CNN announced that RedState.com editor Erick Erickson will join the channel as a political commentator, stating that he is "a perfect fit" for the new show John King, USA. Erickson's long history of incendiary, sexist, and racially charged statements includes asking when voters would "march down" and "beat" lawmakers "to a bloody pulp" and referring to former Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat fucking child molester."

CNN: "Erickson joins the Best Political Team"

CNN calls Erickson "a perfect fit" who is "in touch with the very people" they want to reach. A March 16 post on CNN.com's Political Ticker blog on Erickson's hiring:

Prominent conservative commentator and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson will join CNN as a political contributor, appearing primarily on CNN's new show John King, USA¸ the network announced Tuesday.

Erickson, a self described "obsessive news junkie" who grew up in Dubai and rural Louisiana, will also provide perspective and commentary on other programs across the network.

"Joining CNN is like coming home, and being in Atlanta makes the decision right for me and my family," Erickson said in a statement.

Under Erickson's leadership, RedState.com has become the preeminent right of center community online. Prior to leading RedState.com, Erickson practiced law for six years and managed a number of political campaigns, and he currently serves as a member of the Macon, Georgia, city council. He studied political science and history and earned a bachelor's degree at Mercer University in Macon. Erickson also earned his law degree from Mercer's Walter F. George School of Law.

"Erick's a perfect fit for John King, USA, because not only is he an agenda-setter whose words are closely watched in Washington, but as a person who still lives in small-town America, Erick is in touch with the very people John hopes to reach," said Sam Feist, CNN political director and vice president of Washington-based programming. "With Erick's exceptional knowledge of politics, as well as his role as a conservative opinion leader, he will add an important voice to CNN's ideologically diverse group of political contributors." [CNN's Political Ticker, 3/16/10]

Erickson's history of violent incendiary, sexist, and racially charged commentary

Erickson defends Beck's statement that Obama is "racist" and lashes out at "Obama Brownshirts." At Red State, Erickson defended Glenn Beck's assertion that President Obama is a "racist." Erickson stated, "A while back, Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a 'racist.' Given all the terrorists, thugs, and racists Barack Obama has chosen as close personal friends (see e.g. Rev. Wright), it's not a stretch to say it." Erickson went on to call for a boycott of companies that have pulled out of Beck's show and are, according to Erickson, "kowtowing to Barack Obama's worshippers, brownshirts, goons, and thugs."

Erickson calls Michelle Obama a "marxist harpy wife." In a blog post headlined, "Is Obama Shagging Hookers Behind the Media's Back?" Erickson stated, "I assume not. I assume that Obama's marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think about it, but I ask the question to make one simple point: Barack Obama, like Elliott Spitzer, is a creation of the liberal media and, as a result, could be a serial killing transvestite and the media would turn a blind eye."

Erickson calls Souter a "goat fucking child molester." On his Twitter account, Erickson responded to Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court by stating, "The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester ever to serve on the Supreme Court."

Erickson: "At what point do the people ... march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp?" In a March 31, 2009, post on RedState.com discussing a Washington county's ban on certain kinds of dishwasher detergent, Erickson wrote: "At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?" Later in the post, Erickson added: "Were I in Washington State, I'd be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation."

Erickson: Purpose of Bachmann rally is "to tell Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel." In a post on RedState.com, Erickson wrote: "Today, thousands will pour into Washington to tell Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel (that's section 1233 of the original legislation). If you need details on where to go in D.C. or if you can't go, but want to show up at your Congresscritter's local office, go here." Erickson later "[c]larifi[ed]" that "Americans are sending Obamacare," not Obama, "to a death panel"

Erickson on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota." In a RedState post discussing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, Erickson wrote, "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period."

Erickson declares the "profoundly sick and immoral" Jennings "a proponent of statutory rape" and "a zealous advocate of NAMBLA." In an anti-gay rant posted on RedState, Erickson wrote: "Kevin Jennings is a profoundly sick and immoral human being -- a proponent of statutory rape, an opponent of the Boy Scouts of America, and a zealous advocate of NAMBLA." He added that Jennings is "not just a gay man, but a man who believes in the full gay rights agenda, where men and boys can have sexual relationships free of prudish moral people frowning" and called Jennings "a man who encourages predatory relationships between young boys and grown men."

Erickson: Kennedy wanted to be a "martyr for the cause." During the January 19 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, Erickson discussed Scott Brown's election as Massachusetts senator and stated that "the irony here, though, is that Obama's unicorn of hope and changes is dying under Ted Kennedy, that, if Ted Kennedy had decided to resign or retire when he found out just how bad his health was, instead of wanting to be a martyr for the cause, the Democrats wouldn't be in this position."

Erickson makes repeated attacks on feminists. On his Twitter account, Erickson has made numerous sexist statements. After an anti-abortion ad during this year's Super Bowl, Erickson wrote, "that's it?!?! That's what the feminazis were enraged over? Seriously?!? Wow. That's what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain"; and "Thus ends the credibility of all pro-abortion groups. Thanks Mrs. Tebow for that. Ugly feminists return to their kitchens." The next day, Erickson wrote, "Turned on twitter today and there was a barrage of angry feminists upset with me telling them to get in the kitchen and learn to cook"; "Good thing I didn't suggest the feminists ... you know ... shave. They'd be at my house trying a post-birth abortion on me"; and "Feminists have no sense of humor, but clearly God did in creating feminists."

Erickson: "Dorgan and Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers." In a Twitter post, Erickson stated: "[Sens. Byron] Dorgan and [Chris] Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers. Instead of 72 virgins, they'll get ambassadorships."

Erickson: "It is and has always been the left" that resorts to violence. In a March 7, 2009, Red State post, Erickson wrote: "It is not conservatives burning down homes in Washington State with the ELF. It is not conservatives throwing blood on women wearing fur. It is not conservatives burning down the Texas Governor's Mansion during riots. It is not conservatives rioting during G-8 summits. It is and has always been the left. Deal with it."

