WSJ:

In sum, Google is tracking every move you make and connecting it together. If you watch a Youtube video, google logs this and then analyzes it against the searches you’ve made and the emails you send. To avoid this, you must be logged out and by default, Google logs you in. To make sure you are logged out, look at the black bar at the top right corner. If it says you are logged out, you should be.

Of course, with these companies, who knows. The FTC head has indicated that they’ll be watching these monoliths like Google and Facebook as it relates to the privacy of user data.

————————

Maggie Stiefvater may believe that bloggers are non professionals writing non reviews and therefore are not afforded respect by authors, but Reed Business who owns and runs Book Expo America apparently disagrees. It has purchased the Book Blogger Convention and beginning in 2012, the Book Blogger Convention will be part of BEA.

————————

Speaking of non reviews and bloggers, this one author and publisher are seeking a contractual arrangement with reviewers. Insane Hussein posts a copy of a Book Reviewer contract. Sign it and you give the author/publisher various rights to use the review in whatever way they wish. Not so bad, right? But then there are the terms. The review must be graded on an unbiased 1 to 5 scale. It must answer five questions. It must be 400 words or longer exclusive of the answers to the five questions.

No book is worth that trouble. Not one.

————————

Julian Sanchez takes a look at the dollar loss claimed by the entertainment industry as a result of piracy. The numbers are so outrageous as to be laughable yet most of Congress (and many in the entertainment industry) take these numbers as truth.

[H]ere’s the upshot: The $200–250 billion number had originated in a 1991 sidebar in Forbes, but it was not a measurement of the cost of “piracy” to the U.S. economy. It was an unsourced estimate of the total size of the global market in counterfeit goods. Beyond the obvious fact that these numbers are decades old, counterfeiting of physical goods imported in bulk and sold by domestic retail distributors is, rather obviously, a totally different phenomenon with different policy implications from the problem of illicit individual consumer downloads of movies, music, and software. The 750,000 jobs number had originated in a 1986 speech (yes, 1986) by the secretary of commerce estimating that counterfeiting could cost the United States “anywhere from 130,000 to 750,000? jobs. Nobody in the Commerce Department was able to identify where those figures had come from.

…..

Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify.

Source: How Copyright Industries Con Congress.

——————-

For the UK and UK rights territories (which I think includes Australia and New Zealand), Piatkus is starting up a digital only line to release digital versions of popular books

The first titles will be released on Valentine’s Day, 14th February, with e-books including Nine Rules to Break When Romancing a Rake, 11 Scandals to Start to Win a Duke’s Heart, 10 Ways to be Adored When Landing a Lord by Sarah MacLean, and Winning the Wallflower by Eloisa James, as well as paranormal romance novella Eternal Blood by Laura Wright.

Novels will be priced £2.99, with novellas available at a lower price point. The imprint will also publish into omantic suspense, historical romance, paranormal romance and fantasy fiction, and contemporary women’s fiction genres.

Prices look good to me. UK readers?

————————

Remember how Apple just became the most profitable company in the world and is sitting on about 400 billion cash? Right, well, its devices are made in factories that treat people like animals. See NYTimes.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

NYTimes tweeted yesterday asking the question whether consumers would be willing to pay more for a device made in the US under humane conditions. Another person tweeted back and asked if Apple would be willing to have a lower margin than 44% to produce devices under humane conditions.

————————

There’s an article in Bloomberg’s Business Week that is worth a read because it is gossipy and insider-y about Amazon’s once rosy relationship with publishers and how it all fell apart when Amazon knifed them in the back and started selling digital books at a sub $10 price point. Larry Kirshbaum, the head of Amazon’s NY Publishing arm, once well liked, is now reviled according to Mike Shatzkin. Does Larry mind? I doubt it. I’ve heard that Kirshbaum’s checkbook is virtually bottomless and authors only hesitations might be their doubt that Amazon can get its books into brick and mortar stores. Amazon has signed a deal with Houghton Mifflin to print their books and distribute them but will Barnes & Noble agree to do so? After all, BN responded by pulling all the comics off the shelves when DC Comics made an exclusivity deal with Amazon. It won’t carry the digital versions of any of the Amazon publications. But if Amazon were to sign someone like Janet Evanovich or Steven King or the like, could BN say no?

