The brouhaha in the blogosphere about the Associated Press continues (hat tip: memeorandum). As I noted yesterday a number of bloggers have organized or participated in a boycott which they’ve characterized as being against the Associated Press in reaction to the A. P.’s mau-mauing the blog The Drudge Retort for linking and quoting A. P. articles. I continue to think that the boycott is ill-considered.
The bloggers in question don’t understand what the Associated Press is. It’s a cooperative. Subscriber members pay a fee to gain access to the A. P.’s articles and other materials. The A. P. gathers news, writes articles, takes pictures, and distributes materials. They don’t publish the material separately from the subscriber members. Consequently, the bloggers aren’t in fact boycotting the A. P., they’re boycotting the A. P.’s subscriber members. That’s a secondary boycott.
I sincerely doubt that the folks at the Associated Press would even know that such a boycott was going on unless a) they read blogs or b) one of their subscriber members complained.
As a general principle secondary boycotts are immoral. Secondary boycotts as a form of labor action are banned by the Wagner Act.
I’ve written fairly frequently here against the wholesale distribution model of journalism that the Associate Press represents. I’m skeptical that it’s journalism at all. Unfortunately, the subscriber members are as stuck with it as we are. Only the very largest newspapers have their own news-gathering apparatus and I see no great likelihood that the Peoria Journal Star (for example) is going to open a London bureau any time in the near future.
I continue to think that the only correct action against the Associate Press is legal action. At the very least, as was mentioned here in comments, any blogs receiving such a letter should seek a declaratory judgement on the matter and also seek damages to cover their legal costs. I can’t help but wonder if the A. P. is illegally exerting monopoly powers which is also actionable. I’m sure there are any number of other grounds.
I continue to think that the boycott is ill-considered.
That’s a very tactful way of putting it!
One of the things that I’ve been wondering is how the AP would make its (non) fair use claim on the fourth factor: “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The legal primer I linked to yesterday suggested that this can be the most important factor.
Are newspapers more likely to drop AP membership from excessive quoting by blogs? Where would they go? How can any harm be measured in light of the multitude of AP stories available on-line from the newspapers? What about the value of links from blogs? The whole business model seems problematic, and AP is probably hurting more because its members are increasingly competing with each other for a shrinker share of readership.
The real danger to the AP isn’t bloggers but hyperlocal coverage. The more space (for newspapers) and time (for radio and TV) is devoted to hyperlocal coverage the less the subscriber members need them.
Not to mention the fact that bloggers boycotting AP copy is sort of like a waterwheel boycotting the river.
Whats amusing is that the AP used to have a script on their site that showed which blogs had linked to that particular story. Doesn’t that sound a bit like entrapment?
Your statement that secondary boycotts are immoral is absurd and your reference to the Wagner Act is incorrect. The one that outlaws secondary boycotts is the virulently anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act that was passed to overthrow the Wagner Act.
I can remember very well marching outside Jewel stores in the 1970’s to support the United Farm Workers, and admiring the donors who stopped giving money to my University because its investments supported the aparthaid regime in South Africa.
Secondary boycotting is an important tool in counterbalancing the excessive power of corporations.
Your statement that secondary boycotts are immoral is absurd and your reference to the Wagner Act is incorrect. The one that outlaws secondary boycotts is the virulently anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act that was passed to overthrow the Wagner Act.
I can remember very well marching outside Jewel stores in the 1970’s to support the United Farm Workers, and admiring the donors who stopped giving money to my University because its investments supported the aparthaid regime in South Africa.
Secondary boycotting is an important tool in counterbalancing the excessive power of corporations.
I disagree with you about secondary boycotts. They’re immoral because they attack innocent third parties in an attempt to dragoon them into supporting your cause. That’s unjust. Basically, you’re arguing that the end justifies the means.