>>>So wouldn't the fact that Blog del Narco is showing the videos help normal journalists? They could say, "Just send the video to Blog del Narco and stop harrassing me"?
You should have read on. The video was on the Narco site.
"The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information."
The site is being used by drug cartels as propaganda and the blogger's willingness to throw anything out there aids their cause. In fact, it's being used by law enforcement as well.
So, let's put it all out there. To hell with anyone's safety. We want our news unfiltered so we can judge for ourselves even though we might not have the slightest clue as to what a situation is. After all, we're smarter than those guys who cover it for a living and know more about an issue or situation than we do.
I suppose you would have no problem if WikiLeaks just shoveled the documents they have onto the web without any concern for names of local people who are helping the US in Afghanistan. If they get killed by the Taliban, so what? That's not wikileak's fault. It's the fault of the Taliban. That guy has an agenda but at least he has some consideration about "collateral damage."
To me, while narco does provide some useful info and is able to show what the mainstream can't, it is indiscriminate in what it throws out there. It serves as a propaganda arm of the cartels. It's the old adage, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Is it newsworthy enough that it might get someone killed? Is it newsworthy enough that it doesn't matter that it is being used as propaganda and intimidation by rival drug cartels?
What exactly is the newsworthiness beyond a voyeuristic pleasure from the gore? Could the same information have been brought to light without the video? Do we need to see the results of a massacre?
You don't have a problem that it is being used by drug cartels to intimidate other drug cartels and those who dare challenge them? It doesn't bother you that 4 journalists were kidnapped and the demand was that one of the videos on the site be played on broadcast TV?
there's a fine line between neutral observer and conduit, especially when that line could very well be between life and death.
No, they're probably reacting due to things like this.
"The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information.
The Sinaloa cartel responded by posting videos in which men identifying themselves as police officers described how they cooperated with the Zetas.
The Sinaloa cartel then apparently kidnapped the journalists to demand that the television stations they work for air the video clips. Fearing for the safety of the journalists, one of the stations did so briefly."
Ah, you know what I mean. He's giving them a bigger audience and making it one stop shopping rather than having to search for the cartel videos on YouTube.
First, it is MR. Lauria and I think the "ethical" questions he raises might have to do with giving free unfiltered publicity to cartels who have murdered 30 journalists in Mexico since 2006.
Journalists in Mexico live in fear for their lives. It is considered the most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist. They can't report on this stuff because they are under death threats.
And it is so corrupt that journalists have been beaten and threatened by police and military.
The fact they haven't come after the blogger either means they can't find him or his posting the videos works in the cartels' favor, or both.
Sometimes I think I'm invisible on this forum. I rarely post but when I do, I try to look beyond the knee jerk reactions. Go back and look at my post with the subject line "More to the Story." Nobody responded to it because you're all so involved in your own dogma to see anything that might have gray areas.
I disagree with the decision but it is a lot more complicated than Mike let's on. And everyone seems to just go off without trying to find out what the real story is.
After a little googling I found that this case isn't as cut and dry as it appears. Apparently what is at issue here is that while combing through legally obtained documents, the Law Journal came across some documents that were ordered sealed by the judge. Through an error, they weren't. Although I disagree with the ruling, I understand what the judge is talking about.
"The judge said the First Amendment analysis is “very different” when it comes to information the court had ordered sealed."
For the most part I disagree with Mike, but this is clearly a case where copyright has gone awry. There is no commercial exploitation and I think it is way within fair use. And yes, the fact that it's an Auschwitz survivor does matter.
I've uploaded a few videos to YouTube that have had the music stripped out for so-called violations. It's retarded. I didn't make those videos for commercial purposes, just for fun and to show friends and others.
I was brought up to respect copyright, but was also taught if you had no commercial intent it was okay. When did these barbarians decide that if you post a 30 second clip of your two year old dancing to some song that happened to be playing on the radio it was copyright infringement?
As much as I have problems with people using other people's creations to make a living, there has to be some leeway when it comes to regular people who have no other aspirations other than other people might enjoy it.
I think that discussion is lacking here on Techdirt, as the concern seems to be more about the appropriation of others work to make money rather than the average Joe who has a clever or not so clever)idea and just wants to share it with no idea of making money from it.
Your rebuttal using video games as an example actually doesn't refute what the author's claims. Playing video games isn't multi-tasking, it's concentrating on one thing.
Also, the number of people reading books may be no greater or less than before the internet, but it has affected people's attention spans. I quite often see this response, "tldr" when someone links to an article. It means "too long, didn't read."
As to your links to studies showing that kids have better writing skills, man do I beg to differ on that one. Reading many comment boards makes me want to "loose" my mind.
But don't get me wrong,I love the interwebs. As an information junkie from way back, it's heaven.
Back in the dark ages, before the internet, quite often young writers, in trying to find their own "voice" would unconsciously copy the style of their favorite writer.
