text:
Our online tools make booking, managing your schedule and paying for lessons easy and hassle-free.
Access and compare detailed information about teaching style, experience, education, and more.
If for any reason you're not satisfied after your first lesson, we'll help you find another teacher or refund your entire purchase.
No matter where you live, chances are we can introduce you to an
amazing teacher in your neighborhood. You can take lessons in the
privacy of your own home or at your teacher's location. Start by
searching in your ZIP code to find teachers near you.
Learn More
What if the teacher who best fits your needs is on the other side
of the country? No problem. Our online lesson platform connects
you with any teacher, anywhere. All you need is a reliable Internet
connection, a webcam, and a microphone.
Learn More
Your search for the perfect teacher starts with the subject you'd like to learn and your ZIP code. From the list of recommended teachers, compare detailed information about each option before you make your teacher selection.
Take some time to review the teachers in our network. All of our teachers provide detailed profiles, including information about their background, specialties, and teaching style. You can also read reviews from past and current students.
Select your teacher and book online. After you book, your teacher will contact you directly to talk about your first lesson and you'll be able to manage your entire schedule through our free online account.
Take your voice to the next level. Download free video tutorials to start singing like the star you are!
Getting Started with Music Lessons guides you through selecting a teacher & preparing for your first lesson.
Kickstart your guitar playing. Download free video tutorials to learn about chord progressions, strumming, and more!
I began playing music at the age of six. I started with the piano and saxophone but found my true passion, by age eight, in the guitar. I took private lessons from a great teacher for the first seven consecutive years of my study and further developed my knowledge and skills through self-directed study. I received my Undergraduate degree in Music Theory from the University of Utah. The pursuit of this degree allowed me to study many different musical aspects, including: composition, music history, ear training, sight reading and music technology, along with classical and jazz guitar studies. Over the years, through my education and practice, I have learned a great deal, not just about the guitar, but also ways to teach music and engage students in their pursuit of musical knowledge.
I played in my first music group when I was 17 and started composing and arranging music at that time. I have performed at numerous events and venues, eventually touring in the western U.S. I have a true passion for music and I love sharing this passion and teaching others.
*** Lesson Details ***
I am a laid back instructor and teach in a relaxed, low-pressure environment. I offer private and small group lessons to students ages 6 and up. I like to joke around but I do expect my students to take their instrument seriously. Students are expected to practice the techniques and music outside of lesson time. I allow students to learn music they are interested in and teach them scales, chords, popular tunes and important performance techniques. Typically, after three months, a student will be able to play more proficient by themselves and in a group. He/she will be more confident about his/her guitar playing ability and overall music knowledge. For most students, after six months of regular lessons, they are able to begin composing simple pieces and have a good understanding of music composition.
*** Studio Equipment ***
I will teach in my living room, I have a piano, plenty of room for a parent to sit in on a lesson and a very comfortable environment.
*** Specialties ***
I enjoy approaching any instrument from a theoretical base. This allows the student to understand the fundamentals of music and helps them explore the instrument of their choice to the fullest extent.
Salt Lake Community College Fret Board Theory 1 Group Guitar 1 & 2 Music 1610 1660 & 1710
Paul Green School of Rock ( Teacher ) I evaluated students interest's aptitude temperaments and individual characteristics in order to determine suitable instrument instruction.
Sound Column Studio Work Shop Recording & Theory Certificate
Guitar Repairs / Fret Board Filling Intonation Set up
Wrote and Recorded Original Songs
My name is Megan, and I love teaching guitar lessons! I originally got my bachelor's degree from the University of Utah in Elementary Education. I taught 6th grade for a couple of years, and then went on to teach guitar classes at a private school for another couple of years. At this school, I directed the classical guitar ensemble, and had children from 5-14 playing challenging music together. I started slowly taking on private students in my spare time, and my business has grown, so that now it's all I do!
I was a music major before I switched over to Elementary Ed. I have experience in playing in groups, solo, composition, as well as the fundamentals of different styles of playing. I specialize in teaching children, but of course love to teach adults as well. I can teach folk, blues, classical, and the music theory behind soloing in any style.
My passion for music, and knowledge of how we all learn make me very capable of guiding you toward your own musical goals.
"Steven is very professional and extremely helpful. He always has a smile on and is serious about helping you phrase the music. I would highly recommend him to anyone."
"It's been really exciting so far! Jordan has been so helpful, so knowledgeable. I could not have found a better instructor and I'm getting better and better every day."
"My daughter's wedding was weeks away and I had never been able to dance a step. With Jenny's help, I came further than ever before in such short time in any subject."


text:
Jan Lee JohnsonArtist, Lecturer / academic
The combination of pattern and representation has developed in my studio painting practice. Bringing historical events together, through collaged constructs, using a painterly Trompe Loeil style is evident in some paintings. Photographs and tabloid images in their original and often monochromatic format , sometimes from a past era, are re-worked a various and diverse surface of vintage fabric, read full statement
|Twickenham, London
|Lecturing, Workshops, Private commissions
|Artforms / type of project
|Digital, Drawing, Painting
|protest painting, environment, painting, drawing, ipad drawings, Painting painter artist
News & Events
THE New Georgians - till 27 july. Orleans House Riverside gallery Twickehnam OPEN AFTERNOONS
15/05/2014 – 27/07/2014
Orleans house gallery http://richmond.gov.uk/home/services/arts/orleans_house_gallery/orleans_house_gallery_whats_on.htm
Orleans house gallery TWICKENHAM RIVERSIDE TW1 3DJ The New Georgians CONTEMPORARY CURATED Exhibition Celebrates Tercentenary of the Hanoverian accession Painting :ARCTICTOK

subset: commoncrawl


text:
10 reasons Breckenridge is one of best ski resorts
The changing leaves and colder temperatures can only mean one thing: Breckenridge Ski Resort's opening is just around the corner. With opening day set for Nov. 7, Breck is sharing the top ten reasons to get excited for the 2014-15 winter ski season at one of the most popular ski resorts in North America.
10. One of Colorado's Best Ski Towns Breckenridge is world-renowned for its welcoming spirit and friendly locals. With over 200 restaurants, bars, and shops and numerous year-round activities and events, Breck embodies more than just a destination; it inspires a way of life. And by the way, this 155-year-old historic hamlet and its famous Main Street are just steps from the ski resort – a location unmatched in the ski industry.
9. A New Colorado SuperChair. New this year, the Colorado SuperChair is getting an upgrade from a quad express to a six-passenger express to provide a 28 percent increase in capacity for Peak 8's primary lift. This will help disperse skiers to the surrounding peaks and provide a faster route for skiers and riders traversing the resort.
8. This Season Marks 30 Years of Snowboarding at Breckenridge Ski Resort. Beginning with the 1984-85 season, Breck became one of the first major ski resorts to allow snowboarding. This embrace of a wild new sport resulted in hosting one of the initial major snowboard competitions in the industry, one year later. Breck solidified its place at the very pinnacle of freestyle snowboarding and skiing with the addition of an Olympic-sized 22-foot superpipe, which anchors the resort's award-winning Freeway Terrain Park. With four terrain parks creating a park progression system for beginners and intermediates, including the top-ranked Freeway Terrain Park and SuperPipe and the Park Lane Terrain Park, Breckenridge remains on the forefront of the industry.
7. World-renowned Ski School. There are a variety of options for riders of all abilities at Breckenridge Ski and Ride School, including new camps this year. Private Lessons: The ultimate customized experience. Our pros will take up to six students and cater to the needs/wants of the participants. A private lesson is a sure way to accelerate skills and progress with as much individual feedback as requested. Camps: This season guests can choose from four specialized camps: two women's camps, Jan. 23-25 and Feb. 20-22, 2015; a 'steeps' camp, Feb. 27-Mar. 1, 2015; and the Kid's Park and Pipe Camp, Feb. 20-22, 2015.
6. DoubleTree from A to Zzzz: A New All-Inclusive Package. Guests can enjoy the convenience of an all-inclusive resort from arrival to late night and receive lodging, food and drinks all for one low price when they book The Double Tree by Hilton Breckenridge's All Inclusive Package. Grab a quick breakfast or lunch at the Made Market, enjoy house drinks, wine and draft beer for Après, or treat the family to a gourmet farm to table dinner at the 9600 Kitchen – all without having to get out your wallet!
5. Peak 6. Last season, Breckenridge Ski Resort added over 540 acres with its Peak 6 expansion just north of Peak 7. Peak 6 includes 400 acres of lift-served terrain and 143 acres of hike-to terrain, representing a 23 percent increase in resort's skiable acres. Peak 6 features high-alpine, intermediate bowl skiing – a rare find in North America.
4. New on-mountain dining. The Peak 9 Restaurant will reopen as The Overlook with a renovated interior, including a new kitchen that will provide a warm, welcoming guest experience. In addition to The Overlook, the resort is introducing a mobile dining option, the Snowdrifter, which will change its location throughout the season.
3. Epic Pass. Breckenridge is part of the ski industry's most valuable ski pass program. Vail Resorts offers multiple pass options for the 2014-15 season that include unlimited skiing or riding at Breck.
2. Exclusive special events. Breckenridge Ski Resort will feature signature events throughout the season – the Winter Dew Tour Championships, Dec. 11-14, 2014; the iconic Ullr Fest celebration of snow, Jan. 11-17, 2015; and the Spring Fever festival from March 21-April 19 (closing day). Returning Spring Fever Events include the Bud Light concert series (featuring acts such as Blues Traveler and The Dirty Heads in the past); the Throwback Throwdown snowboarding halfpipe competition with snowboarding legends (past and present); and the Breck Big Mountain Challenge.
