Final Podcast: The Long Tail Discussion by S. Petrov

My Podcast (The Long Tail Discussion) is posted in PodBean under the Zombie 5 group name. Here is the upload link.

In my podcast, I provide an in-depth interpretation and additional examples to prove the existence of the long tail that Chris Anderson has described in his “The Long Tail” article. Additionally, I incorporated several speech excerpts by Chris Anderson, as well.

Further, I discuss the idea that products residing on the long tail are deemed to become more profitable than the products found on limited shelves of common retailers. Thus, according to Chris Anderson, the more profitable and better products such as books, music, and videos are often located on “the long tail” or on the opposite side of the megahits.

I further expand upon this ironic reality and accumulate more examples that prove that products on “the shallow end of the bitstream” are predicted to reshape the foundation for the entertainment industry as online services expand their product availability, create unlimited “shelf space,” and offer more consumer choice by masking the limited choices the mega-hit-carrying retailers offer.

Enjoy.

– S. Petrov

Pentagon Played Aerosmith and Nine Inch Nails to Torture Detainees; Artists Complain

In this Newsweek article, Kristina Gesaman expounds upon an upcoming lawsuit which may involve up to thirty-five artists and music groups that discovered that their music was used as contrivances of sound torture on detainees in “Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan.”

The publication of this horrendous reality was initiated by “the National Security Archive” (NSA) via a “request for information” from key government organizations and bureaus. Further, upon the NSA’s request being granted, it received “twenty declassified documents” from the “Department of the Army, U.S. Central Command, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the CIA.” The documents clearly stated that “loud” music was utilized as a means to “control” detainees. Further, according to the detainees’ accounts, they experienced “deafening music” by Eminem, Metallica, Aerosmith, James Taylor, and Tupac Shakur. In general, this music was used specifically to deprive the detainees of sleep and thus produce psychotic disturbance.

Nevertheless, besides skeptical ethical and moral justifications to such tortures of detainees, several of the artists such as “former Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello and the “alternative hip hop band The Roots” openly stated that the unauthorized exploitation of their music, especially for “crimes against humanity,” will not be tolerated.

Furthermore, the senior analyst of the National Security Archive, Kate Doyle, also analyzed the question “to how exactly interrogators chose” the music to be played for detainees. According, to Doyle’s research the same incidents happened in 1990 during the pursuit of Panama leader Manuel Noriega. Specifically, U.S. military leaders played Billy Idol and New Kids on the Block at blaring volume which forced Noriega to reveal himself “after 10 days” of sound torture.

Moreover, since the occurence and discovery of such actions, upset artists are rallying to try to demand rights and “royalties” from the government for the unfair and unauthorized use of their music. In fact, the artists are going so far as to demand compensation for “each time a song [of their’s] was played.” Nonetheless, in order for the artists’ case to reach court several significant decisions have to be made. First, a determination of whether the songs played at the prisons were “private playing or a public performance.” Second, a judge will also have to decide upon whether U.S. copyright can be extended beyond our borders and pertain to countries like Cuba.

Overall, it is a great shame that music that was inspired, written, and manifested into melody by so many artists will be transformed into methods of torture and misappropriation. Hopefully, this case will be taken seriously and will not be purposely masked by government officials.

It is truly shocking that U.S. military leaders have the nerve to take artists’ music and manipulate it in any way they like. Where did respect for music and its creators go? How can such vile actions take place in a country where Democratic values are exalted?

Ultimately, since artists cannot directly influence government and military action, copyright law is the only element that artists have at their disposal to take active action against inhumane acts of violence and bring injustice to some degree of equity.

