EDIT: Just want to make the logical fallacy explicit. The fact that the form allows you to pay for 5 words does not imply that the AP expects you to pay for 5 words.
EDIT: Just want to make the logical fallacy explicit. The fact that the form allows you to pay for 5 words does not imply that the AP expects you to pay for 5 words.
For example, their document on the question "Do I even need to pay to excerpt your story?" prominently notes that "the safest course is always" to pay the fee, and suggests that if you're publishing the excerpt "on the Web," that "is cause for serious reflection before assuming 'fair use'" — particularly if you are "choosing not to exercise an affordable and accessible licensing mechanism."
Think I'm reading too much into a CYA legal document? Take a look at this story, where AP president says that they want to be paid for "any use of news articles," even as little as citing a headline: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/media/24content.h...
Well, this has got to be true, right, since there's no reliable way to tell if your usage is fair a priori?
It's tantamount to someone running a protection racket pointing out that you're less likely to get hurt paying his fee than fighting it: He's right, but it doesn't legitimize his demands.
Definitely not, without even reading your link. If it were "How to keep Them from suing you," I'd call it a CYA document. This, on the other hand, is "How to keep Us from suing you."
this isn't targeted at bloggers
Except for the part where they actually already have famously targeted at least one blogger.