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.
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.
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
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.
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!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luth er_King%2C_Jr.%2C_Inc._v._CBS%2C_Inc.
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.
You're right, they're no more public events than sporting events, for which rebroadcast is strictly controlled.
At the same time, though, they really should be. The whole election process should be a public event. We should, if we wanted to, be able to look at exactly what's going on. We should know exactly who contributed to whom, we should have access to every recorded public appearances made by the candidates (political or otherwise, even if they're just sitting idly behind someone else making a speech). We should be able to know exactly who is involved with the ballots, who the people at the polling booths are, who they hand the ballot boxes to, where they go, who counts them, etc. We should definitely know what's going on inside the electronic voting machines.
What I want to know is not why all these things are being closed off, that's pretty obvious, people in power want to retain that power, they have a much easier time of it if people weren't watching their every move. No, what I want to know is why people aren't as outraged as they should be. Why has political dissent become labeled as "Anti-American"? Isn't that just about the most American thing you can do? Isn't that one of the founding principles? Isn't that how this country came to be in the first place? Why is it that people will get up and yell at their TVs when so-and-so is voted off the island or team A scores a touchdown but when they hear that yet another of our rights has been taken away all we hear is "sure, if it keeps us safe!" Are these people really willing to live in a police state with armed troops driving tanks down the street with orders to shoot anyone not wearing the proper clothes or out after curfew just so that they might be a little bit safer? Why is it that people will complain that things should be done about all this but aren't willing to get up and start it? (this particular one I'm currently guilty of)
What happened to us? Did they put something in the water supplies that make us more docile? Is it subliminal messaging on TVs? Perhaps it's the 60Hz AC that permeates the country? Maybe HAARP really does work and they've pointed it at us. I don't know what it is, but there's got to be some common link here, it can't be that we've all suddenly and independently lost interest in everything worthwhile.
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
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.
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"