————————

File this under “Skeptical” file, but Anobii is saying that DRM should be eliminated. The reason that this might be important is that Anobii is “backed by big publishers.”

In a speech this afternoon at the Digital Book World Conference in New York, Berlucchi argued that digital rights management technology, or DRM as it is known, prevents more readers from buying e-books and may actually encourage piracy of copyrighted material.

Industry observer Mike Shatzkin, who is also chairman of the Digital Book World Conference called the argument “significant” because Anobii is partially owned by the UK arms of three major publishing companies, HarperCollins, Penguin and Random House.

As I’ve said before, elimination of DRM would actually help to loosen Amazon’s grip on digital book sales because you could shop anywhere and use a Kindle.

Related posts:

1. Wednesday Midday Links: Amazon’s Silk Privacy Policy Satisfies EFF
2. Friday News Roundup: Positivity in the face of poor quality is cruelty of its own
3. Monday Midday Links: Amazon Questioned About Privacy by Congress

For a blogger, even one with a law degree, a letter with legal threats makes you sweat, particularly the first one. I received my first perceived legal threat from an author over a satirical blog piece I did. The email demanded an apology and retraction, the first steps to a defamation suit. I took the complaint seriously and reviewed all my statements, the original blog post, and contacted a lawyer friend for her opinion. I then responded, forcefully, rebutting the claims and citing the law, and requesting the person to refrain from future contact unless through legal representation.

Since that time, I’ve had numerous legal threats lobbed Dear Authors way and I’ve taken them all seriously which is the way everyone should take a legal threat. Bloggers, however, are not without their resources. For example, there is the anti-SLAPP statutes being enacted around the country. A couple of weeks ago, a federal district judge in Northern California has provided bloggers one more shield.

If you are a regular reader of the blog, you’ll know that Victoria Laurie, an author, took the time to target a blogger who took portions of Laurie’s own blog posts and reprinted them on her site. Laurie recruited a friend of hers who is a lawyer to send the blogger what is commonly known as a “Cease and Desist” letter. A C&D is essentially a legal threat telling the recipient to take certain action or else. The “or else” is some type of legal action.   Laurie herself declared “I absolutely PROMISE you that if you continue in this vein I absolutely will pursue you to the full extent of both my pocketbook and the law.” (from Laurie’s deleted blog).

My feeling, as I blogged about, was that the lawyer, in sending this cease and desist letter, was engaging in actions that weren’t entirely in keeping with her state’s ethical rules. I spoke to Robin about it on the telephone, ranting over what I perceived to be the utter misuse of Cease and Desist letters and that the legal profession wasn’t living up to its own ethical prohibitions by not curtailing these more. There’s always an internal conflict between zealous representation and ethical representation.

The Lenz v. Universal Studios case, though, could help the legal profession police itself. Stephanie Lenz uploaded a video of her toddler dancing to Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy.” Universal Studios sent a C&D to YouTube demanding that the video be taken down for copyright infringement. After all, as the copyright holder, Universal Studios has the right over derivative works including performances. Lenz was infuriated, contacted a lawyer, and wrote to YouTube demanding the video be put back up because she had not violated any copyrights. The EFF got involved and sued Universal Studios for misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512(f) of the DMCA.

According to Judge Fogel, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act requires the copyright holder (such as Universal Studios or an author like Victoria Laurie) to have “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law, and therefore “the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright.”

Universal argued that requiring the copyright owner to assess whether the use of the copyrighted material constitutes fair use would reduce the rapidity in which copyrighted materials could be taken down and be difficult to determine whether the material actually does constitute fair use.

The court rejected Universal’s arguments finding that the DMCA requires an initial assessment and that rapidity would not be harmed. “The purpose of Section 512(f) is to prevent the abuse of takedown notices. If copyright owners are immune from liability by virtue of ownership alone, then to a large extent Section 512(f) is superfluous.” Further, as Lenz argued, there is damage down to the public when non infringing or fair use of copyrighted material is wrongfully taken down.

Damages in a misrepresentation action could include attorneys’ fees as well as other items. “Lenz did incur actual damages in reviewing counter-notice procedures, seeking the assistance of an attorney, and responding to the takedown notice.”

