Media Giraffe Project --
Link & reference blog

ORIGINAL URL:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=2&u=/ap/20060923/ap_on_hi_te/google_news_lawsuit

By AOIFE WHITE
AP Business Writer

Sat Sep 23, 7:18 AM ET

BRUSSELS, Belgium - Google Inc. lost an appeal Friday of a Belgian court's requirement that the Internet search company publish on its home page the ruling in a recent case it lost.

Google spokesman D.J. Collins said the company would appeal again at a Nov. 24 hearing when the court takes up a broader challenge, saying the requirement was "disproportionate and unnecessary." Google faces daily fines of about $640,000 for refusing to post the Sept. 5 ruling on its Belgian home pages, Google.be and news.google.be.

The company plans to appeal the main part of the ruling as well, even as it is already complying. The court ordered Google to stop publishing news excerpts and small photos from Belgian, French and German newspapers without first paying them or getting their permission.Google said it is removing Belgium's French-language newspapers Le Soir, La Libre Belgique and La Derniere Heure from its indexes, but it did not post the ruling itself.

"We believe it was disproportionate and unnecessary, given the extensive publicity the case has received already, especially while its substance has yet to be debated in court," Collins said. Google said its service is lawful and drives traffic to newspaper sites because people need to click through to the original publisher to read the full story. Local newspaper editors argued that Google's popular news site stole traffic from individual newspapers' sites.

Collins said it was up to the plaintiff -- Copiepresse, the Belgian association that manages copyright for Belgium's French-language newspapers -- to decide when the daily fine starts and finishes. Google did not attend the first hearing on Aug. 29, saying it was unaware of the complaint. Belgian law allows the case to begin again with a clean slate in these circumstances -- as it did at another hearing on Wednesday.

Google News, which debuted in 2002, scans thousands of news outlets and highlights the top stories under common categories such as world and sports. Many stories carry a small image, or thumbnail, along with the headline and the first sentence or two. Visitors can click on the headline to read the full story at the source Web site.

The French news agency AFP sued Google for at least $17.5 million in damages in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., arguing that the Google service adds little value because its news site looks much like those of AFP subscribers, albeit one where software and not human editors determine the placement of stories on a page.

Separately, Google has agreed to pay The Associated Press for stories and photographs. Neither Google nor New York-based AP have disclosed financial terms or other details because of a nondisclosure agreement.

A group of newspaper trade associations announced plans Friday for a pilot project by year's end to automatically grant republication authorizations to Internet search engines. The World Association on Newspapers, the European Publishers Council, the International Publishers Association and the European Newspaper Association said jointly that the new tool should answer problems such as Google's dispute with Belgium newspapers and make newspaper content more widely available. The group did not say whether the tool would include a payment mechanism, promising to provide more details within weeks.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

# posted by newshare @ 4:47 PM

In this column, Jeff Jarvis, former U.S. online newspaper executive, now a journalism professor at City University of New York, describes the apparent success of a no-paper newspaper, the German web-only operation Netzeitung, which claims it will make a small profit this year with 1.2 million online readers per month. Says Jarvis: "I got nowhere trying to convince American publishers to try a paperless paper. They are addicted to ink."

ORIGINAL URL:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,,1874545,00.html

POSTED: Monday September 18, 2006

New media
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An online revolution that is by and for 'das volk'

ByJeff Jarvis
The Guardian of LondoN

A grand experiment in the future of news is succeeding. Pity most of you can't read it, since it's in German. But thanks to an accident of school scheduling that plopped me into a German class, I've been able to follow Netzeitung.de since it was founded in Berlin in 2000 as a net-only newspaper. It's not a blog, a search engine or an aggregator. It is a newspaper without the paper, but with 60 journalists reporting the news. Netzeitung has not only survived the internet bubble and a ping-pong game of corporate sales, it has acquired other media properties; it is starting an ambitious effort in networked journalism with citizen reporters; and it is set to be profitable this year. Ausgezeichnet!Dr Michael Maier, Netzeitung's editor-in-chief and business head, is an experienced and respected journalist: former editor-in-chief of the Berliner Zeitung, Stern and Vienna's Presse. No blogger, he. When I met him after he and his partners brought the concept of a netpaper from Norway!
- where its big sister, Nettavisen..no, is still in business - Maier was adamant that he would have his own staff producing news. I tried to push my populist agenda of interactivity and citizens' media, but he would have none of it. He was starting a newspaper, dammit, and newspapers have reporters.

