yasmin, i hope you all may contribute ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:00 AM Subject: Discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13
> Send Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Ryan Prior <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Allow me to cast the first stone: http://changeyarly.ytmnd.com/ >> >> Thanks for the seizure. >> >> -- >> Matt Lee >> Free Software, etc. >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] ALERT! Stop Copyright Filters in Broadband > Stimulus! > To: [email protected], Discussion of Free Culture > in general and this organization in particular > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Karen Rustad > <[email protected]>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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