VIENNE - L'Opep se préparait mardi à reconduire une fois encore ses quotas, la prudence l'emportant en raison des inquiétudes de court terme ...

I'm a kombucha homebrewer and a user of nettles (for hay fever). So I was interested in this Common Dreams article about a police / Secret Service raid on a pair middle-aged housemates who were using Twitter to communicate with G20 summit protestors in Philadelphia. Here's the choice bit: Court records show the FBI seized hundreds of items, including computers, hard drives, cameras, a World War I-era gas mask, "anarchy books," even an antique needlepoint of Lenin made by Madison's wife's grandmother. Several issues of Steampunk Magazine, where Madison writes under the pen name Professor Calamity, were also seized, as was a guide on poisons (which he says he uses in the writing of mystery novels), a Mao Tse-tung refrigerator magnet, and several Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs. A poster in the living room of anarchist philosopher Mikhail Bakunin was left alone; "I guess they didn't know who he was," says Madison. At one point a hazmat team in full protective gear was brought in to investigate a jar of kombucha tea fermenting in the basement. Madison claims a JTTF agent shook his head and said, "You guys are just a bunch of hippies!" The raid seemed to have an aimless quality. Madison was handed a ticket for a packet of fireworks, and an agent who put his hand into a suspected bag of marijuana discovered, painfully, that it was dried stinging nettles, used in homeopathy. "It was almost as if they thought, 'If we take enough stuff, we'll find something to charge them with,'" Madison says. When he was finally shown the cover sheet to the search warrant, it provided for the seizure of any items "designed or intended as a means of violating the federal rioting laws." How Your Twitter Account Could Land You in Jail (Via Seth's Blog)...

Former judge rules that Liam Fox significantly overclaimed for renovations to his second home

Liam Fox lost his appeal against repaying more than £22,000 in allowances claimed on his second home today after a former high court judge ruled that Fox – along with four other MPs – had significantly overclaimed expenses.

The ruling came in the last 14 appeals against expenses repayments before the election. A new system is to be introduced afterwards.

Fox, the shadow defence secretary, argued that he increased the mortgage on his second home to pay for renovations and furniture in 2004. These items could be paid for on expenses, but the "green book" setting out the rules at the time barred members from increasing mortgages and claiming higher interest payments from the public purse. Fox said that, although he had been left out of pocket, he felt vindicated that he had acted in good faith.

He was one of five MPs whose appeals were rejected by Sir Paul Kennedy. They included the communities minister, Shahid Malik, who was overpaid by £1,050 for a television for his second home and £730 for an armchair.

Overall, Kennedy allowed nine of the 14 appeals, reducing their joint bill by £24,351.93.

His rulings will renew criticism of Sir Thomas Legg's inquiries into individual MPs' expenses. Legg was responsible for vetting all claims between 2004 and 2009 after last year's scandal. Last month, Legg revealed that 390 MPs had been ordered to make repayments. Including the last 14 appeals published today, around 90 disputed Legg's judgments: 58 have been partly or entirely successful in their appeals.

In his ruling, Kennedy said that although he accepted that the items Fox paid for would have been permissible if claimed for directly and receipts were provided, the evidence was "imprecise". However, the fees office, which oversaw MPs' expenses at the time, allowed Fox to claim the money through his mortgage.

Fox said in a statement: "When Sir Thomas Legg said that the fees office had overpaid my mortgage interest over six years, I immediately repaid the money as I never wanted to have any funds I was not entitled to.

"I am delighted that Sir Paul Kennedy has acknowledged that, had the fees office rejected this at the outset, I would have been able to claim directly for work carried out on my property. While out of pocket as a result, I feel vindicated that I acted at all times in good faith." Fox has already repaid the money.

Malik's appeal against repayments for the TV and armchair and overclaiming nearly £1,000 in council tax bills was rejected because they exceeded the limits for such items. However, Kennedy expressed sympathy with Malik, who had written of his frustration that he was being made to pay back for items which the fees office had originally allowed .

"I understand your irritation if, as you say, you sought guidance from the fees office and were told there was no limit," Kennedy writes.

As well as Fox and Malik, others who had appeals rejected today were Chris Pond, Betty Williams, and the former MP Roger Casale. Nine MPs had their appeals either partially or entirely accepted. These were Derek Wyatt, Paul Clark, Geoff Hoon, John Lyons, Denis MacShane, George Mudie, Alison Seabeck, Alan Simpson and Andrew Tyrie.

• MPs' expenses
• Liam Fox

Polly Curtisguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Up to 90,000 zombies freed

Communications within the notorious Waledac botnet have been "effectively decimated," thanks to a novel takedown approach that combined court actions with a variety of technical measures, a Microsoft program manager said Tuesday....

What is your recession sales strategy?

The U.S. Appeals Court has ruled that a ban on newspaper racks in Raleigh Durham International Airport, North Carolina violates the first amendment, following a challenge from a group of US newspapers including the Raleigh News & Observer, Durham Herald-Sun, New York Times, and USA today. The Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority removed the racks, claiming that they [...]

The controversial president of the ANC Youth League Julius Malema has been found guilty of hate speech by a South African judge because of comments he made about a woman who accused President Jacob Zuma for rape. The comments Malema made were: “Those who had a nice time will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast and ask for taxi money. In the morning, that lady requested breakfast and taxi money.”

Malema is known for constantly making controversial statements. Last week our author Muhammad Karim wrote a post about Malema singing an old anti-Apartheid song Kill the Boer.

South African bloggers and legal experts have reacted quickly to the judgement. Opinions about the judgement and the future of freedom of speech in South Africa are deeply divided.

