Here is another site...Independent Press Councils. I don't think we have anything like this in the United States. Who monitors the press, really? This council has no legal authority, but it does monitor complaints about the media and subscribes to a code of ethics. It is interesting to note how differently the U.S. handles press related issues as compared to other countries.

http://www.aipce.net/whatIsAPressCouncil/

You all have got to read about his commission. It accepts, investigates and attempts to resolve privacy issues. Check out the stories detailing cases that have been reported and those having been resolved. This is really interesting because last semester in one of my Public Relations classes I mentioned that a self-policing Commission or Agency like this to investigate and monitor press conduct was needed in the United States. Didn't know that one really existed in another country.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/index.html

Sullivan case could be applied to Jamaica Law

Media officials and a parliamentary committee were engaged in a heated verbal battle. The two sides were attempting to reach a comprise on whether or not to accept Sullivan versus New York Times principle as it relates to the exposure of of corrupt public officials. The Media Association of Jamaica and the Press Association of Jamaica have asked that the "Sullivan approach be adopted into Jamaican law."

We learned from readings and lecture that under the Sullivan case that damages cannot be awarded to a public official for defamation as it relates to his official conduct and the burden of proving actual malice to the public official before a publication is defamatory.

What I found interesting was that Jamaica is just now debating over this issue.

To read full article see

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090627/lead/lead3.html

Bernard Madoff gets maximum 150 years in prison

The 71 year old former CEO chairman of Nasdaq pleaded guilty to fraud and other charges, was sentence to 150 years in jail. Bernard Madoff was sentenced to prison for his mulibillion dollar fraud scheme. The U.S. District Judge Chin sentenced him today. The defense attorney wanted a 12 years sentence, considering his age and that would meet life. But the prosecutors wanted the maximum. The federal department recommended 50 years. The judge called the fraud "staggering" and said it had went on for over 20 years. Mentioning the breach of trust was massive. 

It is amazing how some things come to light. This guy must have thought after 20 years there is no way I can get caught. I am glad he got the maximum, although this doesn't return the money that was stolen from his victums. The news mentions how he stole from 401's and even caused people to kill themselfs. They were able to stripe Bernard of almost everything, his wife tryed to hide moneys but I think they were able to get that as well. (WEEK 5)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_madoff_scandal;_ylt=Ah3ml.Sco1C9yyC5PppR9NNv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTJjMm8ybzJiBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC91c19tYWRvZmZfc2NhbmRhbARjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNiZXJuYXJkbWFkb2Y-

Hasselbeck sued for plagiarism

The View co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was sued this week for allegedly copying sections of another woman's diet book. Susan Hassett says she mailed Hasselbeck a copy of her book, "Living with Celiac's Disease" - which she self-published in 2008 - for Hasselbeck to discuss on The View. However, Hassett says portions of her book can be found verbatim in Hasselbeck's book "The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide."

What is interesting to me about this case is that Hasset self-published her book. I'm guessing it doesn't matter who published the book, it's a published work and not just an idea Hasset had and sent to Hasselbeck. At the time of this article, Hasselbeck hadn't responded to the lawsuit, so I'm curious to see how she responds and how this case unfolds.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN238084120090623

Appeals Court Backs Prison for E-Mail Obscenity

This article relates really well to what we were talking about last class in regards to obscenity and the First Amendment. The article talks about a Virginia man, named Dwight Whorely, who under court findings violated criminal statues regulating obscenity. Whorely, who the article also states is an apparent pedophile, was in violation for writing out his sexual fantasies involving children, and e-mailing them to like-minded internet friends and being in possession of obscene Japanese manga. The latter charge is in violation of the recently-enacted Protect Act, which outlaws obscene cartoons depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The article goes on to explain that the case has gained much attention from the Supreme Court, particularly Judge Roger Gregory. He is looking to take up the case and reverse the outcomes, saying that this case is "convicting a man for the victimless crime of privately communicating his personal fantasies to other consenting adults." He goes on to state that the Supreme Court ruling that made it is illegal for Americans to traffic obscene materials that they possess through interstate commerce, which today includes the internet, has not kept up with technology and should be changed. I am very surprised that a Supreme Court judge would give this case a second look and would want to try to change the outcome. I understand that because of today's vast and growing technologies there are many factors that play into these rulings but when it revolves around any type of child pornography it shouldn't matter if the e-mails were consensual or not.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/email-obscenity/#more-6339

FTC to Regulate Bloggers' Product Reviews

In what is said to be "the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online," the FTC is drawing up guidelines regarding how bloggers review products. According to the source below, the rules are expected to go into effect sometime late this summer. If someone is found to be in violation of the new regulations, the FTC can go after any individual blogger or company that makes the product being reviewed. I scan the Internet for product reviews almost every time I have to make a significant purchase, just to possibly avoid buying a brand that's bad news or in an attempt to find an especially good product. The FTC's issue is that some people are reviewing products online that they are getting (sometimes big) compensation for without disclosing that information. The article quoted a study that indicated some bloggers are getting as much as $3000 for just posting 200 words about a product, not to mention free vacations and other pricey perks. These regulations would also cover Twitter and any other media that someone uses to do a product review.

