DISQUS

ricardog · 10 months ago

User brainwrap over at DailyKos posted a pretty funny analogy:

If I understand this correctly, this is roughly the equivalent of Paramount Pictures suing AMC for displaying "Star Trek" posters & trailers in their theaters--which are also going to be showing "Star Trek".

I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you also used his analogy.

TheAngryFag · 10 months ago

No one ever accused them of intelligence. A judge could easily rule in favor of defendants and award them legal fees because by enabling the embedding feature it can be viewed as permission to do so.

Brad in Seattle · 10 months ago

I got threatened by Guthy Renker because I the words "sheer cover" appeared on one of my ecommerce websites. My ecommerce websites are based on eBay's API - niche keywords and categories from ebay build out my sites. Someone on eBay was selling Guthy Renker products so they came up on my site. I tried to explain that I don't control eBay, and if they had a trademark dispute, they needed to speak to eBay. I dug a little deeper on ebay myself and it turned out that Guthy Renker had their own storefront on ebay from which they sold their Sheer Cover products - and guess what ... they also enabled their products to be linked to from associate sites.

How much money companies make spinning their wheels over crap like this. The worst part was that the lawyers that I talked to at Guthy Renker had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how technology worked - they just knew my site had "Sheer Cover" on it and they wanted it taken down because I was infringing on their trademark ... even though they explicitly invited me to advertise their products.

Disheartening.

John Aravosis · 10 months ago

That's funny.

caphillprof · 10 months ago

The head of AP is having a hissy fit that he's in the 21st century rather than the 19th. Arianna debated him and basically said he was crazy.

intoxination · 10 months ago

You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.

That's right from YouTube's service agreement. That means the AP is actually violating it. I wonder if YouTube will suspend the AP's account?

Anthony · 10 months ago

Could a law suit be a TOS violation?

WindmillChasr · 10 months ago

Wonder if this is what it was like when Gutenberg was printing bibles.

stagemom · 10 months ago

shouldn't they be happy that anyone is actually READING their stories and WATCHING their crap, then linking to it?
no one would bother without youtube or arianna or americablog...
don't they get it?
if they keep it up, they will be toast before sundown tomorrow...

myklwain · 10 months ago

The content remains free on you tube, it will just cost anyone that is attempting to make a profit from their work (like you guys). Huff Post has a contract with them, and it seems to be working. Maybe you guys should produce more original content, and stop relying on others. It's easy to pluck video from the web and add a narrative. I agree with your stance on all issues progressive, but whining about your strained business model to America is weak.

Fireblazes(cheetohsandcatfood) · 10 months ago

The point is that by allowing others to use the embed code AP is agreeing to Youtube's terms of service. Which allow for the embedding of the videos with the embed "OPTION" activated.

MikeinSanJo · 10 months ago

We are Stains.

AP Videos are cupcakes.

judybrowni · 10 months ago

Here's the real crazee: AP is threatening to sue ONE OF IT'S OWN AP AFFLIATES, in other words, someone who pays to use AP's services! for using a video on the site where they supply embed advice.

Can it get any crazier? Sure, you could have someone excusing the crazee (see below).

judybrowni · 10 months ago

Oh and the AP video? It also included embedded advertising!

So AP was threatening to sue one of it's clients who paid for content, for using that content, in a context that would also have further disseminated advertising for AP.

Face cutting off nose, foot being shot by one's own self.

beware of the leopard · 10 months ago

ROTFLMMFAO!

Fireblazes(cheetohsandcatfood) · 10 months ago

Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face!

cowboyneok · 10 months ago

OUTRAGEOUS!

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 10 months ago

Why does AP give a fuck if anyone links to one of their articles? You'd think they would be GLAD. Are they idiots?

And why do NBC and Comedy Central have a fit if someone posts a video from SNL or the Daily Show?? It's insane!! They should be PRAYING that people will share their stuff with others!!

oneway · 10 months ago

John -- Here's your analogy: It's like a movie theater releasing a movie on DVD, then suing you for watching it on DVD.

~Karma · 10 months ago

So I can sue the white/yellow pages now for listing my phone number?

ndtovent · 10 months ago

ummm... I may be wrong about this, but...doesn't AP WANT people to read their news blurbs and view their video content?
wtf?

MommaKat · 10 months ago

Two things come to mind. First, this just goes to show how poorly the 'brains' at AP understand the idea of public domain. by enabling the embed feature, or by default allowing it by NOT turning it off, they are publishing their material to the public domain. It strikes me as beyond moronic that a company dealing in media on a daily basis does not grasp the idea of public domain. Second, from a web traffic standpoint, they miss that by doing this they will in fact decrease traffic to their site. People want fast access on the web; they are not going to take the time to email a link, nor is the recipient likely to click on it. However, an embedded video of interest is often too small for one's tastes, and when they click on it, it can take them to the parent site - ergo increased traffic. Dumb, just plain dumb.

HereinDC · 10 months ago

How about....

It's like purposely leaving your car unlocked in a bad part of town....with a wallet on the front seat and waiting for someone to open the door an take it.

or

Lucy swiping the football from Charlie Brown

zorbear · 10 months ago

The legal term is "an attractive nuisance". (For example, if you leave a ladder up against the front of your house, and a passing kid sees it, climbs it, falls off and hurts himself, you can be sued for "attracting" the innocent child into a dangerous situation....)

IAmATVJunkie · 10 months ago

Yeah, I've sworn off the AP.

They are ridonkulous.

And it's not like leaving your wallet on your car seat, it's like handing your wallet to someone and saying "This is for you."

TomJoad · 10 months ago

I love comparisons....let's see...

It would be like the local car dealer with a basket of promo pens, with a sign labeled "FREE Pens, Take one!" and when you come in the door they say "welcome, now remember we WILL prosecute anyone trying to take one of our pens! Have a nice day"...


It would be like Metallica offering a free stream of their next album, and then prosecuting folk that downloaded it.

I BET you dollars to donuts, it is some numbnuts BOSS in AP that knows NOTHING about how Youtube works, and whose underlings are too scared to clue him in....