– S. Petrov

Final Project Abstract: Discussion Concerning Chris Anderson’s “The Long Tail”

For decades, countless consumers in our society have waded into the swamp of a “hit-driven economy.” In general, people naturally assume or are swayed to accept the notion that whatever product reaches the rankings of “best-seller” or “top-100” must be the best and other products that fail to reach such lofty criteria are therefore not worthy of purchase and are not profitable for the companies that produce them. Nonetheless, according to Chris Anderson’s analysis, this is a general misconception. In reality, the more profitable and better products such as books, music, and videos are often located on “the long tail” or on the opposite side of the megahits.

Thus, it will be my goal to further expand upon this ironic reality and accumulate more examples and data that prove that products on “the shallow end of the bitstream” are deemed to become the foundation for the entertainment industry as online services expand their product availability, create unlimited “shelf space,” and offer more consumer choice by masking the limited choices the mega-hit-carrying retailers offer.

– S. Petrov

Podcast Group: Zombie 5

McMandela? Protecting the Brand of a Legend

In this Time Magazine article Alex Perry discusses the prevalent struggle of the Nelson Mandela Foundation to protect Mr. Mandela’s identity and name from being unlawfully used as a promotion for business or political gain.

Nelson Mandela is a character of inspiration to many in South Africa and around the world. Mr. Mandela was imprisoned for “27 years” for being a political activist by promoting democratic government structure. Nevertheless, upon his release from prison in 1990, Nelson Mandela “emerged with forgiveness” and became the first democratically elected South African president. In addition, Mr. Mandela won the Nobel Peace prize in 1993 for his ability to unite his torn country. Hence, Mr. Mandela’s résumé created him into an “icon to the world” and an idol to millions.

Nevertheless, as people, specifically business owners, authors, or political figures, realize that Mr. Mandela’s name carries a certain power or reputation they start utilizing Mr. Mandela’s name to promote their own work without Mr. Mandela’s authorization or permission. For example, recently a fast food restaurant in Copenhagen called Café Mandela is advertising and selling the “Mandela Burger” for $24 a sandwich. In another instance, Denis Sassou Nguesso, the Republic of the Congo President, used “a 53-word excerpt from a speech Mandela [is assumed to have proclaimed in his visit to the Congo] for a foreward in his autobiography.” However, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, “denied” that Mr. Mandela is promoting or supporting Mr. Nguesso’s book and has “[neither read it not has written a foreward]” in support of it. In fact, the Mandela Foundation “condemned this brazen abuse of Mr. Mandela’s name.” Both of the given examples are direct violations to what is known as commercial misappropriation or right of publicity laws. In other words, this law protects a person’s right to his or her name, identity, or image and prohibits others from using a person’s likeness or persona for personal commercial benefits.

Hence, as the Nelson Mandela Foundation discovered acts of commercial misappropriation, it immediately created “a code of conduct” that prohibited any of Mandela’s charity corporations from using “Mandela’s name or image” without proper consent and authorization on Mandela Foundation’s part. Nevertheless, even though the Nelson Mandela Foundation sought a way to claim a copyright and protect Mandela’s name from unfair use, the African National Congress (ANC) opposed the “Foundation’s new rules.” The ANC made a statement that technically Nelson Mandela belongs more to the African National Congress than his foundation and therefore it is not for the foundation to decide how Mandela’s persona or name should be appropriated.

Nonetheless, although the foundation’s new copyright regulations are in place it is still struggling to protect the image of Mandela. For instance, “[about four years ago the Mandela organization failed to intercept the Belgravia Gallery in London from distributing 100 lithographs of Robben Island].” Since Robbin Island was the prison where the legendary Mandela spent 27 years of his life, it serves as a great symbol in reference to Mandela’s oppression. Therefore, the Belgravia Gallery, falsely claiming that these lithographs were made and signed by Mandela himself sold each for “more than $10,600 apiece” without proper authorization or permission. This was a direct threat to the commercial misappropriation regulations the foundation has established.

