Slashdot Mirror
Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama recently submitted a letter to the DNC asking for the Presidential debates to be licensed under the Creative Commons. This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish. "I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
This is definately something I can stand behind regardless of which party it comes from.
I'd still like to hear his thoughts on related topics like the content cabal's continuing crusade that confounds consumers' capabilities to copy in conditions commensurate with copyright law.
It's worth noting, though, that if this is just a Democratic National Committee matter, it would of course only apply to the Democrats' internal debate, and not the actual presidential debates which come later. Baby steps, baby steps..
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Don't you know that nobody profits if it's released under Creative Commons?
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
boxlight
then he's got my vote.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If he truly beleives he is the best man for the position, then opening the debates is brilliant. If however this would easily back fire in a matter of weeks, as opponents grab at the documents and hack away. Either way I think it's a pretty good idea for a democracy. So long as the originals are preserved for reference.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
how cool is that, a suit who gets it...
Ok, that's the `keep the nerds happy with something to do with copyright` box checked.
Wake me up when he declares that he'll see to overturning the absurd patent laws should the US electorate vote a black guy into power.
There's no such thing as "cretive commons license". It's a whole range of different licenses. Which license are we talking about?
Specificly, from TFA:
"The letter asks that the video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license."
There are many kinds of Creative Commons licenses, and not all of them are as permissive as the requested one.
More Twoson than Cupertino
A situation like this may force a more serious, mainstream debate if the networks were to dig their heels in. I think the problem with DRM, IP and copyright is the fact is that there has not been a situation like this that the public as a whole can really understand. So here's to hoping we take one step back to take two steps forward.
I've not heard of this before, but I have noticed that playing clips of debates on networks other than the origional broadcating network have been limited. I assume this is due to the copyright issues and royalties. All serious presidential debates should be fully open for dispersion.
So, he's all set for high-quality editing jobs that will take quotes like that and produce nice little YouTube videos that say:
... restricting ... citizens. We should ... make sure that our ... networks benefit from them in all ... ways."
"I am a strong believer in
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
and the first work released is...
a presidential debate
(barf)
bring back the copyright, thanks a lot for the sick sense of humor
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's also a lot to not like about him.
Yet to take a stand on any issue
He doesn't even have the balls to put forth his political opinion, and yet he wants to be President?
He's from Illinois politics
Corruption is the way of the government in Illinois. I'm not sure anyone who's been through the Illinois political system has a clean past.
Is liked for no reason
Seriously.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
It does seem odd that presidential debates are not public domain already. I was under the impression that US government agencies were not able to claim copyright on their output[1], so I would have thought that something similar would have existed on with regard to candidates while in the process of campaigning.
[1] Incidentally, this has caused some problems with US government agencies wishing to contribute to GPL'd projects, since it is not entirely clear how the GPL operates in the situation where a contributor is unable to exert copyright on their work. Some agencies just release and hope no one causes problems, others are more wary.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
the only thing I would think the candidates would want to try and prevent is moving the words around to make 'em say anything at all. kind of like Chef's last appearance on South Park.
on the other hand, that's where all the fun is in the debates.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I'm not convinced he's not just "throwing a bone" here. How about a campaign promise to veto any copyright extensions or new restrictions that come across his desk? To work to scale back the DMCA, and work the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act back to a genuinely, realistically "limited time", like the Constitution requires? To ensure that if the Internet streaming royalty increases go into effect, he'll work toward scaling them back? It's a nice thought and a good idea, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not much. If this is to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than promise to release one thing, he needs to be willing to take on the deep-pocket content industry, and in doing so, ensure that their bribes^Wcampaign contributions will go to the other side. Otherwise, it makes no real difference.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Good point, he also doesn't seem to understand that CC type licenses actually use copyright in a socially responsible way.
TFA: "The letter asks that the video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license."
RTFA.
So who's the asshole, again?
There is not "a" or "the" CC licence, there are 13 or more. Some allow redistribution, and some don't. It's important to differentiate, even if CC don't do so.
Stallman has explained this.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
And who, exactly, would carry the serious, mainstream IP focused debate? The networks? Rupert Murdoc's newspapers?
No, the best thing is if the networks decided to spin this for good PR, and talked about how they're putting the presidential debates into the public domain and that anyone can copy and distribute them. Then you get people asking things like "what's the public domain?" "So what else should we be free to distribute?" and "which one is my video editing application?"
Sure, that means you'll get 100 videos of Kucinich doing the Hampster Dance, but such is the price of freedom.
The ______ Agenda
Sweet, sweet cans.
I spent a couple years living in Hyde Park, Chicago -- University of Chicago neighborhood where Obama lived (lives I guess), represented, etc. He's immensely popular there, and very well liked. Everyone I've ever talked to that has met him, has had good things to say about him.
Obama is a hard person not to like. Personally, I'm not wild about a lot of his vews--in his two years in the senate he has one of the very most left-wing voting records alongside Kerry, Kennedy, etc. But despite this, he's somehow managed to garb himself in the clothes of a moderate and a uniter? I'm not sure I see that... I'm not sure where in his record I should look to find this either. Despite this though, I like the guy..
Obama by all accounts HAS kept himself clean (minus some small real estate possible scandal). That's helped him out popularity-wise in Chicago--they carted away current and former politicians by the dozen while I lived there.. Back to Obama.. He's well educated and a powerful public speaker. He's got a definite charisma and he knows how to use it. Perhaps most importantly, he knows what to say--just look at the excitement that has built up around somehow who's been in national politics for two years.
