Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Engineering Library- R857.O6B54 2016

Location: Sciences Library Library- RC78.7.D53B56 2012

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Coordinates, QA's and launches the company's email campaigns.

The email campaign specialist has overall responsibility for the e-mail campaigns produced & launched by the company

The job includes: scheduling internal clients' webmail campaigns, trafficking the production team (writers, designers and database), QA'ing their work, uploading and launching the email campaigns through third-party email-marketing service providers and managing the company's accounts with those providers.

Requisites:

• High responsibility position
• High level of English communication, both verbal and written. All internal and external communications are carried out in English only.
• Good organizational skills - manage fluctuating demand from multiple sources.
• An eye for detail - must be able to QA content, design and links
• Team & Service oriented - works closely both with internal production team as a coordinator, and with clients as a service provider.
• Computer savvy – at ease with data management applications such as Excel, Sharepoint
• Reading HTML - and advantage

It's not just the pros who want control. Over the weekend the NCAA ejected a Louisville Courier-Journal reporter from a college baseball championship for live-blogging the game. Brian Bennet reports that he had been posting updates throughout the game on his Courier-Journal blog, until, at the bottom of the fifth inning, "an NCAA representative came to my seat on press row and asked for my credential and asked me to leave. I complied."

Apparently, according to a memo NCAA circulated, the college athletic association believes that live-blogging interferes with its revenue streams from broadcast licenses:

The College World Series Media Coordination staff along with the NCAA Broadcasting group needs to remind all media coordinators that any statistical or other live representation of the Super Regional games falls under the exclusive broadcasting and Internet rights granted to the NCAA's official rights holders and therefore is not allowed by any other entity. Since blogs are considered a live representation of the game, any blog that has action photos or game reports, including play-by-play, scores or any in-game updates, is specifically prohibited. In essence, no blog entries are permitted between the first pitch and the final out of each game.

Now there are legal and policy questions here: First off, this wasn't a copyright or misappropriation claim. If the reporter had watched or listened to a broadcast and blogged details from there, the NCAA would have no claim against him (see NBA v. Motorola, where the basketball association lost just such a claim). It can't claim ownership of the facts, even if it currently makes money from selling privileged access to the facts.

Instead, the NCAA was clamping down on the data through a claimed right to control physical access to the game, at least to the press box. Was the NCAA within its legal rights to revoke a press credential? Probably. The NCAA has no obligation to issue press credentials, and apart from anti-discrimination law, can condition them on whatever arbitrary terms it likes. But David Price points out another twist: The University of Louisville, where the game was played, is a public institution, subject to First Amendment limitations on the speech-limiting rules it can impose. Can it ban speech or allow others to do so on its space based on claimed disruption to a business deal? Does it depend whether a baseball stadium is a "public forum"? (Under current law, it's probably not.)

Finally, there's the policy. Even if banning bloggers is legally permissible, it;s silly. Silly of the NCAA to think it can keep up this kind of control, silly of licensees to see blogs as a substitute to what they're licensing, and silly of schools to endorse and accept such policies for their student athletes' games. Exclusivity of facts is unlikely to last long in practice, as the Courier-Journal reports: "The Oregonian newspaper in Portland decided to work around the rules by blogging Oregon State's game against Michigan on Sunday off a radio broadcast in its newsroom, said its executive editor, Peter Bhatia. He said the newspaper heard no objections from the NCAA and planned to do the same yesterday."

According to observers and civil society NGO participants, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights will not recommend a Diplomatic Conference on the proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. In non-WIPO-ese, that means broadcasters won't get the unjustified grant of copyright-plus rights they've been asking for. Instead, they'll still have copyright protection for their programs, while the public will get its fair use without an extra layer of exclusion.

From Intellectual Property Watch » WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Talks Break Down:

World Intellectual Property Organization negotiations for a treaty on rights for broadcasters broke down at the eleventh hour, according to participating government officials. A high-level final treaty negotiation scheduled for November will not take place, they said.

The SCCR, which does its work through "non-papers" and meetings in Geneva, has been pushing for a broadcasting treaty for nearly a decade. It was nearing its conclusion, sending the draft on to a Diplomatic Conference to be adopted as an international treaty, when delegates apparently finally recognized they could not reach consensus. The latest draft would have added DRM-protection, anti-circumvention, and new exclusive rights to broadcasts, threatening innovations like TiVo and SlingBox. While the United States was at most stages willing to sell out its innovators, even pushing at times for grant of new "webcasting" exclusive rights, Brazil, India, and the Africa Group took the lead in rejecting a new treaty if it lacked public rights and exceptions to balance those granted to broadcasters.

EFF and KEI, among others, have been keeping this process under scrutiny for a long time. Amazing how similar the debates look to what I first helped live-blog in 2004.

Update: Not dead yet? Jamie Love reports the "surreal" draft conclusions of the Chair, that a Diplomatic Conference should be held in 2008.

ICANN's travelling circus meets in San Juan, Puerto Rico this week. One of the main subjects of discussion has been the introduction of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), after a GNSO Report proposed 19 "Recommendations" for criteria these new domain strings should meet -- including morality tests and "infringement" oppositions.

I spoke at a workshop on free expression. (another report) It's important to keep ICANN from being a censor, or from straying beyond its narrow technical mandate. The thick process described in the GNSO report would be expensive, open to "hecklers' vetos," and deeply political.

Instead, I recommended that, along the lines of David Isenberg's Stupid Network, ICANN should aim for a "stupid core": approve strings after a minimal test for direct or visual collision. Just as we couldn't predict what applications or content would be successful on the Internet, but benefit from the ease with which innovators can experiment with a wide range, we'll benefit if entrepreneurs can experiment with new TLDs without a lot of central pre-screening. Rather than supporting a race to the bottom to adopt restrictions on the lines of the most restrictive government views of permissible expression (no human rights, sexuality, or "hate"), we must leave it to the governments to apply those restrictions at the edges too, in their own jurisdictions if they insist, but not at the center on all.

Of course I do not support government censorship even at the local level, but between local control, which can itself be a source of experimentation, and central control, which becomes ossified and restrictive at the lowest level, I think local law poses less threat to global free expression. If you agree that ICANN should keep moral judgments out of the DNS root, sign the petition to Keep the Core Neutral.

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42289 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42431 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42429 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42302 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42296 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42380 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42383 DVD

Location: Main Media Collection - Video record 42423 DVD

Location: Government Information - J 16.1:929-30/SUPP.

Location: Law Library- KF301.S8653 2015

Location: Government Information - J 1.42/3:SD-J-4

Location: Government Information Storage- HE5614.3.I8C733 198417-P712HS 2:C894 1984

Location: Government Information Microfiche- HE5614.3.I8C734 198517-P712HS 2:C894 1982/83

Location: Government Information Storage- HE5614.3.I8C728 198117-P712HS 2:C894 1978/79

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource-