The title may be somewhat exaggerated, but it was my first thought when I read the articles. The AP has decided to issue take-down demands for blogs quoting and linking to AP articles. The center of this is The Drudge Retort (the liberal one, not the Drudge Report), which the AP filed 7 DMCA take-down notices against. The majority of the complaints that I've found seem to be the use of the AP article headline, combined with a short blurb from the article, and with the link inherent, usually in the title, or alongside it. Apparently, the AP doesn't want bloggers to present the news in their posts, but rather have the link up, and get the blog's readership to click through and read the article themselves. Examples from the Drudge Retort can be found here.
That's all fine and good, except that I know most readers don't click through even on suggested reading links. Links are there to provide you with information if you want it. The problem is, people aren't inclined, for the most part, to read those anymore. Articles longer than a few paragraphs are no longer worth reading. So we'll read whatever the blog has to say, and click on through....to the next blog post, or next blog. I know that I, and certainly some others, do in fact open up those links to read later, and sometimes I even do read them. I also know that most people I've spoken with never do, and unless it's a special case, probably never will. They got the information they wanted from the blog post, and that's not what the AP even wants. The thing making me more likely to click through is what the AP is upset about. The headline, and a blurb about it. If I like what I see, I might want to find out more. I saw on the Washington Post that the AP is already backtracking somewhat on this issue, though not withdrawing the take-down notices. I just hope the AP figures out a way to handle this that doesn't involve licenses for bloggers, or open warfare with the blogosphere.
Listening to: Lupe Fiasco - Daydreamin' (featuring Jill Scott)