If the law allows it, ignore them. They can bluster and threaten and do nothing else.
And maybe there are bloggers less scrupulous who will find interesting and scandalous things about the folks who manage AP and their family members. You never know whose wife is running the local escort service these days.

Don’t you just love the free market system!
If they are more desperate for money than credibility then this is a fine strategy. However, they will soon find themsleves ignored by most people. This nickle and diming business is simply silliness magnified.

If I remember correctly, you’re going to seminary. Does Westminster allow you to cut and paste an article from Wikipedia and get an A for originality? Don’t you realize writers have property rights to their work, too, and you don’t get decide what is done with their work?
What are you, some kind of intellectual property Communist?
As I find hard to imagine the management of Beliefnet does not know, the law makes the kind of text-pirating you’ve been doing a criminal offense as well as grounds for suit, should someone take the time to go through each and every one of your blogs and establish a pattern of plagiarism. That you somehow believe your quoting another writer’s work is OK because you backlink is irrelevant. There are fair use defenses, but you typically overshoot those, too.
And although you may believe you having to respect other’s work and property rights and obey the laws of the land is persecution–from which you’re right, you’re safe–you are not safe from prosecution.
PS Someone who has years of contacts in the publishing industry is going through your blogs to find incidents of criminal plagiarism and is compiling a list for your prosecution. We can only hope.

Double-checking my own comments, I notice you are planning to Bible studies when you graduate from Westminster. A track record of plagiarism in this blog now more or less guarantees you will not succeed in that task. Other publishers will be gunning for bear, and justice will be on their side. Do they not have advisors at your seminary?

Rob, in the Third Circuit there is a diminished capacity defense against civil action for plagiarism. Michelle could argue she was unaware of copyright law and forced by Beliefnet to plagiarize under threat or duress. Of course, she does not have to be sued in a Pennsylvania or Third Circuit Court if the authors are seeking more than $75,000.

Jestrfly, you believe that hundreds of millions of readers will abandon any media carrying stories from the AP in favor of Michelle’s plagiarized blog? Whatcha’ smokin’?
And Charles Cosimano, is there anything in the Bible about rejoicing in sin? Going to the offending party after prayer and as if you yourself could be tempted? Then taking the matter to the congregation–or do you just make up things in a blog when someone makes you mad?

Here’s the federal law regarding what you’re doing, Michelle, copied here under fair use. You probably want to speak with an attorney about your blogs.
US Code, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113:
§ 2319Prev | Next § 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
How Current is This? (a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
(d)
(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include—
(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;
(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and
(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.
(e) As used in this section—
(1) the terms “phonorecord” and “copies” have, respectively, the meanings set forth in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17; and
(2) the terms “reproduction” and “distribution” refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1) and (3) respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17.

“If I remember correctly, you’re going to seminary. Does Westminster allow you to cut and paste an article from Wikipedia and get an A for originality? Don’t you realize writers have property rights to their work, too, and you don’t get decide what is done with their work?”
You quote the works of others all the time. I’ve read the works of theologians where large chunks of their works are quoted.
“pattern of plagiarism.”
Here’s the definition of plagiarism:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source
Where have I done this?
“criminal plagiarism and is compiling a list for your prosecution. ”
It’s now a criminal offense to plagiarize?

“Here’s the federal law regarding what you’re doing, Michelle, copied here under fair use. You probably want to speak with an attorney about your blogs.”
I think if they hit me, they better hit Kos, Instapundit and many others. I’m not the only one who’s doing this. Are you also checking other blogs for violation?

“Double-checking my own comments, I notice you are planning to Bible studies when you graduate from Westminster. A track record of plagiarism in this blog now more or less guarantees you will not succeed in that task. Other publishers will be gunning for bear, and justice will be on their side. Do they not have advisors at your seminary?’
I’m not worried about it because I can always self-publish.

You obviously no nothing about the legal environment of publishing.
However, because I find you obnoxious and I have the resources to do so, I am having my assistant compile a list of your possible criminal violations of copyright to be forwarded to the US Attorney in Philadelphia. Your opinion of my writing is irrelevant. Whether I or another other person checks any other blogs for copyright violations is irrelevant. How you believe plagiarism should be defined is also irrelevant. What the US Attorney decides to do with the information, during the current administration, or during the next administration, is relevant.

“I find you obnoxious”
The feeling is mutual.