stories filed under: "blogs"
Arrested Malaysian Blogger Freed Following Public Outcry
from the how-could-the-gov't-not-expect-that? dept
It's hard to figure out what the government of Malaysia is thinking in its ongoing trouble in dealing with critical bloggers (some of whom were so powerful that they got elected). Last week, we noted that one of the more popular bloggers, whose blog had been ordered blocked by ISPs was arrested, just as the block on his blog was removed. Not surprisingly, the arrest led to a public outcry, and the government has now relented and freed the blogger, who quickly posted an anti-government rant on his blog, promising not to back down. The whole thing makes you wonder how tone deaf the leading party politicians in Malaysia are that they didn't expect this to happen. Arresting an opposition blogger was bound to create further outcry, and this move only helped legitimize the points he's been making. You would think that at least someone in the ruling party would have been savvy enough to recognize that this was inevitable.As Bloggers Take Office In Malaysia, Gov't Orders ISPs To Block Certain Blogs
from the crack-down dept
Over the last couple of years, we've had a series of interesting stories about how the Malaysian gov't is dealing with "blogs." First, a gov't official slammed blogs and tried to pass a law requiring bloggers to register with the government. Outrage over such a plan resulted in it being scrapped, but the majority ruling party still struggled with blogs -- though tried to figure out ways to respond to them more feasibly than attacking them. It set up a gov't agency to respond to bloggers, and later required certain candidates for offices to set up their own blogs. Of course, it also tried to crack down on some bloggers it didn't like, including having a state owned paper file a libel suit over a blog.So, with that background, it was interesting to spot two separate stories having to do with blogs in Malaysia. The first, talks about how one of the political bloggers who had been so critical of the gov't turned that attention into getting himself elected as an opposition candidate. He's now taking office. However, the other article shows that the ruling party hasn't quite come to grips with these opposition blogs. Perhaps because of the victories of blogging members of the opposition party, the government has now ordered Malaysian ISPs to start blocking certain political blogs.
From the sound of it, the ruling party is still pretty confused about how this all works. While it gave lip service to blogging, when blogging appeared to help the opposition a lot more than it helped the ruling party, it decided to start blocking and censoring certain blogs critical of the government. This seems pretty likely to backfire, as it should only upset gov't critics even more -- including those who are now in the Parliament itself.
Philadelphia Inquirer Tells Staff Bloggers Not To Use Blogs To Test Story Ideas
from the artificial-scarcity... dept
When you've built a business based on artificial scarcity for years, and then suddenly find yourself in a much more competitive market, it's no surprise that some of the ideas you come up with will be to run directly towards more artificial scarcity. That's what the Philadelphia Inquirer appears to be doing with its new policy to not put many types of stories online until they hit the physical paper. This doesn't apply to breaking news (thank goodness), but pretty much everything else: "investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features, and reviews of all sorts." You can sort of understand why the paper would like to coordinate, though it does seem to treat online as a second class citizen. It also leads to one odd and highly questionable decision:For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment. Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first.Apparently, that's no longer allowed. Of course, for columnists, that's one of the main advantages of having a blog. It lets you try out ideas, get feedback, and generally make the final product that much better. But apparently the Philadelphia Inquirer would rather come out with a lower quality product -- as long as it all comes out at the same time.
Filed Under: blogs, newspapers, online, print
Companies: philadelphia inquirer
Kentucky Agrees To Stop Selectively Blocking State Employees From Reading Critical Blogs
from the hearing-what-your-critics-say-is-a-good-thing dept
A couple of years ago, we wrote about the fact that the state of Kentucky had started blocking certain political blogs from the computers of state employees. The interesting part was that the state was only blocking blogs that were critical of state officials. The group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit saying that the selective blocking was a First Amendment violation. It looks like that issue won't get settled in court any time soon, as a new administration in Kentucky has decided that it is changing that policy and won't block critical sites, leading Public Citizen to drop the lawsuit.Of course, without a court ruling, it's now not clear if the original actions were legal -- and there's nothing to stop a future administration from reversing the policy yet again. In the meantime, what kind of politician actually thinks it's a good thing to block out those who disagree with them rather than hear what they have to say? Talk about sticking your head in the sand...