However, although the Mandela Foundation has set up a system of strict regulations it still remains a somewhat lenient system. For instance, the foundation permitted Clint Eastwood to film Invictus. In this movie, Morgan Freeman will star as Nelson Mandela and will unravel the story of how South Africa won the 1995 Rugby World Cup with the help of Mandela’s inspiration and support. Since this movie tells a true story and is based on a book it is safe to assume that although Hollywood will make most of the profit a greater message about Mandela’s life will still be delivered to the world. It is most likely for this reason that the foundation is allowing Mandela’s image and name to be used.

It is truly fascinating that people have the nerve and moral justification to use Mandela’s name – a respected and honorable man – in order to make profit and attain personal glory. It is awkward that in today’s society people are sometimes forced to not only place copyright restriction on material objects like books and works of art but also on intangible elements like human identities. Since identity is so close to every person it is important to guard and protect it, especially in a present-day society where people have to power to modify or use it to their advantage.

– S. Petrov

In China, Objections to Google’s Book Scans

In this New York Times article, Sharon LaFraniere, exposes our society to recognize the fact that the rampant implanted copyright restrictions do not only pertain to and monitor American citizens but also incorporate other nations of the world on a much globular scale. LaFraniere clearly demonstrates this reality through Google’s continuous difficulties in its effort to fulfill its ambition to create a digital library by scanning millions upon millions of books and articles.

Google’s tedious, yet creative, endeavor to develop a digital library has now been undergoing for the past four years. Nevertheless, coming to the end of this project has been a great struggle for Google due to various copyright restrictions and thousands of American authors claiming rights and privacy to their works. Moreover, just recently, to add to Google’s problems, some “9,000 writers” from the China Writers’ Association and hundreds of other Chinese authors are fiercely claiming rights to their works and proclaiming that Google had no right to scan their books. More precisely, these authors and organizations are claiming that Google, even by simply scanning their works, are “violating international copyright standards.” Further, to try to resolve these serious tensions, Google sent representatives to quell any misunderstandings. However, to no avail, the Chinese authors remained skeptical and refused to accept any settlements or adjustments declaring that in this case of copyright infringement “reconciliation is extremely unfair.”

In addition, in an effort to justify Google’s actions, Courtney Hohne (a Google spokeswoman) stated that, since Google only shows “snippets” of the books to the general public and is “purely for [informational]” use, copyright infringement does not take place. Furthermore, Hohne makes an analysis saying that since there are millions of books stacking the shelves of millions of libraries it will be virtually impossible to locate every single copyright owner to each work of literature in order for Google’s digital library to ever accumulate into a finished product for society’s use. Finally, Hohne also makes a point that since most of the scanned books that Google has already acquired are simply located in the “Book Search” service where the entire text is not available for copyright infringement to be justified.

Futhermore, in order to maintain diplomatic relations with Chinese authors, Google proposed a plan that full texts of Chinese authors will only be available for “purchase or subscription” for that specific author. In other words, these Chinese authors will be enabled to perhaps make some profit from Google’s endeavor. Nevertheless, such a proposal was stubbornly treated as unacceptable not only by China but by France and Germany as well.

Nonetheless, ironically, with the exception of those thousands of protesting Chinese authors, “more than 50 Chinese publishers had allowed parts (20% of any book) of 60,000 books to be read online” without any objections to Google’s lofty plans. This is a great example that ideas of copyright law and infringement are often divided between extremists who only support the “Read-Only” culture and those who see creativity and reinforce it by encouraging “Read-Write” culture and development.

Overall, Google’s unending struggles to accomplish their goal to form a vast digital library demonstrates the reality of how copyright law can become a barrier or a repeller of creative ideas. Over the past few decades our society has adopted more and more ways of life that involve the digital spread of ideas and technologies. Therefore, Google’s idea to digitize entire libraries will benefit the present-day, “wired” or “computer-plugged” society in that millions of books will be instantaneously available at anyones fingertips and computer screens. Google’s plan will only help educate the new generation by making access to otherwise hard to find material fast and with less difficulty. Nonetheless, millions of authors and other creators of other works are so blind to this reality to the point that the American idea of copyright law has even developed on a global scale that now seems to prohibit any use of international works of literature before obtaining millions of permissions from people or organizations that claim rights and privacy to works that could benefit today’s society. This generation needs to recognize that at times copyright law can be extremely prohibitive and that these laws need to somehow be reevaluated and mediated to a level where “Read-Only” and “Read-Write” culture can strike an agreeable and productive balance.

