Mass Communication Law – Page 44 – Thinking Out Loud, aka The Broad Gaze

Slashback

Long time no blog, so it’s time for my own kind of “slashback,” or a look at previous stories worth mentioning.

Law

A student’s facebook profile was accessed under the Patriot Act when he applied for a government job. Privacy and legislative scope issues, all rolled into one story.

YouTube and the copyright cops: safe… for now?

One of my favorite sites, YouTube.com, is coming under increasing legal fire from copyright holders. For now they’re being a good corporate citizen by removing copyrighted material when asked under the rules of ISPs in the DMCA. One to watch.

Chat rooms could face expulsion

The House passed a law (DOPA) designed to limit access to social networking sites to protect minors. I need to go through this and the pending telecom bill to make a more informed comment.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality debate highlights need for thoughtful action

I start with this post, because I think it’s vital to have an informed opinion on this debate. Click on the “Audio” link to listen to two of the biggest names in the formation of the Internet debate on the value of legislation in this area. Their one point of agreement: if we legislate, it needs to be informed, specific, and narrowly tailored to address the potential dangers (admitted by both) of a non-neutral network.

Microsoft asked to explain network neutrality stance, fights to avoid vote

Microsoft is feeling the heat from its shareholders to make a statement on net neutrality. This is surprising to me, since they’ve been much more vocal than Apple in favor of neutrality. Perhaps more specifics from stakeholders such as Microsoft could help sway the debate; or perhaps there is an effort to avoid treading too close to anti-trust waters.

Cell Phones Presage Future of Non-Neutral Internet and Verizon Wireless: Unlimited, Yet Limited, Access

One thing that I was struck by on my European trip was the advertisements for cell phones…not for service providers, but for the actual phones. Now that I’m back, I do see a few ads for phones, but they’re all attached to wording like “Available only through Cingular.” Essentially, the phones and their functions are tied to the whims of the network providers–the cell phone companies. Personally, I would be more likely to buy and use a smartphone if I were able to use the applications and Internet services that I want, which are closed out due to common polices among service providers. These articles are great examples of the drawbacks to non-neutral (closed) networks.

Google

I just read The Search by John Battelle, so Google issues are pretty hot in my mind.

AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs – R&D History

Links to two articles which are comparing the “new” and “old” ways of doing R&D within telecom companies, as well as how history (and banked capital) impact this process and innovation. I’ve blogged about R&D in America before, and this is a great look at some of the details on how this is (and is not) changing.

Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search and Text Mining the New York Times

In the last chapter of The Search, Battelle looks at some of the directions of the future of searching. One of his more interesting points is the idea (actually from Tim Berners-Lee) of the “Semantic Web.” The idea is that the more data we gather about our preferences (search history), and the more our computers are able to segment digital data into more meaningful categories, the better our searches will become. These articles are right on point.

Personal

Why we have trouble concentrating

The C-Net Blog pointed me to this interesting article on getting better at concentrating. My “Search” reading has made me realize just how much Google has impacted my ability to concentrate. I’m serious. It’s a wonderful tool, but it makes it too easy to get off on a tangent by starting a search with an “I wonder about…” type of thought.

Finally, in the weather dept.: Thursday’s Downtown Storm Created A Violent Mini-climate

Thursday’s intense rains came down so hard and so fast that the storm created “its own little climate” in downtown Madison with new fronts streaming out from the central city, a meteorologist said today. …

The most serious call came early this morning when thick black smoke was reported pouring out of the front of a building at 1301 University Ave. in a row of five storefront buildings.

That’s my work 🙂

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.”

Telecom Act revisions heating up

Efforts to revise our telecommunications policy are really taking off in moves beyond the net neutrality debate. Here are a few new additions:

Banning MP3 Streaming: Efforts to require DRM on streaming media may make streaming in non-protected formats a violation of the law (thus locking in the grossly incompatible proprietary formats).
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping: Enforcing log retention timeframes on ISPs to help law enforcement track illegal Internet activity.

These are both good examples of how our policy is coming to revolve around control: both by the government and by the communications industry. A good legislative history of these efforts might be an interesting project as it could show if these actions are being driven by need, by impulse to legislate, or by industry requests. These difficult issues have such great public impact, and yet one must wonder how the public can have an impact on the debate.