digg.com

In a story I found on cnn.com, digg.com (a website based on user contribution) is refusing to erase articles submitted by users that contain a 32-digit code for cracking HD-DVDs copyright protection. The founder, Kevin Rose, originally complied and began to take down the articles changed his mind and decided to side with his users stating "Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information - and we want Digg to continue to be a great resource for finding the best content." Rose knows he could eventually be shut down for not complying with the demands to remove the codes but decided it was better to go down fighting.

I completely agree with the founder on standing his ground. Digg.com is a website by the people and for the people and if they want these codes then let them share them. I understand, however, what the fuss is all about. If millions of people get their hands on this code it could mean...what exactly? The industry is so paranoid that if people download music or movies then they'll stop buying them in the stores but guess what, millions upon millions of people download music daily and cds still sell in stores. People get bootleg copies of movies online but if they want good quality they'll buy a copy at the store. I personally download things all the time but I also have about 50 movies that I bought legally and I download music but I have well over 100 cds that I bought at the store. Most people agree, if you like a cd you're going to buy it. I, along with many people who download music, download things that might be too old or rare that you can't find a cd with it or it's that one good song on a cd from a crappy artist. I think movie and music industry need to stop panicking and realize that people will keep buying cds and movies legally even if we can get it online.

Virgina Tech, healing online

This post doesn't have anything to do with law but I wanted to talk about the internet as it has helped get people connected after the horrific events that happened less than 2 weeks ago at Virgina Tech. If you go on Facebook.com you can find dozens of groups created to memorialize the victims and to allow people to talk about how they feel and give their condolences to families and friends. The internet also had a huge role on the day of the shootings as phones weren't working on the campus. Many students couldn't get in touch with families because the phone lines went down due to overload so they got online and imed and emailed everyone they could.

I can't even imagine what would have happened if the internet was not around to help these victims get in touch with their families.

restrictions on China's internet

It seems that China doesn't want it's citizens to view "unhealthy" content on the internet. The Communist Party is trying to control the internet for the safety and health of their citizens supposedly. They feel that there is too much incorrect propaganda on the internet that their citizens should be restricted when viewing it. It's not that they don't trust their citizen's, it's just that the internet is unpure and the citizens should not have to view false or unpure things.

This is not the first time that the president of China has attempted to reign over the internet. The last meeting was in January and there were meetings that occured before that. President Hu is trying get tighter controls on the youth of China in order to keep rebellion from happening. In addition to simply trying to put restrictions on the internet, it seems that big investors like Google and Yahoo
have been lending a helping hand to China's censors.

I was shocked to find out that the government already has a huge system of filters and censorship that blocks many users from sites that offer uncensored opinion and news! They claim they are doing this to keep the people safe and unharmed but they are really just trying to brainwash all the people of China.

xxx. domain names

I think it would have been a good idea to have pornographic websites use the domain 'xxx' because it would make it much more difficult for children to access them. If a child were doing a report on animal abuse they could type that phrase in on google and come across tons of websites. The problem is that many of them would be pornographic ones and the child would not know until he or she went onto the website causing them to see some inappropriate pictures. Using 'xxx' for porn sites would allow search engines to block those sites from being shown unless the person specifically asks for porn sites. I ask why wouldn't we want this? Schools have the 'edu' domain and government sites are 'gov' and commerical 'com' so what makes porn sites so special? Parents would have an easier time blocking these websites by using software to detect domain names with 'xxx' in the title and they could feel a bit better about allowing their children to do research on the web.

1st ammendment on the web

I recently read an article on cnn.com about a girl who wrote derogatory comments about her school's principal. She was at first put on probation after the court determined she was a delinquent child but she appealed stating that her comments were protected political speech under both the state and federal constitutions because they dealt with school policy. The court found this to be the case and dropped the charges. Now, I ask was this the right decision? Should a student really be able to criticize an authority because she doesn't believe in their policy on body piercing? The answer, I believe, is yes but it does go to a certain extent. If all she did was criticize his policies then she is protected but if she, or anyone else, were to make derogatory comments about the principal himself then it's slander and they should be punished.

How do we go about catching and punishing people who write derogatory comments about others on the web? If we were to catch someone criticizing another person on their myspace page how can we prove it unless we catch them right then and there because otherwise they can just delete it.

Online worship

Is online worship a good idea? Many people think it's good for people that can't get out of their house because they're elderly or perhaps due to weather conditions. Others believe it's a way to keep religion in their busy day to day lives without having to take time to go to their place of worship and miss time with their family. Just opening a website, one can read the bible, chat with others, and view videos of religious ceremonies. This simplification, some argue, causes a rift in community. A major part of going to one's religious ceremonies every week is to meet people in one's community and to build friendships and stronger communities. The flip side of this argument, however, is that when one attends one's own religious ceremony he or she is only meeting people with the same religious views as themself and therefore only learning one way of life.


