There’s a new movement amongst self-publishers on the internet to boycott the Associated Press. High profile sites involved in this “boycott” include Techcrunch, Little Green Footballs, and the Temerity of High Maintenance.
This is nothing more than a tiny little temper tantrum that will amount to nothing of significance. I will not be boycotting the AP, and I will tell you why.
The issue here is that the Associated Press does not want bloggers using their content. In a self-deluded act of defiance, bloggers have responded by saying:
How dare you insist we don’t quote you. You know what? Screw you! I’m not going to quote you then. What do you think of that?
What sort of retarded act of defiance is it to give an organization exactly what they want? If I could come up with a more powerful word than stupid, I would most certainly use it.
You’re not boycotting anything
A boycott is when you purchase a product or service, and you decide (Usually for moral, ethical, or political reasons) not to be a patron of the business until your grievances have been redressed. Just what benefit do you think the Associated Press receives from being quoted on blogs? Nothing. You don’t pay for their content. You’re just using it for your own benefit.
The AP doesn’t want you to quote them, and you’ve responded by banging your sippy cups and engaging in some self-deluded, masturbatory circle jerk “boycott.” What you’ve really done is to give them exactly what they want. How is that defiant? It’s a childish, stupid response to being strong armed.
The Associated Press doesn’t care about you
I hate to break the fragile little hearts of all the bloggers out there lashing out in their idiotic act of defiance, but the AP doesn’t even know you exist. They might have their eyes on influential sites like TechCrunch, but you could do whatever you want and the AP won’t ever come after you.
Go ahead and fire up your Blogger account and copy and paste all the AP articles you want. You don’t even have to use attribution. Just plagiarize. The AP won’t even know you exist. They won’t give a sh*t about you.
A Real Protest
A real protest consists of saying “No! I won’t concede to your demands.” It’s not a protest to give someone exactly what they want, but just do it with an attitude. Use your heads.
If you really wanted to protest, I would suggest that you just keep doing what you are already doing. That would be the real act of defiance. But for any of you that want to participate in this moronic “boycott,” go ahead and have your little sit-in.
As for me, I will sit this one out.
Update: Here’s a good writeup on the backstory of the hyperventilating about the AP.
Will Humor-Blogs.com protest the AP?
H/T Support Your Local Gunfighter
Image: Tantrum by timblair
2004–2008
14 responses so far ↓
1
Augusto
// Jun 17, 2008 at 12:37 pm
George Bush doesn’t care about black people
and
The AP doesn’t care about bloggers.
It seems all’s right with the internets today.
2
Angie
// Jun 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Great minds think alike! Similar ideas were were wiggling their way through my own gray matter.
First thought was, What are they gonna do, follow back every link to their content and check to see if it was quoted or only “summarized in a few short words”? (On the tail end of that, If the material can be summarized in a few short words, why do they need a whole page to say the same thing?) If it’s NOT linked… are they gonna scan the whole internet for their content to make sure they’re not being “violated”?
Whatever.
Second thought was, What about fair use? If they don’t want to allow that, perhaps they’d like to be inundated with requests for permission from thousands of bloggers to quote their content? They should be proud - of their service and of their writers - that people want to quote them. Are they ashamed of their work and that’s why they don’t want us to quote them?
My blog’s not squat - *maybe* half a dozen readers a week, and most of them by accident. My person’s not squat either, so if they wanna come and sue me for quoting them, bring it on. I don’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, so the most they would get would be indentured servitude.
oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, I’m so scared of the Big Bad AP Wolf.
3
Chris C.
// Jun 17, 2008 at 1:26 pm
A ban on a ban that both have the same purpose? That’s just dumb.
It’s all about money Angie. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking it’s an ideal or some kind of principle or control.
AP gets paid by selling their content and photos, video, etc. They don’t see the profit in the new model of allowing control to be shared on the internet. Yet.
I guess in a sense they do want control but it isn’t the kind people are thinking. AP doesn’t want to control the message, just who pays for it and who gets it for free.
Like the record companies they are going to have to learn how to share it easier and cheaper or people will steal it resulting in lawsuits, which will end up hurting their image.
