Slashdot Mirror
NBC Believes They Own Political Discourse
PoliSciASU writes "MSNBC has established draconian rules regarding the use of the Presidential Primary Debates on the internet. Some examples: '5. No excerpts may be aired after 8:30 pm on Saturday, May 26th. Excerpts may not be archived. Any further use of excerpts is by express permission of MSNBC only. 6. All debate excerpts must be taped directly from MSNBC's cablecast or obtained directly from MSNBC and may not be obtained from other sources, such as satellite or other forms of transmission. No portions of the live event not aired by MSNBC may be used.' Kevin Bondelli talks about why this is 'shameful and wrong'. Voters are missing out on the ability to actually have an engaged conversation about the candidates and their debate performances because of NBC's greed." Alexander Wolfe at InformationWeek and Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine share similar sentiments, and discuss the matter in different ways.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Remember kids, Preview!
Grrr. Fair Use!
Well, they've paid for it so it is not too unreasonable. Besides, I thought big business allready owned US politics.
I once lived in a country with a very muzzled press, but everybody knew this and was suitably skeptical.
In the USA people live under the illusion of a free and open press which means that they believe the news media. How easily they are fooled!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Adaptation of existing contractual usage rights...
Not here to defend NBC or MSNBC; however, if you look at the industry standard wording for usage of their content is exactly this.
This applies to CNN using content from the debate to any Radio show across america. The exception here is that this debate was not on free air waves, so they are using industry standard usage right sharing policies.
Yes they need to update with the times of Internet and people sharing media, but out of ALL the major news outlets NBC and MSNBC have been some of the most liberal about usage on places from Youtube to grandma's website.
Even Olbermann himself said in the segment prior to the debate that the internet would create the winners and losers of the debate if anything major happened, as it would be shared and up on sites like YouTube before the night was out. So do you really think MSNBC doesn't get it?
Ya, the wording isn't ideal, but if this was a 'major' issue with MSNBC, they would have had places like YouTube yank Olbermann and other shows a long time ago, and they just haven't.
I know we like to get excited about things like this here, but I see smoke not fire.
Who cares? Politics is for the Elderly, white middle-aged middle-class, and twelve other people. And then half of them vote. Although, perhaps we shouldn't blame the media...
Are the voters are missing out on the ability to demand that the candidates not accept this? You have almost a month to be heard, and felt if you watch where you spend your money.
What?
I used to think these televised debates were a good idea until I watched the debates between Gore and Bush. For anyone watching the first debate it was blatently obvious that Bush was totally and utterly out of his depth and could not possibly be considered a credible candidate. Gore was devoid of charisma but was at least informed and coherent. Yet by the time the third debate came round the much of media had managed to portray Bush's lack of awareness and knowledge as a good thing(tm) because he was 'trying' and that Gore was a pompous arrogant know it all because he happened to be properly informed with facts and figures and could substantiate his responses. Utterly astonishing. It seems the debates themselves are irrelevant now and its the media circus that follows them that matters.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Who is going to do the dirty work? There is still an audience. One video camera will render this nonsense moot. Personally, I would prefer the complete video that a private citizen would most likely post opposed to the "talking points" the media would feed us.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
It's not as if they just walked in, set up cameras, and said "we'll be running these debates -- everyone else out NOW!!"
If they have this extreme level of control that basically means they *paid* for it, somehow, and outbid everyone else.
Or did they just ask all the candidates nicely?
Personally, I think this should be illegal. The output of our political process should be public domain immediately. Tax payers are paying the salaries already of most of these candidates, and funding the rest of the election process. If MSNBC wants to pay the costs of running the debates -- hey, sure, let them put their logo on the podiums or whatever, but the content of the debates themselves should not be permitted to be sold.
Pre-election debates are one of the single best ways for the public to actually get a sense of who they'll be voting for... they aren't perfect, but we at least get some back and forth, and some of the more difficult questions get raised.
I don't know much about how the debates are set up currently, but this just isn't working.
It should not qualify for copyright protection. It is not an "entertainment performance". It is not a play, it is not a television show, it is not a pundit special. What candidates say is newsworthy and anyone should be able to record their own footage or for logistical reasons MSNBC may record it on their own but they should not be able to claim copyright over the footage of a newsworthy event or else other news organizations and journalists of all stripes including bloggers should be free to record their own versions , whether openly or secretly. This is not an entertainment performance, it is not a professional sporting event, this is a political debate and the public owns it.
How does a recording of a debate by our presidential candidates in which there is no other content other than the debate itself and the MSNBC is simply acting as the host and moderator qualify as a creative work that is eligible for copyright?
In addition, is not the debate itself newsworthy and therefore not an entertainment event that could be restricted as to who may record it or later show it.