While I'm not a big fan of any attempts at Internet regulation in general, I can at least see the point behind someone being forced to confess that they received an all-expenses-paid trip to the resort they just raved about on their blog. One part of the regulation that seems sketchy to me, however, is that they will also have rules regarding your average blogger linking to the websites of products they mention, which is pretty much standard in the blog world. As you can imagine, the article includes quotes from bloggers who are not exactly happy about the news. Read more about this here.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200906151738dowjonesdjonline00057

My memory is horrible, but I think we discussed this legislation in class or it was mentioned in our readings. At any rate, here is a great, readable article about the U.S. passing laws to protect bloggers and other writers from foreign defamation judgments. The trend is dubbed "Libel tourism" and it is a relatively recent trend to use defamation laws in foreign countries to bring lawsuits against American journalists, authors and publishers, because other countries tend to have less stringent libel laws than the U.S.

As I was researching information for my class paper, I ran into an interesting article. There is a movement afoot to support a writer who made comments about a medical procedure and is now being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. Evidently the burden of proof is on the defendant in British libel law, and there are other issues as well. Interesting reading. Here is the short link, but there is also a link to read the background on the case if anyone is interested. It's a long read.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333

House impeaches federal judge from Texas

In Washington on 6/19/09, the House impeached a federal judge imprisoned for sexual assault charges by two women. This was the first such vote by the House since impeaching former President Bill Clinton a decade ago. The U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Texas is the first federal judge impeached in 20 years. There were four articles of impeachment against Kent accusing him of sexually assulting two female employees and lyning to investigators. All of the articles passed unanimously. Kent 59, entered a federal prison in Massachusetts and will serve a 33-month sentence. He pleaded guilty to both charges. He is refusing to resign until next year to continue to draw his $174,000 a year salary. If convicted of the impeachment chargers, he will be forced off the bench.

This seems some what extreme. The article goes on to say how he has suffered from depression since his wife's death and is suffering with alcohol. I think he should be punished, but being put in a federal prison could be harmful who is to say he didn't put some of those prisoners in jail. If he did he is as good as dead. His salary should have been stopped once he pleaded guilty. He is definitely a disgrace to the American court system.

Mom has to pay up for illegal file sharing

Today a jury ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rassat, a Minnesota mother of four, willfully violated copyrights on 24 songs she illegally shared. She is to pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

This is actually the second trial against Thomas-Rassat, and the verdict was worse the second time: the first time she was also found guilty, but had to pay just $222,000. That verdict was thrown out when the judge said he gave the jury bad instructions.

Thomas-Rassat's case is the only one in thousands of similar suits that actually made it to trial. All the others sued settled with the RIAA for about $3,500 each. I'm curious why Thomas-Rassat didn't settle. However, this story includes a comment from the head of the RIAA that says they're still willing to settle, which I found interesting. So really this case isn't about the money, but about making an example out of Thomas-Rassat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

AG Holder calls for stricter hate crime laws after recent violence

US Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday requested stricter federal hate crime laws, stateing that the US Department of Justice is committed to working with Congress to pass this decree. He cited recent crimes that took the lives of an abortion doctor, a soldier in Arkansas, and a guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum as examples of the "potential threat posed by violent extremists". He goes on to state the priorty of the continuance of the Civil Rights Division in the DOJ and to preserve the ideals of equal protection that are apart of our Declartion of Independence and the Fourteenth Amendment. Holder maintained that progress has been made in the division since the new President entered office. He went on to make a statement to reinforce the seriousness of these hate crimes. 

My thoughts are that I am glad there is continued progress in this area. Being an African America I am so glad that I wasn't born sooner than I was. To have to experience the really hateful crimes that blacks experienced. I don't believed I would have survived slavery. Everyone should think that they are better than the next person, but it is not their place to judge and jury of another persons life. 

(http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2...) 

90 year J.D. Salinger sues fan over Copyright Issue

I came across an article where "Catcher in the Rye" Author, J.D. Salinger, filed for an injunction on the publication of a book he says is a copycat of Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye". The book is titled "60 years Later:Coming through the Rye." The author whose writes under the psuedonym John David California,tells the story an elderly Caulfield who escapes from an retirement home,and includes a character version of Salinger.
In an interview with Law Blog writer Ashby Jones, copyright lawyer Marc Reiner seemed unconvinced that Salinger had a winning case against the book. Reiner said that while Caulfield is probably a copyrightable character, “60 Years Later” may qualify as a parody in the court’s eyes, as the “sequel” puts the main character as an old man and may show a “transformative” quality to the original—to what extent the book in question transforms the original work can affect whether it is seen as infringement.
After reading chapter 14 on copyright law, I have better understanding of why Reiner and Jones question the case. To read the full article go to http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2009/June/Salinger-Sues-Fan-Over-Copyright-Issues-Will-He-Win-.html

Old Case, New Tricks

Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd, Minnesota did what no other defendant in a file-sharing lawsuit has done: she took her case to trial. Other cases thus far have been settled out of court by defendants eager to put the case to rest and avoid legal bills. Average settlement fees have been $3,500. In 2007 a federal court in Duluth found the defendant guilty of sharing 24 songs on Kazaa, and therefore liable for damages to the bad tune of $222,000. Since then, Thomas-Rasset has been granted a retrial because a judge made a mistake in telling the jury that it had no bearing on the case whether the songs had been downloaded from the defendant. Now it is said that the law requires proof that the files were actually shared with others.

