<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Trademark Blog - Latest Comments in The Trademark Blog: "AP Files 7 DMCA Takedowns Against Drudge ReTort"</title><link>http://trademarkblog.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://trademarkblog.disqus.com/thread_42/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:24:06 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Trademark Blog: "AP Files 7 DMCA Takedowns Against Drudge ReTort"</title><link>http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2008/06/ap-files-7-dmca-takedowns-against-drudge-retort.html#comment-671312</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think the AP has a point.  From the few posts that I looked at, I didn't see any commentary by the post author, nor did any of the posts appear to be a parody.  So in what way is it fair use?  Just because they don't reproduce the whole thing?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What if I started a newspaper (really made of paper) but didn't subscribe to AP.  Instead I would publish the AP headline and the first 40 words of the article, then a link to the AP's site where they could read the whole thing.  Would that be fair use?  Is that what Retort is doing?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Legal questions aside, the AP should shut up and enjoy all the visitors they get.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dick Kusleika</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:24:06 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>