– S. Petrov

Shield Law Compromise Would Protect Reporters and Bloggers

Over the past few years reporters and bloggers alike have suffered from hefty “fines [and even] imprisonment” for “[refusing] to identify confidential sources” used in their work. Nevertheless, as Charlie Savage describes in this New York Times article, their maybe hope rising on the horizon for correspondents in the US.

Recently, the “the Obama administration and key Democrats” have concocted a “proposal” for a ” media shield law” that would potentially protect reporters and bloggers. However, since this law has not yet circulated through Congress many remain anxious and question its passage. This “shield law” entails many aspects that require more consideration. First of all, the extent of the protection that a reporter or blogger may receive will all depend on the “type of case involved.” Hence, between civil cases and ordinary cases a judge will have the authority to perform a “balancing test” to determine what information a reporter should disclose if he/she (the judge) deems it to be in the “public interest.” In other words, reporters and bloggers will be protected as long as in certain circumstances such as threats to “national security or public interest” they do reveal valuable knowledge for the benefit of all. This “compromise” to the “shield law” makes much sense because there should be no reason for reporters to keep a potential terrorist or a criminal purposely incognito. Thus, according to Senator Charles E. Schumer, this “shield law” is a good balance between providing a “strong protection for reporters” and at the same time “making sure that the government can still do the job of protecting its citizens.”

Furthermore, since most of the news media organizations and companies are also required to “sign off” on this proposed law, opponents of this law state that “news media should not be allowed to decide whether exposing national security secrets is justified or receive special privileges.” Yet again, some deem that reporters’ sources are elements that are often beneficial for the country’s security while others ascertain that reporters need to have the rights and freedom to protect their sources if they so desire. Nonetheless, according to Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania), “we [still obtain] most of our information from investigative journalists.” As the result, if reporters do not protect their sources, this nation runs the risk of “public corruption and private malfeasance ” that will be “[undetectable].”

In the end, protecting a reporter’s or a blogger’s right to conceal sources is essential for eliminating fines and imprisonment, but at times of national security issues these sources must be revealed for the greater good of public safety. In addition, since, frequently, a judge determines if a source can be concealed or revealed based on “public interest” the judicial branch has to be careful as to how they justify and define “public interest” so this may not become a political bombardment of the disclosure of libelled or defamed sources from one party to the next. Overall, this law seems fairly efficient in striking a balance between providing reporters rights and protection to freely and openly do their work in a “read-write” culture while keeping the reins tight on government and national security as well.

The “shield law” is a great example of how true American freedom can be defined. In other words, American freedom does not entail the idea that everyone has rights that each can manipulate in whatever way someone wants. Yes, people do have rights and freedoms but these are genuinely balanced in such a fashion that serves the greater good of society and maintains just regulations to keep the public domain a fearless, safe, and productive environment.

– S. Petrov

Flu Vaccine Efficacy

This “Quackcast” falls under the aura of “Supplementary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine” discussions. Dr. Mark Crislip is the producer of this Podcast and is known to give “skeptical evaluations of alternative medicine.” In his 35th “Quackcast” Dr. Crislip informs his audience about the reality and efficacy of the present-day flu vaccine.

Due to the seemingly uncontrollable spread and emergence of the swine flu (N1H1 virus) many people have turned their pursuits into seeking vaccination to prevent contracting the virus. However, although millions are flocking to obtain a flu vaccine, a significant percentage of people remain skeptical as to the vaccine’s potency to veer off the flu. Hence, Dr. Crislip uses this uncertainty to express his thoughts on the effectiveness of the vaccine and the benefits of being vaccinated.

