"The US government is trying to stop this kind of thing, he says, by enacting laws that prevent file sharing and the use of public figure images..."

Whether or not that is exactly what Ito said or just your interpretation of it, and whether or not the reason Ito gives for the US government "trying to stop this kind of thing" is actually the reason, it is ironic in the extreme that Thomas Jefferson's attempt to *stimulate* innovation by protecting intellectual property for a short period of time has facilitated the use of IP laws to stifle innovation.

Here is the relevant part of the US Constitution, for those who aren't already familiar with it:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (the "Intellectual Property Clause" also called the Patent and/or Copyright Clause) of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The example I cited was network TV not giving access to exclusive interviews that they had of Bush to Greenwald, a documentary producer, under the grounds that they were protected by copyright. Which is true, but my feeling is that fair use should be extended to video as liberally as it is extended to text. Lessig makes this argument well, but I think that we are accustomed to citation and attribution in deliberating using text, but this form of remixed and sampling video and audio is still much more protected by copyright.

Let me also add that the anti-P2P stuff will stifle video exchange. Also, recently pushed back by the FCC, the broadcast flag is trying to make it impossible to record television on things on hard disk recorders. Hollywood is trying to protect video content broadly through copyright legistlation and regulation of software and hardware and news media will be covered by copyright as creative works and "content" owned by networks and will legally and technically be protected in ways that text is not.

I've recently seen both Dan Gillmor's and Larry Lessig's presentations, and I agree that once you publish something (make it public) there's no way you can argue for not making it available for fair use.

But I think what's missing from the discussion around the broader topic are the concepts of attribution and what the equivalent of a set of quotation marks might be for audio and video.

Not to mention the lack of a sense of humor! Is someone really likely to be persuaded that Blair and Bush sing love songs to each other?

Greenwald asked to license 1 minute from 60 minutes NBC said no. Initially they said something like "it doesn't make the president look very good."

see
">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5

At RLS Financial we offer the right solution to your financial needs. We stand apart from other lenders because we believe in customer service and we stay with you until you get the results you want.
We are a group of energetic and experienced loan professionals with thorough knowledge of banking and financial markets. We have many partners in real estate, banking and technology fields that can assist obtain financing. Almost all of our business are through referrals by satisfied and repeat customers.
As the leading provider of Commercial, Business and personal loans to individuals and corporations nationwide, we offer the right kind of financing in less amount of time it will take with .
Thanks.
MR LORD