These last two comments of yours weren’t posted while I was typing, so forgive me if I came across as rash in my thinking. If it’s true that the NYT misreported, then I do feel sorry for the guy. Still, he’s not much of a blogger, and he obviously enjoys being considered relevant. And at times for events that he had nothing to do with.

http://watchingolbermannwatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/bob-coxs-history-of-online-terrorism.html

I just read every word of your post, as well as every comment left there. I should really be asleep right now. I can’t believe I read it all, but I did.

And having done so, I should say what a fine bit of digging you did. Even if this Cox character and Robertissimo turn out to be unrelated in any way (an eventuality, I’ll admit, that I am not entirely prepared to accept) you certainly landed a one-two punch, as evidenced by Mr. Cox’s repeated and increasingly embarrassing attempts at self- and Net-validation.

Great work.

Seriously… I hope that 2 of those words aren’t “fair” and “balanced” because they’re already taken… oops I used them, sorry BoingBoing I hope you don’t get sued.

But the education of journalists entails all of these aspects and more. Whether they are USED or not, is another story. In fact, a friend of mine at one of the local TV stations here in the Twin Cities is often lamenting the lack of application of these principals. He’s doing less “journalism” and more blogging on the news website! The sad truth is many journalists are DESPERATE to do what they’ve been trained to do: find the news of the day and report it. Find stories yearning to be told, and bring them to the people.

Media outlets have taken to blaming–you guessed it–blogs, for changing the landscape of news to the point where accuracy and depth no longer apply. Only the all mighty scoop is worth paying heed. I’m not so sure that I agree that’s the case, I think these trends have been brought on by media that canibalizes itself and looks for gratifying audiences immediately rather than competently.

To circle back to your comment: you’re not alone. The majority of readers, listeners, viewers believe they are getting some spin.

And they are. From news room editorial chiefs and corporate tycoons with money to make.

All I’m saying that a blanket statement against journalists is misplaced, unfair, and in the end–not productive. Place your ire where it belongs. At the feet of the Rupert Murdochs of the world.

Bottom line is that the Media Bloggers Association doesn’t claim to represent anyone. They were just called for legal help when the Drudge Report first had legal trouble with the Associated Press.

The rather hysterical ranting against him strikes me as somewhat overdone. BoingBoing can just as easily phone up the AP and schedule a negotiation I’m sure. Yes, copyright law has nothing to do with these negotiations or meetings or whatever they are. But fair use is not well defined in the realm of this rather new blog medium. I regularly see blog sites that capture other people’s blog articles in their entirety and spew them out with ad revenue in mind. I’d be mad about this if I were Associated Press too. They are quite right to be mad and to make a stink.

I would also be somewhat nervous about directly calling Mr. Cox a racist. It seems to me that a representative of BoingBoing should know better. Such an assertion could give Mr. Cox an unanticipated avenue of response. Just a cautionary remark…

It’s not hard (or uncommon) for some nut with an opinion to found an authoritatively-named organization and try to be the voice of one side of an argument in the media.

No bloglinks or signature line in your posts, please.

I asked them for help at the recommendation of other bloggers I trust, including Liza Sabater of Culture Kitchen. They did this before any reporters expressed an interest in the dispute.

The group’s not a sham association set up to provide cover for AP or claim a role for itself as the kings of the blogosphere. For several years, Robert Cox’s group has helped bloggers who find themselves in legal battles, as I did.

I write about their involvement in more detail here:

http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/3370

As a leader in defending online civil liberties, you ought to talk to Cox about the growing number of lawsuits and legal challenges faced by bloggers — most of whom aren’t as fortunate as I’ve been in drawing attention to the situation.

Just to clarify:

> Can I go to the EFF if the FBI approaches one of my bloggers?
>
> Can I go to the EFF if Mattel order a take down?

Absolutely. If we can’t directly help your case (and we often can), have a system in place that will try and find you pro-bono legal counsel in your state as quickly and effectively as possible. We are in contact with over 250 attorneys with an interest and experience in digital law who are used to receiving such requests from us. If any BB readers are in this position please tell them to email info@eff.org or call +1 415 436 9333. It’s part of our remit.

Boy, Howdy! Nowhere have I seen anyone stating that this MBA claims to care about all bloggers, not should it care about all bloggers, and isn’t the whole brouhaha about how wrong it is for MBA to (allegedly) claim it stands for all bloggers? So which is it, you do, or you do NOT, want the MBA to be a single issue org representing a single client? It seems whatever MBA actually does, it just can’t win at this point, all because the blogosphere ate up what AP said in some article without any attempt at verifying the facts for themselves. SIGH.

That still does not change the fact that the law trumps any privately negotiated agreements, especially when those privately negotiated agreements are implied to be applicable to an unconsulted third party.

In short: Fair Use is the Law, and no-one may undertake to contractually subvert the law.

In this case, the idea that they’re engaged in a blogger/media peace summit, and will emerge from AP with fair use commandments we all must heed, is a bit of hyperbole fed by some of the media reports.

Y shld knw bttr thn t wr Nlsn’s tn fl ht. Y ls ght t knw bttr tht, f ny blggr gt C&D nd ndd mmdt pr-bn lgl cnsl, th FF S NT QPPD T D THT.

Ths s why ppl lk Jff Jrvs, Rbcc McKnnn, JD Lsc nd thrs bcm th fndng mmbrs f th MB.

Cn g t th FF f th FB pprchs n f my blggrs?

Cn g t th FF f Mttl rdr tk dwn?

Ths ppl, spclly Rn Clmn wh s th prmry lgl cnsl fr th MB d n mzng jb f hlpng hndrds f blggrs thrgh vrty f lgl hssls. M ncldd, btw.

