This article was issued October 27, 2010. This article was written by a frequent writer, David Kravets. It was edited by Kevin Poulsen and contributions to the article were made by Kim Zetter and Ryan Singel. This article is discussing the "loophole" that was found in order to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits. All that was needed was the small payment of $105. After paying this, if any information found on the cite that was not from the author, such as comment or a blog, the writer of the article cannot be sued. This way, the owners of the article would not be responsible for any information that they themselves do not post. This may seem quite silly, but keeping in mind the danger of being sued for copyright infringement for $150,000, this is a very necessary $150. According to the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), a website will receive complete immunity from the threat of being sued by something that was posted by a viewer. The author does not clearly show any bias towards the issue. However interpreting the language that he uses, we can infer that he agrees and supports this act. Therefore websites cannot be held responsible for what their viewers post.
funny photoshop play
This would be another example of a meme.
I hope no one feels as if this is a racial or otherwise abrasive. I would hate it if I knew the kid, but is the internet hs made him some random kid...yes? Google "Looter Guy" for another example of photoshop meme creation.
I think that the article I have chosen because it explains the fair use of media literacy through its legalities, principles, and heard of myths. They create five key principles that explain what the true legal use of media literacy should be. The writers of this document even support their words with sections on the passage entitled "What This Is" and "What This Isn't". This document proposes possible arguments that could pass as media literacy and then shuts them down describing how they are improper understandings of media literacy. The writers do their best to show the true form of "copyright education". This article mainly describes the legal aspects of fair use of media literacy.
Living in the serene mountains; yet totally connected to the world. Does this seem like a pun? Well, it isn't! Check out this absolutely digitally-connected retreat in the Himalayas
Learning by observation' is a tried and tested success mantra with children; this school in Japan augments this approach by substantiating it with complementary architecture and a wholesome environment. Check it out and leave us your views...
What Andy Clarke is trying to say is that although twitter is a very social site, it can not be used to its full potential because not as many ideas are exchanged. This is because people are afraid of their ideas being stolen, but with this new creative commons copyright partnership, people will never have to worry anymore. It allows people top share ideas and both get the amount of credit they deserve. Although this can be unnecessary for basic, "I just got milk at the store," tweets, it will be amazing for people who want to share ideas whether, they're intellectual or not.
Issued: March 2009. Big companies are starting to crack down on copyright infringements. With over 15 lawsuits in 2007, the number of lawsuits targeted against blogs has started to rapidly rise. The author, Brian Stelter, is a writer for New York Times who's main focus is on television and the digital media. This article seems to be aimed at the big companies who the author believes are unfairly digging into to copyright laws. The article mentions a lot of disputes such as the ones between New York Times and Gate House Media, Silicon Alley Insider and The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and All Headlines News and others. Most of the websites getting sued were blogs or newspaper websites that quoted other people's works, assuming it would be okay under the "fair use" statute of copyright laws.
i went to the New York Times online to search the term, "copyright" to get an article relating to copyright issues or infringement. this article by Brian Stelter was published on March 1st, 2009. Stelter is a journalist for the New York Times. Stelter sides with the people who claim to be getting copyrighted. He bases the majority of his article against the bloggers and other online publishes "who seem to be on the rise." He also questions when excerpting from an article becomes illegal copying. Although he mostly sides with the people claiming to be copyrighted he also sheds light on those bloggers and online publishers whom give credit to those sites they excerpted information from. Statler keeps bringing up the issue of "excerpting to find value" in which online publishers combine articles to validate their thesis. In the end, Statler shows both sides of the story and doesn't leave out any information regarding the thoughts of both parties.
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: March 1, 2009
Brian Stelter focuses on a quotation from the Silicon Alley Insider which quoted a quarter of Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal. "We thank Dow Jones in advance for allowing us to bring it to you." The editor added "in advance" because Dow Jones, the publisher of The Journal, had not given the blog permission to use the column. With this particular instance of copyright infringement and others, Stetler brings light to the fact that permission isn't being given between different industries when taking direct quotations or titles from that industries publication. "Some media executives are growing concerned that the increasingly popular curators of the Web that are taking large pieces of the original work - a practice sometimes called scraping - are shaving away potential readers and profiting from the content." He also brings up the numerous lawsuits that arise because of copyright infringement.