1. Powder Days! Breckenridge received over 36 feet of snow during the 2013-14 season – including more January snow than any other U.S. resort – resulting in one of the longest ski seasons in its history.
Stay Connected
Visit Breckenridge.com for terrain updates, snow reports, lodging deals, event details and the lowest priced lift tickets guaranteed. Stay connected all season long and learn more about Breckenridge Ski Resort at www.facebook.com/Breckenridge watch official resort videos atwww.YouTube.com/Breckenridge, and follow @Breckenridgemtn on Instagram and Twitter
On the Snow editors pick their favorite skis
2015 Editors' Choice: Our 41 Favorite Skis
The top men's and women's skis for the 2014/15 season. From Frontside carvers and All-Mountain Front/All-Mountain Back versatility machines to Powder slayers, this is the best of what your favorite ski brands have to offer.
Frontside Faves
These seven pairs of men's Frontside carvers topped our list for 2015. Read on to find out why. Full Article
All-Mountain Front Standouts
Ski testers dubbed these six standout pairs of men's All-Mountain Front skis worthy of our 2015 Editors' Choice. Full Article
The Best of All-Mountain Back
These seven pairs of men's All-Mountain Back Skis impressed testers most, now among the ranks of our 2015 Editors' Choice skis. Full Article
Most Popular Powder Planks
Five pairs of men's powder skis floated to the top of the 2015 lineup and onto our Editors' Choice list. Full Article
Deer Valley Resort buys Solitude Mountain Resort
Deer Valley Resort has entered into an agreement to purchase Solitude Mountain Resort and will begin operating the resort on May 1, 2015.
"Solitude is an incredible resort and provided a huge opportunity for us to expand our offerings right here in Utah," said Bob Wheaton, president and general manager of Deer Valley Resort. "Solitude is in unique position with their widely varied terrain that attracts both local and destination skiers. We are ecstatic to be able to add the resort to the Deer Valley family."
"The DeSeelhorst family has enjoyed being a part of Solitude's history for almost 40 years. We are proud of what we have been able to accomplish at the resort and in our mountain community," said Dave DeSeelhorst, owner and general manager of Solitude Mountain Resort. "We feel very fortunate for the opportunity to have worked with so many amazing people in our industry and most importantly being able to work with our incredible staff at Solitude over the years. It is exciting to pass on this unique and beautiful resort to one of the best resort operators in the country, Deer Valley."
For the upcoming 2014-15 ski season, Solitude will operate as usual under the leadership of the DeSeelhorst family. To foster the most effective and strategic change over, select Deer Valley staff will work alongside Solitude staff during the next six months to evaluate resort operations and gain knowledge about the Solitude brand and culture. Deer Valley will then take full ownership of Solitude Mountain Resort on May 1, 2015.
Why did Deer Valley Resort enter into an agreement to purchase Solitude Mountain Resort?
Deer Valley recognized a great opportunity to expand within the Utah market by adding Solitude Mountain Resort to the Deer Valley family. Solitude is an incredible resort, with both family friendly and expert terrain, and we are sincerely excited to begin working with the staff.
Amount Paid? Assets acquired?
This is a private acquisition.
How will this purchase change the experience at Solitude?
It will be business as usual, run by the DeSeelhorst family, at Solitude for the upcoming 2014-15 season. Deer Valley recognizes Solitude's unique position in both the local and destination markets and acknowledges that we have much to learn about the current operation and brand position. Consequently, we will have select Deer Valley staff work hand in hand with Solitude staff this winter to share knowledge.
Does current Solitude staff need to worry about their employment?
Deer Valley does not anticipate any major changes in staffing at Solitude at this time.
Will snowboarding still be available at Solitude? How about the Brighton connection?
Deer Valley plans to continue allowing snowboarding at Solitude and keep the Brighton connection in place.
What about One Wasatch? Now that Deer Valley intends to own Solitude does a connection from Big Cottonwood Canyon to Deer Valley, instead of Park City Mountain Resort, make more sense?
One Wasatch (formerly the Ski Utah Interconnect) has been analyzed over the years and the present lift alignment recently released by Ski Utah seems to make the most sense.
Will it become a mini-Deer Valley?
Although Deer Valley will bring some of our service oriented and operational philosophies to the resort we do not plan to rebrand Solitude as another Deer Valley.
Will the name change?
At most, Deer Valley would make a small adjustment to the name to let current guests and potential visitors know the resort is now part of the Deer Valley family. We believe there is a lot of awareness and brand equity in the Solitude name.
Will there be a reciprocal arrangement for skiing benefits between Solitude and Deer Valley Resort?
Deer Valley Resort and Solitude Mountain Resort full season pass holders will receive four ski days at each respective resort. Deer Valley midweek pass holders will be given two passes valid, Monday through Friday, at Solitude for the coming season. Holiday restrictions will apply: December 24, 2014 – January 2, 2015; January 17 – 19, 2015 and February 14 – 16, 2015.
Will Solitude be added to the Wasatch Benefit program?
Deer Valley anticipates the Wasatch Benefit program will remain as announced in September with shared lift privileges for select season pass holders between Alta, Deer Valley and Snowbird.
Will lift ticket, locals and season pass prices increase dramatically due to the purchase of Solitude by Deer Valley?
There will be no changes to the lift and season pass rates announced by Solitude for the 2014-15 season. Moving forward, Deer Valley Resort will analyze past resort performance, operational expenses and projected revenue potential prior to setting rates.
Will Deer Valley bring more capital and marketing investments to Solitude?
Deer Valley will take the next six months to analyze operational and marketing/brand opportunities prior to announcing any capital investments. In addition, Deer Valley will begin promoting the great experience and resort jewel Solitude currently is in spring of 2015.
Does Deer Valley plan on buying any more resorts?
Although Deer Valley is not actively pursuing purchasing another resort, we have always been open to analyzing opportunities that may be a good fit for Deer Valley.
Did Deer Valley purchase Solitude in response to Vail Resorts' purchase of Park City Mountain Resort and Ian Cumming's purchase of Snowbird?
Absolutely not. Deer Valley has entertained many opportunities to purchase resorts over the years and in the end, those opportunities did not make good business sense. Solitude came to us at the right time and for the right reasons including: the location in Big Cottonwood Canyon, Utah; past business practice and performance; and great awareness in the local market.
Bear Mountain presents built from scratch
Each winter, so many talented snowboarder flock to Bear Mountain, SoCal snowboarding oasis, to pick apart the top-to-bottom park created by the prestigious Bear park crew.
The creativity of the set up combined with the variety of progressive riders makes for some next level snowboarding.
In the first episode of Bear's Built from Scratch, enjoy your favorite park riders as they build laps from scratch during the 2013-14 season at Bear. Featuring Scotty Vine, Lenny Mazzotti, Jake Schaible, Justin Mulford, Castro, Johnny Miller, Chris Bradshaw, and Zak Hale.
Check out the video
Mountain High VIP pass offers free skiing at 12 resorts
Winter is coming and for regional powder hounds there is no better deal than Mountain High's VIP Season Pass with FREE skiing privileges to 12 Powder Alliance resorts.
Now through Nov. 30, purchase a 14/15 VIP Season Pass to Mountain High, Southern California's closest winter resort, and receive three (3) FREE days at Crested Butte, CO, Snowbasin Resort, UT, Sierra-at-Tahoe, CA, Schweitzer, ID, Stevens Pass, WA, Bridger Bowl, MT, Timberline, OR, Mt Hood Ski Bowl, Or, China Peak, CA, Arizona Snowbowl, AZ, Angel Fire, NM, and Silver Star, Canada.
That's 36 FREE tickets! Click here for a complete overview of resorts at www.powderalliance.com.
Additional Alliance-related benefits include discounts on lodging, rentals, buddy tickets, and more. Restrictions apply and all tickets must be used during the 2014/15 season. Visit www.powderalliance.com for a complete listing of holiday dates and resort benefits.
VIP Passes start at $349 for adults and just $299 for Young Adults, ages 13 to 21. Children's passes are also available beginning at $249 for ages 7 to 12. Kids six and under receive a FREE season pass with the purchase of an Adult or Young Adult Season Pass.
"$349 for 13 mountains is a terrific value and something no other Southern California resort can offer. Get a full season of skiing at Mountain High plus FREE tickets to some of the best resorts in Utah, Colorado, Montana, Washington, and now Canada," said John McColly, CMO,
VIP pass holders also receive early ups on select days, monthly discounts for family and friends, savings at Wrightwood retailers such as Big Pines Zip Lines and the Grizzly Café, and free tickets to the North Pole Tubing Park.
Click here for a complete listing of discounts and savings. In total, Mountain High's VIP Season Pass includes more than $2,700 in added value.
With forecasters calling for the return of El Nino, this season is expected to be the best in years. Passes may be purchased online at http://www.mthigh.com/season-
Josh Daiek battles Mt. Ruapehu in New Zealand
As ski season down under winds down, here's an interesting story by Josh Daiek at www.joshdaiek.com:
"I powered down the table saw and took a seat for my lunch break when I noticed a missed call from Mike Douglas. His voicemail informed me of an upcoming ski trip to New Zealand, I frantically called back eager to hear the details. The trip was for a Salomon Freeski TV project, the plan, explore and expose some of the less popular skiing on the northern island. I was thrilled, I've always wanted to ski New Zealand. I tried not to sound overly excited or anxious as I confirmed with Douglas "I'm in!" I hung up the phone and began dancing around the room like an idiot.
My first instinct was to research and gather as much info as possible about the mountains and conditions on the north island, but as I began typing into the Google search I simply stopped. What does it matter? I thought. I'm going to get on a plane, fly half way around the world and go skiing during summer! That's all that matters anyway. It seemed like the right thing to do, maybe a little more spontaneous, no expectations, no schedule, no worries.
After an airport rendezvous in Auckland, the crew assembled of 3 skiers; Mike Douglas, Chris Rubens, myself, 2 cinematographers; Anthony Bonello, Ben Knight and 1 photographer; Bruno Long. We crammed all gear and people into two cars and rolled out. We merged onto the highway and I unfolded a road map asking Mike "Where are we going?" It was then that he began to reveal the story of the natives, the Maori Tribe, and their sacred volcanoes. We were out to explore, document and ski these historical volcanoes.
Our first day we headed to Mt. Ruapehu to explore the ski resort Whakapapa. As we drove to the mountain I sat in the back seat, my eyes glued to the window, anxiously awaiting the sight of the mountains. Mother nature had other plans though, with dense cloud cover, rain and nearly nonexistent visibility we weren't afforded a real view of the mountain. The first week we struggled to tough out the elements, battling in the rain and seeing how long are goretex would last. A combination of bullet proof crust and the gnarliest flat light I've ever seen (or not seen) made for some tough skiing too.
After a long day of strife at the resort we made our way home when all of the sudden, the clouds began to part. For the first time on our trip we actually saw Mt Ruapehu! I think we were all pretty excited to finally see the mountain and as the sunset behind the horizon I was pumped for the next day.
Read more in RUAPEHU
Buck Strikes Back rail jam at Mountain High on Oct. 4
Mountain High Resort is trucking in 40 tons of snow on Saturday for the Buck Strikes Back rail jam. This season it's taking place on the streets of Wrightwood.
Aside from the early-season shred session, guests can stroll through the vendor village, buy or sell equipment in the giant ski & snowboard swap, chow down on chili from the annual Chili Cook-off, and see the premier of Mountain High's new short film, Montage.
"Nothing gets you thinking winter like 40 tons of snow. It's been seven year's since we produced the last Buck Off so be sure to put October 4th on your calendar. You don't need to travel far far way to get in some pre-season snow play," says John McColly, Director of Marketing.
The Buck Strikes Back uses 40 tons of snow to create a 10,000 square foot winter jib arena complete with all levels of rails and boxes. It takes roughly five hours to cover the arena and park personnel will be on hand all day to make sure the snow stays at its best.
A 20 foot start ramp provides the runway and guests will have their choice of several different features including a down rail, flat boxes, a stair set, and a finishing jib. Difficulty levels vary from easy to advanced so there is something for everyone plus there will be a Best Trick Contest at 4pm.
Twenty five participants consisting of pros, celebrity riders, and ripping pass holders will be competing for cash and prizes. Be sure to put on your best performance because the Buck Strikes Back aint no "Wookie" competition.
The rail yard is open to all ages, male and female, skiers and snowboarders. There is no additional fee however a new 2014/15 season pass and helmet are required.
Participants under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, OR download a liability form from Mountain High's website at www.mthigh.com, have it notarized with a parent's signature and bring it with them.
Guests who purchase their season pass at the event will receive more than $200 in FREE benefits and renewing pass holders save an additional $50 off Adult, Young Adult, and College passes. Regularly $699, prices start at just $249 for Young Adults and $299 for Adults.
For avid skiers and snowboarders they are the best way to save money and pay for themselves in as little as 5 visits. Children six and under receive a free season pass with the purchase of an adult season pass. Click here for a complete listing of prices and benefits. http://www.mthigh.com/season-
For those not interested in jibbing, there are plenty of other free activities. Guests can check out the latest products from Burton, Lib Tech, Explosive, Gnarly, Smith, Virus and more in the vendor village, plus get huge deals on snowboarding equipment from the nearby Mountain Outhouse.
New this year will be a giant ski & snowboard swap where guests can sell their gear or pick up new equipment for the coming season. The festival begins at1:00pm with riding and entertainment until 5pm. Guests are invited to stick around for the after party where they can quench their thirst at the Yodeler for just a buck-a-beer and watch the premier of Montage, the latest snowboard film from Mountain High.
Australia has best season in decades
By HENRY BELOT
Ski resorts on the Snowy Mountains are preparing for the final week of the ski season in what has been described as one of the best seasons in almost a decade.
With the season officially coming to an end, Thredbo spokeswoman Susie Diver described the year as a healthy result for the entire industry despite the doom and gloom felt when ski-fields were only dusted with snow for the Queens birthday.
"It really comes down to an amazing snowfall of two metres within just a couple of days in July and a very cold and dry August that meant the snow cover remained," she said.
Read more Bumper ski season heads for the finish line – http://www.theage.com.au/act-news/bumper-ski-season-heads-for-the-finish-line-20140926-10la9a.html via @theage
Cali4nia Pass good at Mammoth, Bear Mountain, June Mountain, Snow Summit


text:
Bel Air News
Local news for Bel Air, MD continually updated from thousands of sources on the web.
Multiple Crashes Reported in Greater Bel Air: Officials
Friday | Patch.com | Comment?
Bail denied for man charged in Harford road rage case
Thursday Nov 20 | The Baltimore Sun | Comment?
Apartment Blaze Contained off Moores Mill Road: Bel Air Fire
Bel Air First Responders Rescue 6-Year-Old Girl at Gym
Bel Air WOW House: 6,000 Square-Feet Colonial
Secret Service arrests man outside White House, finds rifle in car
Thursday Nov 20 | Los Angeles Times | Comment?
Harford's Glassman announces final cabinet choices, eliminates chief of staff
Wednesday Nov 19 | The Baltimore Sun | Comment?
Extra, Extra! House of Cards Casting Call in Southeast Harford County
Bel Air Man Charged with Attempted Murder in Road Rage Incident: Sheriff
Cold, Bel Air? Here's Your 2014 Holiday TV Schedule
The Liriodendron Foundation exhibits works of Ellen Corddry
Monday Nov 17 | The Baltimore Sun | Comment?
Harford Memorial Hospital to Go Smoke-Free
Monday Nov 17 | Patch.com | Comment?
Bel Air Firefighters Assist in Battling Fallston Blaze
Sunday Nov 16 | Patch.com | Comment?
Bel Air Church Offers Free Food, Winter Wear for Needy
Friday Nov 14 | Patch.com | Comment?
Updated: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:18 pm
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC


text:
October 17, 2013
Cruz, Palin and The Clown Show — Courtesy of Photographer Mark Peterson
While the visual media has played it mostly straight over the past sixteen days, recording the comings and goings of GOP lawmakers like the rituals of Capitol Hill still made sense, photographer Mark Peterson has felt no such constraint. Using Instagram as his method of dissemination, only the fizzling end to the insurrection has allowed reality to caught up to Mark's imagery. According to his note:
Looking for events around the political cliff, I started (photographing) on Sept 10th at a event at the Capitol that was called "Exempt Obamacare". It was staged by the Tea Party with speakers Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. I really played with the images making them animated and black-and-white to call attention to the political theatre taking place.
A low budget noir epic or a revival meeting on acid? David Lynch directs GOP '16, perhaps? The images have a garishness and a perversity that's almost Sci-Fi. At the same time, there is an antiquated quality here, reflecting the movies of the silent era when body language — and hysteria — counted for so much more.
Because the public doesn't quite have a fix on Cruz, by the way, Peterson's postulations are especially interesting. It seems Mark casts him as a cross between Jerry Falwell and Chicken Little.
Two thoughts: Sarah Palin's is such a mouth. And the shutdown was so bizarre, it actually normalized the brief re-emergence of Governor Kryptonite over a couple of days.
The Undertaker?
Parody aside, however, Paul could probably use a more granular going over.
Finally, perhaps the lowest episode of the low involved the far right's exploitation of veterans at the WWII Memorial. That one of them could have been the shutdown's poster child, carrying a flag and a smirk, is shameful for all of us.
Let's just say, Peterson understood the picture from the beginning.
Visit Mark's website here and follow his Instagram feed @markpetersonpixs.
Random Notes
July 25, 2009
More Henry Louis Gates: Porch ...
October 19, 2011
The Venomous GOP Debate Audien...
April 15, 2007
Jim Johnson
May 10, 2007
Cheney In Baghdad: The Progres...
October 22, 2006
Down To Business
December 31, 2008
The Chance Of Biscuits (Or, Is...
January 7, 2010
Obama Weatherproofed
November 30, 2009
Seattle + 10
December 2, 2011
Occupy in 9 Photos – Joi...
March 17, 2011
Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario...
December 29, 2008
The Rocket As Relative
May 1, 2012
Deconstructing Obama Campaign ...
June 16, 2009
Fighting Pictures
October 11, 2006
The New Political Picture
May 12, 2004
Dick, We're Not In Analo...
March 22, 2006
Reading With The Sound Off
March 16, 2008
Taking It To Condi
January 2, 2014
Let the (Media) Bogarting Begi...


text:
Vera's New Boobs, Missy Ink COVER GIRL, Vera on NAKED NEWS, NEW YOUTUBE and a NEW KITTEN :: Well, one thing is for sure, Vera has been busy !!
Hello everyone, this is Roxy reporting from Vera Baby HQ. I hope you're all doing well!
It's been a short bit since we have posted news, but we have a bunch of new things to share with you!First up, Vera is the coverg... Read more...
