This battle continues on the Internet, with points being made on all sides. Consider this action from the AP, who has decided to begin harassing people who choose to quote them.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010341.html

Folks, we have ignition! This is going all the way to the SCOTUS! And if there is any doubt as to why it's so important NOT to elect McCain, the ramifications of this fight should hit home to a lot of people here!

Personally, I think it's 50/50 we will see a sane ruling from our existing SCOTUS. Another justice or two and we absolutely would not see a ruling that takes years of established copyright law into account.

If you harbor any doubt as to the role personal Internet publishing has in checking our "free" press, this should put that to rest. If this stands, none of us will be able to meaningfully critizize the press.

Consider that in light of the FOX threads we have had recently...

(prepares BIG ASS popcorn bowl)

Let me get this straight. Right now, we can quote an article, credit the author, give a footnote and acknowledge the source of information. In turn, our posts or blogs send web traffic to the news source and create broader exposure for the journalist, and the wire service, broadcaster or newspaper. This referral generates advertising revenue, shares the information with a greater audience, solidifies reputations, garners subscribers or viewers, and keeps every link of the chain in the public eye. When people like us analyze an article and share it with one another over a period of time, circulation of a particular piece is exponential. Even if we are exposing a source of information as poor or wrong, or offering negative commentary, we are still generating the exact same potential for traffic and ad revenue for any given news outlet. It is a win/win for everyone.

Print media, wire services and broadcast outlets are in an ever more tenuous position. Many rely heavily on independent internet sources for ideas and buzz. Competition is fierce as other sources of news and information are becoming available all the time. Journalists are working so hard that they are dying on the job. Traditional outlets are laying off hundreds every month to keep profit margins. As the ranks thin, they often fail to cover big stories or bury them skillfully for shareholders and advertisers. Corporations are viewed as synonymous with a traditional editorial board. Media is changing rapidly and this is the battle the wire service chooses to fight? They are happy to take leads from citizen journalists or bloggers to keep their business afloat. They seem all too willing to comb the blogosphere for story ideas and information. If main news sources refuse to make it a two way street, they will find it a very short road for them to utter irrelevance. They cannot survive in this age without being part of the national conversation. If they do not wish to cooperate, I would urge citizens, bloggers and independent media to require a royalty or lock them out of the discussion.

How many news outlets pay the victims of a crime for their story? How many news outlets rebuild homes and businesses destroyed by fire and flood? How many news outlets compensate their subjects for interviews about their lives? How many citizens are homeless, hurt or killed every year on the news? Every major network seems satisfied to run clips of destruction, disaster and death without a second thought of the people effected on a personal level. Many will rerun a tragic moment thousands of times in their own promotional advertising. I suspect that few Portlanders are injured or die with the intention of sending their neighbors to a particular channel, or for the purpose of selling hemorrhoid cream and cheap tacos. If we are to have a truly free press, then information cannot be held as intellectual property. Information is free, and weaving that raw data into a story is what journalists are paid to do every day. If the raw data or historic event is subject to copyright, I would say that any financial gain ought to revert to those who suffered or worked for the headline in the first place. Or, we could simplify it all, tell AP to take a flying leap, and revert to a traditional free press.

I agree, but there are risks, particularly with this court...

I also fear we are about to find out in the course of a year.