In the years since, Netzeitung was bought by Lycos, then by Bertelsmann, then by Maier and a partner, who sold it to Scandinavia's Orkla, which itself is being acquired by the press baron David Montgomery. Maier says he is glad none of his many masters was a traditional German newspaper, for he doubts he could have developed Netzeitung under its roof. I agree. I got nowhere trying to convince American publishers to try a paperless paper. They are addicted to ink.

Netzeitung remains impressive in the breadth, depth and the timeliness of its reporting. It is among the internet's most cleanly designed news sites. Maier says the service now serves 1.2 million readers per month. It reportedly will earn 0.8m this year. It has acquired other large German sites for technology, health and cars. It recently took over a Berlin radio station, and so the online site produces both radio shows and podcasts (what's the difference?). And it produces online and videotext news for German TV. This experiment in online news has become a budding media empire.

But what brought me back to revisit Netzeitung is its latest effort: Readers-Edition.de, an online paper by and for das volk. True to form, Maier insists that the people must report: "We don't publish commentary." So citizen reporters submit news and photos on politics, sports, technology and business. Netzeitung, the parent, puts the best on its home page and then pays the contributors.

Maier says his online journalists were at first afraid of these interlopers. But he also says his reader/writers are better at working with links than ordinary reporters, are fast (helping him scoop competitors), and are smart (they gave him an exclusive on a revival of the 60s radical group the SDS).

One reason we bloggers like blogging is that we have no editors. But the Readers-Edition contributors do: a team of fellow reader/writers act as volunteer moderators with the help of one Netzeitung journalist. They get together in meetings across Germany to share tricks of the trade. They even share rejected stories so contributors can learn what it takes to make the grade. Now that's transparency.

I wonder whether this model could work elsewhere. The other citizen-written online newspaper of note, South Korea's OhmyNews, has had difficulty replicating itself in other countries; its political and media landscape may be unique. And when I ran online sites in the early days, I tried to copy what I saw on German sites by having volunteer moderators keep peace in chatrooms. It worked in Germany, where users respected rank, but not in the US, where moderators got power-mad and users revolted.

I would love to see both Netzeitung and Readers-Edition spread, for we need more answers to questions asked at nearly every journalism conference I attend, namely how will we support journalism in the future? What are the business models for news? How does journalism survive post-press? I hope the answers lie in creating vibrant and successful newspapers that do not depend on paper. I hope the answers lie in creating networks that allow professional and amateur journalists to work together. And I hope the answers are also in English, since I didn't pay much attention in that German class.

Jeff Jarvis is a journalism professor at the City University of New York who blogs at Buzzmachine.com

----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

# posted by newshare @ 11:13 PM

Link to PDF of "working paper" FCC draft report cited below.

THIRD PARTY SUPPLIED INFORMATION

Hannah Sassaman (215-727-9620) / hannah.sassaman@gmail.com ) has provided this statement from the Prometheus Radio Project on the recent revelation that the Federal Communications Commission's former chairman, Michael Powell, allegedly told FCC staff to destroy drafts of a 2004 study said to demonstrate media ownership concentration negatively impacts communities' access to locally produced TV news.

The statement includes a release on Philadelphia-area reactions and efforts from a Pennsylvania coalition that includes Prometheus, the Pennsylvania Public Research Interest Group, and Media Tank.

http://www.prometheusradio.org

For Immediate Release:
Contact: September 15, 2006
Pete Tridish, Prometheus Radio Project at 215-605-9297

Prometheus Radio Project: Statement on Excavation of Buried Localism Study

A PDF of this statement can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/ec5tb

Prometheus represented millions of Americans who asked the FCC to limit the ability of major media corporations to consolidate in communities across America in 2003. They led the lawsuit Prometheus et al. vs. the FCC, which overturned the FCC's attempt to consolidate America's corporate media. This statement was written by Pete Tridish, Prometheus' founder.