Leading constitutional law expert and Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance at the University of Cape Town Professor Pierre de Vos has questioned the guilt verdict. He argues that the judgement is wrong:

The judgment of magistrate CJ Collis in which she found Julius Malema guilty of hate speech and harassment will probably be cheered on by many South Africans who are sick and tired of the hateful and idiotic utterances of the leader of the ANC Youth League. “Finally old Julius got his come-uppance,” many of us might say. “Finally our legal system has shown Julius a big fat middle finger!”

The problem is, from a legal perspective it is difficult not to conclude that the judgment is wrong. In my opinion it may very well be overturned on appeal.

Robert Brand agrees:

You make a persuasive argument that the magistrate erred and that an appeal may succeed. However, I would go further and argue that an appeal against the hate speech provisions in the Equality Act on Constitutional grounds would also succeed. The act goes much further in defining hate speech than the constitution, and in effect creates a faultless crime: intention to incite harm is not required, just that the words may be construed to have such an intention. It also widens the scope of hate speech to comments that “hurt” or propagate hatred, whereas the constituton refers to “harm” only.

Pierre observes that many South Africans fail to understand hate speech as defined by the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA):

Yet the court seemed to attach little significance to the notion of freedom of speech, and elevated his comments to “hateful” even when Malema was transparently motivated not by hate but by disbelief — a disbelief actually endorsed by the court’s finding. In a sense, this finding is in the same category as the charge against University of Cape Town student Chumani Maxwele, who “waved” at President Jacob Zuma ’s blaring cavalcade. Police ministry spokesman Zweli Mnisi reportedly said that “no person is permitted to use foul language, swear at another individual, as such conduct may lead to promoting hate”.

It is clear from the relevant provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) that Cohen’s fears are misguided. Hate speech is defined in the Act as words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, (in other words, words based on race, sex, gender or sexual orientation, say) against any person that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; or promote or propagate hatred. Showing the middle finger to the President could never be construed as words based on any of the prohibited grounds such as race, sex, gender and sexual orientation, so it could never be construed as hate speech.

Many people fail to understand that hate speech as defined in PEPUDA requires more than making hurtful or harmful statements about someone. If I say the President is a sex obsessed idiot, or that Helen Zille is a racist madam, it might be rude and it might even be defamatory but it would not constitute hate speech as I would not be saying anything based on Zuma or Zille’s race, sex or sexual orientation.

One of his readers, Dumisani Mkhize, disagrees with him because “Malema’s words and message at that rally are clearly meant to paint this woman as a bad person who deserves what she got and more”:

Prof,

Without taking anything away from your legal argument, I wish to present a view from a non legal perspective.

I believe Malema’s words to constitute hate speech. Here’s why:

This woman, called Khwezi, was vilified by Zuma supporters during the rape trial. Some women even called for her blood. This woman is now living in exile for fear of her life.

Malema’s words and message at that rally are clearly meant to paint this woman as a bad person who deserves what she got and more. These words add to the suffering and danger that Khwezi is subjected to on a daily basis and they make it even more dangerous for her to come back to the land she considers her home.

Can you imagine what would have happened to her, had Khwezi shown her face at that particular rally at that time?

I don’t have to remind you about what happened to that American exchange student who showed her face at the wrong place and the wrong time. Amy Biehl was killed by a group of people who were not inherently evil or bad, but they happened to be singing and chanting inciting “one settler, one bullet” slogans at that very moment.

Malema is an influential leader to his impressionable followers and a strong message needs to be sent to curb further and unnecessary acts of violence that could result from his careless rant.

If overturned on appeal, it would be unfortunate and would further put vulnerable women in general and Khwezi in particular in further jeopardy.

Robert Brand writes a post in defence of Julius Malema's right to free speech. He makes it clear that he is not defending Malema but only hist right to freedom of expression:

I believe in freedom of expression. Our Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression. That is why I cannot welcome the Equality Court’s ruling that Malema was guilty of hate speech when he commented on the young woman who had accused President Jacob Zuma of rape.

Please understand that I am not defending Malema. I am defending his right to freedom of expression, which is also mine and yours and which means nothing if it does not include the right to say things that offend other people.

Robert asks, “But do his words constitute hate speech?”:

Hate speech is defined in the Constitution as “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm” (my italics). Malema’s words were undoubteldy hurtful to many people. They may, at a stretch, be construed as “advocacy of hatred” based on gender. But did they constitute incitement to cause harm? I think not. And so, offensive though the words were to our sensibilities, they should be protected by the the Bill of Rights.

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, under which Malema was charged and convicted, has, however, complicated issues by adopting a far wider definition of hate speech than the Constitution. The Equality Act (for short) defines hate speech as words ”that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, cause harm or promote hatred on the basis of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language or birth”.

A reader at Robert's blog, Evan argues that hate speech should be narrowly defined:

You’re absolutely correct. Hate speech should be extremely narrowly defined and the law should be applied with absolute vigilance and circumspection.

Malema is a useless tool who should have his nuts kicked five times day, but this hate speech thing is going to do far more harm in general than any good it might do in this particular case.

Anothe reader asks the following questions:

“The ANC defended youth leader Julius Malema on Thursday for singing, “shoot the boers, they are rapists”, saying the lyrics of the song had been quoted out of context.”

Does this slogan not constitute hate speech?
Is this permissible within a “freedom of speech” remit?
Who’s responsibility is it to prosecute someone who breaks the law in a case like this?
Will the Government do it, or does a private citizen have to lay a charge?

Robert responds:

That may be hate speech in terms of the Equality Act. A private citizen can lay a charge. The government – more specifically the National Prosecuting Authority – would then prosecute.

After the verdit, Sino Majangaza from DispatchOnline went out with a video camera asking South Africans what you thought of Julius Malema. Here is a video of what they had to say.

