Hi guys, I'm at work -- just getting a chance to check my e-mail now. here's a link to what I wrote on my CNET blog: http://blogs.cnet.com/ 8301-13508_1-9798084-19.html?tag=head
Basically the latest iteration of this bill only protects those who earn a "substantial" amount of money from their work as journalists. What legally defines substantial is still unclear. As I see it, this law is flawed in that it doesn't so much protect the public's right to know as it protects the professional's ability to conduct business; that might seem like a subtle distinction but from a constitutional perspective it's pretty huge. Had the House's version of the law been on the books, I may still have been protected. I sold the footage from that night for about $2,000, and I currently have a blog on the CNET blogging network which would also act in my favor, but the Senate version of the bill only provides protection when there is a strict promise of confidentiality. So in all likelihood when the bills are combined into one it would've excluded me. Anyhow, I've got lots to do here at work so I must get going... Josh PS -- anyone want to submit videos for RUNtv the college television show I'm producing here in Oakland? It's a strictly non-exclusive license and we'll pay you $50 for any videos we use. How about it? E- mail me a link to your video and we'll it on the show. Thanks. On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:14 PM, deirdreharvey2002 wrote: > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, long time lurker, rare poster here, > > > IANAL ... but I wouldn't count on this wording protecting a blogger > > from the DOJ if they've got some other "day job" and nobody is > paying > > them to over a given story. > > The most recent wording is extremely odd in its specificity. It's > like they don't want to > leave any room for the courts to interpret what a commonly used > word like "journalism" > means. Obviously the changing nature of the concept is not > something these legislators > are keen to embrace. > > The emphasis on financial gain is extremely weird and pretty much > unjustifiable. I can see > lots of reasons why you need to discriminate between someone who > works (for love, > money, or bee in bonnet) as a journalist and someone who doess not. > Not all bloggers > qualify as journalists (citizen or otherwise) and not all need or > deserve to be protected by > a journalist's shield. But many do and they are being very > deliberately excluded here. > > Are there any other fields where if you don't earn your living from > something you have > fewer rights? > > > ... but it's a very interesting turn of event in anycase. > > absolutely. > > > > > On 10/17/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So legally, you aren't a journalist unless you're a > commercial journalist, > > > > huh? Funny, other 'professions' like medicine and the law > aren't tied to > > > > such mercenary considerations. > > > > > > im not sure i read it that way. > > > i think they define it as someone who regularly reports on > something, > > > has a track record of reporting. > > > This is basically what a blogger can be if they are dedicated > to a topic. > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
