Hi LorenaBR,

Just want to point out, in case you didn't notice, that "registration" on the NYTimes site is free. Articles are also free for viewing by registered users for 7 to 30 days (depending on what it says there). One only has to pay for articles that are no longer free to registered users of the site. (The site makes it clear when that is the case.)

In order to see the articles that are still free to registered users, it's best to log in first and then search for the link.

Also, there are many, many news sites that re-post the articles supposedly "within fair use," though often their right to do so is debatable. Before paying for an article, it is a good idea to google the title to see if one can find it already posted free elsewhere.

In one's own posts or comments online, one should be careful to post only links to the articles (as you did in this case) and not to copy and post the entire articles, because that violates the NY Times copyright policy stated on its site.

As a lawyer, perhaps you already have access to LexisNexis through your law firm.

LexisNexis is a resource that I use for my scholarly research and professional work. It is available through academic libraries to registered members of them. But it is only for those library communities' pedagogical and scholarly uses. Articles or links to them are not to be reposted publicly in ways that violate the copyright policies of LexisNexis. That's very crucial.

If you do have access to LexisNexis, then you can read NYTimes and other "Major Newspapers" there without paying fees (if your law firm subscribes to it and gives you password access).

Lawyers in the U.S. and around the world use LexisNexis for legal and other kinds of research. It really is the premier service in this area. If your law firm in Brazil does not yet subscribe to that service, you may want to ask it to look into the feasibility of its doing so.

Major research universities and some smaller liberal arts institutions subscribe to LexisNexis to offer that resource to their students and faculty for purposes of research and teaching. It's part of the license that LexisNexis offers academic institutional and other paying subscribers, but their academic or commercial Terms of Use/Service are exceptionally important to read and to follow scrupulously. LexisNexis terms vary according to the type of license that the subscribing institutions or commercial enterprises purchase. Academia has special licenses from LexisNexis with special terms that differ from those affecting commercial subscribers to the service, and the fee structure for non-profits differs from those of for-profit organizations (law firms are generally the latter). Governmental and non-governmental agencies (NGOs) may also have various options offered by LexisNexis. If interested, go to their website via googling them. It's probably an address like LexisNexis.com.

Hope this reply helps.

JSR, I tried more than once but found no way to access the article without paying for it. It was worth paying the USD 2.95 though.

In relation to an issue also mentioned by JeSuisReine in her thread An Open Letter about Intellectual Honesty, there is an article published by the NYT, called Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media in which the author, Jonathan D. Glater reports the growing tendency of blogs to become vehicles of the mainstream media.

It also tells that bloggers are also claiming for the same treatment normally applied to journalists, especially the right to protect their sources. The article is published in the March 14th edition.

The issue mentioned by JeSuisReine involves a litigation between Apple and a blogger that disclosed in the Internet privileged information regarding Apple´s products. When asked in court how and from whom the blogger obtained the data, he invoked legal provisions applicable to journalists that guarantee the right to protect the source. The issue is a serious one, because according to the laws in force in California disclosure of technological information is considered property theft.

JSR, I´ll follow the link indicated by you in Google. Thanx

Re: the title of the NY Times article: the implication is that Cinema Studies degrees seem to be the new fad or fashion taking the place of M.B.A.s (which used to be a new fad or fashion); they are not being compared to M.B.A.s in terms of business management skills etc.

Link to LexisNexis.com is this:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/

"Academic Universe" is the package offered to smaller colleges and university libraries for academic purposes. The main page lists the various products that LexisNexis sells to law schools etc. Perhaps as a graduate of a law school in Brazil, you can still use their library services (in library and online) as an alumna. You might want to see if that gives you access to LexisNexis if that university law school library subscribes to it. Or, if your law firm or legal government work office does.

Re: the case discussed in MR in my "Open Letter" thread. It is very controversial still whether or not *some* bloggers are to be considered "journalists" by courts in the U.S. Clearly, many bloggers are not "journalists." They may be "journaling" (keeping on online journal or diary), but they are not journalists in the sense of a reporter for a newspaper organization necessarily. Most bloggers write personal journals that they post online so other people can read them, but their function is more personal commentary on their own lives and interests than on fact-checked source-checked news items. In fact, the lack of fact-checking and credible use of sources separates many bloggers from bonafide journalists. They are not trained as journalists, they don't have the professional ethics of journalists, and they don't have any checks and balances (other than ISP Terms of Service/Terms of Use) on what they post.

So far the judge in the case mentioned rejected the concept of Think Secret being a journalist. The site is described by the judge as an "enthusiast site." It is also not a blog, but rather a web site.

Sorry--LorenaBR--that last reply was posted by me. Instead of signing in where "Name" is, I accidentally put the "Subject."

Check out http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/index.html

It's a place that the U.S. Copyright Office provides for reporting copyright "orphans": when people attempting to seek permission and authorization from copyright holders can't identifiy the copyright holders no matter how hard they try. The reports posted there may become public, it says; so please keep that in mind.

I was stimulated to find that link (hope I posted it right) first at http://www.culturecat.net (a blog on "rhetoric and feminism," by a Ph.D. candidate in English, leading me first to http://www.orphanworks.org and then to the U.S. Copyright Office link there.

Very interesting stuff I thought.