Turning to our example case of Laurie v. ChariDee, Laurie had a duty to assess whether ChariDee’s use of Laurie’s copyrighted blog writings constituted fair use. In considering Fair Use, we need to weigh four factors:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

ChariDee used two paragraphs of material from a 20+ paragraph blog post. The blog post does not limit the potential market for Laurie’s own words. She is free to sell her rants, if she could find a market, to someone else. The purpose of ChariDee’s use of Laurie’s words was to commentary and not of a commercial nature. The copyrighted work was full of opinions and did not have much creative value.

The point of the ruling (and this post) is to point out that for those people who think about sending C&D letters based on the DMCA should engage in a good faith assessment of whether the use is fair because at least in some jurisdictions a baseless C&D letter will be grounds for its own suit.

Related posts:

1. Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced in Congress to Replace DRM with Fair Use
2. Stanford Law Professors to Lead Defense Against JK Rowling Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
3. Fair Use Part 2: Fan Fiction, Rowling and Cassie Edwards

Do you remember the movie "Election," with Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick? In the first scene Mr. McAllister asks his high school class about the difference between ethics and morals. Ironically, of course, the one student who eagerly attempts to answer the question is also the one who proceeds to make mincemeat of both ethics and morals during the course of the movie, her ambition a veritable engine for her imagination and willingness to do almost anything to secure her class presidency. Tracy Flick sees the future open before her, dependent on winning that race, completely indignant when someone dares run against her, amazingly unself-conscious about the levels to which she’ll "stoop to conquer.’

In fact, Tracy continues to see herself as a good person, earnestly praying before bedtime for her "Dear Lord Jesus" to "go that one last mile and make sure to put me in office where I belong so that I may carry out your will on earth as it is in heaven. Amen." In this Tracy exemplifies the difference between morals and ethics: morals relate to one’s personal value system, while ethics relate to one’s conduct within a community. Ethics concern the responsibilities people within a community have toward one another and toward a larger sense of "good living" or "correct conduct," while morals are more commonly associated with beliefs about what is right or wrong in a particular society. Ethics are particularly important in professional communities where there are certain standards that each member is expected to meet, especially when someone’s life or livelihood is one the line (doctors and lawyers, for example, even teachers).

It’s easy, of course, to mix these up, and people often do. In fact, I think we see the confusion over ethics and morals every time one of these author-conduct incidents rolls out. As soon as an author is called out over some particular conduct – plagiarism, gaming reviews, re-shelving books, whatever – a lot of backlash erupts around whether or not the author is being attacked. Which leads to a lot of mashing up about whether or not the bloggers who cover these stories are, for lack of a better description, mean girls who just like to stir shit up.

Since we’ve talked a lot about the difference between the author as a person and the author’s work and online conduct, I thought it might be interesting to talk a bit about blogger conduct, and more specifically about whether bloggers need a code of ethics similar to the one we seem to assume of authors. Do we need some community standards of reporting and reviewing, even though we’re largely amateurs in this online arena and not professionals earning a living?

I don’t have an absolute answer to this question, but before I offer my view and open it up for discussion, I want to put a few things on the table to chew over:

First, do bloggers constitute a community separate and apart from the online community more generally? Since many different types of people blog, is there a special category for blogs like Dear Author, Smart Bitches Trashy Books, Teach Me Tonight, All About Romance After Hours, and the like, that sets them apart? Is it the particular activity that defines the blog community or the role of the bloggers?

If bloggers are a community unto themselves, to what standards should we be held? Should we meet more general journalistic standards or editorial standards? Does it make a difference if we attempt impartiality in our reportage and commenting, or should we be required to provide honest opinions? Should we be required to believe everything we assert? Cyberjournalist.net created a proposed Bloggers’ Code of Ethics that emphasizes three main categories: Be Honest and Fair; Minimize Harm; and Be Accountable. Some of what they focus on – "never plagiarize," for example – is relevant to anyone writing publicly, but other things – "show good taste" and avoid "pandering to lurid curiosity" is obviously a HUGE matter of judgment, not to mention valuation of a blog’s worth. Do editorialists abide by these ethics? Do journalists, for that matter?