According to Dr. Crislip, the flu vaccine is “not a hundred percent efficacious” in that, every year, doctors, virologists, and scientists have to practically guess what specific strain of influenza will be present in order to concoct a possibly beneficial vaccine. Thus, if the predicted strain does not exactly align with the actual strain of the virus the response of the human body to the vaccine will not amount to 100%. In addition, Dr. Crislip mentions that our inability to sometimes make the right predictions of the authentic flu strain makes most studies on the “efficacy of the flu vaccine” less credible simply because the prediction of a strain vaccine for one year may work better or worse than the prediction from previous years. Therefore, Dr. Crislip states that it is hard to justify that the flu vaccine works to eradicate the “primary effects” (the flu itself) entirely. Thus, the “benefit [of the flu vaccine] depends on the strain around.”

Furthermore, Dr. Crislip briefly discredits those who believe that the flu vaccine does not work at all simply because some say that although they were vaccinated they still contracted the flu. Dr. Crislip explains this phenomenon by stating that such people have clearly been exposed to the flu strain before the vaccination occurred and which is later activated in their bodies. Nonetheless, Dr. Crislip does not eliminate the benefits of the flu vaccine. Since, annually, about “100,000 deaths worldwide and 30,000 deaths in the US occur” from influenza it is important for vaccination to take place. As the result, Dr. Crislip informs that vaccinations, although not 100% efficient in preventing flu contractions (primary effects), are important for the prevention of secondary effects such as death, hospitalization, and prolonged antibiotic use. Thus, flu vaccines decrease mortality and morbidity. Dr. Crislip also states that Canada’s recent enforced vaccination proved that the flu vaccine decreases secondary effects based on reports that antibiotic use and hospital visitations were significantly decreased in Toronto. In the end, although the flu vaccine is not a panacea for the flu, it still plays an important role in prevention.

Lastly, Dr. Crislip evaluates the idea that, in reality, the flu vaccine is more beneficial for everybody but yourself. This may seem strange at first but by being vaccinated one prevents the spread of the virus. Thus, “the more people get vaccinated the more others are protected.” Dr. Crislip also makes a joke that although we are raised in an egotistic society the flu vaccine may be doing more good to others than yourselves.

Over the last few decades we have come far in the medical field but it is shockingly fascinating to find out that the process for creating a vaccine for influenza is a process of “guessing” what strain “may be” present each year. So if the guessed strain is valid than thousands of lives will be saved and if it is not than perhaps thousands will suffer. It is truly horrifying that something so prevalent and dangerous as the swine flu remains an uncertainty. This is an outstanding example of how far we have come in our knowledge but still how little we know about something as tiny as a virus.

– S. Petrov

In E-Books, It’s an Army vs. Google

In this New York Times article, Miguel Helft expands upon the prevailing tensions regarding “Google’s lofty plans” to create a massive and widely accessible digital library. Nevertheless, as Google tries to accomplish this endeavor it faces countless opposition from countless authors and companies claiming rights to copyright and privacy.

Initially, Google’s tedious plan incorporated the idea of creating a “digital library and store” that would allow the public “free access to twenty percent of any book and [then require payment for further access] to read the rest.” Furthermore, a much broader proposal involved making this digital library available in “every library in America” for free. Additionally, Google also wanted to extend the entire library to be available for purchase at university levels of education. Hence, in order for these creative plans to be fairly subsidized Google stated that “revenue would be split among Google, authors, and publishers.” Therefore, Google makes an important claim that creators of these works of literature will not be monopolized by Google and that they (authors) will still maintain their rights to them and make profit off of it at the same time.

