2009.12.23

Libel protections will fast-track media reporting

In follow-up to my post, yesterday, about the Supreme Court of Canada “responsible communication” ruling that establishes libel protections for journalists and bloggers, I’d like to add that this will likely reduce time-to-publish for media organizations that have typically relied on clearance from their legal departments before going public with public interest and investigative reports.

Michael Geist has published more details about the defence on his blog and included his thoughts about this decision being a significant victory for freedom of expression. In his post he includes the following from the ruling:

…the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.

2006.08.16

When Apple owns “Pod”, what do we owe?

Apple has decided that it owns the word Pod and it intends to use legal channels to formalize that claim.  For a company that was attempting to demonstrate leadership in the social media movement, it is going out of its way to prove otherwise.

I don’t know the legal system very well and I can’t begin to guess what Apple plans to do if it does win its claim on the word Pod.  I do have to wonder what will happen to everyone who has a Podcast, what kind of damages a dictionary publisher will be on the hook for, and if the RIAA will treat this as an attempt to reverse engineer the book and movie versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Source: Paul Colligan

© 2005 - 2010 Mark Blevis. Design by SnowyDay