I don't think there is anything we can do about this either way. People want to have the most convenient way of doing everything today and religious worship is just another thing to add to the list. Are we really too lazy to go to church or temple or anyplace else we worship once a week? I do, however, understand the other side of the argument. Some people simply have too much going on in their lives and worshipping online is better than not worshipping and having faith at all.

online predators

I was poking around cnn.com and I found a great article on steps parents should take in order to help protect their children from online predators and since I'm writing my paper on this topic, I decided to read through it. The article gives tips such as making sure the computer is in a high traffic area of the house and monitoring the child's use. Parents need to be more aware of what their children are doing when online and setting guidelines explaining what the computer and internet should be used for. This article could really help parents realize how volunerable their children are to online predators and just how involved they need to be in order to keep their children from becoming victims of these predators.

In a related article, a federal judge in Philidelphia ruled against a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material. I completely agree with the ruling. There are many tools out there for parents to monitor and filter the content their children are viewing on the internet and it's not the commerical Web site operators' responsibility to censor the sites content. All the web sites with adult content have a warning advising the viewer that they are about to see material that may not be appropriate for children under 18 and a parent can simply put a block on this site by clicking a button. The bottom line really is that parents today have to be aware of the potential dangers of the internet and to teach their children how to be cautious and aware when browsing the web.

Google v.Microsoft (and the rest of the world)

I don't know if any of us really think about the copyright aspect of Google. Many of us use it daily. Constantly putting in keywords and trying to find a website or picture but I'm pretty sure not too many people stop to ask themselves if Google is legally giving you these things you are searching for. But this is exactly the reason why Microsoft and several other companies are fighting against Google's copyright policies. Google's policy is that everything can be copied unless the copyright owner tells Google to stop. This may or may not make sense but let's delve deeper.

Think about why one copyrights something. It's to keep someone from copying or taking that item or material and passing it off as their own (whether it just be showing or selling). Know think about what Google does. You put in the name of something you want to find and Google shows you where to get it. It doesn't say the thing is their own and they don't tell you that they own it or that you should credit them with what you get. Nor do they claim any responsibility for errors or mishaps with the website, picture, or items you are presented. Is this copyright infringement? Perhaps the reason Microsoft is going after Google is because Google has just recently decided to expand into the business software market which would make competition for the 15-year dominant software provider, Microsoft.

youtube.com

Why shouldn't people be able to post videos they have on Youtube? We see things like this everywhere. Look at a friend's myspace page and changes are you'll find a cheesy montage of pictures over some sappy song or a picture of their favorite movie or singer/band. Why is it ok to post pictures on a website for others to see but not videos? Or why is it ok to post videos on myspace but not Youtube? This question has yet to be answered. People who put up a music video or a clip from a television show on their websites or myspaces are doing the same thing as people who post music videos or television clips on Youtube.

There are many reasons why Youtube is considered a bad thing. First there's the fact that none of the videos are really filtered. Obviously you can not go on there and find a porn clip but there are videos of bullying and break-ups and scams and riots. Don't believe me? Go to Youtube.com and type in Umass Riots. There are quite a few videos of the riots that occurred just last semester after our football team lost to Appalachian State plus more of riots of the past. Put in school fights and you'll find a few videos by classmates video taping fights happening at school or after school. Type in bullying and you'll find videos of actual bullying and even videos mocking bullying. For this reason, I find it's appropriate that people have a problem with Youtube because it is so open and there is no real filtering.

reaction to a newsletter article

The first article that really struck me was the Keith Urban lawsuit article. For the country singer to think he has any right over a public domain is absolutely ridiculous! The owner of the domain has just as much right to keithurban.com as the country singer does because the owner is not using the sight in association with the country singer. Nowhere on the site does the owner claim to be the country singer nor does he advertise any type of merchandise involving the singer. I do understand that many people would be confused by this website because the owner does not say he is NOT the country singer but why should he have to? He is not profitting from having this domain name, and I'm sure if he happens to get fan letters he explains that he is not the country singer (well I can only assume that he would do that). I also feel that if you're big enough of a fan of Keith Urban the country singer you would know that he doesn't do oil paintings. Another point I'd like to bring up is when a music singer has an official website he or she has their music on the site plus he or she advertising what shows they are going to be on and concert dates plus any other important things they think their fans would be interested in. For instance, I happen to be a pretty big fan of Christina Aguilera and when I first went to her site, I knew it was her official site because it had her music and tour dates and merchandise advertised right on the front page, plus there was the fan club link. If i were to go to a website that didn't have all that stuff I would know it wasn't the official site of the singer or celebrity I was looking for. I think Keith Urban the owner of the domain should not have to give up this site because he signed up for it and has done nothing illegal with it.