In the specific arena of Romance-related blogging, are reviewers a special sub-community within online blogging, and should there be a special code of conduct for reviewing, regardless of the general character of the blog? Author David Louis Edelman recently posted a list of things he wants from reviews, namely that they be honest, insightful, opinionated, detailed, original accurate, independent, not anonymous, and free of spoilers. Would the institution of something like this as a reviewer standard benefit reviews, which are, by nature, individual opinions? Why, for example, should reviewers always steer clear of spoilers if a spoiler is necessary in elucidating one of the detailed points Edelman wants in reviews? And how much detail is enough in a review? Under his standards, neither Romantic Times nor Publishers Weekly would qualify, I’m afraid, and yet they continue to serve as standard benchmarks for authors.

Should bloggers who make money blogging be held to a different standard? We often talk about how authors are professionals, how they are writing for money, and as such should accept a certain amount of straightjacketing in their online conduct. Should so-called professional bloggers have similar "professional expectations?" And what about amateur bloggers whose only capital is their reputation as bloggers, who are not making money, but who may gain a certain readership based on a positive reputation, whatever that may be based on (humor, reviews, honest dialogue, whatever).

As a blog reader – whether you are author, reader, fellow blogger, whatever – do you feel that there should be minimum ethical standards of conduct to which blogs should be held? What do you expect from the blogs you frequent, and do you give more validity to blogs that proclaim some ethical standard of their own, or are you simply looking for entertainment, ethical standards be damned?

My own view – not fully considered and open to reconsideration — is that the role of blogs is to provoke discussion, and that even more than authors, bloggers are individual voices that are not part of a professional group. So while anyone who writes has to be conscious of plagiarism and copyright concerns, in terms of some collective code of behavior bloggers are merely public citizens (and I use this in the most general way, not to imply national identity), and should be held to the same basic standards of any member of society. One important caveat, though: if someone is blogging in their capacity as a professional, then they may be held to different standards, depending on their professional context and their content

Most bloggers seem to be hobbyists, though, and not inclined toward professionalization in regard to blogging. One blogger or a thousand can all talk simultaneously without any of us being in contact or affiliation, in the same way that a thousand different conversations can proceed at once without any concept of them being linked. At a basic level, blog = voice(s), regardless of the actual people behind the blog. Authors, on the other hand, do not distill down to that same level. Book = voice, but an author functions on multiple levels, as individual, as professional, as contractor with a publisher, etc. I believe, therefore, that authors have responsibilities to one another that bloggers don’t. For example, if an author engages in reshelving books, s/he is violating the policies of bookstores and publishers, as well as engaging in an unfair practice relative to other authors. Whereas bloggers, especially not-for-profit bloggers, don’t have that same kind of mutual professional reliance because our role as a blogger is synonymous with the blog itself. Blogs are more like books, in my opinion, and do we hold books to a professional code of ethics? Do we accuse them of being mean and of lying?

Essentially, I believe that blogs function as sites of public discourse, and that their popularity, value, and reliability will be determined on the basis of individual blog (and the persona of the blogger) relative to the blog’s audience. And despite the belief that bloggers can and do basically say anything they want without thought, I actually think there is a dearth of really good, really challenging, really fearless public conversation online, and that it sometimes takes a very provocative, even polarizing and sensationalistic voice to get some of these discussions going.

Related posts:

1. FEC Says Bloggers Have Same Rights As Media
2. NBCC Posts Its Ethics in Reviewing Survey
3. Ethics in Blogging: Taking the Wild Out of the Wild West?

I read today on your author, Victoria Laurie’s, website that you have been in discussions with her about a voice mail message that you have received from a blogger called NovelReads about a statement Ms. Laurie made on her website. I felt that Ms. Laurie’s accusations of this reader being a “psycho” and a “cyber stalker” should not go unchallenged. The timeline of events occurs as follows:

1. In July Ms. Laurie takes exception to a review left at Amazon by a reviewer with the handle Butterscotch.

2. In July Ms. Laurie blogs about this reviewer and says these things in a blog post has since been deleted by can be read here via Google Cache). The blog post, in case you do not care to read it, includes the following comments:

