Starsuckers is a feature documentary about the celebrity obsessed media, that uncovers the real reasons behind our addiction to fame and blows the lid on the corporations and individuals who profit from it. Made completely independently over 2 years in secret, the film journeys through the dark underbelly of the modern media. Using a combination of never before seen footage, undercover reporting, stunts and animation, the film reveals the toxic effect the media is having on us all and especially our children. Chris Atkins presents Starsuckers as a series of five lessons on fame in the modern world: how children are persuaded that fame is something they want, how television and the media reinforces the importance of celebrity and the efforts to attain it, how the mind and body reinforces our need to follow the activities of well-known people and strive to join their number, how the press became addicted to celebrity coverage, and how the art of promoting fame has led to celebrities and their handlers controlling the press instead of the press having say. Along the way, Atkins demonstrates how celebrity news with no basis in fact gets into print, why newspapers will run press releases almost verbatim, how parents will eagerly sign away the image rights to their kids, how certain mass scale charity events end up helping the performers far more than the causes they designed to support, and how publicists keep accurate but unflattering stories out of the news.

Friday, November 5, 2010

WikiLeaks Renews Call for U.S. Probe, Founder May Seek Political Asylum

The founder of the online whistleblower organization WikiLeaks says he’s considering applying for political asylum in Switzerland in the wake of the U.S.-led crackdown on his organization. Julian Assange says Switzerland, as well Cuba and Iceland, are the only countries with whistleblower protection laws that could allow WikiLeaks to operate safely. Assange also renewed calls for the United States to investigate human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan detailed in the hundreds of thousands of documents his group has released.

Julian Assange: "The result of this and some of our other publishing activities has led not to the United States conducting a full and frank investigation into the abuses revealed, as other countries are doing, but rather an aggressive investigation into this organization, public threats towards this organization, a demand for the destruction of that material."

Friday, October 29, 2010

Obomba: Fox News; Destructive to America

Well, I think he is right on this one, but it aint just Fox News anymore....pic anyone of the big three, you will find the same problems there...

Monday, August 9, 2010

A Public Apology

An Apology for my Indiscretions: With so much talk of 1st Amendment Rights and freedom of expression these days, I got to thinking how wrong it was of me to "unfriend" people from my FB page simply because they dont agree with my positions on any given issue such as war, etc. I have also deleted a posts that I thought were "poking fun" at me such as the comment suggesting it was time for me to "take my meds." I acted on impulse and in retrospect it was wrong of me to do so. I want to make a public apology for myself in so doing and to reassure everyone that because I am a staunch believer in 1st amendment rights and oppose censorship,... it will not happen again. I encourage healthy debate and you cant do that by banning those with opposing views. Feel free even to poke fun of me here. I can handle it. Honest I can....without meds. (For the record, I am on not on any prescription drugs) Lol.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Fox(y) News

Media Matters: Fox Business: Low on ratings, high on Fox-patented GOP boosterism and falsehoods

When News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch introduced the Fox Business Network in 2007, he made no attempt to hide the fact that the financial channel would reflect his own conservative philosophy. The financial media, in his view, should be in the business of "celebrat[ing]" free-market capitalism.

As Murdoch saw it, the existing media were too quick to ''leap on every scandal" and "are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be." In contrast to purportedly anti-business CNBC, Fox Business would be ''more business friendly" and "celebrate the freedom and sense of optimism that free markets have given Americans." America, according to Australian-born Murdoch, has the best "corruption-free companies in the world. Our companies are beacons of success that the rest of the world looks to, not that you'd know that through much of the business coverage we see every day."

As he did with Fox News, executive Roger Ailes has imported Murdoch's conservative philosophy to FBN, where the network's coverage and most visible personalities are unabashedly conservative and dismissive of progressives. The head of FBN's news division is senior vice president, host, and tea-party booster Neil Cavuto, who donated to President Bush, bashed the "awful" Democratic health care bill, and sports a record of misinforming viewers about economic issues.

