Associated Press Claims Ownership of 'Hot News' by George Ziemann -- February 25, 2009 Here's one that has the potential to make the RIAA's global campaign of stupid look like completely logical behavior. The Associated Press is now claiming ownership of "hot news." We should have seen this coming. The AP already tried to limit quotes from their articles to five words, and they probably prefer those words to be "...according to the Associated Press..." The problem is that "owning" the news is not a good thing for anyone. The idea of pre-empting Bill O'Reilly or Nancy Grace from a discussion before they have a chance to weigh in may seem like an attractive option. But if they get it first, then no one can offer a more accurate, more timely, or less biased version of the story. To highlight another extreme, let's say Russia invades Alaska in hopes of cornering the "hunting wolves from helicopters" market. ABC does a two minute report as "breaking news," then sends everyone home for the night since the competition can't talk about it. Used properly, this approach could prevent virtually all useful information from reaching the public. I have to admit to not reading the original AP story about the court decision that this claim is based on and the underlying arguments. That's exactly the kind of behavior they're suing people for -- using the AP as a trusted news source. This leaves me with one ethical choice if I want to comment on this issue, namely just making stuff up. Theoretically, this could even have an effect on mundane things, like sports scores. Local TV could only tell you some of them. Many issues would be reduced to one point of view, with how fast you can publish something taking precedence over accuracy. If there is a local emergency, the station which got there first would be the only one that could cover it. "Yes Ma'am, how can we help you?... A volcano, eh? And the animals have escaped from the zoo?... Well, we have heard something about it, but we can neither confirm nor deny these stories... No, neither can you, and the fact that there is a Bengal tiger outside your living room window won't change anything... If we don't own it, it's not happening." I've known people who would call themselves journalists who would type in a press release and put their by-line at the top of it. Even worse, the "competition" would run the same press release -- with the name of their "writer." That's the kind of environment where the "hot news" idea would result in both papers taking turns changing which day(s) of the week to publish. Even better, the enterprising young reporters will start writing stories about things before they happen to claim ownership of the results after the fact. Following this line of thinking, it's time to take a serious look at who's going to be in the World Series this year. Maybe it's already too late. Someone's probably done it already. So again we have an idea that, in the name of copyright, goes well beyond what is reasonable. The most likely use of this legal position is to keep information from the public, to bury unfavorable stories, and to publish false information, knowing it cannot be publicly challenged. I'll keep an eye on this and I promise not to tell you if I hear any more information.