Filed Under: blogs, first amendment, kentucky
AP Exaggerates The 'Conversation' It's Having With Bloggers; Caught Copying Text From Bloggers As Well
from the and-it-gets-worse dept
The situation with the Associated Press and its rapidly disintegrating relationship with bloggers keeps getting worse. First up, as a bunch of folks have sent in, some bloggers are noting that, despite the AP's own claims about quotes over five words long no longer being fair use, AP reporters often quote huge chunks of text from bloggers. That link discusses an AP article just this week that quoted 154 words from a blog. So will these "new guidelines" that the AP is supposedly working on with bloggers include guidelines for itself? What about payment and licensing terms? And, honestly, what happens if a blog now quotes the passages quoted in the AP article itself. At 154 words, will they receive a DMCA takedown notice?Oh, and as for that supposed "meeting" to hammer out guidelines with the "Media Bloggers Association," it turns out that's quite an exaggeration as well. With a bunch of folks questioning who put the previously unheard of "Media Bloggers Association" in charge of determining what bloggers will accept, an interview with the head of that group shows that his meeting isn't to hammer out any such guidelines -- but was simply intended to present the Drudge Retort's side of the story. Rogers Cadenhead asked the head of the group to speak on his behalf to the AP. It's the AP that's turned this meeting into the Media Bloggers Association representing all bloggers, rather than just Cadenhead.
So, now we've got the AP caught not just breaking its own rules (by a wide, wide margin), but also exaggerating the nature of the "conversation" it's supposedly having with the bloggers who are upset by its actions. Do people still think that bloggers were overreacting in calling the AP out on its actions?
Filed Under: blogs, drudge retort, fair use, rogers cadenhead, snippets
Companies: associated press
AP Goes After Bloggers For Posting Article Headlines And Snippets
from the you're-going-to-lose,-badly dept
Last fall, the Associated Press claimed that it was ready to change to face the new internet world -- and that meant not just being a gatekeeper, but joining in the conversation. As we noted at the time, though, AP execs said all that, only to immediately follow that up with plans that looked like it was trying to become a new type of gatekeeper. It didn't help that the company had also just sued VeriSign's Moreover division for linking to AP stories along with a title and a tiny excerpt. That sort of thing is clearly fair use -- but the AP doesn't seem to think so.And, now, it's expanding its target list. Rather than just going after the big aggregators (surprisingly, Google settled), it appears that the Associated Press is going after bloggers for merely posting a linked headline and a tiny snippet of text from the article. In this case, Rogers Cadenhead informs us that the AP sent 7 DMCA takedown notices last week to his site, the Drudge Retort (a site that mocks the Drudge Report). In six cases, a blog post on the site quoted just a small snippet of text from an AP article (between 33 and 79 words -- nowhere near the full length of the article). In every case, they also contained links back to the original AP article. Five of the six used a different headline than the original AP article. The other complaint was about a comment to a blog post, which also included a very short snippet and a link.
On the face of it, it's nearly impossible to see how this isn't fair use, even though an AP representative insists it's not:
The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation.Hopefully, they won't send a takedown notice for quoting that. This is pure bullying on the part of the Associated Press, and a clear overstepping of its legal rights. It's most certainly not a sign that the organization has adapted to the internet age. In fact, the most amazing thing is that these types of uses (a snippet and a link) clearly help drive more traffic to those AP articles. This is a pure "shoot-self-in-the-foot" move by the Associated Press -- and if they have any sense of decency they should issue a very public apology.
In the meantime, since the Associated Press apparently no longer wants traffic, we'll start looking for other sources when linking to stories. I can't promise we won't link to any AP stories (they're everywhere), but given the opportunity we'd prefer to link to a news organization that's happy to accept our traffic, rather than one that might sue us for pointing people their way. This is quite unfortunate, as there are many AP reporters who read this site, and with whom I have come to build a strong relationship. I think they're quite good reporters, and it's too bad they work for such a short-sighted organization.
Update: Someone from the AP has posted a response in the comments. It makes some claims that simply do not seem to represent reality, including trying to define what is and is not "the link-based culture of the Internet." It claims that it won't go after snippets -- but doesn't explain why that's exactly what it did. And then it responds to a blog post from Jeff Jarvis that I have not seen and did not reference. If the AP seriously wants to respond, why not respond to what is actually happening or what we actually said, rather than someone else. Update 2: I should also note that the comment from the AP includes what appears to be a bit of a sales pitch suggesting that bloggers license AP articles.
Filed Under: blogs, drudge retort, fair use, rogers cadenhead, snippets
Companies: associated press
Ownership Doesn't Make Sense In Communications
from the you-don't-own-your-conversation dept
Earlier this week, we explained the root cause of many of the problems the entertainment industry runs into when it tries to deal with copyright online. It views the internet in the same way that it views a broadcast media content platform, when it's been designed and used primarily as a communications platform. The entire concept of copyright doesn't make sense in the realm of regular communications. You don't worry who owns the copyright on the conversation you have on the phone or the email that you write to a friend. Yet, when viewed through the prism of a "content" platform, these are open questions. The same is true of things like blog comments. Yet, suddenly we find people arguing over who "owns" comments place on a blog page.Mathew Ingram does a nice job highlighting the key issues that were raised this week on that question, but the whole conversation took a turn for the bizarre when Hank Williams weighed in. This is the same Hank Williams who posted a poorly researched defense of copyright. Now he's back claiming that the issue of who owns the copyright on blog comments is a really important question. If anything, you would think that the points he raises in his post would actually be the perfect evidence for why his original post was wrong (though he seems to miss that). It's quite clear from what he wrote that copyright law doesn't handle this situation very well -- which makes sense, because copyright is (again) designed for broadcast media, not communications. But rather than realize that's a good reason why copyright shouldn't apply at all here, Williams doubles down on why "ownership" over comments is something that needs to be worked out -- he suggests that blog and comment system providers create a totally useless mechanism to "declare" ownership of comments.