Classic Malema blog has an interview Julius Malema had with Times LIVE after the judgement. And Zapiro Malema goodness! Jonathan Shapiro is the leading South African cartoonist, popularly known as Zapiro.

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

The British House of Lords has passed a bill that might, if enacted into law, put the UK's Parliament at odds with the European Commission over how best to enforce copyright anti-infringement laws. Called the Digital Economy Bill, it would charge Internet service providers with the task of keeping track of suspected file sharers and copyright violators, and reporting on them to copyright holders as well as to the country's Office of Communications (OFCOM).

As the bill is currently written, OFCOM would be charged with determining the "initial obligations" of Internet service providers with respect to suspected infringers, provided those obligations meet the specific guidelines. It would be up to OFCOM, should the bill be enacted, to determine all the specifics -- the "fiddly bits" -- such as how ISPs monitor their customers ("subscribers"), at what stage it becomes necessary to report on their activities, how long they retain information on those customers, and what else they do with that data. In the UK, regulations enacted by a regulatory body such as OFCOM are called codes.

Specifically, the bill would require that OFCOM "makes provision about how internet service providers are to keep information about subscribers; that it limits the time for which they may keep that information; that the requirements concerning subscriber appeals are met in relation to the code; that the provisions of the code are objectively justifiable in relation to the matters to which it relates; that those provisions are not such as to discriminate unduly against particular persons or against a particular description of persons; that those provisions are proportionate to what they are intended to achieve; [and] that, in relation to what those provisions are intended to achieve, they are transparent." (This page from Parliament.UK contains the exact text of this section.)

ISPs would be indemnified from any responsibility for the infringing activity, but only if they fulfill their obligations as OFCOM would define them. Those obligations would include, according to the bill, expedient response to requests from copyright holders, as well as some sort of "technical measure" to punish the "relevant subscriber." As the bill is written now, it appears the fuzziness of "relevant subscriber" may be intentional, so as not to imply that the customer must first be found guilty of charges.

"A 'technical obligation,' in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the Internet," the bill reads. "A 'technical measure' is a measure that: (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way. A subscriber to an internet access service is 'relevant' if the subscriber is a relevant subscriber to the service...in relation to one or more copyright owners."

From here, the bill proceeds to the House of Commons, where elected officials will debate whether it would be fair, under the terms of the last paragraph, to punish suspected subscribers prior to their hearing in court. Liberal leaders there were quoted by the BBC this morning as having indicated such a law would be contrary to the EU's Technical Standards Directive.

Last week, in a near-unanimous vote of the European Parliament, a resolution was adopted to compel participants in the multi-national Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to report to the EU Parliament, and eventually publicly, on terms being negotiated between countries. Such terms might compel member countries in ACTA to adopt laws similar to what the House of Lords just passed.

Ironically, this entire affair comes on the same week as MPs begin debate on a measure, first reported by the London Telegraph, to replace the House of Lords entirely with a second, publicly elected body of Parliament. The new upper house -- which may, the report states, be dubbed the "Senate" -- would include members who may very well be lords and landowners, elected for staggered terms of up to 15 years. Some say the Labour Party is unveiling the plan now in order to attract opposition from Tory leaders, who currently have an edge in public opinion polls. Painting the Tories as "pro-Lords" could, in turn, color them as "pro-establishment," and thus out of touch with modern-day British interests.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

"Il n'y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent pas d'avis"... On dirait bien que Funcom a utilisé cette expression pour changer ces plans à court terme, certainement appuyer par le mécontentement de la "communauté PVP" n'en...

Michael Geist sez, "Canadian New Democratic Party MP Charlie Angus [ed: former frontman for punk greats L'Etranger] has shaken up the copyright reform process today with a pair of proposed measures. The first is a private member's bill that would expand the scope of the private copying levy [ed: the fee Canadians pay on top of blank media, in exchange for which they gain the right to make "private copies" of copyrighted works without breaking the law] to include digital audio recorders (DARs) such as iPods. Bill C-499 comes as a response to earlier court cases that ruled that DARs are beyond the scope of the current law. The second is a planned motion that calls for support to reform the Copyright Act's fair dealing [ed: akin to US fair use] provision by adding the words 'such as' to make the current list of fair dealing categories illustrative rather than exhaustive [ed: meaning that courts could look at new technologies and the copyright uses they enable and make case-by-case decisions about whether they should be allowed, without having to wait for Parliament to pass a new law every time a new technology is invented]. In addition, the motion codifies the six criteria discussed in Canadian caselaw for determining whether a particular use of a work qualifies as fair dealing." Michael's post has good analysis of these proposals, which are both really strong, and what problems might arise from the levy if Parliament gets it wrong. Read his post for more. Angus Introducing Private Copying Levy Bill, Flexible Fair Dealing Motion (Thanks, Michael!) Previously:American copyright lobby attacks Canadian politicians for ... Canadian MP demands answers on secret copyright treaty Interview with Charlie Angus, Canadian MP who's fighting the ... Canadian Parliament shoutfest over the Canadian DMCA Net Neutrality bill in Canada Canada's DMCA: unnecessary, ill-starred and doomed...

Mark Silva / The Swamp:
Clarence Thomas' wife holds TEA Party  —  Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  —  Virginia Thomas runs LibertyCentral.org, a new organization committed to becoming the “big tent” for conservatives and promoting the values of the “TEA Party” movement.

Tête de sprite !

Après le trop court teaser pixellisé de la dernière fois, EA Sports NBA Jam s'offre aujourd'hui pleinement à nous grâce à ce premier trailer qui n'hésite pas à cracher la purée avec des dunks d'extraterrestres et autres boom shakalakas légendaires : En y prêtant attention le mélange photo 2D p...

When we talk about file-sharing, there’s a whole spectrum of issues that usually get mixed up or treated as one when they’re really very different things.

