I guess my reaction is born from two things: one, there's no such requirement in California's shield law, and two, in the Apple v. Does case, the judge opted to protect the bloggers under that shield law (instead of trade secrets laws) since they'd committed "an act of journalism," regardless of their background as journalists or reasons for doing so.
I just don't see how a "free and independent press" doesn't include people who get a bug up their rear and publishing something, with no regard for their livelihood or personal financial gain. What about journalism students, who often take chances on writing provocative stuff -because- they have no need to earn a paycheck? To me, this was designed to apply only to the corporate press who have a vested interest in being the only organizations allowed to call employees and freelancers "journalists." As David points out, it only matters how this applies in the courts. A law doesn't mean much without legal precedent to give it nuance. JW On 10/17/07, Frank Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 7:02:50 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > I do agree that it's trubling to read "for financial gain or > livelihood". > > does this mean you must get paid by a commercial company? > > can you just get donations from the community? > > can you have a day job and blog at night? > > In some ways this is the flip side of all the discussions we have had > here about "non commercial" vs "commercial" use of creative commons > liceneced resouces. > > Note that the "finacial gain" clause specifically does not say "as a > livelihood" or "for financial gain AND livelihood". The conjunction is > "or", which implies that mere financial gain on its own is enough. > > If showing content on an ad-laden web page counts as commercial use of > material for licensing purposes, it's certainly reasonable to think > that any site which earns from ads, sponsorship, or whatever would > count as "financial gain". > > Maybe those odd nickels and dimes from Google adsense count for > something, after all ... > > -- > Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