Except that this system is not at all necessary, and would only lead to more problems. The entire purpose of copyright is to act as incentive for the creation of that content. Yet, I think most people would find it preposterous to claim that the reason they commented on a blog was because of the protections provided by copyright. In other words, there's no question to worry about here because this content was all created without copyright being the incentive. However, in this bizarre and twisted world where infinitely available resources need to be shrunk down and "owned," Williams insists that we need to figure out who has the copyright on comments.
In the comments to Hank's own story, things get even more bizarre. First, Hank suggests that if the blog owner "owned" the comments then that might mean that the blog owner also "owned" the liability associated with those comments (which could mean in cases of libel or copyright infringement). Once again, though, Williams is showing his ignorance, as both cases are clearly covered by the safe harbors of the CDA and the DMCA, and the stacks upon stacks of case law concerning liability on things like blog comments. It's quite clear that Williams thinks ownership of infinite resources is a good idea -- but he doesn't appear to have thought through what that means and why it's neither necessary nor a good idea. Too bad.
Filed Under: blogs, comments, communications, content, copyright, hank williams, ownership
Grateful Dead Label Demands NPR Feature Story To Blog A Grateful Dead Song
from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept
If you haven't followed the "MP3 blogging" scene, it's grown quite big over the past few years, to the point that most folks (including the record labels) have effectively turned a blind eye to the copyright questions it raises (for once, this is a good thing). In many cases, record labels even treat some of the best music bloggers similar to the way they've always treated radio DJs -- sending them promo CDs and trying to get "air time." Most music bloggers don't ask for permission before blogging songs (some have policies saying they'll take down a song if any musician complains). However, over on an NPR blog, one of the bloggers has been putting together "mixes" of music on the blog, and being quite careful to ask for permission before any song is included. As BoingBoing points out, when the blogger, Carrie Brownstein, asked the Grateful Dead's label if she could use a Grateful Dead song, the response was a rather pompous demand that the band would require a piece done on the band on the radio show All Things Considered as well as a feature about the Grateful Dead on the NPR website. Just for using a song in a way that many would say was fair use (not to mention that it would be from a band that actively encouraged fans to tape and share its music broadly). If anything, it sounds like the record label overreaching in seeing an opportunity to get more press for a band that hardly needs any more. But, on the whole, it shows the sort of attitude that's becoming all too pervasive these days when people need to ask "permission" to help promote a song or a band.Filed Under: blogs, grateful dead, music, permission, promotion
Companies: npr
Beer, Blogs And Bias
from the i'll-drink-to-that dept
The Wall Street Journal has an article focusing on a blog set up by Miller Brewing Company called Brew Blog. There are a few different, interesting points worth discussing here. First, the blog isn't used as a blog about what's going on at Miller Brewing. Instead, Miller hired an experienced reporter, and told him to just cover the beer industry as if he were a beat reporter. In other words, it's reporting news -- and even breaking stories on the competition. In fact, it revealed that main rival Anheuser-Busch was planning a new beer before A-B was able to make the announcement itself. This is certainly a recognition of how content is advertising. The blog clearly isn't "advertorial." It's full-on reporting about the industry, in a way that's interesting and relevant to those in the industry.What may be even more interesting, though, is what the article says about journalism. In an age in which journalists are whining that their jobs are disappearing, here's yet another example of where suddenly there are new types of jobs for journalists appearing every day. But, even more interesting, is a quote at the end of the article highlighted by David Card. It's from Harry Schuhmacher, the editor and publisher of a fee-based trade publication on the beer industry:
"I tell Miller you're subsidizing a free publication, and it hurts the trade press," he says. "But they don't care."...Mr. Schuhmacher adds that he writes fewer positive pieces about Miller than he once did because he knows Brew Blog will always publish the same stories.Think about this for a bit. People complain that when you have a company-sponsored publication it will inevitably be biased -- but the sponsorship of that site is totally open and in the clear. The site's content stands for itself. Yet, at the same time, a supposedly "objective" traditional journalist is admitting that he writes fewer stories about Miller because he's upset that it's competing with his own publication. From that, it would certainly seem like the Brew Blog is a lot more credible (it's biases are out in the open), while this fee-based trade pub admits that story choices are sometimes based on personal vendettas.
Filed Under: beer, bias, blogs
Companies: anheuser-busch, miller brewing
