If you weren’t already aware of it, last week, the Associated Press demanded the blog Drudge Retort remove copyrighted excerpts and links to AP articles that were posted under the Fair Use doctrine. This sparked outrage across the blog world right and left, but far from backing down as the NY Times would have us believe, AP has now posted their demands for AP article usage. They are outrageous.

Excerpt for Web Use

License parts of this article for republishing on your website or intranet. Pricing based on the number of words excerpted.

words Fees
5-25 $ 12.50
26-50 $ 17.50
51-100 $ 25.00
101-250 $ 50.00
251 and up $ 100.00

As you can see, this is totally unworkable for nearly every blog in existence. I can’t speak for JR, but effective immediately, I will be joining the boycott of all things AP.

Jane Hamshire says it best in her post, Associated Press: Dinosaurs of the Internet.

The AP will probably be slow to learn the lesson, because it will see no immediate impact if people like me won’t link to them any more because we don’t want to be sued. I mean in our world, how crazy is that? Like I’m going to sue Atrios for linking to me? That’s just insane. We live on traffic, our revenues are based on pageviews. The same can be said for the online outlets that the AP is selling its product to — newspapers across the country. It’s the Washington Post and the Houston Chronicle who will feel it if nobody will link to their AP stories. They are, in effect, buying a product that will not generate traffic they need in order to sell ads to support themselves.

If I were running a major metropolitan daily, and I saw my advertising revenues shrinking and my newsroom personnel diminishing as the dead tree business died, and I knew how important it was to generate online traffic to keep the doors open, I’d be thinking … Reuters. McClatchy. Bloomberg. Anything but AP.

Why pay for a newswire that’s going to sue people for linking to you?

Adios AP.

Tweet this via redir.ec