This article focuses on the theft intellectual property being a civil offense instead of a white collar crime, as inventor of clockwork radio Trevor Baylis believes. Baylis argues that, '"If I stole from you, then I would probably go to jail. But if I were to steal your intellectual property, which potentially could be worth billions of pounds, it would be only a civil case - and, even then, most of us can't afford to pay 350 an hour for a lawyer.'" Many other countries have made intellectual property a crime, such as Japan and the United States. The article points out many CEOs, artists, and inventors who are quoted in telling the power and value of an idea and of an invention. Despite this, UK authorities still believe that infringement of intellectual property is best dealt as a civil offense instead of a criminal offense. Baylis believes that "the inventor or entrepreneur will not gain true recognition" for there work if the UK places infringement as a civil offense.
This article by Noam Cohen describes the controversy over the use of public photos on flickr. Flickr is a website used to share images with family and friends, which is now being used by company's and site's selling images without the approval of their owners. One example was Virgin Mobile's use of a picture of Alison Chang, a 15 year old, in one of their campaigns without her knowledge. The picture was under the protection of a creative commons that allowed it to be used for commercial use, making this issue more about privacy than about copyright. Virgin Mobile responded that they were "promoting creative freedom and didn't do anything wrong."
An article from BNO News has recently reported that LimeWire has been shut down by a U.S. court on claims that the site was used for infringement. LimeWire is notorious for allowing its users to download music without paying for the file, which begs the question, is this legal? The Recording Industry Association of American, which represents several important record labels such as Sony, EMI, Universal, and Warner filed a lawsuit against LimeWire in 2006 stating that the company was allowing downloading of illegal music, violating the terms of the music's copyright. Since these record labels own the copyrights to the majority of the music that was being distributed, they were losing money and business because they were not getting paid for the use of their music. Lime Group, the company that owns LimeWire, continues to function otherwise, it is just this subsidiary that has been ceased to conduct business. Although the future seems bleak for LimeWire, its CEO remains optimistic.
On October 27, 2010 a very popular music sharing application called Limewire was shut down due to copyright infringement. BNO news reported the story to wireupdate.com and the a few record labels like SOny, EMI, Universal and Warner filed a lawsuit against Limewire in 2006 so this is nothing new for the file sharing company. The Lime Group CEO and owner of Limewire George Searle said "challenging time, we are excited about the future." So he seems to have a good outlook on the future eeven though his company is going through this touch time.
Issued on April 6, 2010 in San Francisco. This article was written by Miguel Helft in the New York Times. He is a well known author for the New York Times that covers Internet companies such as Google or Yahoo. This article discusses how photographers and other artists filed a lawsuit against google for the mass copying their work. The artists claimed that they were not adequately compensated by google for the use of their work. Google was given permission from the visual artists to scan their work onto the website, however the artists feel that this partnering program with Google turned out to be unfair. Google is now being sued for copyright infringement. This article is informative to all people because it shows that even largely popular websites like Google may not be as trustworthy as perceived.
Dr. Leeds will be talking about this next Tuesday (Oct. 28th) and I thought it applies to Media and Culture. The question is "Does the free market corrode moral character?" and this site has links to several people's points of view.
Slideshow of images from this new technology. Somewhat like the photoshop site we looked at in class, this innovation can show you a theoretically more attractive version of yourself.
Somewhat like the photoshop site we looked at in class, this innovation can show you a theoretically more attractive version of yourself. It's worth reading this article!
This poster from Advertising Age is updated annually, this is the latest one available. A printed copy is hanging in the M&C classroom. It lists the "Top properties of the nation's largest media companies by net revenue in 2006."
All changes to this law enacted in 2006 (as discussed today) were repealed in January 2008. This wikipedia article covers the original law, the 2006 changes and the 2008 repeal.
I found this video really interesting. It's about how the media affects body image ideals for women and girls and what is being done to stop this "fat talk"
Group items tagged 