Nevertheless, even though Google seems to propose an innovative and creative alternative to digitize books and incorporate them into a growing, digitally savvy and wired society, “some 350 individuals, companies, nonprofit groups, academics, library associations, oversees publishers, states, and even foreign governments lodged complaints in court against” Google’s digital library plans and agreements. To be precise, critics outnumbered Google’s supporters “by about 10 to 1.” Further, some notable people like Lawrence Lessig (Internet scholar at Harvard University) mentioned that Google’s prevailing court tensions and criticism remind him of the time when Microsoft faced a lawsuit with Netscape. Hence, Lessig is hinting at the idea that Google’s real intentions are to monopolize “millions of books whose right holders are unknown or cannot be found.” Therefore, since copyright for these certain books is no longer active, Google will have the power to acquire these rights and manipulate prices in any direction it wants. Thus, to some individuals this may pose a major threat and financial loss.

However, as Google continues to plow through its harsh criticisms with the help of “ranks of lawyers and lobbyists” it sees that it is possible to “take [certain] objections into account” and smooth out the differences. Moreover, Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, suggests that most of the criticisms that “have been made are quite theoretical” and cannot override an endeavor that “provides value.”

Therefore, while a majority strongly disagrees with Google’s desire to create a digital library, a minority believes that this plan is worthwhile and is beneficial for society. Google’s idea is precisely what the young, present-day generation aligns with. Since our society has grown technologically and is considered a wired “read-write” type of culture, primarily via the power of the internet, Google’s idea is quite beneficial in that perhaps young people will turn to a digital library for more valid information instead of continuously accessing websites that may have invalid data and sources. In a larger spectrum, Google’s digital library may actually help our society to be more educated in the sense that legitimate sources of information will literally be available at our fingertips.

Lastly, the digital library may also increase the profit of authors and publishers because not only will their literature be available in printed text but also in digital text that cannot be read entirely without payment. Therefore, yet again, extreme copyright law regulations are a barrier to creative ideas and specifically ideas that are capable of changing our society for the better. Hopefully, Google will be able to legalize their digital library so that our society may access works of literature without being constantly zapped by regulations that sometimes do more harm that good for our generation.

– S. Petrov

Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel

Please see article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/business/21marvel.html?scp=1&sq=copyright%20law&st=cse

In this New York Times article, Michael Cieply and Brook Barnes show how copyright laws affect and manipulate Hollywood and the film industry, and sometimes how it (copyright law) unexpectedly does so.

The world is quite familiar with the most beloved comic superheroes that have hit the market as late as the 1930s. In present day society, people continue to be intrigued by superhero stories and Hollywood especially makes great use of society’s lingering attractions and converts these comics into multimillion dollar films. Nevertheless, recently, profitable and reputable companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel Entertainment are scrambling to find ways to maintain “long-term [copyright] rights to some of [their] superhero characters.”

Since all comic book superheroes had to be created by an artist or a writer, the authors of these fictional characters have copyright over them. Hence, the artist Jack Kirby, who created the “X-Men” and the “Fantastic Four” characters, according to the copyright law, has to maintain some ownership over them. Although, Jack Kirby died in 1994, the extended 70-year copyright ownership has not yet elapsed. Thus, technically, Jack Kirby’s work should still be under copyright. Therefore, a few weeks ago, Jack Kirby’s children filed “45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and other companies that have been using [Jack Kirby’s] characters.” In addition, these notices proposed and requested that “some of Mr. Kirby’s creations” should regain copyright by 2014.

Furthermore, if the children of Jack Kirby obtain some copyright rights over their fathers works they will have the opportunity to be shareholders of these prominent film production companies and will also be “able to sell rights” of their father’s comic book characters without having to obtain any permission to do so. Thus, Kirby’s descendants can take advantage of copyright ownership and make a good profit from it. Nevertheless, this may put some sticks in the spokes of Hollywood’s wheels of smooth film production and may even cause Hollywood to lose profit in the future.

