The Associated Press (AP) has allegedly threatened legal action against Drudge Retort – not to be confused with the site it parodies, called Drudge Report – for quoting passages of AP articles with as few as 33 words.

I’m all about not stealing someone’s copyrighted work. I’m a writer who can sell and resell articles – provided they aren’t plastered illegally all over the Net. Because what publication would want to buy them if they were available for free on some jerk’s website? That makes sense, right?

But these apparently were not stolen articles; they were excerpts from articles, properly attributed, and included links back to the AP source.

Of course, you would know a lot more about this matter (and so would I) if I could quote and link a few stories but, you know, I don’t want to get sued for it.

Oh, okay. You talked me into it, especially since Poynteronline gave me this convenient tech option called “Quick Link” for, um, linking back to their story. See AP v. Bloggers: Hurting Journalism? by Amy Gahran.

What I don’t understand is what the AP thinks it stands to gain by being ignored, which is surely what will happen – at least in the Blogosphere – if bloggers fear the legal wrath of a big news organization like the AP. We’ll simply link to other outlets, like Poynteronline for instance. (It’s called link love, you AP people.)

I’m guessing here, but I believe the number of non-journalists who regularly check the AP website is smaller than the number who read blogs. AP can only stand to benefit from increased readership by being quoted, linked and attributed on millions of blogs. Do I have that right? Or am I missing something here? Let me know what you think.

(I just Googled “Associate Press” and actually went directly to the site without following someone else’s link for the first time in I don’t know how long. And on the front page is a link to a story I find fairly ironic, called “AP and Freedom of Information.” In a bold move characteristic of renegade bloggers everywhere, I am going to link you to it. )

THIS JUST IN:

Oh well, it may be a moot point anyway. See the link at the top of Drudge Retort to “AP rethinks Drudge Retort Takedowns.”

Well, good. But the AP shouldn’t have been so short-sighted in the first place, in my little, tiny, inconsequential blogger’s opinion.

I’m not a news journalist or news blogger, even. I don’t love Drudge Retort (although the name is admirably clever and well-suited for the site’s purpose). I’m not an angry, rabid fan of the site. But that’s not the point. The point is that this issue affects me as a blogger because whether I’m providing a linked, short, properly-attributed excerpt to an AP story or Martha Stewart’s latest spicy pumpkin bread, I just don’t want to have to go to court over it.

Here’s another good article on the subject by Drudge Retort’s founder, Rogers Cadenhead.