"A study has come to light that demonstrates a significant connection between local ownership and local news content in TV stations. This study alerts us to the possibility that further ownership consolidation could lead to the substitution of non-local news for local content.

Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell made many statements accusing opponents of media consolidation of "fearmongering," and made many high-sounding pronouncements about the need for media policy to be rooted in empirical evidence. Powell also attempted to separate out the issue of media consolidation from localism, claiming that most of the millions of comments to the Commission stemmed from a concern about local content, not a concern about concentration of ownership into fewer hands.

Many of us know far more about what's going on in far away countries than we know about local issues in housing, health care, environment and education -- news that affects us daily. We can have the most direct impact on what's happening in our local community, but because of the economic structure of the news business, these issues are the ones we end up understanding the least. A remote, corporate owned media can undermine our participation in a democracy. And it's our democracy trhat these conglomerates are exchanging for mass-produced news segments that they can syndicate on hundreds of channels, nationwide.

Many thousands of Americans testified at "Localism" hearings and labored to produce comments for the "Localism Task Force." Despite the fact that Americans generated an impressive record of comments, clearly articulating the importance of local ownership in local content production, the task force has never released a report on what those thousands of people had to say, from Charlotte, North Carolina, to San Antonio, Texas, to Rapid City, South Dakota. Many believe that Powell developed the Localism Task Force as an attempt to divert citizen comment and evidence out of the media ownership rulemaking -- the docket where we could actually begin to impact who owned what, and how available our airwaves were for our local stories.

It is sad to see further confirmation that behind the Commission's empirical rhetoric was a willingness to suppress scholarly work whose results were politically inconvenient to the Powell Commission's goal of allowing unprecedented mergers.

In the wake of this revelation, Prometheus calls upon the FCC to re-combine the ownership rulemaking and the Localism Task Force, and to accept all the testimony received by that task force, written and verbal, as evidence in the new proceeding ordered by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Prometheus et al vs. the FCC case. The Commission is required by law to consider all evidence presented in comments of this nature, and to refute any recommendations presented that it does not choose to implement. The addition of the evidence in the localism proceeding will do much to help inform the ongoing debate about media ownership. The acceptance of the reality of the inextricable link between localism and ownership can set the stage for a much better informed decision by the Martin FCC than the Powell FCC was able to make.

Millions of Americans formally commented to the Commission on ownership, and we were ignored. Now we know that the Commission's economists also found evidence that indicated consolidation could be bad for local news, and they were ignored too. We thought that our stories, experience and evidence, presented to public officials, counted for something in a democracy. If our testimony doesn't fit into the "what's good for General Electric, is good for America's media" mentality, it goes down the memory hole. We have every intention of continuing this struggle, whether through organizing, through continued litigation, through more demonstrations, or by conducting more research. The corporations have millions of dollars to invest in purchasing government policies that help their business models, but we have millions of people who have grown up in a democracy. We won't let a handful of corporations use control of the media to pull the rug out from under our citizens' ability to b!
e informed and make a difference in this country."

* * * * *

For Immediate Release:
Contact: September 15, 2006, 11:00 a.m.

Beth McConnell, PennPIRG Ed. Fund at 215-732-3747
Pete Tridish, Prometheus Radio Project at 215-605-9297

FCC Destroyed Report Favorable to Local Television Ownership
Local Groups That Fought Media Consolidation React to News, Urge the
Public to Comment to FCC On Media Ownership Rules Before 9/22 deadline

A PDF of this release can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/kwulw

A staff analysis produced by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 2004 that showed local ownership of television stations benefits the public was ordered destroyed by senior agency management, according to a story by Associated Press reporter John Dunbar. The report was written shortly after the FCC voted to relax media ownership rules in 2003, despite receiving over 3 million public comments in opposition to the plan.

Local groups that played a key role in the media ownership battle reacted by reminding the public they have another chance to show opposition to media consolidation. The FCC is accepting public comment until Friday, September 22nd on new changes to media ownership rules.

"First, the FCC ignored public support for local media. Then, the agency ignored its own research showing local media ownership is in the public interest. Now, the FCC has the opportunity to change course and reject the weakening of media ownership limits," said Beth McConnell, Director of PennPIRG Education Fund. State PIRGs across the country, including PennPIRG Education Fund, helped thousands of citizens submit comments to the FCC in opposition to media consolidation in 2003.

