Category Archives: Publish

London 2012 O(ffline)lympics

Photo Source: David K.K.

The Olympics are a magical time. Those of us lucky enough to have been in the city during the Vancouver 2010 Olympics know this as fact. There are truly no words to describe this event. But if you’re in London for this year’s Summer Olympics and are hoping to capture a few pictures that say the thousand words you can’t find to account for your experiences, and then share them, say, with your 800 Facebook friends, you may run into some difficulty.

According to this article, the rules for Olympic-goers are pretty clear: There is to be no social sharing of any photos or videos taken at the Games. Yes, that means Facebook/Twitter/Instagram//Flickr/YouTube…even Google+! In other words, what happens in London, stays in London. Or at least, stays off the Internet.

The very bottom of an extensive Ticketholders Terms and Conditions states: “Images, video and sound recordings of the Games taken by a Ticket Holder cannot be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes and a Ticket Holder may not license, broadcast or publish video and/or sound recordings, including on social networking websites and the internet more generally, and may not exploit images, video and/or sound recordings for commercial purposes under any circumstances, whether on the internet or otherwise, or make them available to third parties for commercial purposes.”

And according to this report, security guards have already been trained to deter professional photographers. So yes, they are very serious about this. Which brings up the very obvious question of implementation: other than brash security guards, how exactly are they going to be able to monitor this? History tells us that despite prohibition, prohibited activity never truly ceases. What more, over an uncontrolled medium such as the Internet? And in the free-for-all Internet that we have come to know and love today, is this kind of prohibition a violation of our rights to connect as we please and publish what is ours? Has control over what is posted on the Internet grown beyond our reach?

What do you think? Leave your comments below.

One thing’s for sure, if we lived life according to this popular internet meme, then the London 2012 Summer Olympics would be as existent as the Canucks’ Cup run this year (hey, at least I can make jokes about it now.)

 

Joplin tornado and the process of newsgathering

Eleven days ago, in the town of Joplin, Missouri in the central United States, one of the deadliest tornados in recent memory struck, killing 142 people, causing billions in damages, and leaving survivors in shock. Twelve hours after the tornado touched down, Brian Stelter, a television and media writer for the New York Times, was on a plane bound for Chicago and the taping of Oprah Winfrey’s final show. He decided to head to Joplin to cover the tornado story instead.

Here’s a fascinating blog post from Stelter about the process of attempting to cover a tornado disaster for a national newspaper. He relies on text messages and local radio for information. He uses the local McDonald’s WiFi to send Twitter updates and Instagram photos to colleagues about the damage and the stories of the people left in the tornado’s wake.

In reaction to Stelter’s account, Jeff Jarvis, director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York, suggests that this method of covering a story using frequent, short updates by the person at the scene puts the focus squarely on reporting, not the production of a news article, which can be done by other writers not directly there. According to Jarvis, this is how it should be for disaster coverage, now and in the future.

Online network education for kids – Doctorow style

Cory Doctorow talks about kids, privacy and social networks

In a recent TEDx presentation, the Canadian blogger and science fiction author, Cory Doctorow, proposes a new type of “network education” for kids online. His views stand in contrast to those suggesting that filtering internet content in an effort to keep kids safe is the way to go. Rather, he argues that filtering content prevents kids from understanding networks and privacy tools on their own – kind of like how feeding ducks in a pond leaves them unprepared to fend for themselves come winter.

Instead, here’s how Doctorow envisions privacy education for kids:

  • Turn to libraries, schools and other institutions to be “islands of networked privacy best practices”
  • Teach kids to encrypt everything they do on the internet
  • Teach them to jailbreak every device that they handle
  • Teach kids to choose the best products for their privacy
  • Teach them to bust every sensor wall that harvests a record of what they look at
  • Teach them to spoof every form they’re asked to fill in
  • Block the RFID tags they carry around with them
  • Figure out how to move through their cities and towns without their locations being recorded by CCTV cameras

Who should be responsible – parents or teachers – for teaching kids about their digital footprints and how should it be done, are important questions. Perhaps, now it’s not a question of who should be responsible but who is willing to take responsibility.

Illegal downloading prosecutions over? Think again

If you thought there was nothing to worrying about, you’re wrong.

In a Minnesota courtroom this past month, single mother Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was ordered to pay 62,500 USD per song for 24 songs she illegally downloaded from KaZaA, a popular file sharing site. AFP reported that the total fine given was an astronomical 1.5 million dollars. Read the story here.

Her case is a lay over from 2007, when she appealed an original conviction for the same transgression. The November 2010 verdict is an exception, however, as most recording labels have endorsed a moratorium for the past two years against prosecuting file sharers.

While the labels may have ceased with the legal hammer, file sharers in other mediums are not off the hook. Popular Internet blog cnet has noted that filmmakers are increasingly on the prowl, with nearly 20,000 proceedings launched in November 2010 alone.

“Could you patent the sun?”

Despite all the ink dedicated to open access as a new publishing model it is in fact an old way. Take for example, Dr. Jonas Salk. Unknown thousands, maybe even you, owe their ability to walk to Dr. Salk. How so? He invented the vaccine for Polio in 1952.  The research, creation, and funding of the vaccine would today be called open access.

When asked who owned the patent, Salk replied:

“Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

Wow.