Who is this "dubya" you say is president of NBC?
Is he related to FUD-ya?
Somehow they also believe that a system where one of two groups has controlled the government for the last 150 years is an open multi-party system.
It's ironic this incenses people so... these are debates between candidates already vetted by those in control. The powers that be don't care which one gets elected... they own them all!
I was under the impression that any government work was paid for by tax dollars and was therefore covered under public domain laws. Surely the taping of an event does not, by some magical feat, erase the fact that it is a government production, and ergo the public may use any footage of it as they please?
The when, where, and how of primary and presidential debates are decided by committees. Those committees can negotiate the conditions of the debates and the ownership of the audio/video material.
I suspect that the conditions for the democratic primaries are decided by some committee in the DNC. So, the people to complain to in this case are in the DNC. If the next debates are held and released under the same restrictions, then you have your answer: the DNC either doesn't care or prefers it this way. Same for the RNC.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the DNC and RNC prefer the debate videos to be tightly controlled. The idea of hundreds of debate clips showing up on YouTube and being analyzed and discussed almost certainly scare the political control freaks in those organizations, and this way, they think they have at least some means by which they could stamp out unflattering uses of that video content.
Now you can spin whatever story without fearing that someone might rewind and play again to see in the next election that you bullshitted them. Nobody can prove it anymore, nobody can hold it against you that you are afraid of nukular weapons or that you invented the internet. It simply won't exist anymore. Except, of course, in stories and pages picking at you, but it's easy to discount them as slander and propaganda.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luth er_King%2C_Jr.%2C_Inc._v._CBS%2C_Inc.
True. Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2063979,00.h tml
My web domain.
In the industry, this is called an "embargo", and it is absolutely typical. MSNBC owns their broadcast of the debate (under copyright law, they're the "creator" of the "creative work"), and these embargoes establish the degree to which they're willing to share their footage with other media outlets, for the sole reason that they depend on others sharing their work with MSNBC under similar terms. That it is a political news event is irrelevant -- similar terms would be used for coverage of breaking news, sports events, etc.
If anything, it's notable that MSNBC is willing to allow use by websites at all. A few years ago, there would be no such terms discussed, or there'd be a simple "no posting online".
If the terms were "take all you want and do what you want with it", the prevailing thinking is that anyone could broadcast or post the event in its entirety, without paying a dime, which would be a severe disincentive to MSNBC's production of it in the first place, which in turn would mean that all the MSNBC staffers and freelancers would be out of a job.
Full disclosure: I worked for CNN for 3.5 years.
I've often heard the "it doesn't matter which major party I vote for, they're the same" line. Baloney and Fiddlesticks! Just a weak rationalization from those too lazy to exercise their responsibilities as citizens I say.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry? Personally I won't give Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporate media illuminati club that much fnord credit.
"They" care who gets elected as it touches their bottom line in a real way when, say, the governement tells you that you have to, in one case, clean up your residential toxic waste dump, or in the other case it looks the other way by (the illegal) non-enforcement of laws already on the books.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
MSNBC has established draconian rules regarding the use of their coverage of the Presidential Primary Debates on the internet.
There you go.
Now if theirs is the only coverage that exists, then I humbly suggest that that is the real issue here. Important, planned events should be recorded by multiple independent parties; allowing anything else is just plain wrong.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
However, would you agree with the following sentence?
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered,- the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
For comparison, I see no draconian restrictions on the Congressional Record.
If you're not voting third party, you're wasting your vote.
If you don't vote what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
The people elect the government they deserve.
Two options is only one more than they had in the Soviet Union.
Every November the same party wins: the Politician Party.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
It amazes me that for all the talk of reform and eliminating corruption in government, no one ever addresses the fundamental issue: lack of choices, which is caused directly by our (plurality) voting method. Give non-Dem/Rep voices a fair and equal chance to discuss and promote the merits of their platform instead of dismissing them outright. This means changing the voting system to something that doesn't predetermine the "leading two". Anything other than this is a charade. A previous poster had it right - "they" don't care who wins, because it's still one of "them". The real danger (in "their" minds) is if an outsider were to get in and shake things up. Yes, the past 6 years have really demonstrated the truth in "not a dime's worth of difference". Who'd've thought that a member of the "party of Reagan" would preside over the largest budget increase in history? Both parties want bigger government, so they can curtail your rights - whether they grab them from the left or the right makes no difference in the end.
Constitutionally Correct
Thats because the media controls it, decides what we do and dont see/hear.. yep, they own it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, the most obvious one that comes to mind is that if Gore had won, a) we wouldn't be in Iraq and b) we'd still have standing in the international community.
