Day 1: London

We’re lucky to be here tonight. A 2-hour delay in Chicago because of mechanical trouble caused us to miss our connecting flight in Montreal. A number of other people were in the same predicament, so we were lucky to squeeze on to the last flight to England that night (after a good run around the whole airport, or as the check-in guy said “Better run, eh?”). Otherwise, it would have been a night in Montreal, only to arrive for another night in London.

Not too jet lagged, but still took it easy today: British Library and a bit of shopping. We’ll see if we can stay up long enough to see the Americans loose at football.

Off for vacation

My wife and I leaving tomorrow for London, England, and a tour of Milan, Florence, and Rome, Italy. If the Internet connections are good (go wireless!), we’re hoping to blog about the trip, as well as post images to the gallery.

I haven’t had quite as much time to update the blog as I would like, but have a number of story ideas that I’ve been working on which hopefully can be completed when we return.

Cheers,
-john

Copyright Cases to Watch

As technology makes copying easier and better, areas which once were set aside as copyright free zones are finding their way back to the courts.

Databases: In the past, collections of facts or data have been left largely unprotected. Except for arrangement, which is protected, data has been free because of the desire to avoid granting a monopoly right in facts. Baseball statistics certainly fall under this area, but have the added element of the players’ work and personality (which are claimed to be tied in to the stats). Usually this type of protection falls under privacy, but it’s hard to see how public baseball games could apply here. It almost seems as though it is the use of this collection of the data what the leauges see as the problem. The use of one statistic couldn’t be protected, but perhaps when grouped together… (the work, or “sweat of the brow” in gathering statistics hasn’t been protected in the past).
Time shifting: Recording a television or show to view later has been protected since the Sony Betamax case. While the courts rejected the idea of “space shifting” in the mp3.com case, an XM Radio recorder is now coming under fire. The difference here is that digital material is easier to copy and creates nearly perfect copies.

These decisions could have a great impact on the scope of what users can do, and what creators can protect.

Student MySpace/Facebook Rights

A recent editorial on student’s legal rights and responsibilities in their MySpace and Facebook entries gives an excellent overview of how the courts have construed students’ speech rights when in the public classroom.
However, a comment struck me as interesting from the perspective of applying mass communication law to all of society.

Students need to remember that the law applies in cyberspace too: Threats and harassment are just as illegal online as offline. Defamation or libel can occur on the Internet as well as in a printed newspaper.

I start to scratch my head when a lawyer says that anyone “needs to remember” about a law that they’ve probably rarely heard about and that their parents most likely never were responsible for. Yes, the law is there and for good reason; but will the public accept laws which might be outside their moral framework or that they never have had a chance to debate and have a say in? Is it OK that “As a private entity, MySpace isn’t obligated to honor users’ First Amendment rights”? The struggle between protecting individual speech and protecting individual reputation has become so much more complex thanks to the Internet.

Perhaps we should all heed the advice that I recently heard given to bloggers: “Get libel insurance.”