Morning anchor Stuart Varney is a British expat whose shtick involves complaining that "socialist" Democrats are pushing America in the direction of his former country. Varney is described by Fox Business as a "business journalist" and news "anchor." Yet he admits that he's "very partisan," "very clearly partisan" and can't resist bashing Democrats while propping up Republicans. Varney also -- stop the presses -- misinforms viewers about economic issues,

David Asman, another "journalist," hosts the prime-time show America's Nightly Scoreboard. Asman, lover of Milton Friedman, makes it a habit to assail Social Security, Democrats, and "hypocrite" environmentalists who dare get in the way of activities like more oil drilling. Asman is one of the channel's biggest proponents of the tea parties, once telling viewers they "need to go" to a tea party merchandise site. Asman also -- hold the phone -- misinforms viewers about economic issues.

John Stossel, host of his own weekly "libertarian" show, has argued that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed to restore the right to discriminate and that the "free market" would have likely resolved the issue of racial discrimination by businesses -- a claim that civil rights expert Andrew Grant-Thomas called "ahistorical" and "unempirical." Stossel recently keynoted a fundraising luncheon for a "research" organization with heavy ties to the energy industry. When Stossel joined Fox, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said he'd be "very natural fit" because "he's conservative." Stossel also has a history of -- call grandma -- misinforming viewers.

Fox, which defends itself by claiming that its "fair and balanced" reporters just report the news, employs FBN "reporter" Tracy Byrnes, who said Democrats voting yes on health care "make me sick," and "senior correspondent" Charles Gasparino, who said he wouldn't vote for the Democrats' health care bill ("Who would?").
FBN also recently announced promotions for Eric Bolling and Andrew Napolitano. Bolling, previously of the canceled afternoon show Happy Hour, will get a weekday prime-time show, his apparent reward for shilling for Republican candidates, and -- start the Drudge siren -- misinforming viewers about economic issues.

Napolitano, meanwhile, will bring his previously online-only show Freedom Watch to FBN on a weekly basis. Napolitano is an unabashed libertarian, meaning that while he disagrees with some of his Fox colleagues on certain social and national security issues, he'll fit right in on economic matters. In its online iterations, Freedom Watch frequently gave a platform to fringe guests like 9-11 conspiracy leaders Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura; Thomas E. Woods Jr., who has been a member of the League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a "racist" hate group; and "libertarian anarchist" Lew Rockwell, who excoriates Abraham Lincoln and openly pushes for secession. Napolitano has used his Fox perch to push inane conspiracy theories and -- insert any remaining idiom here -- misinform viewers.

How many people not getting paychecks from Media Matters will actually watch those shows, though, remains a question. While Fox News has undoubtedly achieved ratings success, Fox Business, in its third year, continues to post "feeble" ratings. While CNBC is available in more than 90 million households, FBN is available in just 50 million. Vanity Fair's Matt Pressman wrote last November that "it's fairly safe to assume" that "most of its shows fall short of attracting 35,000 viewers," or roughly one-tenth of CNBC's audience and a hundredth of SpongeBob SquarePants'.

The most high-profile show on FBN -- a dubious honor -- isn't even a business-oriented show. Last October, FBN began simulcasting Don Imus, best known for helping pioneer shock jock radio decades ago and smearing female basketball players. Imus, as he has self-deprecatingly acknowledged, has no expertise in business news, which is why FBN incorporates several business updates on his show.

Fox hopes to grow its fledgling business channel by cross-promoting it on Fox News, which also struggled with early ratings. Fox News has begun using hosts like apparent financial wizards Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to tout FBN as "no-spin talk you can trust" and the network that "wants you to succeed." Varney, Bolling, Byrnes, and others regularly appear on FNC, where they're touted as financial experts -- facts to the contrary -- while Cavuto incessantly uses his afternoon FNC show to implore viewers to "demand" FBN from their cable providers.

In a new ad for the network, Fox states that Fox Business and Fox News offer "two networks, twice the power." Indeed, from its inception to its recent hiring decisions, Fox Business has made it clear that like its sister channel, "fair and balanced" is merely a wink and a nod to viewers looking for a reaffirmation of conservative myths and blatant GOP boosterism

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Journalistic Over-Kill

Old but interesting news;

Christine Chubbuck, 29 was a TV news reporter for Channel 40, WXLT-TV station.

She had been depressed for some time, the main source of which was apparently “her focus on her lack of relationships.” Her mother later said that it was due to “her personal life was not enough”. She complained to colleagues that she was going to be 30, yet she was still a virgin who never went on more than 2 dates with men. Her colleagues noted that she could be “brusque and defensive” and that she was “self-deprecating, criticizing herself constantly and rejecting any compliments she was given.”