And you should never pick a fight with an author-.well-.because, honey, we know how to get even. ;)

and

And so, come September-my little “fan” and some of her close friends and family will likely read about a character with a very similar name, (i.e. nearly identical but not enough to get me sued) depicted in one of the most comical and fabulously scandalous scenes within Death Perception. And trust me-this isn’t a scene which in any way flatters that character. :) (Also trust me-.you’ll know it when you read it!)
-

In other words, if in a year you should pick up a copy of Doom With A View and read about a certain transvestite prostitute with a piss poor attitude and a bad case of V.D., who just happens to go by the name of an ice cream topping-.well, you and I and about 60,000 of our closest friends and family will know exactly where that inspiration came from. ;)

and

my editor thinks this concept of mine is hilarious and she’s going to suggest the idea to her other authors who are fed up with being targets for the mentally deranged.

3. I blog about this and Novelreads (and many other readers) i disturbed by Ms. Laurie’s conduct as well as the idea that an editor of a major publishing house approves of this type of action and that the editor is going to suggest to other authors to do the same.

4. Novelreads then leaves a voicemail message expressing her disappointment.

5. Ms. Laurie then gets a call from her editor (which I presume to be you) expressing concern over Ms. Laurie’s safety and suggesting that she contact a lawyer. Apparently she does so.

6. Tuesday, Novelreads receives a letter via email from a lawyer purporting to represent Ms. Laurie asserting that Novelreads is violating Ms. Laurie’s copyright rights to her blog posts and that Novelreads is inappropriately interfering with a contractual relationship with yourself.

7. Ms. Laurie has blogged again with the following:

ANYhoo, to catch you all up, last week I got a very upsetting phone call from my editor who was really creeped out. She said that some crazy woman had called the voice mail of another editor in her department. The caller clearly thought that editor was my editor and had demanded to be called back saying she was “deeply disturbed” (mental diagnosis or state of mind?) about a blog that I’d written and she demanded a comment from my editor.

She also said the woman didn’t leave her name, but left a blog address, http://novelreads.blogspot.com/ and told me to go look at it and probably look into retaining an attorney. Now, the blog that she posted didn’t bother me much, she seems to be a woman who just wants to be noticed – and isn’t getting much attention, (and I know from previous posts that she “dreams of being a writer someday,” hmmm, envious much?)

I can’t imagine that you asserted a reader was psychotic or a cyberstalker and I also thought that you should be in command of all the facts before making up your mind about NovelReads who was merely expressing her thoughts as a reader and blogger about an author’s actions which appear out of the bounds of decency to many.

No response is necessary.

Best regards,

Jane Litte

http://dearauthor.com

Related posts:

1. Victoria Laurie Sends Blogger Threats from a Lawyer
2. Does Psychic Victoria Laurie Forsee Lawsuit in Her Future?
3. Interview with an Editor Series: Helen Rosburg, Executive Editor Medallion Press

I understand that you have had a lawyer send out a cease and desist and takedown letter to a romance blogger based on two things. First, you argue that the comments that the blogger excerpted from your own website (which you subsequently deleted but Google preserved for all time) are somehow unacceptable infringement.

In this posting you excerpt from a website that is copyright protected, thus violating federal copyright law. There is and has been an existing disclaimer on Ms. Laurie’s website, (www.victorialaurie.com), which states that; “No part of this website may be directly copied or duplicated and all of the content herein is copyright protected.” These quotes you have posted to your blog should be immediately removed or Ms. Laurie will be forced to take appropriate action.

I’m sure your lawyer explained to you the concept of “fair use” and you simply choose to ignore such advice and told the lawyer to go ahead and make the accusation of infringement. Fair use, as your lawyer must know since she references federal copyright law, allows for copyrighted content to be used without permission according to Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Acceptable uses are “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.” NovelReads is a blogger who used your own words for criticism, comment and possibly even teaching. Further NovelReads’ use of your words does not impair the marketability of your original work. I am sure that you could find a publisher for your work, perhaps in a volume of “The Dummies Guide to Internet Behavior By Authors: What Not to Do.”