And see my newest deviation:


text:
The post Going all in on GSU appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
GSU also has filed a petition for rehearing. They are seeking some corrections to inaccurate statements about what list of alleged infringements was considered by the lower court, as well as a ruling that the risk of market harm from electronic reserves is a question of fact that the lower court should be instructed to consider. That risk, GSU argues, should be proved; it is not something the appeals panel should have presumed.
It is important to understand there is little chance that these petitions will be granted. When a case is appealed from the lower court to a Circuit Court of Appeals, we call that an "appeal as of right." That is, that first appeal must be heard by an appellate panel. But thereafter, all subsequent appeals are discretionary; the court does not have to actually take the case, it has the option to deny the petition. Most people are familiar with the idea that the Supreme Court actually reviews only a tiny percentage of the cases for which it receives a petition for a hearing. Besides asking for Supreme Court review, the other option, after losing (or feeling like you lost) an appeal in front of a Circuit panel, is to ask that the entire group of judges in that Circuit reconsider the case. Like Supreme Court petitions, these petitions for en banc rehearing are rarely granted. In fact, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly say that petitions for rehearing are "not favored and ordinarily will not be granted" (FRCP 35(a)). For more information about these post-appeal options, interested readers should see this article from the law firm Reed Smith.
So does the petition from the publishers stand a chance? There are two reasons a petition for rehearing might be granted: when there is a split within the courts of the Circuit or when a "question of extraordinary importance" is involved. In their petition, the publishers rely on the latter claim, but it is not very convincing. They try to drum up controversy by suggesting that the panel ruling contradicts some Supreme Court precedents, but, again, the effort is weak. The petition relies on the 1980′s decision in Harper and Row v. Nation Magazine, which the Supremes themselves have seriously modified in later rulings. So when the publishers object that the panel ignored Harper's emphasis on the importance of the fourth factor, they are deliberately ignoring language from the later Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case.
The other source that the publisher petition puts a lot of weight on is the "special concurrence" by Judge Roger Vinson. Essentially, Judge Vinson dissented on every major point in the majority opinion, but concurred in the result. Taken together, the two opinions indicate that a lot of negotiation took place in the 11 months it took to produce the ruling. It suggests, in fact, that the other two panel judges — Tjoflat and Marcus — were actually more sympathetic to fair use than is expressed in the majority opinion. But what is important about the heavy reliance on Judge Vinson in the petition for rehearing is the fact that Judge Vinson is not a regular member of the Eleventh Circuit. He is a senior judge at the District Court level (in Florida) who was on the Appeals Court panel to fill a vacant seat (called "sitting by designation"). That means that he presumably will have no role in deciding whether or not to grant the petition, or in any actual rehearing, in the unlikely event the petition is granted. So the publishers have found a friend in Judge Vinson, but he is not a friend who can help them all that much.
This petition for rehearing is thus a long shot, and it reveals the stark opposition of these three publishers to fair use as it has traditionally been interpreted throughout the long history of U.S. copyright law. Let's look at the three principles the publishers say that they want and that the appeals panel got wrong.
The first point from the panel decision that the publishers say is wrong involves the idea of "media-neutrality." This is a huge red-herring that the publishes have been waving around to distract the various courts from the weakness of their case, and they lead off with it in the rehearing petition. Judge Vinson was convinced by this argument that if courts do not treat electronic reserves the same way print course packs were treated in the "copyshop" cases from the 1990s, they are violating a principle of media-neutrality. The majority opinion, on the other hand, tried to define the limited role that media neutrality has in copyright law, a definition the new petition claims was an error. There are a couple of important points that are getting overlooked in this discussion.
For one thing, there are many ways in which copyright is not media neutral. Many exceptions, for example, refer to specific media and specific technologies. There is a provision just related to royalties on digital audio recording machines, for example. The TEACH Act refers to transmission over a digital network, and is inapplicable to other types of distance learning. Broadcast television is treated differently than cable, and terrestrial radio differently than Internet radio. Since the law is therefore often media-specific, it was not irrational for the panel majority to try to define what media neutrality does, and does not, mean. The publishers want it to mean something very specific in order to benefit their case, but the panel looked at a principle-based definition that took account of how the copyright law as a whole really works, and rejected the publishers' ad hoc claim.
The reason for pushing this broad and self-serving definition of media-neutrality, of course, is to convince courts that the "course pack" cases are good analogies for electronic reserves. Since those cases found against fair use, the publishers' argument goes, the principle of media neutrality demands that fair use also be rejected for electronic reserves. But, in fact, neither the lower court nor the appellate panel has rejected the course pack cases because of a perceived difference between electronic and print fair use. This is just sand being thrown in the face of the courts to confuse them (it worked with Judge Vinson). The course pack cases are distinguishable instead on first factor grounds that have nothing to do with the media involved; those cases involved a commercial intermediary making and selling the course packs, which is an entirely different situation than is reflected in the GSU case.
The second claim the publishers make in their petition attempts to undermine the first fair use factor more directly by asserting that it should not favor non-profit educational uses unless they are transformative. Although the publishers assert that this is the meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, that is simply not true. Although that case laid great weight on transformation for many fair use decisions, it explicitly stated that not all fair use must be transformative, and cited "multiple copies for classroom use" as the paradigmatic case of a non-transformative use that is likely still fair. They get this phrase directly from section 107, of course. So the publishers are asking for a pretty radical reconfiguration of the copyright law here, that would directly defy the Supreme Court and the text of the law. It would be pretty audacious of the Eleventh Circuit to accept this argument, but the publishers are clearly going all in with their fight against fair use. It seems they are reasoning that if they can persuade the Eleventh Circuit into accepting this radical new view of copyright, they could at least get a shot at Supreme Court review by provoking a split in the circuits where none has previously existed.
Finally, the most troubling claim the publishers make is in their argument that the fourth fair use factor's emphasis on market harm, including "potential" markets, gives them the right to decline to offer a license for digital excerpts without tipping the fourth factor toward favoring fair use. The appellate panel correctly noted that this argument would demolish fair use, since it would allow a rights holder to say "we could have licensed this use if we wanted to, so allowing fair use damages the potential market we have chosen not to enter."
In one sense, I would like to see a discussion of this idea of potential markets. It should be seen as a gateway to consider the incentive purpose of copyright law. How would it create additional incentive for creation to permit publishers to refuse to license uses of academic works? These markets are not an end in themselves, but a vehicle to produce such incentives. Establishing a right to refuse to license does not serve this purpose at all. It is a selfish and antisocial argument put forward by the publishers to protect the artificial scarcity that they believe they must create in order to make money. In short, the publishers want the right to limit access to knowledge because they do not have the vision needed to run successful businesses in a changing environment.
What do we lose if that argument is accepted? Only our most cherished democratic value, the freedom of expression. Fair use has always been considered a "safety valve" for free expression that prevents a rights holder from suppressing speech he or she doesn't like by asserting copyright. If we were to accept this potential market argument, a rights holder would be a step closer to preventing scholarly commentary by denying a license for the quotations used in, for example, a review (as Stephen James Joyce famously tried to do regarding his grandfather's work). That might seem extremely unlikely on a larger scale, but we should remember that publishers often require their authors to obtain permission for the use of quotations beyond an artificially imposed word limit. Combined with this idea that denial of a license should not improve the fair use argument, the conditions for such suppression would be ideal.
The truly shocking thing about this petition is how openly Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Sage Publishing are now attacking free speech and the dissemination of knowledge. These are not "academic" presses anymore; their profit motive and shorted-sighted focus on protecting old business models has led them to assume an anti-academic stance that the scholarly community should not tolerate. They are demanding nothing less than a right to suppress and inhibit the spread of knowledge, simply by refusing to offer a license, whenever the believe that doing so is to their commercial advantage. I have often been asked if I think scholars, libraries, and others should boycott these publishers because of the lawsuit, and I have always said that we should wait and see where the cases goes. To me, it has now gone in an intolerable direction, one that threatens core principles of academic discourse. Everyone must make their own decision, of course, but I am now willing to say that I will neither publish with these three plaintiff publishers nor buy their products. They have declared war on teaching and the dissemination of scholarship, and I will not help them buy the ammunition.
The post Going all in on GSU appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Free speech, fair use, and affirmative defenses appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
Fair use doesn't "allow" large scale digitization and didn't "allow" digitization in the case of HathiTrust. The fair use provision does not allow anything up front- it has to be won through litigation. The fair use provision was used as an affirmative defense in litigation concerning the HathiTrust et al., and after much time and money spent in litigation, the court ruled, and the appeals court ruled, that HathiTrusts's activity could be considered fair.
This comment repeats a mistake that is very common in discussions of fair use — while noting correctly that fair use is an "affirmative defense," it concludes from that fact that fair use must be something unusual, a privilege that we rely on rarely because it is risky and difficult to prove. But, as I hope to show with the rest of this post, affirmative defenses are quite common; in fact, almost all positive rights have to be treated as affirmative defenses in litigation. We rely on things that are "allowed" by affirmative defenses all the time.
Basically, to call something an affirmative defense is to make a technical point about how it functions in a court case. We should not be frightened by the phrase or invest it with too much significance. Some of our most cherished rights would have to be called affirmative defenses in the technical sense that is the only proper usage of that phrase.
Consider the case of Cohen v. California (1971), one of our most important cases about the meaning of the First Amendment. Mr. Cohen entered the Sacramento court house wearing a piece of clothing on which he had written a profane anti-war message — "F**K the Draft" — and was arrested for disturbing the peace because that message was considered "offensive conduct." The Supreme Court ultimately held that it was protected speech, in spite of the profanity, and that Cohen's arrest was therefore improper. But let's imagine for a moment how the trial over this issue must proceed. The state would provide evidence that Cohen did wear the jacket, had deliberately painted the words on it, and knew what was written on his jacket when he entered the court house. Cohen's defense would then be to actually admit all of those points, but raise an additional fact — his words were political speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Free speech would thus function as an affirmative defense to vindicate Mr. Cohen's right.
