By the way, really looking forward to what Josh has to say in all this. On 10/17/07, Jackson West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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]
