I do believe that AP has a right to defend it's own intellectual property. Their reporters went out and found, reported and produced that content and AP paid them good money, but not THAT good of money, to go and get those stories. AP has every right to the money that is made from that content. However, things are never that simple. There is a history of AP showing a lack of understanding toward the basic mechanics of the Internet -- calling simply linking to a story, an act central to the functioning of the Internet, a criminal act of piracy. 

My sympathies for the aggregators are few, but meaningful. Aggregators fall into two classes when it comes to other's content: the linkers and the thieves. If an aggregator simply links to an AP story, such as Digg does, then that aggregator is performing a service to AP, namely, distributing it's content to more users and directing them to the AP pages where they can then be served ads. These aggregators are terrific for the source of the original content because they drive up traffic on stories that might have otherwise been overlooked. The thieves are a different matter. These aggregators copy and paste the AP stories, even if they attribute them, without paying AP a royalty. This redirects the money that should have gone to AP into the thief's pocket. As a content originator I despise these sort of aggregators and see no reason why they should be defended.

The difficulty for AP will be, and has been, going after the thieves without alienating the average user who does not draw so stark a distinction as I have drawn here. 

The Internet is a vast echo-chamber and AP is making a lot of very loud people very nervous.

Note to classmates:

I am sorry this post did not get up sooner so that you could make your required comments. I spent the weekend with family in Wichita and just checked my email half an hour ago. My apologies. 

Two weeks ago, China yet again banned YouTube to all of its 289 million Internet users. This was done in an attempt to block the circulation of footage of PRC police officers brutally beating Tibetan civilians last year. It was also banned when the riots occurred last year that killed as many as 140 Tibetan civilians (according to Tibetan records) or, only 18 civilians (according to PRC reports). 

This, of course, isn't the first time China has been in hot water by the international community for human rights violations. The U.S. State Department and organizations like Amnesty International conduct annual reports on human rights in China, and the findings are often startling. Anyone who advocates the independence of any of the Chinese territories that are under Han Chinese control (like Tibet) is subject to punishment under the law. It's also well known that these offenders are not given due process of law and can suffer in prisons for unknown periods of time. People like Hu Jia, who last year publicly criticized the Communist government, are still in prison for "inciting subversion of state power."

 Even with China on the world stage this summer as the host of the 2008 Olympics, events in the country still echo of its strict Communist past. The Chinese government still controls television broadcasts, and bias is obvious. When I visited this summer, footage of the horrific May earthquake that occurred in Sichuan province was still being shown--not the bloody, gruesome footage I saw in the U.S., but instead, footage of survivors being pulled and the country rallying together to heal the damage that occurred. This was a full two months after the earthquake. While I understand that the purpose of the footage was to try and move past the terrible event, I consider it propaganda nonetheless.

In short, the human rights violations and media censorship cannot continue with the economic growth of China. With advances in technology that make the actions of government more transparent, China will, sooner or later, have to come to terms that by welcoming Western goods, it is also subject to greater scrutiny of its governmental operations. So next time you log onto Yahoo!, YouTube, The New York Times, or Skype, be thankful that the government isn't closely monitoring what you're doing. These are all programs or sites that have, at one time, been censored or monitored by the Chinese government.  

Unless you are a die-hard Kyle XY fan, like my self, then you're probably have no idea what save the tub means. Fortunately, hundreds of people who have been cluttering up the message boards on ABCFamily.com know exactly what that means and are doing everything they possibly can to save it.

First I feel that a little background information on the show is necessary. Kyle XY is a show on ABC Family about a young man named Kyle, played by Matt Dallas, who wakes up in the middle of a forest just outside of Seattle while suffering from amnesia. The show revolves around Kyle and all of the things that happen to him while he tries to solve the mystery of who he is.

Now about the  tub, Kyle sleeps in a bath tub and instead of bloggers begging ABC Family to save Kyle they have dubbed the saying "Save the tub" instead. That is just one of the many mysteries to Kyle. 

The series premiered in June of 2006 and has produced three complete seasons. Then, on January 31, 2009 Kyle XY fans everywhere got the worst news they could possibly imagine, the show had been cancelled. This show was ABC Family's number one show for two years! It lost a little bit of ground when the channel came out with their hit series "The Secret Life of the American Teenager", but how many seasons can the show possible last? It's about a 15 year old girl that gets pregnant, will she get knocked up again in the second season? Highly doubtful therefor I think Kyle XY would have probably been the smarter choice to keep on. From almost the moment the announcement was made massage boards all over ABC Family have been filled with pleas from fans of all ages.

The thing about Kyle XY is that it related not just to kids but to adults in their twenties, thirties, and even forties (according to the message boards).  The question that most people are wondering is, why would ABC Family cancel one of its top shows? In this economy most networks have completely gotten rid of the scripted show merely because of the amount of money it takes to make a pilot. With reality TV it costs barely anything. I think that the expense of a pilot is just the price one has to be willing to pay for quality programming but I wouldn't want to bad mouth the wonderful creations of such channels as VH1 who spawned the masterpiece Rock of Love.  Please tell me everyone realized the very large amount of sarcasm in that last remark. Now that ABC Family has found a show that works it would only make sense to keep it around and at least get a few more seasons out of it. But no, they have ripped it away from us and many ABC Family viewers aren't having it. According to the massage boards if ABC Family does not bring back the tub, they will lose more than they think.

