There is nothing "outdated" or "obsolete" about content production. The issue is that technological advance has effectively stripped the business of the legal protection that it - like every other healthy business on the planet - depends on for survival.

Obviously, the unilateral extension the existing legal framework into the new technological sphere is a recipe for disaster. I'll be the first to condem the ham-fisted attempts to do so, and applaud the fully justified push back that promoters of unenlightened copyright laws have received.

But to go a step further, and declare that this business - and this business alone - is "undeserving" of any legal protection whatsoever, and that it - and it alone - "needs to figure out a business model" that doesn't enjoy legal protection from those who refuse to pay for goods taken or received, overshoots the mark. And the persistance of these arguments is exactly why we need laws in the first place: put simply, some people are self-serving assholes. They lack a sense of fairness or decency, and will follow the norms of reciprocity only under threat of force.

Most people don't get further than their freshman year in high school without discovering that these people are real, they are numerous, and they are a curse. But like any number of curses (war, plague, famine, etc.) they cannot be wished away. They have to be dealt with head on, forcefully, and with enough severity to provide a deterrent to others who may be considering similarly abusive pathways to profit.

With copyright, the question is, where do you draw the line? My own feeling is that copyright law, which evolved over centuries, was never intended to govern the conduct of private individuals. Historically, efforts by publishers to extend their control into the realm of private, personal life have been wisely checked (the Doctrine of First Sale is a shining example). And while the relentless extension of copyright terms represents unchecked abuse, it's been limited in that it still (grudgingly) respects the operative delineation between public, commercial enterprise, and private sharing and enjoyment. Indeed, these limitations have been the key to copyright's longevity as an institution. While some publishers still chafe at any limitations, the more enlightened ones recognize that these parameters are actually the key to a thriving culture, which is, in turn, their most vital natural resource.

That's why I think any efforts to prosecute private individuals under existing copyright laws are an abomination. Reform - which we desperately need - should include simple, unambiguous boundaries beyond which no publisher can reach. And the life on the other side of those boundaries should be rich and noisy and free. Of all the options I can think of, drawing the line with corporate status is the most elegant. That is to say, you can only be sued for infringement if you are a corporation.

Under this rule, the AP would have both the right and the responsibility to throw the book at a commercial clipping service. As noted, the AP has no monopoly on news gathering. If they fail to innovate themselves, or gouge those who are willing to partner with them, they leave the market to other, savvier news organizations. At the same time, they remain free to charge proces in line with their full set of costs (i.e. production and distribution), and not just the rapidly falling cost of distribution alone.