Some media stories of note for Monday, April 29, 2013:

A study by Quantum Media Holdings suggests Americans are spending 16 minutes per hour attached to social media, Australians are spending 14 minutes and those in U.K. 13 minutes. The principal driver in this data is smartphone use. Fox Business reports that Quantum says a lot of the time spent is "ego-centric" generation of photos and messages about personal activities, more so than browsing content.

For years publishers have been pushing for Google to pay royalties for their content. But The Wrap notes another such advocate has entered the fray and he is no shrinking violet. Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein says Google's failure to pay creators for content amounts to stealing, and that technologist are earning billions while artists are struggling. He noted YouTube's dominance as a video site, expressed concern about the fate of newspapers and magazines in this environment, and encouraged Congress to pay a law that would generate royalties for creators.

A Canadian lawsuit stands to test the boundaries of libel in online comments. The former general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Brian Burke, has filed a lawsuit against 18 anonymous commenters who posted what he says are libels about him. He intends to unmask the commenters and pursue legal action against them. The Globe and Mail reports that privacy law experts believe it is only a matter of time before other such suits test the limits of what sites and message boards can legally post.

Media notes for Friday, April 26, 2013:

South Africa pushed through contentious legislation Thursday that restricts access to information and imposes fines and penalties including jail time for journalists who publish what the government considers secrets. The Guardian notes there is widespread agreement that the bill's onerous measures have been reduced in the five-year debate since it was proposed, but critics believe there remains discretion for the government to curtail press freedom. Some see it as the first erosion of democracy since apartheid was eliminated in the country nearly two decades ago.

The English-language Egypt Independent closed abruptly Thursday. The New York TImes reports that the site, one of the most aggressive in chronicling political change in the country, was experiencing financial difficulties that investors said could not be surmounted. But it also notes that its staff believes there was a political motive in the closure because of the site's criticism of the president and the Muslim Brotherhood. That observation is shared in a commentary on Tahrir Squared.

A new law in England and Wales makes it tougher to sue. The New York Times reports that the bill passed Thursday does not switch the burden of proof from the defendant, but it offers some provisions to strengthen their position. They can, for instance, claim the information was published in good faith and that it was in the public interest. The bill also is aimed at reducing "libel tourism," in which people chose England as a litigation venue even when publicity of the information was minor there.

Media stories of note for Thursday, February 14:

A British court of appeal has ruled that Google might bear responsibility for libellous posts on its Blogger platform if it has been alerted to the material and done nothing about it.  The Guardian reports court found that the five-week gap between the notification and response was insufficient and might leave it open to libel action. The decision, still open to appeal, might help frame the liability of platforms about defamatory material in the digital age.

Brian Morrissey, writing for Digiday, says journalists need to understand how advertising works. Models of advertising are changing in the digital sphere and journalists need to recognize the relationship between editorial and advertising content, particularly the emergence of sponsored content. "Separation of church and state is a lovely concept, and it still makes sense in many instances. But the idea that journalists can remain aloof from their real industry — and that’s advertising, for the most part — is a fallacy," he writes.

The Knight Foundation is expressing regret about the $20,000 speaking fee for Jonah Lehrer earlier this week, Poynter's Julie Moos reports. And Forbes.com's Jeff Bercovici encouraged Lehrer, whose work was discredited in a plagiarism case last year, to return the funds or donate them to a scholarship --- to no avail.