Personally, I do not believe that all of the people who have said they are going to boycott the station are actually going to act on what they have said. I think that they will continue to be angry until another network picks up the show or ABC Family creates something else as genius as Kyle XY. Will Harris, a blogger on premiumhollywood.com, had the idea that fans should push for ABC family to create a regular season of 2 hour Kyle XY movies for the series. Not only would this bring back the Kyle XY viewers, but also it still leaves room for the networks new series'. Maybe hollywood could even capitalize on the idea and make a full length motion picture. 

I think that if ABC Family does not have room for Kyle XY on their station, why don't they make it an online exclusive? Then the show could still be sold on DVD and for the people who love the show, we don't have to go another day wondering what exactly happened to characters such as Tom Foss, or if Kyle and Jessie are technically brother and sister. And if they are, why is ABC Family having them make out?  Our questions about the show have not been answered and ABC Family needs to find a way to make that happen. If they don't, then what was the point of the show? Thats 43 hours of my life i will never get back. Well 86 hours if you count the second time i watched the entire series. Nonetheless i don't think we have seen the last of Kyle, or his tub!  

            -Drink until you are 21

            -Vote until you are 18

            -Drive until you are 16

            -Exercise your Constitutional rights until you are 18

Wait...WHAT?

Oh yes, in the Land Of Lincoln, there is new legislation on the rise.  Illinois is trying to pass a bill called the "Social Networking Website Access Restriction Act" that prohibits anyone under 18 from having privacy on social networks.  All minors would be stripped of their current internet freedom and be reliant on their parent for a written consent form to gain any kind of access to social networks.  Not only do they have to "get permission," but once they create an account, their guardians have complete access to the minor's profile, account etc.  Ridiculous? Yes.  I think honest Abe would say that this bill honestly stinks!                         

                                 VS.                                  

Though the intentions behind passing the bill are admirable, they become somewhat of a mute point when you look at today's communities.  Illinois intends for the bill to be a deterrent for predators online and protection for younger kids who may not be smart about who they befriend online.  I understand that maybe a 10 or 12 year old may not be as aware of the possible dangers in providing extensive personal information online, but this bill is an insult to those high school kids who can legally drive but have no privacy from their parents on the internet.  Though I think the idea of a predator registering on a social network under a false identity is unnerving, it does, indeed, fall under our Constitutional rights to hold these accounts without government restriction.

Some networks are more private than others.  For example, Facebook requires that you have an account to view other pages where MySpace does not.  However, personal privacy varies from account to account depending on the privacy settings chosen by the user.  The measures taken to create a more secure online environment should serve as enough if users are smart in the way they utilize them.  Implementing laws that require all kinds of age and identification information for databases infringes on the rights of people and does nothing for the fact that some creepy man in a van can snatch someone anytime, anywhere.

What are you thinking Illinois?! 

Yeah, Calpri, not Calipari. This happened when I was watching the 6pm news Tuesday, March 31; the sports anchor mispronounced the coach's name. But by the 10pm newscast, his mistake was corrected. This isn't the first time it's happened to KMBC sports anchor Len Dawson though; it seems to be an almost nightly thing. My dad says he needs to retire, he's too old; he can't pronounce anyone's name. But you can't legally fire someone for being too old. But should you be able to reduce air time for older newscasters? I know for my dad he would like that, he hates watching Len Dawson.  

The Age Discrimination Act says that you can't discriminate based on someone's age for people 40 and older, including firing, hiring, promotions, assignments, and benefits. This seems like a good rule to have in place, but what about in the media business where things are a changing and new skills are being required and bosses are expecting more from their workers?

In December 2005, George Hayes learned that was being fired from ad agency McCann Erickson. He was given the reason "Hayes did not have the 'skill set' needed to remain employed by McCann Erickson."  

In May 2006, he sued McCann Erickson for age discrimination. Claiming "[CEO Nick Brein] valued youth instead of experience and desired younger persons in place of older persons and acted upon his discriminatory preferences by terminating older persons because of their age."

Hayes was 54, and probably not technologically challenged, and with the right training he could have done the job that was being asked. Within media companies, like McCann Erickson, training should be provided for older employees who have been loyal to the company and know the ins and outs of the business. Or with the sagging economy, older employees could take a pay cut and new employees could be added to do the jobs that the older workers aren't getting trained to do.  Hayes and McCann Erickson settled out of court in November 2008. Hayes was discriminated against and that's not right.  

But what about newscasters? Once they reach a certain age, it gets harder to read the teleprompter, more energy is required to go out and interview and film videos, your speech isn't as crisp. Should the discrimination act apply to them? Of course it should, but with diminished performance, on camera time should be lessened, but with their performance cited as the reason, not they are just old.

Len Dawson isn't retiring, but he's going to be stepping away from the anchor desk and just work about 85 days a year, mostly during Chiefs season. This is the right decision for him, he is 73 years old.

But on the other side of the desk at KMBC, Maria Antonia, 49, is suing KMBC for age discrimination. She was removed from her anchor position to a reporter and was told that she might be able to anchor on sister station KCWE. When the time came for a new anchor, it was given to a younger worker.

Having grown up watching KMBC and still watching today, there is no evidence in my mind to say that her performance was slipping to earn this change in position. And the age discrimination suit is justifiable.

Giving the news is an important job, it's critical to getting out important information to the people. If you can't speak to the audience, the information isn't getting out there, which is where the younger workers are going to be valuable. While older anchors are seen as reliable and trustworthy because they are well known in the community. There needs to come a time where it's ok to say to the older anchors, you need to step down, as long as their performance is stumbling. If I'm trying to figure out who the anchor is talking about I ended up not knowing of the story and isn't that the point of the news, to learn the story?