[FC-discuss] Discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13

Thu Feb 12 03:46:06 EST 2009

yasmin, i hope you all may contribute
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <discuss-request at freeculture.org>
To: <discuss at freeculture.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:00 AM
Subject: Discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13


> Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
> discuss at freeculture.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-request at freeculture.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-owner at freeculture.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Artist of iconic Obama image sues AP to protect his fair
>      use of original photograph (Alex Leavitt)
>   2. Re: Brill's "secret" plan to save the New York Times
>      (Karen Rustad)
>   3. Re: ALERT! Stop Copyright Filters in Broadband Stimulus!
>      (Matt Lee)
>   4. Re: Brill's "secret" plan to save the New York Times
>      (Parker Higgins)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:58:32 -0500
> From: Alex Leavitt <alexleavitt at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Artist of iconic Obama image sues AP to
> protect his fair use of original photograph
> To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> particular <discuss at freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> <767eb04e0902110758y4e14f1eek364bc7d5e00eb45f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Although Fairey would claim a non-commercial free use over his image, I
> wonder if the judge would argue that the work was so transformative that 
> it
> impacted (beyond Fairey's control) the commercial market (aka. others 
> making
> money off the image, though that of course infringes on Fairey's 
> copyright)
> in a way that somehow affects the definition of free use.
>
> Alex
>
> Alexander Leavitt
> Boston University 2009
> http://alexleavitt.com
> Twitter: @alexleavitt
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Matt Lee <mattl at cnuk.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Ryan Prior <ryanprior at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Allow me to cast the first stone: http://changeyarly.ytmnd.com/
>>
>> Thanks for the seizure.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Lee
>> Free Software, etc.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090211/898242eb/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:12:22 -0500
> From: Karen Rustad <karen.rustad at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Brill's "secret" plan to save the New York
> Times
> To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> particular <discuss at freeculture.org>
> Message-ID: <4992F8E6.9020604 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>>
>> I think his assumptions are flawed.  He assumes that traditional media
>> is higher quality journalism than good blogging, that it must be more
>> expensive than good blogging, and that people would want to read it over
>> good blogging.
>>
>>
> The thing about the newspaper versus blog debates that has never ceased
> to befuddle me: Newspaper proponents argue that papers support
> international correspondents, in-depth investigation, and a high level
> of fact-checking which (most) blogs do not have the resources to
> support. Yet, in hard times, what always gets the axe? International
> correspondents, in-depth investigation projects, quality control--all
> the things that are supposed to make newspapers unique! I actually had
> the chance to ask the head editor of the NYT this and all he could say
> was, "I should have you ask my boss that..."
>
> If they're gonna get rid of everything that makes newspapers worth
> reading...why read them?
>
> -- Karen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:22:54 -0500
> From: Matt Lee <mattl at cnuk.org>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] ALERT! Stop Copyright Filters in Broadband
> Stimulus!
> To: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org, Discussion of Free Culture
> in general and this organization in particular
> <discuss at freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> <53eef31f0902110822w4f5fe387o5f1cda9a6a8f57a1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> gnu.org and fsf.org have been updated to reflect the need to support this.
>
> I'd love to see other sites copy our page and use it on theirs.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:28:39 -0500
> From: Parker Higgins <parkerhiggins at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Brill's "secret" plan to save the New York
> Times
> To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> particular <discuss at freeculture.org>
> Message-ID:
> <97afb7270902110828g48e5a2adk1bf6b2bba8aecbb5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Karen Rustad 
> <karen.rustad at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> >
>> > I think his assumptions are flawed.  He assumes that traditional media
>> > is higher quality journalism than good blogging, that it must be more
>> > expensive than good blogging, and that people would want to read it 
>> > over
>> > good blogging.
>> >
>> >
>> The thing about the newspaper versus blog debates that has never ceased
>> to befuddle me: Newspaper proponents argue that papers support
>> international correspondents, in-depth investigation, and a high level
>> of fact-checking which (most) blogs do not have the resources to
>> support. Yet, in hard times, what always gets the axe? International
>> correspondents, in-depth investigation projects, quality control--all
>> the things that are supposed to make newspapers unique! I actually had
>> the chance to ask the head editor of the NYT this and all he could say
>> was, "I should have you ask my boss that..."
>>
>> If they're gonna get rid of everything that makes newspapers worth
>> reading...why read them?
>>
>> -- Karen
>
>
> I attended a lecture by the managing editor of the New York Times 
> yesterday,
> Jill Abramson, and she would seem to agree with your viewpoint, Karen. 
> She
> was very afraid for the other papers who are slashing staff now, and the
> impression she sought to give, at least, was that the NYT was not engaging
> in the same practices.  She likened it to the bleak 1970s in New York, 
> when
> the NYT actually expanded their paper, so as to be better prepared for 
> when
> the pendulum swings back in their favor.
>
> She did stress how expensive the things you mentioned are.  You'd have to 
> be
> very forward looking (and it seems, thankfully, that the NYT is) to 
> continue
> to engage in very expensive practices because they're the practices that,
> for now at least, seem to be lacking in your primary competition.
>
> Parker
>
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090211/6c2bca39/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> End of Discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13
> ***************************************
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.20/1944 - Release Date: 
> 10/02/2009 5:44 PM
>
>