Second, your attorney asserted

In addition to the above violation of law, on Tuesday, August 12, you contacted the voice mail of someone you thought to be Ms. Laurie’s editor at Penguin Group USA and left a voice mail claiming that you were “deeply disturbed” by a blog posting and requesting a comment (a copy of which we have in our possession). Please consider this letter a cease and desist letter. While you are free to express your opinion under the First Amendment, taking impulsive and inappropriate action with the attempt to interfere with a contractual relationship is unacceptable…

I’m surprised that you find it objectionable for a reader to call your editor to ask whether it is in fact true that your editor condones you harassing and vilifying readers for your own entertainment and engaging in possibly tortious and defamatory actions and that same editor encourages other authors to do the same. I think I’ll call your editor myself to ask since that self same reader did not get a response yet to see if the “editor thinks this concept of mine is hilarious and she’s going to suggest the idea to her other authors who are fed up with being targets for the mentally deranged.” I’m not sure what violation impulsivity falls under but I do recognize the claim that you are making in regards to the existing contractual relationship.

There are two such business torts that exist: Tortious interference with an existing business relationship and tortious interference with prospective business relationships. The problem here is proving these claims because I have yet to see where a single phone call to inform an editor of conduct that the editor already knows of is tortious interference in any way. Further, I am pretty sure we customers can call and complain about a company’s product without being accused of tortious misconduct. Of course, your lawyer is free to write me and tell me where I am wrong.

Your lawyer also knows that by writing threatening letters that do not have a reasonable basis in law or fact can open her up to an ethics complaint. For example, according to the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism, a lawyer promises that she ” will advise my client that we will not pursue conduct which is intended primarily to harass or drain the financial resources of the opposing party.”

I find it odd that I have engaged in the same objectionable conduct and I have not received a letter from your or your lawyer. Is is because you don’t think I would take you seriously? Or is because someone told you I know what the law is and I am not afraid to use it to defend myself? Instead, you harass someone else in hopes that the person will be so intimidated and that you won’t be found out?

In any event, thanks for having the letter sent. It provided me with a great source of amusement. Unfortunately, the blogger in question was not amused. No, she was scared. I completely understand if the blogger chooses to take content down or change existing content because she doesn’t want to be harassed by you and your lawyer. That was exactly the point of the letter, though, wasnt it? To harass and strike fear into the heart of the blogger?

I do wonder about your psychic abilities. They just don’t seem to be steering you in the right direction these days.

Related posts:

1. Does Psychic Victoria Laurie Forsee Lawsuit in Her Future?
2. Anonymous Blogger’s Identity Being Pursued Through Lawsuit by City of Memphis
3. The Frustrating Part of Internetizens: Everyone’s a Lawyer

Those seeking the identity of bloggers have largely been unsuccessful in the courts and Ars Technica posits that this suit will likely meet with the same fate as the others.

For those who say that this isn’t fair, please note that there are no charges of defamation or copyright or any illegal acts that are taking place on the blog. The only alleged wrongdoing is that the blogger is anonymous. And before anyone cries, “but I have the right to face my accuser”, that only applies to you if you are charged with a crime. It’s part of the Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

As you can see, it does not apply to anonymous blogging.

Related posts:

1. Anonymous Bitchery: Get Your Engines Started
2. Congress to Support Bloggers’ Rights
3. FEC Says Bloggers Have Same Rights As Media

Complaints in front of the Federal Election Commission accused bloggers of being shills for political campaigns and thus should be subject to the federal election rules. The Daily Kos was one of the targets of these complaints. The FEC determined that blog posts are not contributions to the candidate unless the blog is “owned by a political party, committee, or candidate”. What bloggers are doing can be likened to the endorsement of a candidate such as is done by newspapers and other media sources.

Via ArsTechnica.

Related posts:

1. Congress to Support Bloggers’ Rights
2. Plume Buys World Rights to Virginia Tech Shooting Book
3. It Takes a Village of Bloggers

“The intent is that bloggers who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting, within the scope of that definition, would be entitled to the privilege,” Rep. Rick Boucher, one of the House bill’s primary sponsors, said in a Friday telephone interview with CNET News.com.

Via ZdNet.

Related posts:

1. Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced in Congress to Replace DRM with Fair Use
2. REVIEW: Billionaires Prefer Blondes by Suzanne Enoch
3. Plume Buys World Rights to Virginia Tech Shooting Book