Is it OK to borrow an audio CD I just bought? Is it OK to play it to some friends at a party? Can I convert it into MP3 files or make a copy? Is it fine if I put it in a shared folder of a P2P application such as eMule?

At the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got creators of P2P apps, owners of link sites (sites that generally don’t actually host any content, they just link to content that resides elsewhere) and torrent trackers.

Sometimes, you’ll hear that all of the above are illegal. Often, extreme examples such as “listening a CD with a friend” will be laughed at (well of course you can do that) but when it comes to creating a simple backup copy, it’ll be called a gray zone or even declared illegal.

Very rarely you’ll hear a court decide that linking to copyrighted material is OK, but this is exactly how Spanish judge Raul N. García Orejudo ruled in a case of Spanish music collector society SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores y Editores) vs. Jesus Guerra, owner of link site www.elrincondejesus.com.

Do judge Raul’s arguments make sense? You bet they do. First, he denied SGAE’s request to shut down Guerra’s site in June, saying that “P2P networks, as a mere transmission of data between Internet users, do not violate, in principle, any right protected by Intellectual Property Law.”

Now, he decided that “offering an index of links and/or linking to copyright material is not the same as distribution.” His decision was largely based on the fact that Guerra doesn’t make any direct or indirect profits off the site.

Without going into the moral side of the story, it’s obvious that there’s not a very big difference between a site like www.elrincondejesus.com and Google. And if you start going that road, you end up with weird legal precedents, such as the recent decision by an Italian court, which found Google Italy execs guilty over an offensive video Google had failed to remove from its index.

There’s no doubt that SGAE will appeal the decision. But this ruling once again shows that not everything is as black and white in the world of file-sharing as the recording industry would have you believe.

Reviews: Google

Tags: file sharing, link sites, p2p, Spain

"Au gré des hausses et des baisses alternées intervenues au cours des six derniers mois, aucune tension n'est aujourd'hui observée sur les prix à court terme", estime la Fnaim.

Articles en Rapport

• Les loyers en 2009 : les chiffres de l'observatoire Clameur
• Etats-Unis : l'immobilier à la peine en février

The battered financial services firm Lehman Brothers Holdings has submitted a proposal with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York to resolve the biggest Chapter 11 filing in Wall Street history.

COLOMBO (Reuters) - Former Sri Lankan army chief Sarath Fonseka appeared before a military court on Tuesday on charges of engaging in politics while in uniform, officials said, as hundreds of his supporters protested near the capital.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, lost his appeal against repaying £22,000 in expenses today when a former High Court judge ruled that he had significantly overclaimed on his mortgage.

Cher journaleuh...

Je suis très fier (et ma maman aussi) de vous annoncer la sortie de catwm en version 0.2.

Kesako?
C'est un petit gestionnaire de fenêtres qui se base sur le concept du tiling (comme dwm, wmii, scrotwm,...).

Pourquoi donc?
Parce que j'avais une semaine de vacance et que je ne savais pas quoi faire et que je voulais coder un truc en c... Puis, je me suis dit, pourquoi ne pas le continuer.

Le but n'était pas de concurrencer certains window manager déjà très performant, mais plutôt de s'essayer à Xlib.
De plus les fonctionnalités sont très limitées (mode fullscreen et tiling vertical). Il n'y a pas plusieurs vues à disposition (je ne l'ai utilise pas), mais qui sait, peut-être que ce sera implémenté dans une prochaine version...

Intérêt?
A moins que vous ne cherchiez un window manager avec pas mal de code bien dégueulasse, aucun.
Par contre étant donné que le code est assez court (370 SLOC), si vous vous intéressez à Xlib cela peut-être un début de lecture (avant de se taper les 5000 lignes de dwm ;)).

Un petit screenshot: http://omploader.org/vM3VjaA
Et le projet github pour ceux qui ont continué leur lecture jusqu'ici: http://github.com/pyknite/catwm

(Reuters) - Andrew and Mark Madoff, sons of fraudster Bernard Madoff, have submitted a request with a U.S. court to dismiss all the complaints against them, with prejudice, court documents showed.

NDP MP Charlie Angus has shaken up the copyright reform process today with a pair of proposed measures.  The first is a private member's bill that would expand the scope of the private copying levy to include digital audio recorders (DARs) such as iPods.  Bill C-499 comes as a response to earlier court cases that ruled that DARs are beyond the scope of the current law.  The second is a planned motion that calls for support to reform the Copyright Act's fair dealing provision by adding the words "such as" to make the current list of fair dealing categories illustrative rather than exhaustive.  In addition, the motion codifies the six criteria discussed in Canadian caselaw for determining whether a particular use of a work qualifies as fair dealing. 

I'm certainly supportive of Angus' effort to push copyright issues into the spotlight.  I'm particularly supportive of the upcoming motion on fair dealing.  I've been advised that the motion states:

Fair Dealing Provisions within the Copyright Act

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend section 29 of the Copyright Act in such a way as to expand the Fair Dealing provisions of the act; specifically by deleting section 29. and inserting the words,

29. Fair dealing of a copyrighted work for purposes such as research, private study, criticism, news reporting or review, is not an infringement of copyright.

29.1 In determining whether the dealing made of a work in any particular case is fair dealing, the factors to be considered shall include,

(a) the purpose of the dealing;
(b) the character of the dealing;
(c) the amount of the dealing;
(d) alternatives to the dealing;
(e) the nature of the work; and
(f) the effect of the dealing on the work.

This approach is precisely what thousands of Canadians supported during last summer's copyright consultation.  It strikes the right balance - it's fair dealing, not free dealing - and it is based on current Canadian jurisprudence.  Greater fair dealing flexiblity benefits creators, innovators, educators, and the broader public.  The motion deserves strong support from all parties.

