Content Wars: AP vs Bloggers Symbolizes Larger Struggle

This week the Associated Press (AP) made a huge splash in the blogosphere by filing seven takedown notices against the Digg-like social news community the Drudge Retort. According to an article in Monday's New York Times, the AP will "define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.'s copyright." The proposed standards (see graphic) include a pay-per-word model.

The AP's decision-and Saul's article-have brought many a blogger to Critical Alert Red. TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington banned AP articles, saying "The A.P. doesn't get to make it's own rules around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows." He later pointed his flamethrower at the New York Times, with a post entitled "The NYTimes Is Conflicted And Wrong About The A.P. And Needs To Stop Defending Them."

Other bloggers echoed Arrington's sentiment, but none seemed as foreboding as BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis. Jarvis, an associate professor at City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism and founder of Entertainment Weekly, tied the situation to a broader trend, the failure of old media to evolve with the times. In particular, Jarvis says the AP "is desperate to monetize its ownership of content and can't face the prospect that this model is dying."

The problem is this: the way people consume content has changed. In the 1800's, news from Europe came by boat. Newspapers would send reporters to pick up the news and then bring it back for print in their papers. With the invention of the telegraph, news could be shared quickly and easily. Editors realized this and, ever looking to save a buck, the AP was formed in 1846 to save money and ease distribution.

For almost 75 years, the cooperative lived in harmony. Bureaus were set up, and editors everywhere shared news peacefully--until 1918. While U.S. soldiers were sent overseas to fight in World War I, the AP was entrenched in a court battle of its own against another news service, Hearst's International News Service (INS).

The conflict started when INS lost access to the Allied Forces telegraph line for unfavorable coverage of British losses. Cut off from its bureaus in the U.S., INS was no longer able to report news in a timely manner. To stay afloat, William Randolph Hearst's INS began rewriting the AP's news, and republishing as its own without any attribution. The AP, sensing the threat to its pocketbook, took INS to court. In 1918, the court ruled in favor of the AP. While the topical news and facts could not be copyrighted, the "hot news" (or timely news) was a competitive advantage and therefore entitled rights.

Today, the cooperative has grown to more than 1,700 member newspapers worldwide. The problem is, news is neither distributed nor consumed in the same manner it was 100 years ago-or even 10 years ago! Increasingly, more consumers are turning to communities or aggregate sites to help them sort through the content. Blogs summarize news and give opinion. Sites like Digg and StumbleUpon democratize news. Even Google News and TechMeme let consumers pick and choose what they want to read.

Many papers large and small embrace these various distribution methods. They acknowledge the increase in traffic they receive thanks to linking. The AP is expensive, but sharing content online is, well, mostly free. They have formed link exchanges, and syndicate content from new media outlets. They are doing what the AP originally set out to do: form co-ops to ease distribution and cut costs. Sounds like this would be a perfect time for the AP to step in and develop a modern version of its mission. Instead, they attack bloggers.

As a content creator, I'm all for intellectual property; copying content is the modern day stealing. But the law entitles "fair use." Sure, the lines of fair use are blurry, but they are up for the judicial system to interpret. By setting their own restrictions, the AP takes the role of legislator and stifles legal discussion. When media companies become large enough that they can intimidate smaller, legitimate news creators, we should all be scared. Instead of looking to silence, the AP (like any modern brand) needs to figure out how to let go and join the conversation.

Christopher Lynn loves video and social media strategy. With clients from the social networking, mobile, online advertising and consumer tech industries, Chris works at SHIFT Communications' San Francisco office, and blogs at SocialTNT.