I hope this example illustrates two things. First, all an affirmative defense means is that the defendant must raise additional facts or legal principles in addition to what the plaintiff or prosecution has asserted. This is not uncommon; anytime a defendant does more than simply deny the truth of everything the plaintiff says, they are raising an affirmative defense. Second, all of our most cherished rights in America can function as affirmative defenses in court, but that does not mean they are unusual or unreliable.
In any court case, the plaintiff has to prove some facts in order to establish that a "cause of action" exists. A defendant then has two avenues — he can simply deny the truth of some or all of what the plaintiff has said (we call that arguing that the plaintiff failed to meet her "burden of proof") or he can produce additional facts that show that what he is accused of doing is actually permissible (which is the defendant's "burden of proof"). If we take the Georgia State copyright case as an example, we can see both strategies at work. For over 20 of the challenged excerpts, GSU successfully argued that the publishers had not met their burden of proof by showing that they owned a valid copyright in the works in question. Since the publishers could not produce valid transfers of copyright, there was no further need for a defense. For 40+ other excerpts, however, GSU successfully argued some additional facts and showed that their use was fair use (although the Appeals Court has now told the trial court to reanalyze this). Just like Mr. Cohen in the free speech case, GSU invoked a positive right that is precious to all Americans, but in the context of the lawsuit that right was presented as an affirmative defense.
I can't say it often enough — when one is sued for doing something one believes is actually allowed by the law, that "right," whether it is free speech or fair use, is always presented in the form of an affirmative defense. All that means is that it is something which the defendant must raise to justify herself (something for which she bears the burden of proof), but these things are not rare, disreputable or frightening; they are the very rights that define our citizenship.
Fair use is one such right, and the copyright law very clearly calls it a right (in section 108(f)(4) of Title 17). It is a key and indispensable component of our system of copyright, as the Supreme Court has reminded us many times (E.g., Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) at 575). It is, especially, a "safety valve" that protects free speech from encroachment by copyright holders, and it is useful to think of those two rights — free speech and fair use — together.
So it is simply wrong to say that fair use does not "allow" anything because it is an affirmative defense, just as it would be wrong to say that about free speech. The First Amendment allows me to have campaign signs on my lawn during this election, even if my neighbors disagree strongly with me. It allows me carry a placard down a public sidewalk proclaiming that "The End is Near," if I am so inclined. It would allow me even to wear a swastika tattoo, as offensive as that would be to many. In the same way, there are many activities that we can say with assurance are allowed by the right of fair use. When we use a quotation from a previous work in a new article we are writing, we do not stop to do a individualized analysis because we know, and pretty much everyone agrees, that this is a settled instance of fair use. Nor do we need to re-litigate the Sony v. Universal Pictures case every time we want to record a TV show to watch at a later time; the Supreme Court has confirmed for us that doing this is allowed by fair use. And in the HathiTrust case, the Second Circuit told us that fair use supports large-scale digitization for the purpose of indexing and access for persons with disabilities. It is possible that a rights holder could challenge such an activity again, just as some government entity could again try to outlaw profanity in political speech. Possible, but unwise and very unlikely.
When we say something is an affirmative defense, all we are doing is indicating how it would be raised in litigation. Many of our most cherished freedoms would be raised as affirmative defenses. So we must resist the urge to allow ourselves to be frightened by that phrase or to accept arguments intended to make fair use seem odd, unusual, or risky. Fair use is no more unusual or dangerous than free speech is.
The post Free speech, fair use, and affirmative defenses appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Swimming in muddy waters appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
One affirmative point we can take from the case is that we know we still can, and must, do item-by-item analyses to make fair use decisions. But what exactly should the process for those decisions look like?
As Brandon Butler from American University has pointed out, the decision-making processes will be different when we are assessing uses for teaching that are transformative versus those, like e-reserves, that are not. We still have a good deal of freedom when the use is transformative — when the original material becomes part of a new expression, a new meaning, or a new purpose. And this is important for a great deal of scholarship and teaching. We should not lose sight of this important application of fair use, or assume, incorrectly, that the 11th Circuit ruling creates new limits on transformative fair use.
But when we must make decisions about digital course readings, we need to apply the "old-fashioned" four factor test. What does it look like after the Appeals Court ruling? I am afraid it has gotten pretty muddy:
The first fair use factor — the purpose and character of the use — continues to favor fair use whenever that use is undertaken by a non-profit educational institution. If a commercial intermediary is involved, as was the situation in the course pack cases, this is no longer true. But where there is no profit being made and the user is the educational institution itself, the first factor supports a claim of fair use. And that is where the clarity ends.
The second factor — the nature of the original — can go either way, depending on the specifics of the work involved. Is it more factual or interpretive? This is a judgment call, and one which librarians may be hard-pressed to make when processing a number of e-reserve requests in a discipline they are unfamiliar with. The good news is that the Court said that this factor is relatively unimportant, so the safest course may be to consider this factor neutral; call it a draw — at least where the item is not clearly creative — and move on.
On the third factor we thought we had a rule, even if many of us didn't like it — 10% or one chapter was the amount that Judge Evans said was "decidedly small" and therefore OK for fair use for digital course readings. The bad news is that we no longer have that rule. The good news is that we no longer have that rule. The 11th Circuit panel wanted a more nuanced approach, that balances amount with the other factors and especially looks at how appropriate the amount used is in relation to the educational purpose. When the other factors line up in favor of fair use, this approach could well allow more than 10%. If the other factors tend to disfavor fair use, only a much shorter portion might be permissible. It is just very hard, after this ruling, to have clear standards about the amount that is usable, and that makes things difficult for day-to-day decisions.
With the fourth factor — impact on the market for the original — the 11th Circuit made things even more unclear. The panel actually affirmed the lower court in its analysis of this factor, emphasizing that it is permissible to take into account the availability of a license for the specific use as part of evaluating this factor. So if a license for a digital excerpt is unavailable, does that mean this factor favors fair use, as Judge Evans said? Maybe, but the 11th Circuit added two complications. First, it said that the Judge should have included the importance of license income to the value of the work in her fourth factor reasoning, rather than treating it as an additional consideration for breaking "ties." Second, they said that the fourth factor should have more weight in non-transformational settings. How are we to put these instructions into practice? Libraries do not have access to publishers' accounts, as the judge did, so we cannot assess the importance of licensing income (nor can we trust publishers to give us straight answers about that importance). And what does more weight mean? If there is no digital license available, does more weight on this factor mean more room for fair use, perhaps of a larger excerpt? Again, maybe. But it also seems to mean that where such a license is available, even 10% or one chapter might be too much for fair use.
How does one swim in water that is this muddy? The answer, of course, is very carefully. We must keep on making those decisions, and we do have space to do so. The fair use checklist, by the way, received a relatively sympathetic description from the 11th Circuit, but not a definite embrace. At this point, my best advice is to keep on doing what we have been doing, thinking carefully about each situation and making a responsible decision. I would recommend a somewhat more conservative approach, perhaps, than I might have done three weeks ago, especially when a license for a digital excerpt is available. But the bottom line is that the situation is not much different than we have always known it to be, there is just a little more mud in the water.
The post Swimming in muddy waters appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post GSU appeal ruling — the more I read, the better it seems appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
There is a thorough and smart analysis of the ruling from Nancy Sims of the University of Minnesota found here.
For those of us struggling to make responsible fair use decisions on a day-to-day basis, this Appeals Court ruling doesn't actually change much. The message for us is that it could have been much worse, the case is far from over, and we must just keep on making the same kind of reasoned and reasonable fair use decisions we have been making for years.
What we got from the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit on Friday is a mostly negative ruling that outlines where both Judge Evans of the District Court and the plaintiff publishers are wrong, as the panel thinks, about fair use. To be exact, two judges — Tjoflat and Marcus — tell us those things. The third judge, Vinson, concurs in the result — the reversal and remand of the case — but would have accepted virtual all of the publishers arguments and closed the door on fair use for even very small classroom readings. His concurrence suggests that getting an opinion together was probably a difficult process involving a lot of compromise (it took eleven months), and it also tells us how bad the opinion could have been for universities. Instead, what the panel majority issued is mostly bad for the publishers.
In my opinion, there were five major principles that publishers wanted to get from this lawsuit, and in the Appeals Court ruling they lost on all of them:
These losses, which constitute the heart of what the publishers were hoping to achieve when they brought the lawsuit, are probably final. They are now binding precedent in the 11th Circuit, and persuasive throughout the country. The publishers could presumably appeal to the Supreme Court, but it seems unlikely the current Court would take the case because there is no split amongst the Circuit Courts, only a growing consensus about fair use.
So if the publishers lost on everything that really mattered to them, why was the case reversed?
First, as I have said, this is a big loss for the publisher plaintiffs, but it is not a win for GSU. With the reversal of the District Court ruling and the injunction and fee award vacated, their copyright policy is again up in the air. And, of course, they have lost the immediate prospect of collecting about $3.5 million in costs. But for now, they, like all libraries, should probably just carry on with their normal practices and wait to see what happens on remand.
