Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Uncited sensationalism

So there is this video floating around youtube that a friend of mine showed me that showed truly spectacular uncited sensationalism. In it, it focuses on Fox News' coverage on Sen. Obama in the presidential race. And then it shows as other news organizations fall into line and continue to ignore the citation of the issues.

Yesterday I ran a test. I posted a truly sensational story. Cited an article about what sounded like artistic apocalypse. There was some good discussion. But there was something missing. Did anyone catch it? All this talk about a bill, act, whatever... but did anyone ever link to it? I hoped someone would catch me on my lack of citation. Well, that's okay. Want to read the exact wording yourself? You can find it right here. Now, here is what I read here.
The bad news is yes, SOME of the ass-hattery that the writer in the article I linked yesterday IS possible by this bill. However, the good news is this. The way I read it, there is actually far more protection for the artist than was being previously noted. Also, this was simply a matter in the congressional sub-committees. Just like thousands of other items every year.
However, if one were to follow the links to find "all congressional actions", or just follow the link here, we will see that this item is by no means "dead". It was, in fact, voted from sub-committee to full committee. That just means it is waiting for it's turn again. Now, I'm not sure that this will ever make it to bill, or if it does that it will become as horrible a visage as all the hype can sometimes make it sound. But I do know that this is a democracy. It is our responsibility to watch those items that effect us most and take a stand.


Anonymous said...

Your link's dead, dude.
Despite that, a search run in the 109th Congress for bills pertaining to Title 17, then a search run on the results page that gives for "Orphan Work," gave me the full text of the bill.
Now, my legalese isn't the greatest, but it looks to me like if someone "creates a new work" from an infringed work - say, traces it and adds flourishes - they can use that as much as they want.
Considering that's still the case, not too scary. What interests me in that particular paragraph is that they still have to pay for it, which (if my understanding is correct) is not the case now.
This isn't all bad.
It's still pretty bad.
I still hope it never happens. ^^

Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu said...

Your link's dead, dude.

For the record, thomas search results aren't permalinks, they time *very* quickly. It's quite shady.

Anonymous said...