Monthly Archive for January, 2010

Page 3 of 6

New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

Published on January 17, 2010 in Journalism and Media / Sociology. 0 Comments

It appears as though the Times might be getting ready to start charging online readers.

The Times has considered three types of pay strategies. One option was a more traditional pay wall along the lines of The Wall Street Journal, in which some parts of the site are free and some subscription-only. … Another option was the metered system. The third choice, an NPR-style membership model, was abandoned last fall, two sources explained.

As a long-time subscriber, and recent iPhone reader, I say it’s about time! I’m glad to see that they’ve considered more than just two options (pay/no pay), yet I’m surprised they didn’t see yet another–pay for more than the first paragraph. Many online readers are looking for a quick fix of news on the go, and writing in the inverted pyramid should already accommodate for this. I’ve said before that sites like Newser could point the way, but the execs haven’t quite grasped that the technology might allow them to intricately tailor what their readers see/pay for. As former deputy managing editor Jon Landman said:

The idea of two camps is just wrong. There’s many shades to this.

via New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers — Daily Intel (New York Magazine),
via Slashdot News Story | NY Times To Charge For Online Content

Google Forum on ACTA

Published on January 16, 2010 in Mass Communication Law. 1 Comment

I was fortunate enough to get my question answered at the recent Google forum on ACTA.  I asked:

Will providers still enjoy “safe harbor” protections for materials their users upload? If not, what are potential implications for the “user generated” or “remix” online culture that has emerged?

The answer comes at about the 47 minute mark.

Without knowing much about the makeup of the panel, or whether this was to bring any new transparency to the process, it was a little hard to think of a good question (though I thought this would fit the Google venue pretty well :) ). I should have known that the participants wouldn’t have a great deal of information, and what they could say needed to be stated very carefully.  Still, the response from both sides appeared to be a reassuring “yes.” I see safe harbor as an important protection for service providers, users who wish to assert their fair use, and the general balance of copyright protection.

A quick search on safe harbor provisions in the EU and Japan does seem to check out–their law appears to be much like ours here in the states. I couldn’t find any information on safe harbor in Canada (or lack thereof), but would be happy to check it out if anyone suggests a link.

Safe harbor is an important law–it protects providers from copyright liability and gives users a formal process by which they can claim fair use. Let’s make sure ACTA doesn’t change that.

China, ‘splain!

Published on January 15, 2010 in Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

Sounds as though the state department is going to ask China explain the seemingly government-led attacks on Google’s servers.

If it is in fact true that China is behind the attacks, it really puts the US government in a difficult position. It has not defended companies like Google from legal attacks (such as demands to remove materials such as hate speech from searches), yet a “black hat hacker” attack on Google’s servers seems somehow different. I’m thinking hard of a case where an American company has come under attack, only to have the executive branch come to the rescue.

Let me know if I’m missing something.

via AFP: US to formally ask China for explanation on cyber-attacks.

IP cases are always worth a laugh

Published on January 15, 2010 in Copyright. 0 Comments

Marketplace featured a funny story about brands that parody trademarks.  They feature names like “The North Butt” and “Lardashe.” It’s too bad that the companies can’t take a joke (or that the law won’t let them).

Winkelmann started The South Butt as a spoof of The North Face’s fleece jackets worn by so many kids at his private prep school. North Face however didn’t think the joke was that funny. They served Winkelmann with cease and desist papers as he left for the University of Missouri last fall. Ever since then, The South Butt has gotten the kind of publicity you just can’t buy.

via A knock-off takes on The North Face | Marketplace From American Public Media.

PS: Yes, I realize I tagged it “Copyright” and this pertains to trademark–at least they’re in the same family.

Less science, more drama

Published on January 15, 2010 in Journalism. 0 Comments

Making science into a matter of opinion or controversy is perhaps a new trend in Journalism. Ars Technica poses the question of whether this is good journalistic practice. They explain one telling situation:

[Autism is] a complicated message, which really requires a credible and authoritative source to convey. ABC News responded to that requirement by turning to actress Jenny McCarthy, who (predictably) complained that doctors weren’t “listening to our anecdotal evidence.” McCarthy has a long history of dismissing epidemiology, statistics, and all the other evidence-based tools we use to make public health decisions, so ABC News knew exactly what it was doing by giving her a podium.

This really gets to the heart of a question in journalistic practice–the balance between presenting “truth” and efforts to “present all sides equally.” Unfortunately, the two do not always coincide. I think I agree with Ars’ assessment:

In essence, the message it sent was “we will intentionally undercut the best available science using a celebrity.” Calling that message irresponsible grossly understates the problem.

via Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?.