When (if?) the case gets back to Judge Evans, who I very much doubt wanted it back, the fair use analysis will look somewhat different. The Appeals panel found specific errors in her analysis of the second and third fair use factors. On the second factor they have told her that she cannot presume that the works in question are all "informational." She has been told to do a work-by-work evaluation, but also told that this factor is not very important. On the third factor, the amount used, the panel said that her bright-line rule of no more than 10% or one chapter was too rigid (as would have been the much lower bright-line rule the publishers wanted). Here too, the Appeals Court wants a more nuanced and fact-specific analysis, looking at both quantity and quality (the heart of the work). Significantly, they have told Judge Evans to look at the pedagogical appropriateness of the excerpt when determining how the amount factors into a fair use analysis. Since this corresponds with what many of us tell campus faculty — use only what you really need and no more — it is nice that the panel approved. Finally, Judge Evans has been told to give the fourth factor — market harm — more weight, rather than counting all the factors equally. This would probably, but not certainly, result in fewer findings of fair use. Instead of the split we got — 43 fair uses versus 5 infringements (plus 26 for which there was no prima facie showing of infringement)– there would probably be a different division. Maybe 30 excerpts would be fair use and 18 infringing; who knows? But I think we should consider whether or not getting to that point really benefits anyone.
Which brings me to considering what the various players should do now, in light of this ruling.
The publishers, as I say, have pretty much lost even as it looks like they were winning. There is no good that can come out of a remand for them. At best they will get that different division between fair use and infringement as a result, and will be able to use it to spread a little more fear amongst academic libraries about the uncertainty of fair use. But that is not their real goal, I hope. They were hoping to radically change the landscape, and they have failed spectacularly. If there is any common sense left in their board rooms and executive suites, they need to considering settling with Georgia State and then engaging in real, good-faith negotiations with higher education and library groups. Don't open those negotiations with threats, as you did before. We now know how toothless your threats are. But it is still the case that libraries and faculties would like some standards they can follow that are realistic in light of what the courts have told us. There is no windfall for publishers in such negotiations, but there might be some stability, not to mention the savings they will realize if they stop wasting money on foolish and unavailing litigation.
As for academic libraries, this long, drawn-out case, although not over yet, appears to have been much ado about nothing. We still should be making careful, responsible and good-faith decisions about copyright and fair use, just as we have done for years. We need to educate ourselves, look at the array of precedents we have from the federal courts, and continue to do our best. There has been no revolution, and no dramatic alteration of the conditions under which we do our work. The bottom line is that, after this ruling, libraries should just keep calm and carry on.
The post GSU appeal ruling — the more I read, the better it seems appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post A reversal for Georgia State appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
Looking at its analysis of the four fair use factors suggests that applying the Court of Appeals' ruling will be challenging. The panel has held that th=Judge Evans of the District Court was correct to find that the first factor favored fair use, even though, both courts say, the use is not transformative. The non-profit educational character of the use seems to carry the day on that factor. On the other hand, the Appeals Court finds error in the District Court's sweeping finding that the second factor favored fair use. The panel also disagrees with the 10% or 1 chapter standard used by Judge Evans to decide about the third fair use factor, the amount used; they object to any mechanical standard and want a more nuanced, work-by-work analysis. The Court of Appeals also agrees with the District Court about the fourth factor — largely favoring plaintiffs when a digital license is available. But the 11th Circuit wants the factors to be balanced with a different touch; not treated as all equal.
What is interesting here is that it looks like a considerable victory for the publishers, but there is still a lot of work to do. Judge Evans will need to do her analysis over again, and the results will be different. But given the way the Appeals Court agrees with some parts of her initial analysis and corrects her on others, it is hard to predict, on first glance, what the final result will be.
A copy of the opinion can be found here. I am sure there will be lots more written about the, including by me, in the days to come.
The post A reversal for Georgia State appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Jury instructions go missing appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
Because they are so important and potentially so contentious, most states develop model jury instructions, or "pattern" instructions, as they are called in North Carolina, for a great many legal doctrines and situations. Access to these pattern instructions is important for litigants. Although their use is not required in North Carolina, using a pattern instruction creates a presumption that the jury was properly instructed. Also, specific variations that a litigant wants a judge to make in an instruction are best proposed as amendments to the pattern.
I admit that I have never consulted the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions. Nevertheless, I was dismayed to receive this announcement from the North Carolina Bar Association telling me that the free access I had to the Pattern Instructions as a member of the Bar would soon be ending. The story it tells is interesting and instructive.
First, the Pattern Jury Instructions are developed by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges. That is, they are created by state officials as part of their official duties. But unlike documents created by Federal employees, there is a copyright in these instructions, and that copyright has been given to the University of North Carolina School of Government. The SOG, in turn, has given a vendor called CX Corp an exclusive license to distribute the instructions. For over a decade the Bar Association contracted with CX to provide access as a member benefit to NC lawyers, but that contract is expiring and efforts to renew it have failed. A familiar story to librarians, of course, and probably due to the same, familiar reason that most licensing renewals fail — a demand for more money than the licensee feels it can pay.
For many North Carolina lawyers, the impact of this new regime will be minimal. Medium and large firms will just factor in the cost and effort of getting an individual subscription to the Pattern Jury Instructions. Presumably the UNC School of Government will realize more revenue from this gifted copyright. But I worry about pro se litigants and those who are represented by solo practitioners or small firms. Those folks might well be at a disadvantage in a crucial phase of a trial, the debate about how the jury will be instructed. They will either have to scrape up the money to purchase a print or electronic version of the pattern instructions, find one of the relatively few public law libraries where they can consult them, or else risk advocating for instructions that will be more easily challenged and undermined.
From this unfortunate situation, I want to draw two points that I think are of general relevance to those of us who think about copyright matters.
First, it is an important reminder that we cannot assume that public documents intended for a public purpose are necessarily public domain. The familiar provision in U.S. copyright law that puts documents created by the federal government in the public domain is, obviously, only about federal documents. The states can and sometimes do claim copyright in official state documents. They are often used as revenue sources, especially if there is a target audience of professionals, like building contractors or lawyers, from whom payment can be readily expected.
The problem with this situation is that the different states take different approaches to what is and is not in the public domain, and also that a single state may be wildly inconsistent about its approach to different types of documents it creates. In most states, most official documents are public domain, at least in the practical sense that they are reasonably accessible without cost. But odd things, like building codes or jury instructions or even an electronic database of the state's laws, many be exclusively behind a pay wall.
The other instructive point in this is the realization that copyrights, especially those held by state and local government, may be used to enact policy goals that have nothing to do with copyright. The purpose of copyright is, explicitly, to incentivize creation. Presumably the NC Conference of Superior Court Judges did not need the promise of royalties in order to compile the Pattern Jury Instructions; creating those instructions was simply a part of good judicial practice for the state. So here we had a copyright that wasn't doing any work. What can we do with it; how can we use it to make some money? Here's an idea, let's give it to the UNC School of Government as an added revenue source! They can exploit it in a way that would be inappropriate for the judges, and the state's flagship public university can reap the benefit.
This isn't necessarily a bad idea; at least, the purpose is worthwhile. But it is a public policy that copyright was not intended to serve, and it is worth noting that this can happen, and that not all the policies that are supported this way will be equally laudable. In the ideal world, states would be more transparent about what they claim a copyright in and why. And elected representatives should be given the chance to approve, or not, those policy ends that are furthered by the exploitation of copyrights claimed in state documents. At least that way, there would be some accountability when copyright is used for purposes other than that for which it was instituted.
While I was preparing this post, I encountered a somewhat parallel story about another legal document — the Bluebook that is the required citation manual for law students, lawyers, and litigants in many U.S. courts. As the blog TechDirt reports, this is another case where access for impoverished litigants may be important, but copyright protection allows access restrictions that impose financial barriers. Of course, unlike the Pattern Jury Instructions, the Bluebook is a privately created document, so there is less confusion about the appropriateness of the initial copyright. Nevertheless, Carl Malamud and his Public Resource allies have mounted a campaign asking that the Bluebook be made more accessible and, as it turns out, finding grounds to challenge the continued existence of a copyright in the work. Fascinating reading.
The post Jury instructions go missing appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Are fair use and open access incompatible? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
Briefly, the situation is this. An author has written a paper that critiques previous work, specifically about the existence, or not, of "striped nanoparticles." In order to assess and refute evidence cited in some earlier papers, the author wants to reproduce some figures from those earlier publications and compare them to imagery from his own research. He has encountered two obstacles that we should consider. First, his article was rejected by some traditional publications because it was not groundbreaking; it merely reinterpreted and critiqued previously published evidence. Then, when it was accepted by PLoS One, he encountered a copyright difficulty. PLoS requires permission for all material not created by the author(s) of papers they publish. One of the publishers of those previous papers — Wiley — was willing to give permission for reuse but not for publication under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license that PLoS One uses. Wiley apparently told the author that "We are happy to grant permission to reproduce our content in your article, but are unable to change its copyright status."
It is easy to see the problem that PLoS faces here. Once the article is published under a CC license, it seems that there is little control over downstream uses. Even if the initial use of the Wiley content is fair use — and of course it probably is — how can we ensure that all the downstream uses are fair use, especially since the license permits more types of reuse than fair use does? Isn't this why fair use and open licensing are incompatible?
But this may be an overly simplistic view of the situation. Indeed, I think this researcher is caught up in a net of simplified views of copyright and scholarly publication that creates an untenable and unnecessary dilemma. If we start by looking at where each player in this controversy has gone wrong, we may get to a potential solution.