Off the top of my head, a few examples of major things that would've been different if Bush hadn't become U.S. President:
- We wouldn't be in Iraq (probably still in Afghanistan though). The troops would have had a CinC that had actually seen combat in Vietnam (and would supposedly eager to avoid making the same mistakes).
- The federal budget would've been a helluva lot more balanced (especially if the Congress had remained in Republican hands).
- The U.S. government wouldn't be regarded with contempt by most of the rest of the world, including many of our "allies".
- There probably wouldn't have been such a big emphasis on torture & "extraordinary rendition" as part of our response to 9/11 (see #3 for partial results of that).
- The Supreme Court wouldn't have had a couple more big-business apologist, social-moral-enforcing, excuses for jurists.
- The various federal agencies wouldn't have been populated with a bunch of incompetent neocon political tools.
I'm sure even YOU could think of a couple others if you're willing to put some thought into it rather than a stupid knee-jerk "they're all the same!" response.Kerry could have just stayed in the White House & picked his nose for his entire term, and the country would've been better off than it is now.
Remember that the debates are ran by a joint R and D controlled group that excludes third party candidates. There is no real debate. The Libertarian and Green presidential candidates were arrested while trying to attend the 2004 debates: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=40843
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
16% of our GDP is spent on healthcare (should be 11%, like the UK or Canada)
31% of healthcare budget is spent on administrative costs (as opposed to 16% in Canada. Could be waaaay lower with use of technology and insurance reform - the second REQUIRES governent intervention)
84% of US citizens are covered by health insurance (should be 100%, again, like in the UK, Canada, Australia - just about every first world nation)
I've lived in Australia, Canada and the US - and have experienced first-hand all of their healthcare systems. Australia was - hands down - the best. I got the care I needed and paid nothing. Emergency room visit? US$45!! US emergency room visit for same problem? US$450. All of that went to insurance. PRIVATE insurance, mind you.
Besides empty rhetoric, what experience do you have? What stats do you have to back up that it could be worse? What good and practical reasons would you have for denying 16% of fellow US citizens basic healthcare? If the Canadian system sucks because it is "socialized" then why do they spend less on healthcare and yet insure a higher percentage of their people? If we could lower the administrative costs through insurance reform and a national databank of healthcare information, we could insure the remaining 16% with no other changes whatsoever. That doesn't even scratch the surface of reducing fraud (The state of Tennesee loses 54M a year in drug fraud (BCBSTN) - a simple webpage where nurses could share information cut that in half in a single year). Guess who had to push BlueCross to do it? That's right... the government. Because BlueCross was making money off of the fraud! All they had to do was charge higher premiums to everyone to cover the cost, and write it off. Fuck your broken system.
Don't fault this diatribe for being about one single sentence in your argument... the fact that you spout such nonsense without knowing the facts throws all of your conclusions in a suspicious light.
Whore Yourself... @ http://whorapedia.com/
From a Constitutional perspective, this is good and bad. Constitutional analysis generally hinges on text, history, policy and precedent. Article 1 section 8 clause 8 (IP clause) would definitely support NBC's position. Further, the First Amendment would arguably dictate that NBC cannot be compelled to "speak" through the disclosure of its "expressive" production. The history also supports NBC, news organizations have nearly always charged for their political coverage, so the framers arguably had this in mind.
However, the values or policy behind the First Amendment run up against those of the IP Clause in this instance.
There are two competing policies at issue here.
1. The goal of a fully informed voting public.
2. The goal of incentivising the production and distribution of political information.
The "marketplace of ideas" and "good government" theories are recurrent in First Amendment jurisprudence. Requiring dissemination would add information to the marketplace of ideas and provide for good government through a well informed electorate. Two other policy factors are relevant, political speech is the most protected form under the First Amendment and monopolies on political information should be highly scrutinized. The policy side seems to be weighted in favor of unrestricted distribution.
The precedent would tend to view the copyright act as a facially neutral generally applicable law with only incidental effects and therefore, regardless of the political nature, valid. For example, in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. a Republican campaign worker provided documents relating to criminal charges against a Democratic candidate. Cohen did so under a contract for confidentiality. When the Tribune found out the Democrat's charge was merely for participation in a political protest, the paper published the fact that Cohen provided the information. Cohen sued and won. The Supreme Court upheld the award over a First Amendment challenge because the theory of Minnesota law Cohen won on was generally applicable. The point is, the information at issue was very relevant to the political process but could be regulated regardless. (note that Cohen is a press clause case as opposed to a free speech case). The same is true of copyright law, it is only an incidental regulation and is generally applicable because it does not target political speech.
Ultimately, if the NBC video showed up on YouTube, an argument could be made that it should not be protected by copyright. The argument would boil down to the policy of promoting political news coverage versus the need for disemination of that coverage. Applying copyright law here is both good and bad (don't forget Slashdotters the GPL is a copyright).
