Maybe Barack Obama isn’t so bad. At least he takes a stand on things without dodging them the way Hillary Clinton does.

Just hours after FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through a vote to remove a longstanding newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban–thereby ignoring the public will, undermining democratic diversity and bowing to the corrupting campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists of the largest media companies, Barack Obama slammed the decision. “Today the FCC failed to further the important goal of promoting diversity in the media and instead chose to put big corporate interests ahead of the peoples’ interests,” he said in a statement.

Hillary will likely keep quiet on the issue to make sure she doesn’t make any of the media companies who might support her mad.

The RIAA doesn’t get the whole Internet thing yet. The Movie Industry doesn’t get the whole Internet Thing yet. So I guess the CEO of AP, Associated Press shouldn’t feel bad that he doesn’t understand it either.

AP CEO Declares War On Internet
Submitted by David A. Utter to WebProNews on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 06:26

“If you want our content, we expect to be paid for it … this nonsense that you can just take the first paragraph or use the picture small doesn’t really fly with us. People die trying to take those pictures,” Curley said in the report.

Soldiers die in wars and the AP makes money on the pictures they take and the money they make from that as well. When they cover a murder, they sell that news to organizations and don’t compensate the family of the person that died.

Fair use remains the topic that never seems to come up in the discussion of using content others have created. Doctrines of fair use allow for “any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work,” according to Stanford University’s Copyright & Fair Use Center.

Just as I am doing in this blog post. It’s legal and it’s fair use.

This leaves the issue open for people like Curley and a deep-pocketed organization to force a definition of fair use by litigating against anyone who tries to reuse their content.

Exactly. The CEO of AP says “people die to take those pictures”. That is not what this is about. It’s about a greedy corporation trying to litigate against smaller entities to force them from doing what is legal.

It’s no different than when the RIAA tries to say they are suing people to protect the artists. It’s to help big record companies continue to profit on the backs of the artists so they can continue to be the only ones allowed to screw the artists over.

Maybe the AP should just merge with the RIAA.

The examples are so many that it’s hard to add them all to the blog. These government agencies were created to protect the public’s interest, not to protect the interest of big business.

But since big business captured the white house completely, it’s no surprise that big business also controls the very agencies that are supposed to protect the public from them.

SEC Votes to Limit Shareholder Rights
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer

Companies will be able to scuttle investor attempts to nominate board members under a plan adopted by a bitterly divided Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday.

The move drew an outcry from key lawmakers, unions and major retirement funds, which criticized SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a Republican, for pushing the plan at a time when the agency is short one Democrat and another is on her way out the door.

The 3 to 1 vote, in which the SEC’s lone remaining Democrat dissented, marked the most controversial action in the two-year tenure of the agency’s chairman. It was the latest development in a debate over investor rights that has been boiling for decades, pitting chief executives against pension funds and union groups.

One rule, approved yesterday, gives companies the authority to reject summarily any investor proposal that suggests candidates for corporate boards. Companies would not be required to consider investors’ board nomination proposals or even include them on proxy statements for dissemination to other shareholders.

Annette Nazareth, a Democratic commissioner who has said she hopes to leave by the end of this year, said the majority ignored more than 34,000 letters investors sent to the SEC pleading for more power to change boards of directors, which have been criticized for their sometimes clubby atmosphere and their reluctance to challenge chief executives. Instead, she said, the agency worked “explicitly and unreservedly to deny shareholder rights.”

business groups, which have repeatedly beaten back other attempts by investors to nominate board members over the past 50 years, praised Cox.

Gosh. Really? Big business applauded the move by the SEC to limit shareholder’s rights? I’m shocked.

The FCC is consistant. That is the nicest thing we can say about them. They consistantly rule for the media corporations and cable companies over the public interest.

Cable Industry Wins Compromise on F.C.C. Plans
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — In the face of a lobbying blitzkrieg by the cable television industry, the Federal Communications Commission drastically scaled back Tuesday evening a proposal by the agency’s chairman to more tightly regulate the industry.

The compromise was a significant, though not total, victory for the cable industry, whose executives and lobbyists had worked to erode support on the commission for the agenda of the chairman, Kevin J. Martin. Among other things, the commission agreed to postpone for months the decision Mr. Martin had hoped would be made on Tuesday, over whether the cable television industry had grown so dominant that the agency’s regulatory authority over it should be expanded.