On 15th July 1974, she turned up for work with a .38 revolver and put it below her desk.

The first 8 minutes of her program started normally enough. She covered a few national news stories. Then the story turned to one about a local restaurant shooting the day before. There was a technical problem with the videoclip about the restaurant, and Christine shrugged it off, before saying:

In keeping with Channel 40’s policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts, and in living color, you are going to see another first: an attempted suicide.

Then, unbelieveably, she took out the pistol and shot herself behind her right ear. As a result, she violently fell forward. The technical director faded slowly to black.

Jean Reed was handling the videocameras that morning and she thought it was a prank until she saw Chubbuck’s twitching body.

To cover, the TV station immediately filled in with a standard Public Service tape, followed by a movie.

Chubbuck was taken to hospital and pronounced dead 14 hours later.

She was cremated. Her family managed to get a court order preventing the release of the videotape of her suicide.


Friday, April 9, 2010

Mark Victor Hansen Writers Conference - Got an Extra Grand 2 Spare? If so, You're Invited

At one point, Mark Victor Hansen, best-selling author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series, was where you are right now. He had wanted to become an author, but didn't know the best way to turn his manuscript into a published book. That was years ago though, because since then, Mark has sold hundreds of millions of his books around the globe.

Now he wants to share all he has learned and help you get published. At his new Writer's Extravaganza conference, he has brought together a team of leading speakers and experts who can help you:
Choose our best publishing strategy
Learn why you need to brand yourself and why this is so important
Build your book into a business
Market your product to the masses
Protect your intellectual property
This two-day conference has a limited number of openings, but AuthorHouse has made special arrangements with Hansen to hold a select number of seats for aspiring authors like you.
To learn more about the conference and reserve your space, click on title above;

Don't let this opportunity to get tips from a best-selling author and publishing industry insiders pass you by. Register for the Writer's Extravaganza today.


Your AuthorHouse Team

P.S. Seating is limited, so don't delay. Sign up now.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

When tweets can make you a jailbird

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer Richard Lardner, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 16, 3:04 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Maxi Sopo was having so much fun "living in paradise" in Mexico that he posted about it on Facebook so all his friends could follow his adventures. Others were watching, too: A federal prosecutor in Seattle, where Sopo was wanted on bank fraud charges.

Tracking Sopo through his public "friends" list, the prosecutor found his address and had Mexican authorities arrest him. Instead of sipping pina coladas, Sopo is awaiting extradition to the U.S.

Sopo learned the hard way: The Feds are on Facebook. And MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter, too.

Law enforcement agents are following the rest of the Internet world into popular social-networking services, even going undercover with false online profiles to communicate with suspects and gather private information, according to an internal Justice Department document that surfaced in a lawsuit.

The document shows that U.S. agents are logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs and video clips.

Among the purposes: Investigators can check suspects' alibis by comparing stories told to police with tweets sent at the same time about their whereabouts. Online photos from a suspicious spending spree — people posing with jewelry, guns or fancy cars — can link suspects or their friends to crime.

The Justice document also reminds government attorneys taking cases to trial that the public sections of social networks are a "valuable source" of information on defense witnesses. "Knowledge is power," says the paper. "Research all witnesses on social networking sites."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties group, obtained the 33-page document when it sued the Justice Department and five other agencies in federal court.

A decade ago, agents kept watch over AOL and MSN chat rooms to nab sexual predators. But those text-only chat services are old-school compared with today's social media, which contain a potential treasure trove of evidence.

The document, part of a presentation given in August by cybercrime officials, describes the value of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn and other services to investigators. It does not describe in detail the boundaries for using them.

"It doesn't really discuss any mechanisms for accountability or ensuring that government agents use those tools responsibly," said Marcia Hoffman, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which sued to force the government to disclose its policies for using social networking.

The foundation also obtained an Internal Revenue Service document that states IRS employees cannot use deception or create fake accounts to get information.

Sopo's case didn't require undercover work; his carelessness provided the clues. But covert investigations on social-networking services are legal and governed by internal rules, according to Justice officials. They would not, however, say what those rules are.