As noted in this previous post, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is no longer pursuing cases against people they believe are guilty of file sharing. Instead, alleged copyright pirates will be targeted via their ISPs, who may cut off service altogether. This is partially the result of a widely held public belief that cases like this should not be brought against the public by the recording industry. In the news article that inspired this post, the file sharing court case debacle was called a “public relations nightmare” for the recording industry, which is apparently viewed as a Big Corporate Bad Guy beating up on individuals like single moms and college students who don’t have the resources to fight. Thomas-Rasset is a mother of four and also says she is financially strapped, but in this case it doesn’t matter, as she has an impressive legal team fighting for her pro bono. Her head lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, said he is taking the case in order to “turn Thomas-Rasset's retrial into a trial against the RIAA, both before the jury and in the court of public opinion. A win by the defense, he said, could undermine the other music-sharing cases.” Camara is already using inventive pre-trial tactics against the RIAA. One that has been successful so far is demanding that the RIAA present certified copies from the U.S. Copyright Office to prove ownership of the material. This has never been a requirement in the past, and was called a “new headache” for the industry.

RIAA’s spokeswoman predicts victory in the upcoming retrial, calling the RIAA “confident” that they will prevail. But with Thomas-Rasset’s eager and crafty legal assistance and with the court of public opinion already in her favor, it will be interesting to see how this—possibly one of the “last dinosaurs” of the file-sharing cases—will turn out. Quotes and factual information were taken from this article.

Family photos used for advertisement in Foreign Country

While watching Fox 2 news this evening I saw an interesting news story that told of a woman who recently posted her family photos on her facebook page. The woman was sbocked when she received a call from a friend, who happens to live in Prauge, Czech, that her family picture was featured in a grocery store advertisement. The woman had no knowledge of the advertisement, so obviously she did not give permission for the photo to be used for such purposes.

The news story mentions that Cyber expert Scott Shaffer tells us that " anything you put on the internet could be there forever" and that ' Images,quotes it can live forever. They may even out live you, keep in mind what you are exposing up there."

We spoke about the use of photos used for other purposes other than it's original intent in the first class. My question when I first saw the story was does the family have any legal recourse for the use of the pictures ? Or is whatever is posted on the internet fair game in or out of the United States?http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-cyberwarning-facebookphoto-061009,0,5160229.story

Coldplay's plagiarizing problems

Anybody listen to Coldplay? The band was originally sued a few months ago by guitarist Joe Satriani for plagiarizing part of the tune of Coldplay’s latest hit “Viva La Vida.” He says significant parts of his 2004 song “If I Could Fly” are in Coldplay’s tune. In 2008, a band called Creaky Boards accused Coldplay of using parts of their song in Viva la Vida. And now, Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens), has come forward to say he, too, believes parts of his 1973 song “Foreigner Suite” can be heard in “Viva La Vida.” So far, Islam’s is nothing more than an accusation. I found it interesting that when asked if he would file a suit against Coldplay, Islam said he would wait to see how successful Satriani’s suit would be. I kind of doubt Coldplay would knowingly lift parts from three different musicians’ songs to create their own, but we’ll see what happens with this suit. I definitely hear the similarity between Satriani and Coldplay, but I don’t hear it as much in Islam’s.

This story includes links to the songs so you can hear them for yourself.
http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/05/coldplay-sued-a.html

Court: Judges must avoid appearance of bias

Today in Washington the Supreme Court passed that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions of interested parties pose as being bias. The court said that a judge who would remained involved in a litigation between a generous supporter of their campaign, would deprive the other side of their constitional right to a fair trial. It went on to mention that "just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when - without the consent of the other parties - a man chooses the judge in his own cause".

This whole article is rather disturbing. Ethically you would think that the person in the higher position would make it perfectly clear that there are possibly conflicts of interest. I personally wouldn't want to be involved in anything that would cause my position to be jeopardized. I would think this would fall somewhere along the waylines of briberies. 

URL:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168141 

Website copyrighting

http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/benefits.htm

This is an interesting article related to encouraging folks to copyright their websites. I would never have thought about the fact that folks can so easily borrow from a web site. In fact, I probably have cut and pasted information from website rather frequently, using it for a variety of things, mostly in its original form.

It seems strange to protect this information, while at the same time legal initiatives to dictate what can and can not be done on the internet are still pending.