You just don't understand. Its not about them owning as property their articles, its about them redefining what copyright is in a way that damages the Internet.

They are more then free to hide their content behind a firewall for subscribers. That is NOT the issue. The issue is them attempting to declare that a hyperlink to an news article is a violation of copyright.

I will try to make this simple.

You are putting on a play. A Critic (i.e. "talent") views the play and writes a review of it. She includes the name of the play and the address where it is playing so her readers may go see the play themselves. Do YOU think they should be sued for copyright violation?

A blogger reads a AP news article. They write a review of it and include the title of the article and a link to the original article so their readers are able to read it themselves and form their own opinion. Do YOU think they are violating AP's copyright? If so how is what THEY are doing any different what the critic is doing for pay? Be specific, how is it different... Isn't the critic profiting from YOUR work?

If AP rams through a law/legal decision that declares hyperlinks are a copyright violation they will basically undermine a key feature of the Internet, namely its a NETWORK of linked websites. Even if they are gone the law will still be there hindering its development. That is the danger here. I could care less if they put their content behind a subscription wall. They are more then free to do that and should if they are so worried about bloggers and hyperlinks. And if they just did that it would be a non-issue. But I don't think they should be allowed to damage the basic fabric of the Internet in their death throes by trying to redefine the copyright law.

Tell me. DO you type in the address for habitablespace.com every time you view it? Or do you use a web portal or your bookmark on your browser. If its the latter you and you believe in the AP view of copyright your portal, or you, should be paying the owners of Habitablespace.com everytime you use that link, since its a copyright violation. At least it will be seen that way if AP pushes its narrow view of copyright.

The fact that people like you don't seem to get the difference between copyright, citations and hyperlinks is what makes AP's idea so dangerous. If you get a judge or lawmakers that are web literate they will just laugh AP out of the courtroom. But the fact that some people buy the argument a hyperlink is a copyright violation is what makes AP dangerous as it grasps at straws to salvage its dinosaur age business model.