Industry executives and their lobbyists were relieved by the outcome.

I bet they were. Once again the influence of lobbyists and big business outweighs the public interest and the FCC goes along with it and bows to their pressure.

The FCC is supposed to be the agency that brings pressure on the media companies and cable companies, not the other way around.

Continuing to open the door for news media corporations to “own” the news is not in the public’s best interest. The republican administration favors anything that benefits large corporations and the FCC is complying with their wishes. This is an agency that is supposed to look out for the public’s best interest, not as a puppet for companies to control.

From CNN.com
FCC adopts media ownership rules
Proposal passed by party-line vote allows networks to reach 45% of national audience.

The Federal Communications Commission narrowly approved new media ownership rules Monday, allowing television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears the move may reduce the variety of viewpoints available to consumers.

The Republican-led government agency voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.

Next will come 50%, 55%, 60%, etc. Give an inch they will take a country.

Citing a need to update the decades-old rules to reflect new sources of entertainment, information and news, the FCC also voted to lift a ban that prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station — except in the smallest markets.

But the two Democrats on the FCC opposed easing the regulations, arguing that the changes would concentrate ownership in the hands of a few, reduce the diversity of viewpoints and stifle reporting of local news.

“Today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America’s new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy depend,” said Commissioner Michael Copps.

The fewer number of sources we have for news, the more chance for news to be manipulated as Bush did when he paid reporters to talk good about his failed education plan.

The FCC is supposed to represent citizens and safeguard rules that stop anyone from being the only source of news that the public receives. Too bad that the FCC does not feel it represents the public interest as they are supposed to.

Instead the FCC is just a puppet that will do whatever the large corporations want them to do. The FCC is a sham and a shame.

From the NYTimes
By STEPHEN LABATON

The head of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday announced the details of his plan to relax the longstanding rule that had prevented a company from owning both a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city.

One of the very rules that is meant to protect the public and assure that US citizens receive news from manby different sources. This rule prevented one corporation from becoming your only news source.

Why is that important? Because it eliminates objectivity. If that corporation owns all the news sources and a story comes along that they do not want you to hear, then they can choose not to report it.

Say they back a specific presidetial candidate and something comes up about their candidate that will hurt their chances of being elected. The corporation can just not report it.

Without any competing newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations who might have reported the story even when one of them did not, the public has a chance to hear all the news, not just what one company wants you to hear.

For 32 years, supporters of the restriction have maintained that it prevents the growth of ever- larger media conglomerates and helps to keep diverse voices on the airwaves.

These critics denounced Mr. Martin’s proposal for containing what they said were loopholes that could lead to widespread consolidation.

While they did leave in some rules that are supposed to leave diversity in the news, this is the first crack in the wall.

In a memo to employees on Tuesday, the head of Tribune suggested that he was dissatisfied, regarding Mr. Martin’s plan as not going far enough. He also said he would seek to have it expanded.

Therein lies the problem. Give an inch and they want a mile. The FCC has shown it is going to open the door for them to do so. In the past, even without this change, the FCC has been allowing corporations to break the rules anyway by giving them an exemption and using grandfather clauses.

This rule change is just the beginning and should not be allowed at all. It will be exploited and expanded and that will harm smaller newspapers and independent tv stations in favor of allowing mega corporations to BUY the news.

Now this is wild and wicked.

News and Media giant Viacom sees a video on YouTube, snags it and plays it on VH1. They don’t even get permission. Shame on Viacom!

Isn’t that just like some news and media giant?

Next, the original creator, flattered by Viacom’s use of his video, records VH1s version and uploads it to YouTube. Viacom accuses the original creator, a man named Chris Knight, of copyright infringement and asks YouTube to take down the video.

Chris Knight says he can’t afford to sue the news and media company. I think he should sue. If there are any copyright attorneys out there who can take this case pro bono, I’d encourage that in a heartbeat. Any takers?

News and Media Blog

This video is quite long and slanted toward a liberal bias, but it tells a story worth telling and it’s accurate in its presentation and characterizations of the facts.