The document addresses a social-media bullying case in which U.S. prosecutors charged a Missouri woman with computer fraud for creating a fake MySpace account — effectively the same activity that undercover agents are doing, although for different purposes.

The woman, Lori Drew, posed as a teen boy and flirted with a 13-year-old neighborhood girl. The girl hanged herself in October 2006, in a St. Louis suburb, after she received a message saying the world would be better without her. Drew was convicted of three misdemeanors for violating MySpace's rules against creating fake accounts. But last year a judge overturned the verdicts, citing the vagueness of the law.

"If agents violate terms of service, is that 'otherwise illegal activity'?" the document asks. It doesn't provide an answer.

Facebook's rules, for example, specify that users "will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission." Twitter's rules prohibit users from sending deceptive or false information. MySpace requires that information for accounts be "truthful and accurate."

A former U.S. cybersecurity prosecutor, Marc Zwillinger, said investigators should be able to go undercover in the online world the same way they do in the real world, even if such conduct is barred by a company's rules. But there have to be limits, he said.

"This new situation presents a need for careful oversight so that law enforcement does not use social networking to intrude on some of our most personal relationships," said Zwillinger, whose firm does legal work for Yahoo and MySpace.

The Justice document describes how Facebook, MySpace and Twitter have interacted with federal investigators: Facebook is "often cooperative with emergency requests," the government said. MySpace preserves information about its users indefinitely and even stores data from deleted accounts for one year. But Twitter's lawyers tell prosecutors they need a warrant or subpoena before the company turns over customer information, the document says.

"Will not preserve data without legal process," the document says under the heading, "Getting Info From Twitter ... the bad news."

The chief security officer for MySpace, Hemanshu Nigam, said MySpace doesn't want to stand in the way of an investigation. "That said, we also want to make sure that our users' privacy is protected and any data that's disclosed is done under proper legal process," Nigam said.

MySpace requires a search warrant for private messages less than six months old, according to the company.

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said the company has put together a handbook to help law enforcement officials understand "the proper ways to request information from Facebook to aid investigations."


On the Net:

Justice Department document:

Saturday, March 13, 2010

HuffPost Gets BIG $hot in the Arm

Online Investigative Reporting gets a shot in the arm – the Knight Foundation to Support The Huffington Post Investigative Fund with $200,000.

Posted on on December 22nd, 2009
by Pincas Jawetz (

Knight Foundation to Support The Huffington Post Investigative Fund

Washington, DC – December 22, 2009. As part of its ongoing support for investigative journalism, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation today announces a grant of $200,000 to The Huffington Post Investigative Fund. In making the contribution, the Knight Foundation joins the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, Atlantic Philanthropies, the Markle Foundation and The Huffington Post as key supporters of the venture.

“The Huffington Post Investigative Fund is experimenting with a new way of providing important journalism, functioning as a non-profit that draws audience from a popular for-profit,” said Eric Newton, vice president of Knight Foundation’s journalism program. “It’s a worthy test of a new idea, and since we really don’t know how investigative reporting is best supported in the future, an interesting experiment.”

Based in Washington, D.C., The Huffington Post Investigative Fund has a full-time staff of 11 and a budget of $2 million. It is headed by executive director Nick Penniman, formerly the publisher of the Washington Monthly, and executive editor Lawrence Roberts, formerly the investigations editor of the Washington Post. Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, chairs the nonprofit’s board. Collectively, its staff members have won more than four dozen major journalism awards, including multiple Pulitzer Prizes.

“We’re thrilled and honored to receive Knight’s backing,” said Penniman. “In these times of great upheaval for the news industry, Knight Foundation is helping us blaze a new trail for how you finance, create and distribute investigative journalism.

Said Arianna Huffington: “Knight’s grant is an important milestone in the young history of The Huffington Post Investigative Fund. We’re incredibly grateful to Alberto Ibargüen and Eric Newton of Knight Foundation for their passion for championing innovative solutions in the face of the crisis facing investigative journalism. Everyone who understands the vital role good journalism plays in our democracy is looking for ways to preserve and strengthen it during this time of great transition for the media, and Knight is playing a lead role in this effort.”

