Publishing

Yes, I am looking at you Jay Rosen

In The Front-Runner’s Fall, Joshua Green claims to have emails documenting the implosion of the Clinton campaign :

"Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined. E-mails and memos—published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown."

I have to ask : How can they publish what is supposed to be private correspondence? Or is there some privacy clause that applies differently to Senators and/or presidential candidates?

Thanks for any and all answering this question.

Kenneth Cole on blogging :
So why have I jumped on the blogosphere bandwagon? Well, throughout most of my adult life, I have been a reasonably successful, designer, businessman, parent, and philanthropist but I've always been a frustrated activist. This venting arena is the perfect venue for personal expression and for encouraging genuine change (not to mention taking some of the pressure off of my pharmacologist). Over the last 25 years, through my Company and personal pursuits, I've attempted to be topical and relevant to our ever-changing society and raise social awareness, but the fact that you're reading this is proof of how the world is changing. I realize that my monologist approach of the past is as appropriate as wearing socks with sandals - today's must-have is dialog. Sure, I can always help you with what you wear but now you can help us all be more aware.

I am a huge fan of Kenneth. First because I am a shoe whore and I LOOOOOOOVE his style, especially his boots. I used to have a pair of boots of his that I basically wore down to the bone. They just felt like butter and I haven't been able to find a pair like that, although I might actually go out and buy this pair to wear with jeans. Although, OMG, I am totally feeling these, these, these and these as well.

As I said, if there are shoes involved, I am there. And don't get me started with the handbags ... yes, yes, I know ... the truth is, I am really shallow deep down inside.

Yet it's the company's history of ad campaigns that totally rocks my world. As with the Benneton fashion house, Kenneth Cole the fashion designer and company has never shied away from voicing their politics. And grock knows we need that in a realm of culture and society not necessarily oozing with consciousness raising and committed activism.

Who can forget, for example, the "We All Have AIDS Campaign"? How about the infamous black and white posters that just stopped you on their tracks with slogans like : The Homeless Got What They Deserve. And, of course, there's the t-shirts. I am totally feeling this one.

So when I received an email from David Hershkovits, one of the publishers of Paper Magazine asking me if I'd be interested to blog for KC, I was more than flattered. Smelling salts and an EKG were involved in my efforts to say yes.

I have to give a huge shout out to Ron Mwangaguhunga of The Corsair blog fame for this opportunity. We've had blog crushes on each other since forever and it was he who recommended to David to work with his team. The other team is composed by the fine people of Electronic Artists, the company that manages the blog.

So without further ado, let me give you a looky of one of my posts (featured on the front page of the blog).

The current issue of The New Yorker reviews two of the current crop of books about Hillary Clinton; and as is often the case with that magazine, the crown jewel of the New York publishing universe, the review is perhaps more perceptive on its subject than the books likely are themselves. After all, literally dozens of works later, what more is there to know about the most written-about figure on our political stage?

Turns out, a lot. Consider this quote, about her infamous mishandling of health care:

Clinton’s biggest blunder, as Bernstein tells it, was to offend the very legislators whose support she needed most. At a retreat for Democratic senators in the spring of 1993, Clinton was asked whether it was realistic to pursue such an ambitious health-care program, given her husband’s many other legislative initiatives. She responded that the Administration was prepared to “demonize” those who opposed the task force’s recommendations.

“That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton,” Senator Bill Bradley, of New Jersey, told Bernstein. “You don’t tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy.”

I am writing this post if only because Roxanne Cooper pinged me this morning about the woman who gives a face to the expression media whore.

Rox was brainstorming with Amanda Marcotte and they came up with the idea of having a Dear Judith national campaign, urging her to donate ALL NET PROCEEDS from the sale of OJ Simpson's book to organizations that help women escape from living in abusive relationships.

Jill at Feministe is on the case as well.

Why it's taken me this long to write about the recycled OJ Simpson scandal? Well, words failed me. As Michael over at The Daily Gotham : Michael wrote, it seemed so much like a hoax that when I found out it was true, well, I was feklempt.

He finds the words that escaped me:

I've seen this piece of news iterated in hundreds of news feeds :

"Given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with the seriousness or depth required, he said. "My main focus right now is in the '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down, I'll sit down and consider, and if at some point I change my mind, I will make a public announcement and everybody will be able to go at me."

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, Obama's face fills the cover next to the headline, "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." He is currently on a tour promoting his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream."

People are desperate in this country for a real leader when they place their presidential hopes on a guy that became famous for a political convention speech, has written a good book about being the son of immigrants, and not much else.

Yesterday I attended Fair Media Council's "Connections Day". I was one of the participants in the Blogging: The Power of Citizen Journalism panel.

I had a blast because I finally met Bob Cox, founder of the Media Bloggers Association and Steve Safran of Lost Remote. Bob is the patron saint of bloggers and Steve? Well, as you can see by his energy in this post, he's Bob's so-good-yet-evil twin.

As Steve points out, the debate was rather agitated and it went from, how can blogs be used by disseminate your message to the "we still own the media and you bloggers suck" debate. The three of us agreed we are in a transitional period at the moment, because the rules of engagement through reading and writing are changing.

Here's what I get from the discussions we had during the panel and afterwards:

Blogs and Politics
7pm October 25th
NYU Vanderbilt Hall
7:00pm to 9:00pm

co-hosted by the NYU Law School Democrats.

Top tier New York Bloggers will be on hand to discuss new media in New York politics and analyze the result of the DL21C Blog Straw Poll.

Link to survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=362362674986

RSVP http://www.dl21c.org/insertform2.php?event_id=159

Blogging: The Power of Citizen Journalism

Learn why blogging has become such a phenomena, what it’s good for …. And what it’s bad for.

