frankly it’s just another effort of condescension by an entity that refused to get with the 21st century. We know from research that reporters say they get many ideas about what to write from blogs. This isn’t going to be the way it is forever, but the more outlets like the AP cling to this logic, the harder the fall is going to be for them.

    Comment by Jill — June 16, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

  6. [...] Blog, Support Your Local Gunfighter, LGF, Boker Tov, Boulder!, Below the Beltway, Hyscience, BizzyBlog Quasi-cross-posted over at NewsBusters. permalink · Daily Fodder · Comments (2) · Trackbacks [...]

    Pingback by snapped shot · always watching the all-seeing eye — June 17, 2008 @ 8:10 am

  7. I’ve read bloggers on the left and right roundly condemning the AP’s threatened lawsuit, but you’re the only one I’ve seen resorting to vulgarity. What has gotten into you?

    Comment by Tony B. — June 17, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

  8. #7 – Really? Which word in the entry is vulgar?

    The entry itself refers to someone else who used the same visceral, not vulgar, headline.

    Did you read this entry before commenting?

    Also look here, here, here, here, and here. Oh, and here (over 60 results).

    You were saying….?

    If “arrogant pricks” is what you refer to, I see that the dictionary considers “prick” to be “usually vulgar.” I am so (not) chastened. The sense of the entry is plural of “a spiteful or contemptible man often having some authority.” Hardly vulgar.

    I don’t take well to bullying by an arrogant near-monopoly that wants to rewrite two centuries of constitutional law just because they have deep pockets.

    I also don’t take well to being blamed for this by people who didn’t do their jobs and investigate someone who should have been — and then, when the person is caught, allows him to blame others and use his wife as a rhetorical human shield, when what HE said and did is what was at issue.

    I think the contempt is fully justified.

    UPDATE, June 30, 2011: Per dictionary.com, a “prick” in context is “derogatory slang for an obnoxious or despicable man.” The “male appendage” meaning is taboo, so of course that meaning was not intended and cannot be reasonably inferred.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 18, 2008 @ 5:18 am

  9. My dictionary indicates that very definition is “usually vulgar,” and yours does, too. Why do you suppose only a man can be one?

    Clean up your act.

    Comment by Tont B. — June 18, 2008 @ 7:55 am

  10. #9, if it makes you fell any better, that’s as “vulgar” as you’ll ever see around here. “Usually” also means that there are times when the word isn’t “vulgar.” I maintain this is one of them. You may choose to disagree.

    Interesting how 2-4 others didn’t take any offense. Probably because the word is accurate and appropriate in context.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 18, 2008 @ 8:35 am

  11. Defending the indefensible has become second nature to you, Tom. I blame George W. Bush.

    Comment by Tony B. — June 18, 2008 @ 10:01 am

  12. #11, Really? I think I defended it pretty well.

    You’re free to go away any time, but if you leave over this, you’ll have no credibility unless you promise not to see an R-Rated movie for the rest of your life.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 18, 2008 @ 10:18 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.