“The Huffington Post is an ideal partner for Knight Foundation. They are entrepreneurial and care passionately about meeting the information needs of communities,” said Alberto Ibargüen, president of Knight Foundation. “As a media leader, few are as innovative as Arianna Huffington. She believes in freedom and practices it. She believes in journalism and has hired outstanding investigative reporters and editors. And she believes in the power of technology to change the world for the better.”

“It’s also extremely important to us to partner with Atlantic Philanthropies in supporting The Huffington Post, as it was to partner with the Houston Endowment on the Texas Tribune or the San Diego Community Foundation in supporting the Voice of San Diego,” added Ibargoen. “These collaborations are essential as we look for the next sustainable model for the delivery of news people need.”

The Fund’s mission is to be an online innovator of investigative reporting by merging the classic watchdog function and traditional values of the press with the best tools of new media. Since its operations began in the early Fall, it has produced more than 50 stories, including 20 videos. Highlights include an investigation of a top subprime lender showing how fraud was at the heart of the housing boom and bust; a three-part expose of how the credit rating companies have fended off regulation from Congress and the SEC; and a project shedding light on inequities in denials of health insurance claims, reported with help from citizen journalists. The Fund has also completed multiple citizen journalism and “distributed research” projects and collaborated with other nonprofits on various stories, including the Center for Public Integrity, ProPublica and the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Through open-source publishing, any content the Investigative Fund produces is free for anyone to publish at the same time that it’s made available to The Huffington Post. The relationship helps the nonprofit distribute its reporting to a larger audience than it is capable of attracting on its own. In addition to The Huffington Post, more than 40 other outlets have republished the Fund’s pieces.

“We’ve built a first-rate staff of veteran investigative reporters and up-and-coming journalists,” said Roberts. “Having Knight’s support is an exciting endorsement of our efforts so far and of our potential.”

Knight Foundation’s $15 million Investigative Reporting Initiative was announced this year at the annual convention of the Investigative Reporters and Editors organization, the nation’s leading group of investigative journalists. Grantees under the initiative include News21, the Center for Investigative Reporting, ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity and the Texas Tribune.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

WaPost Hires Another Torture-Writer

The Washington Post just hired Marc Thiessen, who now becomes the second former George W. Bush speechwriter-turned-columnist at the paper. Thiessen isn't just any right-wing shill: He's an unapologetic advocate for torture. And he isn't alone. Charles Krauthammer, Michael Scheuer, and Richard Cohen have all used the editorial pages of the Post to defend torture.

How much longer can the Post give writers its pages as a platform to promote torture before it starts to look like the paper's official position?

When the Post gives a platform to torture supporters, it shapes -- and distorts -- the national debate on security and human rights, especially if those advocates are making a misleading case. The paper must stop promoting torture -- and they need to hear that from you.

In his book and even on the pages of the Post, Thiessen has repeatedly made dishonest and dubious statements in support of torture. For example:

He falsely claimed in his most recent book that, since CIA interrogation of terror suspects began after 9-11, there were no attacks by Al Qaeda on U.S. interests at home or abroad. He also claimed, falsely, in a Post op-ed that Bush oversaw "2,688 days without a terrorist attack on [American] soil," ignoring the anthrax mail attacks, the El Al shooting in Los Angeles and other domestic terrorist attacks.
In a Post op-ed, he called President Obama's decision to release Bush administration torture memos "irresponsible" and claimed that "Americans may die as a result."
The Washington Post needs to be held accountable for the ethics of the writers it hires and features, especially on such a crucial issue. We need to let the Post know that giving a platform to dishonest advocates of torture is unacceptable. They must stop promoting torture.

Click on title above to tell The Washington Post: Stop promoting torture.

In the Post, columnist Richard Cohen claimed that torture works and criticized the refusal to waterboard terrorists as naive, while columnist Krauthammer used his column to attack opponents of torture and promote Bush administration talking points.

But hiring Thiessen as a weekly columnist is a new low. Thiessen is not a reliable voice on national security, and the Post's credibility will be hurt by Thiessen's advocacy of inhumane and unnecessary torture techniques.

The Washington Post and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt need to say no to torture apologists, and stop promoting torture.

Go here to sign petition;

Thank you for your help in holding the Post accountable.

