The Intersection of Online and Offline

The debate is still raging, but in a balanced and well-written post today, Kami Huyse points out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has set up a page with legal advice for bloggers. Here are two pretty compelling paragraphs from the EFF guide:

The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you’re doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn’t help - in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven’t yet decided how it applies to bloggers.

But here’s the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn’t use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That’s why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.”

Let the debate continue.

Mark

Just finished (what I think) will be my last piece in a series about managing online reputation. It’s in Media Bullseye, but I am still in shock over yesterday’s news about the Associated Press vs. bloggers battle.

The two issues intersect.

AP could use a lesson in online reputation management, which is the last point that I make in the article.

1. They get a societal license to operate from the people who read their content.
2. The lawyers that organizations have on retainer should all be behind a big piece of glass that should be broken “only in case of emergency.” AP was stupid, and now they have bloggers mad at them. That’s not what a wire service providing content to a dying print industry should do.

‘Nuff said.

Mark

P.S. - if anyone reading this can identify the lawyer in the picture, leave a comment below. You will get invisible extra credit in my next class.

Found this in Jason’s Falls’ tweet today, and it just reminded me of the awful divide that exists between those in the “traditional” (read: declining readership) and “new” media (read: millions of new platforms for user-generated content per year.)

In about the dumbest public relations move in recent memory (and I am counting Microsoft and Yahoo! in this one), the Associated Press has said that they do not want bloggers linking to and quoting their stories. That’s right, they do NOT want the additional traffic generated from the additional links.

Here’s what Colleen in BuzzNetWorker had to say:

Recently, the Associated Press threw down a gauntlet and started a great big hairy fight with bloggers. The gist of the matter is that they’re they don’t want bloggers to quote from their stories. They asked one blogger to take down seven posts from in which quotes from AP stories were used. The quoted pieces varied in length from 39-79 words.”

I am not a lawyer, do not play one on television and don’t have a good grasp of “fair use.” But in a note to our pals at AP: if the publications in which you syndicate your content were losing more and more readers every year, thus reducing your relevancy (and ad revenue) why on earth would you NOT welcome more traffic?

I just wrote an article that will probably go up in Media Bullseye tomorrow, but one of my points was, as online professionals, we need to know when to get the lawyers in the room and when to keep them out. They seem to have that problem at the Associated Press.

Mark

P.S. - Just to boost their traffic a little, here’s a link to the AP site.