People still hate Metallica because they were stupid enough to side against the consumer. I don’t agree with stealing music but if I’m a band I just keep my mouth shut and let the company execs look like the bad guys.
If the other news agencies like Reuters were smart they would jump all over this opportunity and try and come up with a platform for bloggers to use.
Funny thing is the news agencies often have these same kind of battles with themselves over sharing content.
4
Eileen
// Jun 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It is about feeling empowered.
Even if one’s boycott accomplishes NOTHING except making that person feel somewhat empowered it has some value.
I considered boycotting all companies that have advertisements, in the form of sales phone calls.
How much effect am I having on these companies?
But it helps me feel empowered
(And by the way, do NOT purchase voice over IP from Comcast, your number gets distributed, with your name, even before they have you hooked up. The only break I get from sales calls is when their service fails to work, and fortunately this is about 50% of the time for incoming calls.)
Will you all join me in my boycott.
Please.
I am also trying to boycott those who advertise on internet sites with stolen content (especially if it is my content).
But wait a minute, then I would have to boycott Google.
But that is who I advertise through.
I guess this won’t work for me.
5
Chris C.
// Jun 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I have to add that I didn’t know that the AP is a non-profit. However, they are owned by the media, so in essence it is the same thing.
6
Les James
// Jun 17, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Just cut and pasted this from the AP web site. Thought you’d all like to know this info.
What?
Democrats, as well as some Republican senators from coastal states, have opposed lifting the drilling prohibitions, fearful that energy development could harm tourism and raise the risk of oil spills on beaches.
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn’t affect gasoline prices for at least five years.
7
Augusto
// Jun 17, 2008 at 8:35 pm
>>>Democrats, as well as some Republican senators from coastal states, have opposed lifting the drilling prohibitions, fearful that energy development could harm tourism and raise the risk of oil spills on beaches.
>>>>Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn’t affect gasoline prices for at least five years.
Maybe I’m a bit dense but what does this have to do with the topic du jour of the AP boycott vs bloggers quoting the AP?
That point aside, I would say I understand that local folks would be concerned that when the oil drillers have the inevitable occasional oil spills, the tourists wouldn’t want to visit a beach that is partly coated in an oil slick with dead wild life coated in oil.
And Mr. Obama is quite right according to the oil industry itself - it takes on average 5 -10 years to bring oil to market from a new drilling arena.
I guess I just don’t get your point - sorry.
8
RT
// Jun 17, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Retarded argument a few days early?
HA!
I wonder how confused people would get if I boycotted my ban?
I could write rants and cuss myself out. Then I could blame the AP.
That would be fun!
Hey, those AP people have lots of hippies in their offices don’t they? Got any old golf clubs?
9
Fiar
// Jun 17, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Augusto, I said that the real act of defiance would be to continue to copy and past AP content, and that is what Les did. That is how it was on topic.
Eileen, you’re talking about something entirely different. Comcast wants you as a customer, and it does benefit them for you to be a customer. The people participating in the AP “boycott” are giving the AP exactly what they want and then some. It’s counterproductive and stupid.
10
libhomo
// Jun 17, 2008 at 10:04 pm
The irony is that bloggers have been driving traffic to AP and more importantly, AP’s customers. The whole thing is going to cost AP money in the long run.
11
Les James
// Jun 17, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Fiar, just re-read your post and I still don’t get it.
I must be a little dense or something. What’s the punchline?
12
Alex L.
// Jun 18, 2008 at 3:05 am
I’m sure AP are shaking in their boots at the tremendous damage all the mommy bloggers are going to do to them by honouuring their wish. I’m starting to think there are actually very few intelligent bloggers out there.
13
TJ
// Jun 20, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Doesn’t AP benefit when you link to their content and drive traffic to their articles?
14 Satire | Bush Urges SPCA to Solve Banking Crisis | Political Humor by Radioactive Liberty // Oct 3, 2008 at 11:37 am
[...] DC (AP) Despite the pending house vote today and fearing that Congress, left to it’s own devices, [...]
Leave a Comment or the Terrorists Win!
If you're wondering how to get an icon next to your name, go to gravatar.com and sign up for a free account.
Remember, only terrorist sympathizers don't have a gravatar.