Eric Burns
Media Matters for America

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Marley Son Memoir...Publisher Woes

Click on title above for original article

Friday, February 5, 2010

Media Company Tries to Muffle Free Speech, Goes After Public Citizen Attorney

Jan. 28, 2010

Boca Raton Media Company Tries to Muffle Free Speech, Goes After Public Citizen Attorney

Vision Media Attacks Online Message Board Provider, Then Its Lawyer

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A media company trying to stifle its online critics is now going one step further – it is trying to muzzle a Public Citizen attorney involved in the case.

Vision Media is a Boca Raton, Fla.,-based company that makes TV spots for nonprofit groups and gets new business by cold-calling prospective customers. Not only is it going after, an Internet message board that allows consumers to critique telemarketers, for allegedly defamatory comments posted about Vision Media, but it is now pursuing Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy, one of the lawyers representing Web site operator Julia Forte. Local counsel Judith M. Mercier of Holland & Knight in Orlando is also representing

In its request for a gag order, filed this week in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Vision Media said that Levy “seeks to embarrass, defame and disparage the plaintiffs through trying their case through the Internet media outlet and without affording the plaintiffs with an opportunity to address substantive arguments.”

A gag order is impermissible prior restraint, Levy said. Plus, it flies in the face of basic First Amendment principles.

“Vision Media continues to ignore the principle of Internet free speech as it again tries to muzzle anyone who speaks out against the company,” Levy said. “If the plaintiffs learned their lesson, they could instead respond to the postings on the message boards and blogs, and voice their same First Amendment right, rather than trying to squelch that of others.”

To read more about this case, visit

To read Levy’s blog post that Vision Media objects to, visit

To read Public Citizen’s briefs, go to

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit public interest organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit


Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Beyond GBS2 to a New Rule of Copyright Law

James Grimmelmann has published his supplemental comments on behalf of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School. His thoughts about the whole GBS1 - GBS2 process are very interesting:

This filing reflects the continuing evolution of my thinking on the settlement. I have gone from “Approve the settlement.” to explaining “How to Fix the Google Book Search Settlement” to being deeply concerned about the means it uses.” In September, our filing recommended further consultation and improvements to the class action process, in the hopes that sufficient oversight could keep it accountable and operating in the public interest. The letter filed today concludes that the way the settlement uses a class action is not salvageable.

I had been looking for a limiting principle: something that could justify a modified version of the settlement while also setting a clear boundary beyond which future cases could not go. But I have become convinced that no such limiting principle is likely to be apparent any time soon. Without one, there is no way to make the settlement consistent with the rule of law, and it should not be approved.

Published in the New Republic, HLS prof Larry Lessig's recent essay, For the Love of Culture: Google, copyright, and our future, argues the case that a new rule of copyright law is needed sooner rather than later. "We have all wasted too much time waging the copyright wars to know enough what a sensible peace would look like," writes Lessig. Between the "copyright abolitionists" and the licensing advocates, the "content industry--that seeks to license every single use of culture, in whatever context" as reflected, for example, in GBS2 which "constructs a world in which control can be exercised at the level of a page, and maybe even a quote," a new balance must be established to protect and limit markets by legislative reform.

We need a renewed effort to strike this balance through interests that recognize the good in both sides. It would be a mistake to destroy new markets by eliminating copyright protection where it would do good. It would also be a mistake to assume that all access to culture should be governed by markets, regardless of the effect it has on access to our past. In the most abstract sense, we need to decide what kinds of access should be free. And we need to craft the law to assure that freedom.

Lessig is less than optimistic:

The idea of balanced public policy in this area will strike many as oxymoronic. It is thus no wonder, perhaps, that the likes of Google sought progress not through better legislation, but through a clever kludge, enabled by genius technologists. But this is too important a matter to be left to private enterprises and private deals. Private deals and outdated law are what got us into this mess. Whether or not a sensible public policy is possible, it is urgently needed.

For starters, the Open Book Alliance might want to ratchet down the level of its polemics below "11." In its recently filed amicus brief opposing GBS2, OBA "highlights" five reasons why the GBS2 is a “paltry proposal:”

Control of the Search Market is Google’s True Goal
Secret Side Deals Among the Parties Actually Control The Settlement Terms
Google’s Anticompetitive Bundling Undermines Competition in Digital Book Distribution
The Amendments Fail to Resolve Antitrust Objections
The Settlement Fails Even a Rule of Reason Evaluation