The attempt to expand the private copying levy in Bill C-499 is more problematic. I am not as opposed to private copying as some, but I think expanding the system in this manner raises real concerns.  First, I think we need to work on fixing the system before we work on expanding it.  There are ongoing concerns about distribution of proceeds, copying vs. making available, and overbroad coverage of the levy that should be addressed.

Second, the bill expands the levy to audio recording devices, defined in C-499 as "a device that contains a permanently embedded data storage medium, including solid state or hard disk, designed, manufactured and advertised for the purpose of copying sound recordings, excluding any prescribed kind of recording device."  This covers everything - iPods, iPhones, Blackberries, Androids, iPads, personal computers.  While the CPCC (the private copying collective) may not target all of these devices, there is nothing in the bill that prevents them from doing so.

Third, the bill deals solely with sound recordings, but there have already been calls to extend to video and other forms of content.  Expanding the levy in this manner without addressing those issues leaves open the prospect of an even bigger levy in the future.

Fourth, the competitive concerns associated with levies on devices cannot be ignored.  The last attempt to place a levy on iPods led to charges as high as $75 per device.  That market distortion leads consumers to purchase outside Canada, which means no levy, no sales taxes, and lost retail sales.

Fifth, we need to think about the interaction between private copying and anti-circumvention rules.  The industry is pushing for anti-circumvention rules that would prohibit Canadians from picking the digital lock on copy controls found on CDs.  If Canadians have paid for the right to copy via the levy, surely those rights should not be trumped by the use of DRM.  Yet that is precisely what both Bills C-60 and C-61 proposed.

Sixth, the industry cannot have the levy and continue to claim that Canada is an illegal downloading haven.  Canadians have paid more than $250 million in fees associated with the levy and the Angus bill would ratchet that up dramatically. 

Angus' comments in the House of Commons this morning are posted below:

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today to submit a bill  to update the Canadian copyright Act, which extends the Private Copying Levy to the next generation of devices that consumers are using for copying sound recordings for personal use. 

The private copying levy is a long-standing Canadian solution that has compensated artists for some of the enormous copying that is taking place.
At the same time, updating the levy will provide legal certainty for fans to copy songs onto an i-Pod or MP3 player.

The levy is a compromise that works. In a world of endless downloading and copying, it provides a monetizing stream for the artists who create such phenomenal cultural works.

Mr. Speaker, there are two dead end roads on the copyright debate. The first dead end is the belief that digital locks, predatory lawsuits and zero tolerance on access can push consumers back in time.

The other dead end is the belief that all the great works of film, music and art can be looted at will.

If we are going to move down the right road we must get serious about securing a monetizing stream for creators.

Canada has a chance to strike the right balance:
No. 1: artists have a right to get paid. This is why I am bringing forward the bill on updating copying levy.
No. 2. Consumers, educators and researchers have a right to access those works - which is why I will be tabling a motion on defining fair dealing to protect those rights.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will continue to work to ensure that copyright laws are updated to protect artists while ensuring access to these amazing works.

Pour les amateurs de films à grand spectacle hollywoodiens, voici Regen, un court métrage à couper le souffle réalisé par Michael Chaves :

On n'est pas encore au niveau d'Avatar en ce qui concerne les effets spéciaux me direz-vous, mais la performance reste remarquable quand on sait les moyens réduits avec lesquels ont été tournées ces scènes, comme le montre ce rapide Making-of :

Le travail de scénarisation est superbe. Un film réalisé en 3 mois, qui n'est pas sans rappeler Panic Attack de Fede Alvarez .

(Via Mikropikol)

Liberal Democrats prepare to amend their proposed amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, but disclosure that the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) wrote the original draft has led to calls for Parliament to fully debate the Bill.

Earlier this month I mentioned how Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones had proposed an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill that would cause a huge shift in the way ISPs are asked to deal with copyright infringement on their networks.

Amendment 120a would give courts the power to “prevent access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement” with the threat of “injunctions” against those ISPs that have “actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright,” but has failed to “prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both).”

What it doesn’t spell out is exactly how ISPs are supposed to verify claims of copyright infringement nor does it offer a means of appeal. Site operators could be falsely accused of copyright infringement and subsequently erroneously sanctioned by their ISP.

Now after extensive public outcry championed, in part, by the Open Rights Group, a UK-based digital advocacy group, Liberal Democrats are backing off that proposal by amending the amendment.

Some of the proposed revisions include:

Amendment #14 The copyright owner applying for an injunction shall first have given notice to the ISP (in writing)…and prove that it comes from the said copyright owner.

Amendment #16 (High Court must determine) the extent to which granting the injunction would disproportionately prejudice legitimate uses and legitimate users of the online location,

Amendment #22 “…any person aggrieved may apply to the court on notice to the copyright owner and service provider to require the service provider to remove or vary the nature of the block; and…the court must order that the block be removed if it considers that it would not have made such an order,

Part of the problem was the revelation that Amendment 120a was taken verbatim from a British Phonographic Industry (BPI) letter asking the govt for specific revisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

[Compare the two - 1 - 2]

“Now, amendments often come from lobby and campaign groups, including us, not least because it’s the easiest way for them to show parliamentarians what they want,” says the Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group. “But the fact that twice, with the original copyright by diktat proposal, and then the web blocking proposal, the BPI essentially got to write what they wanted and get it proposed more or less wholesale as law, in such a tremendously sensitive area and in such a one-sided manner, shows something is very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.”

Exactly.

The BPI brushed aside any concerns that it was the source of the the amendment, and quite frankly, it shouldn’t be. It is, after all, only looking out for its own best interests as any good business would and should.

Either way, now with the Liberal Democrats having been forced to amend earlier proposals and debate the Bill further, the UK public may finally be getting a seat at the same table as the BPI.

