Monday, 18 May 2009

The Press

Lawyers stuck on stupid

Oh joy:  Two more lawyers who haven’t figured out that internet thingy:

Google’s products (and profit) would look a lot different if, for example, the law said it had to obtain copyright permissions in order to copy
I wonder if anybody has ever explained to these guys that whenever somebody loads a web page, their browser makes a copy of it, and what’s more, the browser might even keep a copy (in cache) after the page is closed.  Just think of all those millions of “unauthorized” copies that might be lurking around the web!  Horrors!

(Yes, the likely target here is Google’s cache function, which is defeatable, and which becomes remarkably useful when somebody- most often a news organization- “disappears” a URL.)
and index Web sites. Search engines have instead required copyright holders to “opt out” of their digital dragnets, and so far their market power has allowed them to get away with it...
No, “market power” has nothing to do with it: That’s the way the internet works.  Put up a page, and it’s world readable- unless you take measures to block it.  Don’t like the rules, go start your own network.
Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet.  Journalism therefore needs a bright line imposed by statute: that the taking of entire Web pages by search engines, which is what powers their search functions, is not fair use but infringement.
Erm... lets parse that one carefully: “not have to choose...” “protecting copyright...” “map the internet.”  So: You do want the pages to show up when someone looks for them, right?  Well, I must admit that I’m not clever enough to figure out a way to index a page without reading its entirety... mental telepathy, perhaps?  (But then I’m not a lawyer...)
Such a rule would be no more bold a step than the one Congress took in 1996 rewriting centuries of traditional libel law for the benefit of tech start-ups.
Yeah, all those “tech start-ups” like AT&T.  Why, it was just awful how the phone company used to get put in jail every time somebody used its lines for unlawful purposes.  Good thing they fixed that![1]
It would take away from search engines the “just opt out” mantra -- repeated by Google's witness during the Kerry hearings -- and force them to negotiate with copyright holders over the value of their content.
As if Google is going to pay somebody for permission to index their pages.  Guys, that’s long gone.  What Google ought to be doing is charging websites to be included in the index.  Let’s remember who is getting the real benefit here.

No, what this would do is remove all copyright-protected content from search results.  You know, content which, I assume, the owner put on the web with the intention that someone would access it.  Otherwise, why put it on the web in the first place?  Because if you didn’t want anyone to look at it...

Doctor, I’m confused!

These guys also suggest some equally lame non-internet legislation in the name of “saving journalism:”
Federalize the "hot news" doctrine.  This doctrine protects against types of poaching that copyright might not cover -- the stealing of information not by direct copying but simply by taking the guts of the content.
As if the legacy media don’t spend most of their time copying each other (when not copying The New York Times).  Still wanna make that illegal?  Fine.  I just want the popcorn concession down at the courthouse, where I’ll eagerly await the prosecution of the next network to build a breaking story by stealing somebody’s Twitter tweet.
Eliminate ownership restrictions...  Congress should abolish caps on ownership of broadcast stations and bars on newspaper and television ownership in the same market.
Because we all know how well consolidation worked for the radio and music businesses.
Use tax policy to promote the press.
Ummm... no.
Grant an antitrust exemption...  Antitrust immunity is necessary because most individual news sites can’t go it alone by walling off their content for fees -- readers will simply jump to sites that are still free.
Yeah, How Dare those Readers Take Advantage Of a Good Deal?  This sounds more like “government-imposed charges for content” to me.  Because all the antitrust immunity in the world won’t protect the Content Cartel from the first competitor who figures out how to make free content pay for itself.

(I swear, if this is what passes for legal reasoning today, I shoulda gone to law school.)



Via:  Radley via Roberta
[1]  Yes, I know the DMCA had nothing to do with the phone company.  But it applied longstanding common-carrier immunity precedents to the internet, since the internet people had this problem with being made common carriers.  So...

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 19:39:26 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 806 words, total size 8 kb.

Saturday, 09 May 2009

The Press

The Post has other priorities

Robert Stacy McCain:

The shooting death of Kwanzaa Diggs merited a mere two sentences in a Washington Post crime round-up column.  Meanwhile, the Washington Post devoted front-page treatment to the colonoscopy of a panda at the Washington Zoo.

Dear God, what has happened to journalism in America?  Is it any wonder that people hate “the media” so much?  Here you’ve got the case of a 17-year-old shot dead, two others wounded, a crime that indicates a systemic failure of local government, and the local paper is too busy covering pandas...?
Murder is news.  Rape, robbery and drug busts are also news.  And guess what?  Crime coverage, if done right, sells papers.  If the Washington Post can't be bothered to cover a shooting that leaves one teenager dead and two others wounded, what the hell is the point of publishing a newspaper?

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 21:07:46 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 2 kb.

Monday, 04 May 2009

The Press

“Smug Is Not a Workable Business Plan.”

Boston Herald:  Shed no tears as Boston Globe fat gets Pinched

Via:  JammieWearingFool

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 16:02:05 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Saturday, 02 May 2009

The Press

A “DEMOCRAT noise machine” all along?

Lauria [bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria]:  Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States.  In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent.  That’s a moving target.  I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday.  One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.  That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckmann [WJR talk show host Frank Beckmann]:  Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria:  That was Perella Weinberg.
You know, if we had any real reporters out there, somebody might be checking this out.

UPDATE 090504 13:36: Somebody is. (Via IP, who has more links.)
“The charge is completely untrue,” said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, “and there’s obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way.”
What’s that rule that begins, “Anytime somebody uses the word ‘obvious’...”?

And I’d still like to know:  Which reporters (other than “all of them”) did the White House trust to be sufficiently in the tank to go along with something like this?

Transcript by:  Corky Boyd at Island Turtle (via IP).

Elsewhere:  audio at WJR
(Note:  You don’t need the imbedded player.  To download the show as an MP3, use the “Download this show” link just below the title.)


Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 16:55:32 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 4 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
82kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.1091 seconds.
49 queries taking 0.0892 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.