TURKEY BANS BLOGGER.COM DUE TO LINKS TO INFRINGING CONTENT

As the title implies, recently Turkey banned the use of this site, Blogger.com, due to alleged copyright infringement amongst those who use this site to blog. To me, this seems like censorship at it's finest and seems to be going too far. Thousands of people use this site to voice their opinion day and day out and I simply don't see their explanation as being legitimate. Who is to say that there aren't motives beyond those given as to why Turkey has shut the site down? In no way am I advocating Copyright Infringement, but at the same time I feel like the restriction of use regarding this site should be a case by case basis rather than punishing the entire population of bloggers.

YOUTUBE SNUBS MCCAIN CAMPAIGN PLEA

"YouTube has rejected a request from U.S. presidential candidate John McCain's campaign to review its fair use policy and stop removing political campaign videos that may infringe copyright so swiftly. The McCain campaign's general counsel sent a letter to executives from YouTube and parent company Google earlier this week asking for a "full legal review" of takedown notices submitted against videos posted by political candidates and campaigns." This article from BNA Law Internet News brings up a very interesting topic. It brings up the topic of the power of popular websites to influence the way people think. More specifically, it can be said (after reading this article) that popular websites have political influence. The very fact that the McCain campaign went to the length of sending a letter to Youtube acknowledges the fact that they realize this power.

BUSH SIGNS CONTROVERSIAL ANTI-PIRACY LAW

"President George W. Bush signed into law yesterday a controversial bill that would stiffen penalties for movie and music copyright infringement at the federal level. The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority." This article, published by BNA deals with an already prevalent issue today. This article however provides a different dimension by recognizing the fact there is now an "intellectual property czar" that reports directly to the president. The question this brings up is whether or not this is a necessary step that the U.S. government really needs to be taking. It has been argued that this bill is unnecessary "because the recording and movie industry had the right to take accused infringers to court." Another argument against this idea points to the fact there are already many penalties for copyright violations. These opposing arguments bring to light another question: Is government overstepping their bounds?

LAWYER’S THREATS, INTIMIDATION SHUT DOWN WEB SITE

As the title implies, a Virginia lawyer was able to shut down a site using bullying tactics to reach that end. These tactics included defamation claims, as well as trademark infringement. I would like to focus on the Virgina lawyer's argument of defamation claims. My question would have to be where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and defamation of character? An interesting quote relating to this very issue is found right in the article: "The courts repeatedly have struck down these types of bullying tactics and upheld the public’s right to criticize people and companies on the Internet – something which Mr. Dozier was well aware of when he began his intimidation campaign against our client,” Levy said. “Not liking what someone says about you is not enough reason to throw out the First Amendment.” I'm yet to read anything about this case that makes it special other than the fact that the lawyer was in a power of position (due to the fact that he is a lawyer) and was able to exert that power in the form of having the site taken down.