It's good to know that young writers no longer have to copy the style of other writers, they can simply copy their actual work.
I may be an old and in the way, but I was taught to find my own voice and be original and don't ever, ever copy someone else's work. At one time that was an unforgivable sin.
It's one thing to be influenced or inspired by someone else, it's quite another to steal their stuff. And let's make no mistake about it, it is theft. It doesn't matter whether it is legal or not, it is ethically wrong.
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should have read on. The video was on the Narco site.
"The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information."
The site is being used by drug cartels as propaganda and the blogger's willingness to throw anything out there aids their cause. In fact, it's being used by law enforcement as well.
So, let's put it all out there. To hell with anyone's safety. We want our news unfiltered so we can judge for ourselves even though we might not have the slightest clue as to what a situation is. After all, we're smarter than those guys who cover it for a living and know more about an issue or situation than we do.
I suppose you would have no problem if WikiLeaks just shoveled the documents they have onto the web without any concern for names of local people who are helping the US in Afghanistan. If they get killed by the Taliban, so what? That's not wikileak's fault. It's the fault of the Taliban. That guy has an agenda but at least he has some consideration about "collateral damage."
To me, while narco does provide some useful info and is able to show what the mainstream can't, it is indiscriminate in what it throws out there. It serves as a propaganda arm of the cartels. It's the old adage, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What exactly is the newsworthiness beyond a voyeuristic pleasure from the gore? Could the same information have been brought to light without the video? Do we need to see the results of a massacre?
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: ethics
there's a fine line between neutral observer and conduit, especially when that line could very well be between life and death.
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information.
The Sinaloa cartel responded by posting videos in which men identifying themselves as police officers described how they cooperated with the Zetas.
The Sinaloa cartel then apparently kidnapped the journalists to demand that the television stations they work for air the video clips. Fearing for the safety of the journalists, one of the stations did so briefly."
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/08/05/1290548/mexico-nabs-3-suspects-in-journalist.html#ixzz0wc4K GuLt
And they're not afraid of being "hurt." They are afraid of being killed.
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re:
Journalists in Mexico live in fear for their lives. It is considered the most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist. They can't report on this stuff because they are under death threats.
And it is so corrupt that journalists have been beaten and threatened by police and military.
The fact they haven't come after the blogger either means they can't find him or his posting the videos works in the cartels' favor, or both.
On the post: Judge Bars Reporter From Publishing Legally Obtained Factual Info, Saying She Doesn't Care If It Violates First Amendment
Re: pay attention
I disagree with the decision but it is a lot more complicated than Mike let's on. And everyone seems to just go off without trying to find out what the real story is.
On the post: Judge Bars Reporter From Publishing Legally Obtained Factual Info, Saying She Doesn't Care If It Violates First Amendment
More to the story...
"The judge said the First Amendment analysis is “very different” when it comes to information the court had ordered sealed."
http://tinyurl.com/2dpnwro
On the post: Performance Rights Group Takes Down YouTube Video Of Auschwitz Survivor Dancing To 'I Will Survive' At Aushwitz
Re: NWO! NWO!
On the post: Performance Rights Group Takes Down YouTube Video Of Auschwitz Survivor Dancing To 'I Will Survive' At Aushwitz
Re: How is this even close to fair use?
I've uploaded a few videos to YouTube that have had the music stripped out for so-called violations. It's retarded. I didn't make those videos for commercial purposes, just for fun and to show friends and others.
I was brought up to respect copyright, but was also taught if you had no commercial intent it was okay. When did these barbarians decide that if you post a 30 second clip of your two year old dancing to some song that happened to be playing on the radio it was copyright infringement?
As much as I have problems with people using other people's creations to make a living, there has to be some leeway when it comes to regular people who have no other aspirations other than other people might enjoy it.
I think that discussion is lacking here on Techdirt, as the concern seems to be more about the appropriation of others work to make money rather than the average Joe who has a clever or not so clever)idea and just wants to share it with no idea of making money from it.
On the post: Is The Internet Making People Dumber... Or Is Nick Carr Reminiscing For Days That Never Existed
Also, the number of people reading books may be no greater or less than before the internet, but it has affected people's attention spans. I quite often see this response, "tldr" when someone links to an article. It means "too long, didn't read."
As to your links to studies showing that kids have better writing skills, man do I beg to differ on that one. Reading many comment boards makes me want to "loose" my mind.
But don't get me wrong,I love the interwebs. As an information junkie from way back, it's heaven.
On the post: Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It
It's good to know that young writers no longer have to copy the style of other writers, they can simply copy their actual work.
I may be an old and in the way, but I was taught to find my own voice and be original and don't ever, ever copy someone else's work. At one time that was an unforgivable sin.
It's one thing to be influenced or inspired by someone else, it's quite another to steal their stuff. And let's make no mistake about it, it is theft. It doesn't matter whether it is legal or not, it is ethically wrong.
Next >>