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
I would be inclined to agree with you if this were a broadcast network we are talking about. FCC regulations compel broadcasters to cover events like this as part of their licensing agreement. The must cover events that are of broad interest to the people, namely news, political debates, and election coverage. That in a sense makes the networks a proxy of the government and as such the information broadcast should be freely available since we all payed for it in the form of licensing the publicly owned airwaves to the networks. However, even such a broad interpretation falls apart because the only product of the government that must enter the public domain is that which is produced by a government agency. Stuff produced for the government by private contractors is not subject to being placed into the public domain automatically. Further, since MSNBC is a cable network not a broadcast network, the FCC rules don't even apply to them. So MSNBC clearly has the right to restrict their coverage how they see fit. The real problem is broadcast networks not covering these debates in the first place, if they are not. We must not allow them to shirk their responsibilities, that is the real crime here.
+0 Meh
Forgive my asking but where exactly does it say MSNBC are the only ones allowed to record this?
Rather than assuming they are, how about we go with the assumption they're not? At that point:
If you want to record your own damn footage, go ahead.
MSNBC are being helpful and sharing the footage they paid for a camera crew to go to, they paid for the equipment to record, they paid to make available. All they're saying is, "If you want to use the footage that we went to all of this expense for, please credit us and don't broadcast it against the slot we intend to use to make that money back and hopefully, in an entirely American way, make a profit from too."
Is it really wrong to ask for credit for something you put money in to the creation of?
Is it really wrong to say, "Hey, you're welcome to share - just not at the one time we're hoping to leverage our investment."?
Is it really wrong to say, "Please take the original stream rather than post compression or rebroadcast in a way that might interfere with those rebroadcasters' policies."?
If you get over the assumption that they have some kind of monopoly - and it appears to just be an assumption - the company giving away their work with minimal practical restrictions, whilst letting you still record your own version if you don't like them, is hardly the most heinous crime known to man.
Of course it's always more fun to assume the worst. But then you know what they say about "assume"
There is a simple solution to excessive restriction by broadcasters of the presidential debates and such: change copyright law. Remember, copyright is not some sort of natural right - it is a privilege granted by legislation under a constitutional provision that explicitly gives as its purpose the public benefit. If broadcasters, political parties, and the like use copyright in a way that is against the public interest, let's take away the privilege.
What I suggest is that copyright law be amended to exempt certain categories of political speech. Perhaps the exemption should be broader, but for present purposes, let's say that copyright will not apply to any speech or writing (e.g. position paper) by a candidate for public office made during his or her campaign. The broadcasters and publishers will still cover these events - they will lose only residual royalties, which are hardly necessary to support their business.
The problem with your idea is you're working under the assumption that the presidents do what they choose, as opposed to the reality that presidents do what they are told by unelected power brokers and and power managers that the parties keep in place 100% of the time. You really think GW Bush, with his demonstrated ability to just barely put two words together correctly about half the time, is the intelligence manipulating things like the justifications offered to the public to go into Iraq? You think he can even understand the bills that can cross his desk? Don't be absurd. Mr. "I'm the decider" nuk-u-lar mental-mangler isn't running anything. He's being run. Cheny is another matter - he's intelligent enough, but he's still a puppet. Whoever the party decides to put in there (and they do decide - your choices are limited to those the parties choose for you to choose from, and even in the end, the electoral college will choose the winner, not your vote) that person is well aware that they'll be following the cues given to them like a well planned script. This isn't a democracy; it is a mutated republic with an ultra-powerful upper class whose primary concern is the welfare of the corporate citizens. It is so far from reacting to citizen input that it is almost incomprehensible. Which in turn is why you don't understand it.
Right now, there is exactly one presidential candidate that stands out as really backing a lot of the ideas we, as citizens, hold dear. That is Texan Ron Paul, and the one thing you can just about count on as a certainty is that he will not be made president. But should the unthinkable happen, the other thing you can count on is that he will have caved in and accepted oversight. He'll do what he is told.
Here is an outline of the simplest multi-party general deception these politicians use: Politician A, in power, does something citizens won't like. Politician B, after the fact, claims something along the lines of "I wouldn't have done that!", Politician B, for whatever reason, gets into power. He is now A, and the loop begins again. Also - should B make campaign promises, they won't be kept. Clinton didn't help the gays. Bush didn't keep taxes down. No one has protected our liberties. No politician will make any difference at all. The system is flat out "busted." As a citizen, your rights are gone. In fact, of the Bill of rights, only amendment 3 remains untrampled. The only reason for that, though, is because they don't need it - the military is fully capable of handling its own lodging.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.