Let's start with Wiley. Are they in the wrong here in any way? I think they are. It is nice that they are willing to grant permission in a general way, but they are probably wrong, or disingenuous, to say that they are "unable" to change the copyright status of the material. Under normal agreements, Wiley now owns the copyright in the previously published figures, so they are perfectly able to permit their incorporation into a CC licensed article. They can "change the copyright status" (if that is really what is involved) if they want to; they simply do not want to. The author believes this is a deliberate move to stifle his criticism, although it is equally possible that it is just normal publishing myopia about copyright.
There is also some blame here for the system of scholarly publishing. The roadblock encountered with traditional publishers — that they do not want articles that are "derivative" from prior work — is common; most scientists have encountered it. In order to generate high impact factors, journals want new, exciting and sexy discoveries, not ongoing discussions that pick apart and evaluate previously announced discoveries. We have found striped nanoparticles! Don't dispute the discovery, just move on to the next big announcement.
This attitude, of course, is antithetical to how science works. All knowledge, in fact, is incremental, building on what has gone before and subject to correction, addition and even rejection by later research. The standard of review applied by the big and famous scientific journals, which is based on commercial rather than scholarly needs, actually cuts against the progress of science. On the other hand, the review standard applied by PLoS One — which is focused on scientific validity rather than making a big splash, and under which the article in question was apparently accepted — better serves the scientific enterprise.
But this does not let PLoS off the hook in this particular situation. It is their policies, which draw a too-sharp line between copyright protection and open content, that have created a problem that need not exist.
First, we should recognize that the use the author wants to make of previously published figures is almost certainly fair use. He is drawing small excerpts from several published articles in order to compare and critique as part of his own scholarly argument. This is what fair use exists to allow. It is nice that Wiley and others will grant permission for the use, but their OK is not needed here.
Second, the claim that you cannot include material used as fair use in a CC-licensed article is bogus. In fact, it happens all the time. I simply do not believe that no one who publishes in PLoS journals ever quotes from the text of a prior publication; the ubiquitous academic quotation, of course, is the most common form of fair use, and I am sure PLoS publishes CC-licensed articles that rely on that form of fair use every day. The irony of this situation is that it points out that PLoS is applying a standard to imagery that it clearly does not apply to text. But that differential treatment is not called for by the law or by CC licenses; fair use is equally possible for figures, illustrations and text from prior work, and the CC licenses do not exclude reliance on such fair uses.
Next, we can look at the CC licenses themselves to see how downstream uses can be handled. If we read the text of the Creative Commons license "deed" carefully, we find these lines:
Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright.
Obviously, the CC licenses themselves expect that not everything that is part of a licensed work will be equally subject to the license; they realize that authors will — indeed must — rely on fair use as one of those exceptions and limitations to copyright. How should licensors mark such material? The most usual way is a footnote, of course. But a caption to the figure that indicates the source of the different pieces and even says that copyrights may be held by the respective publishers would work as well.
Finally, let's acknowledge that there is nothing new or unusual in the procedure recommended above. Traditional publishers have done things this way for years. When Wiley publishes an article or a textbook that asserts that they, Wiley, own the copyright, they are not asserting that they own copyright over the text of every quotation or the images used by permission as illustrations. Such incorporated material remains in the hands of the original rights holder, even after it is included in the new work under fair use or a grant of permission. The copyright in the new work applies to what is new, and downstream users are expected to understand this. Likewise, the partial waiver of copyright accomplished by a CC license applies to what is new in the licensed work, not to material that is legally drawn from earlier works.
So I think there is a way forward here, which is for PLoS to agree to publish the article with all of the borrowings under fair use or by permission clearly marked, just as they would do if those borrowings were all in the form of textual quotations. And I think we can learn two lessons from this situation:
The post Are fair use and open access incompatible? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post How useful is the EU's gift to libraries? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
There are news stories about the EU ruling here, here and here.
What the EU Court of Justice said is that, based on the EU "Copyright Directive," libraries have permission to make digital copies of works in their collections and make those copies available to patrons on dedicated terminals in the library, The Court is interpreting language already found in the Directive, and adding two points. First, library digitization is implied by the authorization for digital copies on dedicated terminals contained in the Directive, and, second, that this is permissible even if the publisher is offering a license agreement. Finally, the Court makes clear that this ruling does not permit further distribution of copies of the digitized work, either by printing or by downloading to a patron's storage device.
As far as recognizing what this decision is not, it is very important to realize that it is not the law in the United States. It is easy sometimes, when the media gets ahold of a copyright-related story, to forget that different jurisdictions have different rules. The welter of copyright information, guidelines, suggestions and downright misinformation can make the whole area so complex that simple principles can be forgotten. So let's remind ourselves that this interesting move comes from the European Union Court of Justice and is the law only for the EU member states.
The other thing this ruling is not is broad permission for mass digitization. The authorization is restricted to copies that are made available to library patrons on dedicated terminals in the library. It does not permit wide-spread distribution over the Internet, just "reading stations" in the library. That restriction makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that many European libraries would invest in the costs of mass digitization just for such a relatively small benefit.
So how does this ruling in the EU compare to the rights and needs of libraries in the U.S.?
Let's consider section 108(c) of the U.S. copyright law, which permits copying of published works for preservation purposes. That provision seems to get us only a little way toward what the EU Court has allowed. Under 108(c), a U.S. library could digitize a book if three conditions were met. First, the digitization must be for the purpose of preserving a book from the collection that is damaged, deteriorating, or permanently missing. Second, an unused replacement for the book must not be available at a fair price. Third, the digital copy may not be made available to the public outside of the library's premises. This last condition is similar, obviously, to the EU's dedicated terminal authorization; a patron can read the digital copy only while present in the library.
Two differences between the EU ruling and section 108(c) are especially interesting:
In the U.S., of course, libraries also can rely on fair use. Does fair use get us closer to being able to do in the U.S. what is allowed to European libraries? Maybe a little closer. Fair use might get us past the restriction in 108(c) about only digitizing damaged books; we could conceivably digitize a book that did not meet the preservation standard if we had a permissible purpose. And the restriction of that digitized book to in-library use only would help with the fourth fair use factor, impact on the market. But still we would have issues about the purpose of the copying and the nature of the original work. Would general reading be a purpose that supports fair use? I am not sure. And what books could we (or could we not) digitize? The specific book at issue in the case before the EU Court was a history textbook. But textbooks might be especially hard for a U.S. library to justify digitizing for even limited access under fair use.
If we wanted to claim fair use for digitizing a work for limited, on site access, my first priority would be to ask why — what is the purpose that supports digitization? Is a digital version superior for some articulable reason to the print copy we own (remembering that if the problem is condition, we should look to 108)? One obvious purpose would be for use with adaptive software by disabled patrons. Also, I would look at the type of original; as I said, I think a textbook, such as was at issue in the EU case, would be harder to justify under U.S. fair use, although some purposes, such as access for the disabled, might do it. Finally, I would look at the market effect. Is a version that would meet the need available? Although the EU Court said that European libraries did not need to ask this question, I think in the U.S. we still must.
Ultimately, the EU Court gave European libraries a limited but useful option here. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we have only pieces of that option available to us, under different parts of the U.S. law. It will be interesting to see whether, in this age of copyright harmonization, U.S. officials begin to reconsider this particular slice of library needs because of what the EU has ruled.
The post How useful is the EU's gift to libraries? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The first thing I learned is that offering a MOOC takes a lot of work, and it is easier when that work is [...]
The post MOOCs and student learning appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The first thing I learned is that offering a MOOC takes a lot of work, and it is easier when that work is shared. In my case, I was working with two wonderful colleagues — Anne Gilliland from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Lisa Macklin from Emory — who made the effort of putting the course together much more pleasant. Both are lawyers and librarians with lots of experience teaching the issues we were dealing with, and we are all friends as well, which made the whole process a lot easier. We also benefited from the terrific support we got from consultants working for Duke's Center for Instructional Technology, which may be the single most MOOC-savvy group at any university.
That we had a great team was not really a surprise. I was a bit more surprised however, and quite pleasantly, by the quality of the student discussion in our MOOC. I had heard from other instructors about how effective the online discussion forums could be, but was just a bit skeptical. Then I was able to watch as MOOC participants would pose difficult questions or struggle with the application of copyright law to a particular situation, and repeatedly the other course participants would work through the problem in the forums and arrive at surprisingly good answers. Peer-to-peer teaching is a reality in MOOCs, and is certainly among the best features of these courses.
One thing we know about MOOCs is that they often have participants with considerable background in the topic; often they have enrolled for a refresher or to see how someone else teaches the topic. These people are a great asset in the MOOC. Even if they are not amongst the most-likely participants to complete a course according to whatever formula for completion is in place, they are tremendously important to the success of the course because of the contribution they make to peer-learning in the discussion forums.
Acknowledging the contribution of "expert students" also offers a reminder to MOOC instructors to take a more humble approach to the standards we set for completion of our courses. The open and online nature of these courses means that students enroll with a wide variety of goals in mind. As I just said, some are experts looking to see how others teach the topic. Completion of quizzes and such may be unimportant to such participants, even though they are getting valuable career or personal development from the course.
Along these lines, I agree wholeheartedly with this essay by Jeff Pomerantz about apologies for failing to complete a course. Like Jeff, my colleagues and I got multiple e-mails in which participants explained their "failure" to complete the course. Like Jeff, we often smiled to ourselves and chocked those messages up to a misunderstanding of what MOOCs are. And like Jeff, we learned that there are so many reasons for taking a course, so many different goals that participants bring to their involvement, that it is more likely we instructors who need to get a better understanding of MOOCs.