Funding for the creation of the drug was raised through a public canvassing campaign called March of Dimes.

Such a revelation would be unlikely in the copyright/patent climate today. The open access movement, however, is attempting to revive the spirit of Salk.

Check out open access medical research groups like DNDI that work with major pharmaceutical companies to help create cures to disease that are unprofitable to cure.

Copyright Cowboy

If you have an interest in copyright law and have not already watched Rip!: A remix manifesto, you need to check it out. The director’s politics are a bit heavy handed but the point is eye opening: copyright law has not always been what copyright law is today. Using mash-up music artist Girl Talk as a case study, the director takes viewers through 86 entertaining minutes of copyright past, present and hopeful future.

The most eye opening revelations in Rip! is how traditional public domain music has been borrowed, shared, built upon and eventually copyrighted by popular acts like the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin who then turned around and said the borrowing stops with them. The Rolling Stones sued The Verve for 100% royalties on their 1990’s hit “Bitter Sweet Symphony,” even though the Stones themselves did not originate the score.

And as if that is not enough to tweak your interest, you can watch members of Metallica threaten downloading teenagers with the best lawyers their musical empire can buy. You can also watch Public Enemy’s Chuck D, crooner of such anti-establishment anthems as Fight the Power and 911 is a Joke, defend the right of to download music and re-mix tracks. Watch the manifesto here.

Will throttling affect online publishing?

This is something to keep an eye on: throttling. As internet file sharing continues to erode publishing and copyright revenue, will throttling, or pay-for-speed internet presence, be the ‘net tax’ that solves the web publishing quagmire?

[linebreak]

Few people have been talking about throttling in this sense, but I suspect that sooner or later, paying for one’s place in the Internet queue will be one of the answers for recouping revenue lost to ‘illegal’ file sharers. Check out the following story for the most recent developments. What are your thoughts?

Fired for Tweet

Hold that thought. No really. Hold that thought. We all have opinions. At the water cooler an opinion is between you, the person beside you, and the hearsay network of the person who cares enough to repeat your ranting. Twitter, however, is not a person, it is a broadcast network, something people often forget when looking at the harmless looking Tweet button on their digital gadgets.

[linebreak]

CNN senior Middle East reporter, Octavia Nasr, was recently fired for her Tweet about a deceased Lebanese political leader, proving once again that Twitter is not the best place to get too personal or political. This example does not mean that we all need to start fearing Twitter, it is just a friendly reminder to think before you ink.

[linebreak]

Check out this list of nine other ways social media can get you fired.

[linebreak]

Editing the controversial – Wikipedia taking new steps

Wikipedia announced recently that it will make it possible for a broader swath of users to edit controversial subjects on the site whose pages are locked due to abuse and political manipulation. Generally, any reader can edit a page, but there are certain people and topics that the Wiki masterminds do not allow ‘editing’ of without prior vetting from senior Wikipedia staff.

[linebreak]

For example, search the George W. Bush page and you will find that the ‘edit’ button does not appear below sub-sections. Editing by just anybody is not allowed for the former American President’s page. Type in the name of a lesser known political figure, like the assassinated Zimbabwean independence leader, Herbert Chitepo, and you will find edit buttons a plenty which the whole world can click.

[linebreak]

Commenting to the BBC, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said that tighter security on sensitive subjects is necessary, but that these checks have also “prevented thoughtful and sincere newcomers from making good changes.”

[linebreak]

Wikipedia has set up a blog page to show readers how they can navigate the new rules so they too can add to controversial subjects and people. In theory, the changes will make Wikipedia more aligned with its user driven content philosophy, though some content will still be censored.

[linebreak]

Currently, there are over 2000 pages that are considered ‘divisive’ on the site, making up 0.1% of the 3.3 million articles.

[linebreak]

Interesting to note, Germany requires that all Wikipedia pages in the German language be vetted, not just those for controversial characters. The current changes only apply to the English language version of Wikipedia.

Canada attempts new copyright law

The Canadian government is about to enter round three of amending its outdated copyright legislation after two prior attempts, Bill C-60 and Bill C-61, died on the parliamentary floor.

[linebreak]

It is difficult to wade through the jingo of the proposed on-line copyright changes, but in a nutshell the bill legalizes existing practices like personal format transferring (copying a CD to an ipod – which is technically illegal at the moment), and outlawing cracking of digital devices (with the exception of cell phones) and digital media that has been locked by the producer in order to restrict ‘unlawful’ use and distribution.

[linebreak]

The potential law will also differentiate between file sharers for personal use and file sharers for commercial use. Infamous Canadian file shares like, Geremi Adam, who recently got a two and a half year sentence for film piracy, would still be liable for extensive fines and jail time, whereas little Jimmy sharing with his friends at elementary school won’t face hard time for uploading the latest Hanna Montana single – though little Jimmy could face a fine up to $5000.

[linebreak]

The proposed bill has plenty of critics, as did the last two bills that entered cardiac arrest, and no doubt there will be a fight over this piece of shoe leather just as there was over the last. One proposed alternative to the bill is taxing digital devices, ipods specifially, in the same way as blank DVD’s and CD’s are taxed to make up for lost revenue due to pirating and file sharing.

[linebreak]

Check out the various links in this entry to figure out how the law will affect you, and how it could change the Canadian copyright landscape.