"This study alerts us to the possibility that further ownership consolidation could lead to the substitution of non-local news for local content. A remote, corporate owned media can undermine our participation in a democracy," said Pete Tridish, founder of Philadelphia-based Prometheus Radio Project. Prometheus Radio Project led the fight that ultimately overturned the FCC's weakened media ownership limits. When the Commission ignored the millions of comments Americans filed againstthe planned deregulatory package, Prometheus challenged the economic arguments the Commission put forward in court, as the lead plaintiffs in Prometheus et al V. Federal Communications Commission. Ultimately, the Philadelphia-based Third District Court of Appeals ruled in Prometheus' favor in the summer of 2004, forcing the Commission to revisit the agency's rules.

In its attempt to reconsider media ownership limits, FCC opened a new public comment period in June 2006. Concerned citizens have until Friday, September 22nd to again urge the FCC to reject weakening of media ownership limits. PennPIRG Education Fund has created an on-line comment form at www.pennpirg.org/mediaownership to make submitting comments to the FCC easy.

According to news reports, the FCC staff analysis showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of "on-location" news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. It was part of a broader decision relaxing ownership rules. PennPIRG Education Fund, Prometheus Radio Project, MediaTank and others are part of the Media and Democracy Coalition, which was launched this summer to promote policies that reduce media concentration, ensure open and non-discriminatory access across platforms, and provide access to the communications infrastructure that is so critical to modern life in communities of all income levels and in all parts of the country. For a complete list of coalition members, visit www.media-democracy.net.

# posted by newshare @ 1:10 PM

The editors at ePluribus Media have posted an insightful Q&A interview with Lise LePage and Chris Grotke, founders/operators of the iBrattleboro (Vt.), local online citizen journalism site. LePage and Grotke talk about their plans for a gradual addition of advertising -- and a classified-ad module they are getting set to unveil. They reiterate that their focus is not on making money in the short term, although they say they would like to be able to sell the site and retire when they are older. LePage and Grotke were the volunteer coordinators of the citizen-media track at MGP2006 -- and ePluribus folks were among attendees. The Q&A, with a growing list of comments and exchange, is posted at:
URL: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/9/8/174221/9258

# posted by newshare @ 10:38 AM

ORGINAL URL:
http://www.thetranscript.com/localnews/ci_4260986

Candidate eyes suit against Wikipedia

By Evan Lehmann
North Adams Transcript Washington Bureau
(part of MediaNews Group Inc.)

PUBLISHED:
Wednesday, August 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A write-in candidate for Congress is considering suing Wikipedia after anonymous users branded his campaign "inept" and inserted slurs into his biography on the worldwide encyclopedia.Chuck Morse, a Republican who hopes to unseat U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Newton, in November, said he'll meet with a lawyer to determine if the Wikipedia article "damaged my reputation" and if he can sue. "We're exploring it," said Morse, who failed to submit enough certifiable signatures to get on the primary ballot, but will run as a write-in candidate.

He has to receive 2,000 votes, via sticker, in the September primary to appear on the general election ballot in November.

Anyone on the Internet can add, delete or alter Wikipedia content. The encyclopedia entry on Morse claimed that Morse wrote in his book that the Oklahoma City bombing was a "federal plot." It also said Morse switched political parties to raise money. Morse denies those assertions, and Wikipedia removed them from the entry. Morse stopped short of blaming Frank for altering the Wikipedia entry, but said, "perhaps his very zealous followers did."

"It's almost like the mob, when the Don wiggles his finger and a body comes floating down the East River," Morse said, suggesting Frank may have been a silent participant.

Frank's office dismissed Morse's claims. "Certainly, Congressman Frank himself is not involved," said Dorothy Reichard, Frank's district director in Newton.

Brad Patrick, general counsel for Wikipedia, did not respond to a request for comment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not havespecifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is madeavailable in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic,democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justiceissues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided bySection 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profitto those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the includedinformation for research and educational purposes. If you wish to usecopyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you mustobtain permission from the copyright owner.

# posted by newshare @ 1:10 PM