“As several speakers noted – it was people like you writing to them that made them realise how important this issue is to voters in this election,” added Killock.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

 

Rachel Maddow talked to McCain challenger J.D. Hayworth last night about his remarks that same-sex marriage could lead to man-horse marriage, and really seemed to irk him when she pointed out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court never wrote that "the establishment of intimacy" was a basis for the definition of marriage. Hayworth had argued that establishing intimacy as the basis of marriage might allow a man to marry a horse that he loved.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

superapecommando writes in with news that in the UK, Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court. The previous version of the Bill had drawn instant criticism from some of the world's largest technology companies, including eBay, Google, and Yahoo, who signed an open letter against the filtering proposal. Blogger Glyn Moody summed up opposition to the Bill, stating that in its previous form, it was "utterly one-sided, where the only winners are a music recording industry too lazy to change, and the losers are everyone else."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

superapecommando writes in with news that in the UK, Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court. The previous version of the Bill had drawn instant criticism from some of the world's largest technology companies, including eBay, Google, and Yahoo, who signed an open letter against the filtering proposal. Blogger Glyn Moody summed up opposition to the Bill, stating that in its previous form, it was "utterly one-sided, where the only winners are a music recording industry too lazy to change, and the losers are everyone else."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on same-sex marriage legislation today:

"The legislation, sponsored by Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, proposes to add these 20 words to the state constitution: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth." Previous attempts to advance a constitutional amendment on this topic through both chambers of the Legislature have failed. To amend the constitution, identical bills have to pass the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions before it goes to voters to make the final decision. Supporters of this proposal said a constitutional amendment would prevent a court from overturning the state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, as has happened in other states."

The bill was introduced by PA state senator John Eichelberger. You may remember how Eichelberger justified the bill last June. Eichelberger held a radio debate with Senator Daylin Leach, who was sponsoring a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. In the interview, Eichelberger said there's no reason to allow gay couples to marry and said that they're not being punished. In fact, he lauded the fact that gay couples are allowed to exist.

The National Organization for Marriage sent out an alert earlier this week with the phone numbers of all the members of the committee. 

You're welcome to use them too, AFTER THE JUMP...

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf: (717) 787-6599
Sen. Mary Jo White: (717) 787-9684
Sen. Lisa Boscola: (717) 787-4236
Sen. Patrick Browne: (717) 787-1349
Sen. Jay Costa: (717) 787-7683
Sen. Jane Earll: (717) 787-8927
Sen. Wayne Fontana: (717) 787-5300
Sen. John Gordner: (717) 787-8928 (cosponsor)
Sen. Daylin Leach: (717) 787-5544
Sen. Jane Clare Orie: (717) 787-6538
Sen. Jeffrey Piccola: (717) 787-6801 (cosponsor)
Sen. John Rafferty: (717) 787-1398
Sen. Joseph Scarnati: (717) 787-7084 (cosponsor)
Sen. Michael Stack: (717) 787-9608

General Sarath Fonseka, Sri Lanka’s former army chief, faces a court martial today that could see him jailed for up to five years on charges that his supporters say are designed to thwart his political ambitions.

The "Still Face" Paradigm (YT video) designed by Dr. Edward Tronick of Harvard and Childrens Hospital's Child Development Unit, is an experiment which shows us how a 1-year old child will react to a suddenly unresponsive parent. It allows us to understand how a caregiver's interactions and emotional state can influence many aspects of an infant's social and emotional development.
From Zero to Three's Helping Babies From the Bench: Using the Science of Early Childhood Development in Court. They have a Parenting Resources page.

Having now written two books about my failures in work, life and love, I think I’m qualified to say that the only difference between a memoirist and a prostitute is timing.

A prostitute sells sex for money – that money being payable either immediately before or immediately after the act. A memoirist also receives money for having sex – but our payment comes via a publisher, months or years later, once we’ve recounted the amusing or titillating details in print. In the final analysis, really, we’re all whores.

And yet, in terms of public perception, the distinction of payment and timing is vital. Actual prostitutes are – generally speaking – looked down on by society: labels like ‘whore’ and ‘hooker’ being, almost without exception, used pejoratively. Memoirists, on the other hand, tend to be reasonably well regarded, not least by themselves. For that reason, accidentally calling a hooker a memoirist is unlikely to cause offense, but accidentally call a memoirist a hooker and… hoo boy…

This time last week, my friend Zoe Margolis – who writes as the Girl With A One Track Mind – was asked by the UK’s Independent on Sunday (IoS) newspaper to write a column about how she went from being an anonymous sex blogger to a widely-recognised advice columnist and memoirist. Zoe, I should emphasise, does not have sex for money. I know this for a fact: we shared a house at SXSW a couple of years ago and she stubbornly refused to sleep with me, despite the fact that I paid for all of our groceries at Whole Foods.

And yet, thanks to an astonishing but – I hope – innocent piece of lazy subediting, when the IoS published her column they did so under the unambiguously libellous headline “I was a hooker who became an agony aunt“.

Hoo boy.

The IoS reaslised its mistake (for want of a better word for “misquoting one of our writers as calling herself a whore”) within an hour of the paper going to press and quickly changed the headline in print and online. But of course the damage was already done. Although, according to the paper, only a couple of thousand hard copies had been dispatched to news stands, the web version had already been syndicated to dozens of other sites – including Yahoo! – and such far-flung newspaper websites as the Times of India. Worse still, it took several more hours – and increasingly vocal complaints by Zoe – before the IoS changed the story’s URL which still contained the full wording of the original headline.

An embarrassing screw up for the Independent – but one that other papers can learn from, right?

Not so much.

A few days later, another UK paper – The Daily Mail – ran a story headlined “I posed as a girl of 14 on Facebook. What followed will sicken you …” The story was indeed sickening; written by a former police detective, it revealed how after signing up to Facebook as a young girl, he was immediately contacted by middle-aged men looking for sex. There was just one problem with the story: it wasn’t true.