Thy nvr clmd t rprsnt T LL th blgsphr. Hnsll bsclly ld (th NYT s n P mmbr) nd tht l ws crrd n by nn thr thn th P n nthr rtcl prrtng th “w’r wrtng gdlns wth ths gy”.

N thy’r nt. Thy’r dlng wth Rgrs wh ws bsclly stnwlld fr mnths by th P lgl dprtmnt.

f ll ppl Cry, hw cld y bsclly bcm tl f th Ps spn?

/lz

Lz Sbtr, Pblshr
http://cltrktchn.cm

1. He asked them for help. They helped.
2. They have helped a finite list of other people, who continue to recommend them.

This is all well and good, whether or not Cox is “the organization,” or not, and whether or not he should be, or not.

The question here, though, was not “is the MBA really kewl!!!!!”

No, the question is, and needs to remain, “do the MBA have the right to negotiate copyright with the AP on behalf of OTHER bloggers.”

And without a democratic process which legitimizes any representative unior, organization, or group, the answer surely is no.

And we need to be saying so to the AP, over and over and over, immediately, or we run the risk of losing out to Cox and his supporters, regardless of their legitimacy, if only because otherwise, the AP will be able to CLAIM legitimacy, and ignore us from then on.

Look. RCADE thinks we will be “helped” somehow by talking to Cox (notably, this would provide exactly the legitimacy he desires), and that somehow, that conversation will provide “evidence” — though RCADE’s sense that “bloggers face many legal issues” is in no way evidence that any one particular group or organization or individual should be the one to HELP us when that happens.

I can see how this is annoying — it’s easy to get sucked in when some pompous fool (oh yes, I’ve read his work) and his easily led followers (who notably include PBS authors and other perfectly legitimate and well-meaning folks) claims to speak for you.

It would be nice, in other words, if RCADE and his ilk “get” the fact that some bloggers have voluntarily accepted MBA authority and support is NOT evidence for whether or not the MBA has the right to speak for the vast majority of bloggers, who have NOT accepted MBA authority and support.

But it would be nicer if we could come through this AP thing with our rights intact AND without selling ourselves out to some guy who got there first, no matter HOW helpful he is.

Given that, we should now be worrying about making sure the AP understands that. And, now that we’ve shown bloggers that the MBA isn’t supported well within the blogging “community” (whatever that is), we should NOT be worrying about whether the MBA and its supporters “get it” — that would be nice, but it isn’t relevant, here.

And thus, I have already spent enough time worrying about it, and would urge others — most especially “the Boing Boing four,” who do this especially well — to move on to direct petition/contact/recruitment of the REAL folks we trust to speak to the AP about our side. Please.

Sadly, RCADE’s approach is not new. Those others who have also accepted MBA use a similar tactic. The fact that they seem to be arguing against something else entirely seems to be getting lost on them. F them, then.

But if it gets lost on US, we’re in big, big trouble.

The fact that we are pushing for Canadian grass-roots push-back in the Canadian DMCA case is great, and as an American, I’ve done what little I can. But if we cannot quickly rally the same kind of response — if, in other words, we cannot put aside the question who represents bloggers in order to get to the true heart of the matter — we may well lose the AP fight. Please, Cory, others — Don’t fall for it. Where is the grassroots “do this to fight the AP decision” rallying cry? Please?

Seems to me like this could be an example of the old “telephone game” striking again—information getting distorted as it passes through multiple levels of reportage.

I’m not taking sides pro or con the MBA, but I always get irritated when people go off half-cocked based on stories that aren’t necessarily completely accurate.

Liza at Culture Kitchen, who RCADE and others have directed us to, CLAIMS to want what I want. She says:

It just mystifies me how most bloggers are reacting to the AP spin and then attacking Robert Cox when it should be the opposite. They should be questioning why AP is saying the meeting is about setting standards, when Rogers and Bob have announced the meeting is about taken care of Rogers problems with AP –problems that Rogers want to have solved in part by AP issuing in writing what exactly do they want.

Notably, however, this confirms that Cox, Rogers and co. will be “pushing” the AP to come out with a definitive standard — which is itself a dangerous thing, which would entrench their position, and lead us down the path of shouting over language on paper.

The very act of creating such a document is dangerous. If we NEEDED proof that Cox and co should NOT be representing us, their goals here, as stated by Liza, are ample evidence.

For Liza to claim that the BMA is being treated as a “fall guy” here is terribly naive, given the entirely dangerous result they think they can get out of that meeting.

That she goes on to point out that we should be focusing on the AP is right on the button. It is only her implication that we should be doing so by supporting this entirely damaging, scary, dumb strategy that makes me very, very afraid.

So, again, BoingBoingers: where is the better way? Where is the grassroots? Where is the wave that we can join, that will overwhelm the MBA legitimacy, and get the AP to back down, instead of stepping up with paperwork?

As I’ve already said elsewhere, I have never ever said that I represent “bloggers” and the accounts of this in the newspapers and blogs are entirely false. So, there is nothing to “make clear” to the AP. Do you actually think that AP is so unaware of the new media landscape that they would think for a moment that there is one person or one organization that can enter into some sort of collective bargaining agreement for bloggers?

To put your mind at easy, when I walk in to meet with the AP tomorrow I will be sure to tell them I do not represent “the blogosphere”.

You don’t have to have a law degree, a pass high school writing class, or even spend five minutes understanding what is acceptable usage. That’s the beauty of blogging–and possibly it’s greatest flaw.

I’ve read posts that either use entire passages far exceeding fair usage, don’t mention how the information was attained (freely from creator?), or occassionaly lift content that would otherwise be called plagarism. But it’s okay, because it’s just a blog dude!

Is this the norm? Hard to say. But “no experience necessary” in public exposition means exactly that.