Moderator:

Patrick Foye, President and CEO, United Way of Long Island

Panelists:

Jim Cameron, President, Cameron Communications, Inc.

Robert Cox, President, Media Bloggers Association

Norm Prusslin, Director, Media & Interdisciplinary Arts Minors, Stony Brook University

Liza Sabater, Publisher, culturekitchen.com

Steve Safran, President, Safran Media Group, Managing Editor, LostRemote.com

*Sponsored by Briarcliffe College

For more information go to
http://www.fairmediacouncil.org/programs.asp

UPDATE | 9 June 2006
It is amazing what money will do. While there are more then 15 prominent sites running the Brangelina photos --the embargo is over after all-- I was insulted and berated by one of the lawyers of the company that serves the IP to my hosting company.

There are proper procedures that IP and hosting companies have to go through when there is a C&D. A C&D is not necessarily an order for a take down. Can you imagine if everybody could invoke the DCMA on an email everytime they didn't like something written about them?

I have been informally adviced that it is illegal to not follow certain steps and procedures and so I am weighing my options. Especially since I did not use the image to write about gossip but to criticize corporate tactics meant to curtail fair use and freedom of speech.

I am writing a longer piece on this issue especially the need for cultural creatives and progressives to invest in rock hard IT businesses. Back in the days art collectives like The Thing [ www.thing.net ] where dial-up networks themselves, 20 YEARS AGO, because they knew of the danger of being shut down for unpopular art.

To save democracy we are going to have to build a new infrastructure capable of sustaining it. That means, investing in businesses that will fight for fair use and freedom of speech instead of cower to the bottom line.

I get an AIM from Lynn and her husband saying to call them immediately. I freaked out given her recent health woes; but they reassured me it had all to do with the Brangelina photo.

The lawyers for TimeWarner AOL and Getty Images invoked the Digital Millenium Copyright Act sent a Cease and Desist letter to AboveNet, a company that services hosting companies.

With no questions asked, AboveNet immediately contacted Simpli.biz, the company that holds our servers. They ordered a "DCMA TAKEDOWN". It means, it does not matter if TimeWarnerAOL is lying about the infringement of copyright allegations. They would force Simpli to force me to take down the image within 24 hours or risk losing their IP and their business by having it blacklisted. And they can force them to do so because this kind of harrassment is protected under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

It really does not matter if I claim Fair Use. If I did not comply within 24 hours they would blacklist the hosting company and all IPs they held. What that means is that, once they blacklisted the IP, they would in effect put Simpli.biz out of business.

So what exists in place with the DCMA is a legally allowed harrassment system in place. If you are writing a blog that a big media company like TimeWarnerAOL finds to their dislike, they can use the DCMA to take you down, no questions asked. And the cost to fight to get back online makes it almost impossible for anybody to fight these kinds of battles.

So I asked Lynn what to do. She knows that ten years ago a similar thing happened to my kids' father with his Barbie spoof, The Distorted Barbie. It was the first in a string of actions that would culminate in Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions [PDF].

This is what came out of our conversation :

My friend Joy Garnett, who is the the source of culturekitchen's guerrilla man logo, has also become an expert on fair use. She sent me this bit posted at the FairUseNetwork mailing list:

The fair use doctrine permits anyone to use copyrighted works, without the owners' permission, in ways that are fundamentally equitable and fair. Common examples of fair use are criticism, commentary, news reporting, research, scholarship, and multiple copies for classroom use.

[...]

News reporting = blogging.

TimeWarnerAOL owns People Mag. They happen to be one of the biggest lobbyists behind the DCMA (after the RIAA). They also declared with their new "anti-spam" policy how the stand against net neutrality : they want to create different paying levels of access to email, rss, web, ftp, you name it. The want as many tolls they can lay and control along the information superhighway as they can.

Which is why it puts into a whole different context these comments from the people of Hello! and Getty Images :

[via Shiloh Not Ready For Close-Up, Gets It Anyway - Yahoo! News]:

"It's a complete mystery," Hello!'s Herd told Reuters. "And we are very concerned at this breach of copyright.

"It is very difficult to control the Web and this proves how rampantly out of control it is. We have absolutely no idea how the picture was leaked."

A spokesperson for People magazine, meanwhile, had other ideas.

"Somebody from Hello! must have leaked it," the unnamed rep told BBC News. "I don't know how it got there."

However it did, it makes for a particularly pricey stealing of thunder.

As for Getty Images, which Pitt and Jolie announced earlier this week would market the photos, they claim the picture could be seen more as a teaser, enticing the celeb-savvy public into seeing the rest of the shots.

"Our legal team are looking into it and we will take it from there," spokeswoman Alison Crombie told Reuters. "But I really don't think it will devalue the pictures as everyone is dying to see the full set."

The C&D's are after the jump.

This is meant within the context of, the "fair use" provision of copyright law, under which this site posted the new family's image. It's meant to raise important cultural issues here where we can examine them as free citizens:

Now retired from a public education career and home with my own children, I dedicate daily effort these days to supporting parents in making their own (legal, non-abusive) discretionary decisions about their own children, from whether to have them in the first place, to how to help them learn without signing them over to the government. Parents are the creators of, and therefore the primary protectors-decision makers for, their own baby and child. That's one important principle at play here.

But that doesn't make everything biological parents decide to do wise, or ethical, or best for the child. Or for modern society at large. That's a whole different conversation and one that society MUST be able to have. I don't see any parent's right to sell exclusive images of such private moments as a given, any more than I'd reflexively defend Michael Jackson dangling his baby out of a hotel balcony for the world to gawk at, as long as no actual physical harm resulted - in other words, if he got away with the exploitation without immediate, demonstrable and actionable injury to the child. (Dropping it)