For a start the story was ghost-written by a Mail journalist, loosely based on a phone interview with the detective. More importantly, the detective had made clear – repeatedly – that the social network in question wasn’t Facebook. In fact he’d actually praised Facebook for having put in place measures to protect young users against ‘grooming’ by adults. Unfortunately, the Mail seems to have a beef with Facebook – they previously accused the site of causing cancer – and so decided to name and shame it both in the article, and in the headline and – yup – in the URL. As with Zoe’s story, the headline was changed after a few hours (having already been widely syndicated) but the libellous URL remained uncorrected for more than a day.

In both cases, the result was the same – the Independent and the Mail each issued apologies and corrections in the next day’s paper and online but both Zoe and Facebook say they intend to take legal action both for the initial error but also for the further harm done by the time the papers took to correct their libellous URLs.

We’ll have to wait and see what comes of the proposed lawsuits, but in the meantime both cases illustrate a huge problem with the blurring of the line between old and new media. In the old days, editors understood how their papers worked. If a libellous story was printed, they would stop the presses (if it wasn’t already too late) and they would issue an apology the next day. Most readers would see the apology and all would be well. Yes, there might still be a libel action, but at least the publication could show that they’d halted the presses and issued the apology, thus mitigating some of the damage done.

Today, that’s no longer the case. The simple fact is that many editors have absolutely no idea how their papers work any more. According to the Guardian, when Charles Garside, assistant editor of the Daily Mail, was asked about the fact that the libellous URL was unchanged for more than 24 hours, he described it as “a technical matter”, adding: “We are removing elements of that”.

“A technical matter” – which of course is code for “I have absolutely no idea how the Internet works. We have geeks to do that kind of thing, and they were at home – probably masturbating or watching Battlestar Galactica – or both – when the story went up”

With those three words – “a technical matter” – Garside lays bare the problem newspapers face in moving online. Editors understand stories and they understand headlines, but today they also need to understand URLs and automatic syndication and all of the other “technical matters” that are just as much a part of the modern newspaper as standfirsts and pullquotes. This is a lesson I learned the hard way back in 2005 when I was hit with an enormous libel claim (and the possibility of imprisonment for contempt of court) when the publication I edited linked to a libellous story (published in France) about a certain English Premiership football player. Although we were careful not to name the player in our story, we were still held responsible for identifying him because the URL we published contained his surname. The fact that we’d used our in-house link-shortener to mask the true URL was no defence as the shortener was hosted on our own server and resolved to the correct address before the reader left our site. Since that day, I’ve understood that a URL can get you in just as much legal hot water as an ill-judged headline.

Unfortunately that seems to be a lesson that editors at certain major national newspapers are yet to learn. If I were the owner of the Independent, or the Mail, or any other newspaper I’d insist that my editors spend a few hours of their time learning how their papers work in the digital age. That means understanding not just how to stop presses and issue apologies but also how to get under the hood and change URLs; how automatic syndication works and how to ensure any subsequent apology is amended to every online version, and not just the one hosted on their main site.

Finally, the way that apologies and clarifications are published needs to be seriously re-thought. Publishing a correction in the next day’s paper, or as a separate item on the publication’s website, is a ridiculous anachronism. People no longer read the same paper every day: the fact that they stumbled across a story in the Independent or the Daily Mail once through Google News doesn’t mean they’ll ever read a story in that paper again. It certainly doesn’t mean they’ll see a correction published 24 hours later.

Whereas once a libel court could be satisfied that the publication of a printed apology would mitigate libel damages, that’s unlikely to hold much weight in any legal action concerning the stories about Zoe Margolis or Facebook. Both Zoe and Facebook made their reputation online and it’s online rather than in print that they have the most to lose.

As a Facebook spokesperson told the Guardian, a traditional correction can’t undo the ‘brand damage that has been done’. Perhaps, then, the Mail and the Independent should take a lesson in damage control from Zoe. Moments after the Independent published their apology, she tweeted out a link to it and asked her followers to ‘please retweet’. Many (including me) did, and still others republished it on their blogs. Not only did that spread the word that Zoe isn’t – and has never been – a hooker, but it also helped ensure that most of the Google results for “Zoe Margolis +hooker” point to the correction and not to the original libel.

Had the editors at the Mail and the Independent been quicker to update their libellous URLs, and had they used Twitter and other social networks to push out their apologies then perhaps they could have avoided what will quite possibly be some very costly legal action.

But then again that would require them to understand the first thing about the Internet and other “technical matters”. And if they’ve proved anything recently, it’s that they really – really – don’t.

We've written before about the libel fight that Simon Singh is fighting in the UK, where the British Chiropractic Assocation sued him for libel for saying that some of the things that the BCA claimed chiropractors could do were "bogus." Singh, who has a PhD. and has written numerous books about science, was pointing out that the BCA was making claims that had little scientific evidence to back them up -- hence "bogus." Tragically a court focused on the use of that word, suggesting that Singh meant the BCA had engaged in deliberate dishonesty, rather than just aggressive marketing. Because of the amount of time and resources it is taking him to fight this, Singh is now giving up his column in The Guardian, noting just how damaging a ridiculous libel lawsuit can be on individuals.

The only good news out of this is that the lawsuit against Singh has brought about two important forms of backlash:

• A large group of concerned citizens online have actively been debunking claims from the BCA, and getting official investigations started of any chiropractor that makes bogus (yes, bogus) claims about what chiropractors can cure.
• Singh's case has become a focal point in a new, much-needed, effort in the UK to reform libel laws in that country -- where existing laws effectively put the burden on the accused to prove that they didn't libel the other party.
• It's awful to see Singh have to go through all of this, but hopefully his sacrifices will mean others won't have to face the same issue down the road.
  
  Permalink | Comments | Email This Story