However, during this process of terminating rights for the film industry, some companies such as Sony, Warner Bros, and Hasbro (toy company) already secured their uses of Kirby’s characters and therefore are not accountable to the children of John Kirby and copyright law in general. On the other hand, since Marvel Entertainment normally produces superhero films, Marvel still remains subject to the termination of its rights to use Kirby’s superhero characters. This adds up to a greater problem for Marvel because it may eventually jeopardize Walt Disney’s $4-billion deal to purchase the company. Lastly, it is a bit ironic that some companies find ways to veer around copyright rights while others remain subject to them like Marvel and eventually Walt Disney if they confirm Marvel’s purchase.

Based on this article’s report, it is clear that over the past few years “copyright matters have become increasingly tangled for Hollywood.” Some company’s may find ways to obtain certain rights and not suffer consequences or share rights with people like the Kirby children, while others are subject to them and thereby lose money and rights that they might have had for decades without any issues. Therefore, as copyright law steps deeply into the realm of filmmaking it may halt or postpone the production of films that are so frequently watched and loved by our society. Filmmaking is just one of thousands of creative pursuits that have been compromised by extreme enforcement of copyright laws.

– S. Petrov

Mixed Media: Changing copyright law won’t save newspapers

Please see articles:

1. (Main Article) http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/30/mixed-media-changing-copyright-law-wont-save-newspapers/

2.http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/06/the_future_of_n.html

3.http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2009/06/tighter_copyright_law_could_sa.html

4. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/the-ap-hot-news-and-hotheaded-blogs/

In this article, Jeff Bercovici, unravels to us the prospect of re-examining and altering copyright law for the purpose of saving newspaper and news-reporting industries from suffering from frequent copyright infringers and to keep news-delivery in the hands of those who work so tediously to gather it.

Over the past few decades, mainly because of the availability of internet posting services and blogging, newspapers have endured incalculable wounds that produced constant leaks of information to the public without their consent. Hence, with the reality that some identities are capable of accessing newspaper articles either before or after the newspaper articles are officially available to the public eye and illegally posting summaries of them on “aggregation sites” severely hurts the newspaper industry because such copyright-infringing activity steals a newspaper’s sole responsibility to diffuse accumulated news into the national or local community.

Further, in order to deal with copyright issues in relation to news copying and distribution, Bercovici, through the ideas of other scholars and columnists such as Richard Posner and Connie Schultz, introduces the proposed concept that perhaps a change in copyright laws such as providing “a 24-hour window in which a given piece of news would be exclusive to the outlet that broke it” might halt illegal summarizing of news on popular blogs and other conduits of dispersion. In the same vein, such a change in copyright enforcement might prevent newspaper industries from losing as much time and money, but according to Bercovici and Jeff Jarvis’s point of view, such a copyright alteration will do little to preserve newspapers from “falling.” In fact, Jarvis asserts that “some forms of news such as Michael Jackson’s death” are definitely not going to hold back millions of post and blogs about the incident no matter how much newspaper’s would want to withhold such information and claim copyright to it.

Hence, based on Jeff Bercovinci’s account, it is fairly evident that in today’s wired society news agencies and newspaper owners experience many financial loses because, although copyrighted, news articles can still be spread around the word in a matter of seconds through online posts. Furthermore, at the end of his article, Bercovinci stated that the “24-hour rule” is a concept that may not accomplish as much as it hopes to “to save newspapers.” Such a declaration is reasonable because, in reality, having or not having a “24-hour exclusive” to protect newspapers is not going to prevent illegal summarizing of newspaper articles online. Yes, their will be a slightly larger risk for copyright infringers to copy news articles on posts but it seems that it will not be enough to entirely stop them. Thus, in order to create a stronger wall of protection against unauthorized copying and summarizing of news and newspaper articles more serious measures have to be taken to preserve the time and money news-gathering agencies spend to deliver news to our society.

– S. Petrov