Friday, December 17, 2004
TIME FOR THE WORLDIt seems to be a time for consideration of worlds. This relates to what Rebecca MacKinnon, Jay Rosen and others are up to with Global Voices (see posts A Global Voice and Imagining Worlds below). The Media Freedom Internet Cookbook has been published by the Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Its goal, according to the preface by Miklós Haraszti:
...our Cookbook's recipes are not the usual "see what you can concoct in your kitchen". Our experts were not asked to explore the infinite possibilities offered by the world's first truly global medium. To all freedom lovers of the Internet &mdash legislators, industry workers, and consumers of the Web — we offer recipes not of how to consume the freedom of the Internet, but how to preserve it. Ulrike Trux at Editors Weblog reports:
The Media Freedom Internet Cookbook, further attempts to help users and governments fight "bad content", for example hate speech, without jeopardising freedom.
A 276-page PDF of the book can be downloaded at the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media website. I have my copy, which should make for some good holiday reading. |
HIGH SCORES FOR JOURNALISTSWe're used to seeing studies with journalists at the low end of the ratings (respect, trust, etc.), so it's nice to see Leonard Witt's post on a study that shows journalists score high in moral reasoning.
Findings in an academic study indicate, "journalists have higher than average abilities when it comes to moral reasoning," writes Kelly McBride in a Poynter Institute column. And: --Investigative journalists had the highest scores. --Journalists who said civic journalism was part of their work also had higher scores.
According to the study, journalists rank fourth among the ranked groups, behind seminarians, physicians, and medical students. |
A GLOBAL VOICEJay Rosen's conversation about imaging worlds arose from a conference workshop on Global Voices. Also spinning out of it is a group effort to write a Global Voices manifesto, a wiki work in process. Rebecca McKinnon provides an update:
We believe in free speech, both in protecting the right to speak and extending access to the tools of speech. We define speech broadly to include many media that facilitate expression. The broadest right of free speech has always extended primarily to those who owned technology for publishing and distribution, beginning with the printing press. It is now possible for anyone to publish, broadcast and have access to a distribution channel via the Internet. It is our goal that everyone who wants to speak can be heard. We believe in the power of direct connection and the freedom to connect. The bond between individuals from different worlds is personal, political and powerful. We seek to create bridges that cross the gulfs that have traditionally divided us. When we cross these gulfs, we understand each other more fully, work together more effectively, and act more powerfully. With these bridges, we can do together what we could only dream of doing alone. Direct connection is its own reward. However, in a world full of challenges, it is also the best path to building a future that is freer, fairer, more sustainable and more prosperous. While we're all committed to our own work as individuals, we also recognize our common interest and goals. We each speak for ourselves, but we[base ']re all in this together. We pledge to respect, listen to, assist, and learn from one other. We are Global Voices. I've included the whole thing because 1) to excerpt it robs it of some of its power and 2) this is an important piece of thinking. In my stumbling thoughts about questions posed by Rosen, I didn't pay enough attention to the key to this newly-imagined world: the connection. And one of the strengths of this world is while the connection can be instantaneous (what's happening almost anywhere in the world is available, in the voices of those who are living it), but the conversation (blog to blog to blog to comment to....) allows time for deep reading and thought. Conversation that moves toward understanding. A global conversation even has the power to begin picking away at the current weakness: there are huge pieces missing from this world, because of dictatorial governments, poverty, lack of access to the technology, etc. Utopian stuff? I don't think so.
(MacKinnon's post [link above] has links to the wiki, the web site and the original conference coverage, all worth reading for what they add to the conversation.) |
YOUR PERSONAL MEDIA CENTREIs this more evidence that the cellphone is the personal media centre of the (very near) future?
Apple Computer and Motorola may soon show the mobile phone they are developing to play music purchased from Apple's iTunes online music store, reports Forbes. "We've said we have something coming on this in the first half of 2005 and we're definitely on schedule for that. Hopefully you'll be able to see more about it soon," says Eddy Cue, vice president in charge of applications at Apple. "What we've talked about is a something that is valuable for the mass market," Cue added. "It has to be a phone in the middle-tier of the market, not a $500-tier phone. It has to be very seamless to use. And we're very happy with the results."
SOURCE: APPLE INSIDER |
COPY FEE KILLEDIt inevitably happens when I make a major purchase: shortly after either a newer, better model is introduced, or the price drops. That's the case with my iPod, given the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ruling that copyright levies on digital music players are not legal. The Copyright Board of Canada levies fees on blank recording media and digital music players as a way of compensating rights holders for the pirating the media and players makes possible. The court ruled that digital music players aren't covered by the legislation that allows for the fees ($25 in the case of my iPod.) I originally opposed the levy, but now it makes sense, as a reasonable way of dealing with piracy. It recognizes that piracy exists, while compensating those who suffer because of it. It makes much more sense than what we see happening in the States, with rights holder organization attempting to have technologies declared illegal because one of their possible uses is piracy. The decision is based on a technical reading of the law. According to the Globe & Mail:
...the wording of the act has not kept up with the new technology of MP3 players, represented by the wildly popular iPod, which use an embedded memory rather than discs or cassettes, to store digital copies of songs. "As desirable as bringing such devices within the ambit of [the Act] might seem, the authority for doing so still has to be found in the Act," Judge Noël said in his decision. 9:53:20 AM LINK TO THIS POST |
Last update: 12/26/04; 7:04:08 AM .
