Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ashling

(25,771 posts)
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:23 AM Feb 2014

STUDY: Media Leave Viewers In The Dark About Trans-Pacific Partnership

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/05/study-media-leave-viewers-in-the-dark-about-tra/197932

Congress is debating whether to give the president the authority to fast-track a massive free trade agreement -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- between the U.S., Canada, and 10 nations from the Asia-Pacific region. The nations involved in the talks account for nearly 40 percent of the world's GDP and 26 percent of the world's trade, but weekday evening television news broadcasts have largely ignored the topic.












6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
STUDY: Media Leave Viewers In The Dark About Trans-Pacific Partnership (Original Post) ashling Feb 2014 OP
True, but most politicians have been doing the same. merrily Feb 2014 #1
It's been given almost no spotlight sakabatou Feb 2014 #2
media conglomerates will likely benefit from the behind our backs treaty nt msongs Feb 2014 #3
Same deal when its new copyright and DRM laws. n/t cprise Feb 2014 #4
That's because it concerns copyright and other similar law. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #5
Just like they were PAID to do. blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #6

merrily

(45,251 posts)
1. True, but most politicians have been doing the same.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:57 AM
Feb 2014

I don't pay the salaries of most media--at least not on purpose. Nor do I vote for them. Nor are they legally supposed to be representing my interests, as opposed to those of their employers and sponsors, even though I believe they owe the public better than they give.

So, good for Media Matters for shining a light and shaming media. They more than deserve it, But, I have to say that I am even madder at the politicians. They do get on TV for live interviews and, so far, I've not seen anyone try to tell us about TPP, only to have media cut the mike.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
5. That's because it concerns copyright and other similar law.
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:46 AM
Feb 2014

The media wants to have the right to very, very, very long copyrights. They want to be able to enforce copyrights anywhere in the world and force poor countries into respecting them and enforcing them.

Here is the story on "Happy Birthday" for example.

"Happy Birthday to You", also known more simply as "Happy Birthday", is a song that is traditionally sung to celebrate the anniversary of a person's birth. According to the 1998 Guinness Book of World Records, "Happy Birthday to You" is the most recognized song in the English language, followed by "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow". The song's base lyrics have been translated into at least 18 languages.[1], p. 17 The melody of "Happy Birthday to You" comes from the song "Good Morning to All", which has been attributed to American siblings Patty Hill and Mildred J. Hill in 1893,[2][3] although the claim that the sisters composed the tune is disputed.[4] Patty was a kindergarten principal in Louisville, Kentucky, developing various teaching methods at what is now the Little Loomhouse;[5] Mildred was a pianist and composer.[1], p. 7 The sisters used "Good Morning to All" as a song that young children would find easy to sing.[1], p. 14

The combination of melody and lyrics in "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912, and probably existed even earlier.[1], pp. 31–32 None of these early appearances included credits or copyright notices. The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1988, Warner/Chappell Music purchased the company owning the copyright for $25 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million.[6][7] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to Warner. In one specific instance in February 2010, these royalties were said to amount to $700.[8] In the European Union, the copyright of the song will expire no later than December 31, 2016.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

Any time someone sings "Happy Birthday" in a movie, royalties are paid on the song.

Proceeds earned from the works and copyrights of artists and writers should go to them because their creative work deserves to be compensated, but sometimes the copyright laws seem to protect the rights of the artists and writers' heirs unreasonably long. This is especially true of works that have been very popular for many years to the extent that the public assumes that there is no longer a copyright.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»STUDY: Media Leave Viewer...