CNN is wrong. We have "fair use" rights to read whatever is out there in the international media. What we don't have the right to do is disseminate information that we get from government-restricted (or other protected - such as hospital patient data) information systems without following proper processes. See
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/03/26/prosecuting_ip_crimes_manual_2013.pdf for some federal guidelines on all this. One thing I've learned this year quite clearly (with the Clinton investigation where the AG & her husband met just days before it was announced they wouldn't prosecute such a clear-cut case) is that when it comes to the criminal justice system that honesty/fairness just isn't respected now like it used to be :( 5. Fair Use The fair use doctrine is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. It allows the unauthorized use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances generally limited to useful or beneficial purposes with minimal impact on the market for the work. Specifically, the fair use doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, allows the unauthorized use of copyrighted works “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ..., scholarship, or research” and other, unspecified, purposes and uses. Fair use is designed to ensure that the rights of authors are balanced with the interest of the public in the free flow of information. See, e.g., Pierre Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1110 (1990) (commentary by Judge Pierre Leval, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Congress has noted that fair use is the most important limitation on the exclusive rights granted copyright owners, H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 65 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5678, and the Supreme Court has characterized fair use as one of copyright law’s built-in accommodations to the First Amendment. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219-20 (2003). By design, the fair use doctrine is fluid and applies not according to definite rules, but rather according to a multi-factor balancing test. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 66 (1976). The statute cites four non-exclusive factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 70 Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
“(or other protected - such as hospital patient data)”
The only ones restricted there are the medical professionals. Normal people are not affected by HIPPA in the slightest.
“(or other protected - such as hospital patient data)”
The only ones restricted there are the medical professionals. Normal people are not affected by HIPPA in the slightest.
Also, doesn't what Chris Cumo is saying also have a flaw in that: isn't WikiLeaks considered a media publisher too? In which case if we access WikiLeaks it is no different than going to NY Times?
In this country, there is no line between what constitutes "the press", right..I mean there is no government badges issued to journalists of corporate media that deems each of them as "the press", correct? And are we not all also citizen journalists ourselves? How about if we post to freerepublic? If I start a one man news website, am I not then "the press".