Many of the participants in our specific course were librarians and educators; they were our target audiences, so that makes sense. These are groups that take assignments and course completion very seriously, which was reflected in our very high completion rate (over 15%). But it also means that these were folks who wanted to explain to us when they were not going to complete the course according to official standards. Maybe they did not realize that we were unable to track participation at an individual level due to the technology and the volume of students. Nevertheless, we needed to treat their desire to explain with respect, and to recognize that many of those who did not earn a certificate of completion probably got what they wanted from the course, and also very likely made important contributions to what other participants learned.
Last week I attended a meeting of Duke's MOOC instructors, which focused on discussions about how we can use data available about the MOOCs to learn more about the teaching and learning process. It was a fascinating meeting on several levels, but one thing I got from it was two stories about the kinds of goals that MOOC participants might have.
The other thing I learned from this meeting about potential research enabled by MOOCs is the myriad ways that these online courses can help improve teaching and learning on our own campus. Duke has said all along that improving the experience of our own students was an important goal of our involvement with MOOCs. When I heard this, I usually thought about flipped classrooms. But that is a very small part of what MOOCs can do for us, I discovered. I was privileged to listen to a comprehensive discussion about how the data we gather from MOOCs can be used to improve the student experience in our regular classrooms. Very specific questions were posed about the role of cohorts, the impact of positive and negative feedback, how we can harness the creative ideas students raise during courses, and how to better assess the degree to which individual students have met the unique goals they brought to the course. All of this has obvious application well beyond the specific MOOC context.
The most important thing I learned from the experience of teaching a MOOC actually has little to do with online courses as such. It is a renewed respect for the complexity and diversity of the learning process itself, and a sense of awe at being allowed to play a small role in it.
The post MOOCs and student learning appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Who owns that journal? — an update appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
In my earlier post, I summarized the facts of the dispute this way:
The SSHA has informed DUP that it wants to end its long-standing association and look for a different publisher for its flagship journal, Social Science History. The Press, however, asserts that language in their original contract means that the SSHA can stop participating in the journal, but cannot remove it from the control of DUP
The post Who owns that journal? — an update appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>


text:
- Advertisement -
Todd Barry
Features:Price: $20
Veteran Comedian Todd Barry has appeared in feature films like The Wrestler and Wanderlust, but he's most recognizable for his work as a bongo drum player on HBO's Flight of the Conchords or playing himself on FX's Louie. His current tour, "Crowd Work," promises a show based entirely on audience interaction. Barry's signature deadpan delivery and bitter sarcasm is set to leave the house in stitches.
Event Categories: comedy
September 20, 2013 at 8pmShow more...
3939 N Mississippi Ave
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Phone: 503-288-3895
- Ursula K. Le Guin Burns Down the National Book Awards
- An Ambitious Custom Home in Vancouver (?!) Shows What the 'Burbs Could Be
- Insider Secrets on The Princess Bride As Told to Us By Westley Himself
- Cathy Whims to Open an International Ham Bar
- The Guide to Black Friday at Locally Owned Portland Shops
- The Blazers' Guide to Portland
- Portland's Best Breakfast Spots
- Justin Timberlake: Bringing Classy Back
- Advertisement -


text:
Pictures of 'One Direction' Concert Dads Is Perfect [Video]
Dads don't want to go to a One Direction concert, and that's a fact.
Dads don't want to go to a One Direction concert, and that's a fact.
The Kansas City Royals gave Austin Sides the honor of throwing out the first pitch at a game this week, but that was nothing compared Austin saw after he threw it.
Dads make a video to address the issue of the 'Frozen' soundtrack.
Watch an amazing catch at the Tigers game by a dad who didn't even need to put his daughter down to make the grab.
Wesley is only one, but I think it's safe to say that he has caught an uncontrollable case of 'March Madness'.
Every dad with a little girl quietly dreads the day that his daughters interests turn to boys. This dad tried to take a preemptive strike in the war over dating, but it didn't go the way he planned.
A drunk dad was arrested in Flint early Monday morning after he decided to shoot his gun into the bathroom where an 8 or 9 year old boy was showering, luckily the boy was not struck.
Father's Day is fast approaching and we believe Dad deserves just as much man-pampering on his special day as Mom does on Mother's Day.
Every parent in the world learns to tolerate a certain level of ridiculousness in their lives that comes with raising a toddler. The really good parents remember that there are other people in the world who have no idea what exactly that means.


text:
Home » News » Public Safety
December 28. 2013 10:32PM
Snow ride ends with injuries in Pittsburg
Jennifer Hrenko, 40, of Fall River, Mass, was riding on Steward Young Road at Lopstick Lodge when she lost control of the machine, which ran up an embankment, throwing her from the vehicle.
The snowmobile proceeded to hit a building and ended up smashing into a tree. Investigators were not immediately sure what caused Hrenko to lose control of the snowmobile.
Officials said Hrenko was wearing a helmet and was taken to Upper Connecticut Valley in Colebrook for treatment.
State Fish and Game Conservation officers are continuing their investigation.
- Two taken to hospital after suffering burns in Wolfeboro house fire - 0
- Crews on scene of accident on I-93 in Salem - 0
- Weare residents turn out to express police department concerns - 1
- Tamworth man struck, killed by UPS truck - 0
- Two boys rescued from Hood Pond - 1
- Woman killed in Nashua crash - 0
- Wednesday night Derry blaze under investigation - 0
- Gunfire from police range disturbs Plaistow neighbors - 1
- Cause of Ashland fire investigated - 0
Epsom trucker, 65, killed in I-93 crash in SalemREADER COMMENTS: 0
- Police obtain warrants for suspect wanted in Dover, Manchester bank robberies - 0
- Abby Dion, 9, records a 10 in gymnastics meet - 0
- St. A skaters fall to Norwich - 0
- Monarchs lose in OT; win streak stops at 6 - 0
- Police searching for person stealing from cars in Manchester - 0
- College Football: Maine seniors want the coveted musket - 0
- College Hockey: Ice-making problem postpones UNH-PC - 0
- Pinkerton backfield a combination of power and speed - 0
- John Habib's City Sports: State Legion rejects Post 79's request for senior team - 0
Physician reprimanded after baby's brain damaged in deliveryREADER COMMENTS: 0
Jury acquits Mont Vernon driver, who was checking text, in death of former Amherst fire chief
Jury acquits Mont Vernon driver, who was checking text, in death of former Amherst fire chief
Offend someone? To jail with you!
Offend someone? To jail with you!
Driver acquitted in Amherst ex-chief's death
Driver acquitted in Amherst ex-chief's death
A kinder, gentler House Speaker?
A kinder, gentler House Speaker?
College Football: Wildcats are CAA champs
College Football: Wildcats are CAA champs
College Hockey: Providence blanks UNH
College Hockey: Providence blanks UNH
Sorry, no question available


text:
November 28, 2014
Stay up-to-date with KAKE News:
Tiger Woods' victory at the U.S. Open is proving
to be a costly one. A person with knowledge of the decision says
the world Number 1 will miss the rest of the season because of a
left knee that will require more surgery.
Woods had surgery to clean out cartilage April 15th, but later
suffered a stress fracture while preparing for his return to golf.
That's what caused his pain during the U.S. Open, which he won in a
19-hole playoff Monday over Rocco Mediate (MEE'-dee-ayt).
The medical problem will slow down Woods' pursuit of the
all-time record for major championship titles. He claimed his 14th
with that five-day, 91-hole marathon victory in San Diego, pulling
to within four of Jack Nicklaus.
Woods was last seen in public late Monday afternoon walking with
a pronounced limp across Torrey Pines toward the parking lot with
the U.S. Open trophy in his arms.
Woods played only seven times worldwide this year and won five
He will miss a major championship for the first time in his
career and will not be available for the Ryder Cup in September.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Added Apr 28, 2013
by SENEBO
Southend On Sea,...
I wanted a skirt with pockets so chose newlook 6106, skirt C. it cost me £1 to make, made from a polycotton tablecloth and fabric wardrobe cover, don't know what it is though it has a open weave which makes it see through, so that's why I lined it. Easy to make, I put in an exposed zip and like the way it came out
Apr 30, 2013, 11.00 PMby claudinka
Nice. I like the pockets.
Add to Favorites no one added it
Enter the code EARLYBLACKFRIDAY at checkout to save
Pattern of the Week
Seams divide the front for a detail minimalists will love! (This pattern is also a part of our sale)
Get the pattern on sale for $2.99...
Editors' Picks
We have marked down 50 sewing pattern to $2.99 only until Monday, so hurry!
Backstage Report
Our fabulous BurdaStylers of course! Today, save 30% Site-Wide With Code ThankYou14!
Editors' Pick
Satin takes the stage in this new collection of dresses, skirts, and fluttery tops.
You must allow our "request for permission" request to login to Burdastyle with Facebook.


text:
Senior Member
So, i apparently have an 8 second Delay in my stream, it says to disable hardware acceleration, but alas, I cannot do so with my Graphics card. Anyone know any other ways to reduce stream input lag, or is it not that big of a deal?
I have 8GB Ram
Thank you <3
© 2014 Riot Games, Inc. All rights reserved. Riot Games, League of Legends and PvP.net are trademarks, services marks, or registered trademarks of Riot Games, Inc.


text:
Updated: January 17, 2013 11:51 PM EST
AP Top News at 11:50 p.m. ESTThe Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) - He did it. He finally admitted it. Lance Armstrong doped. He was light on the details and didn't name names. He mused that he might not have been caught if not for his comeback in 2009. And he was certain his "fate was sealed" when longtime friend, training partner and trusted lieutenant George Hincapie, who was along for the ride on all seven of Armstrong's Tour de France wins from 1999-2005, was forced to give him up to anti-doping authorities.