Honestly, I think one could easily draw parallels between Ronald Reagan and Obama on that front--could Obama be the next Great Communicator? I don't know.. I also have no idea what Obama would actually do, beyond the party-line typical stuff that he has said in the past and/or voted for. Like the p/gp/ggp whoever else said, we don't really have a clue what his platform is.
According to Lessig's blog, John Edwards has also written a letter supporting this idea.
Creative Commons is a great thing, but is it really a good idea to give everyone the right to "recut, and edit the debates as they wish"? We're talking about politicians here, the scum of the earth. This isn't the Pirate Party, it's the democrats. Nothing good will come of such a stunt.
Admittedly, I just read all the posts before commenting, then searched to see if I missed anything.
Why would anyone read an article? That's what editors are paid to do.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Gotta start somewhere.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Considering his actual words, as quoted repeatedly in response to this question elsewhere in the discussion, I think not. It's pretty clear that he wants the debate to be public domain OR Creative Commons Attribution because those are the most appropriate licenses for them, not because he doesn't grasp that copyright is involved.
Considering the fact that Obama is a lawyer, and also that he has many supporters with backgrounds in mass media (David Geffen), I find it highly unlikely that he is completely unfamiliar with the differences between PD, CC, OS, etc.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
While he's at it, he can do a little politicking to remove software patents, or at least reform it to the point where patent trolls cannot possibly profit (or insanely huge corporations cannot lock out competition with it)?
It's fine and dandy to talk about wanting CC applied to debates, but he's in a position to make far more fundamental changes in his current Congressional position. Let's see him prove he's more than just a typical politician who likes to mouth a few buzzwords for attention here and there.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Wow. So this is what it feels like when I'm in a targeted demographic that is being pandered.
Feels good. I really want to vote for him now.
A note to other candidates: I enjoy -- erm, I mean, My demographic enjoys Magic: the Gathering, Guitar Hero, and PERL. We like to get our media content for free -- or very close to free -- and be able to do whatever we want with it, short of selling or distributing it.
Pander away!
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Wouldn't it be a case of everybody profiting? Sadly, a lot of people out there probably do think that's the same as nobody profiting.
-GiH
Obama himself even underscores this: Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses. They simply have legal clauses that encourage +/or allow sharing. Sometimes I wish the term Copyleft was scrapped. It does more damage than good.
Its a good point and nothing inflammatory.... ?
Well, hit this guy in the meta-moderation please!
My Babylon
It seems like an empty gesture to me. Do the politicians actually answer any questions these days?
If the debates were under a CC license, it would be simple to re-release the video with the actual question superimposed over each question the candidates failed to answer.
Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible.
...well, that sort of pandering (it's to the /. demographic, as if that isn't obvious) is ok. He's probably just trying to recover from the myspace mess. Eh, so what.
Rather than restricting it...like
Eh, you know, there's pandering and then there's pandering. Pandering to people by promising to pay for their college education (suckers, you were just free labor for Clinton) sucks, pandering by promising to build a huge bridge in Alaska that isn't needed sucks, but pandering by suggesting something that costs no tax dollars, benefits everyone sans one or two corporations, and is a legitimate step toward a better society...
I'm all for this things being freely available. But I worry about them being edited to take people's statements out of context.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Seriously, I am in love with this man. My wife says she's going to buy me a shirt with a heart and a big picture of his face in the middle. I'd wear it everyday.
There's nothing wrong with anything - Phillip J. Fry
I've maintained for a while now that slashdot is emerging as the "technocracy party". Now mainstream is realizing.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This is something NO-ONE with a brain would stay behind: A presidential candidate willing to give you a license to use his speeches in commentaries. Are you blind and deaf? This man is actually saying that in order to write/report about a political speech you need a copyright license! Why on earth there is need for such a statement in a supposely free nation? Are americans eager and happy to be stripped of all liberties and civil rights. You don't need to get a CC license for the right to press. Who's behind this Obama? I once found a website for informed politics. It held the data on lobbies and founds going to candidates but unfortunately it looks like it's dead a long time ago. I can tell you from what I remember that Hillary got a waste amount of money from Hollywood in her last electoral run. Guess the same people is now after Obama.
"I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
"I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to make music. The RIAA have incentive enough to broadcast the music. Rather than restricting the product of music, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
"I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to make movies. The MPAA have incentive enough to distribute the movies. Rather than restricting the product of music, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
Hrm... That's odd... Books, etc...
I'm going to go "HELL NO!" here. Now Obama's run a very clean campaign and my comment's aren't going to relate to him persay, but in general politics are a nasty business. Bush has constantly been bashed because his comments are taken out of context. What happens when Obama steps up and says something completely innocent, then Clinton's aides get their hands on it and start picking comments that make Obama look bad to the democratic party, and only show that?
The one thing I've understood about politics and rumors is that it really doesn't matter what the truth is. If people want to believe the lie (Bush is a moron) than no matter what the truth might be (He was elected, still graduated from Yale, is running this country better than the average person) they will believe it.
Now we add in hours of footage that looks official but can be edited any way people want? Yeah that's a great idea, because no one will ever misquote anyone in politics, would they?
Not to fan the black helicopters type rumors, but take a look at the Associated Press wire story on this:
http://news.google.com/news?q=ap%20obama%20public
...no mention of the Creative Commons portion of the request letter at all.
I can understand shrinking down mention of something as relatively "obscure" as Creative Commons in an article on another subject, but since the entire article is about copyright license, wouldn't mention of the full story (both options) be better reporting?
I've not been able to find a version which contains only the Obama statement, just several pieced together articles that credit other writers for other portions of the story, so I'm not sure who to write to. (It just says "Washington" in the versions I've found)
--Slashcode bug # 497457 - unfixed since December 2001 - Go look it up [sourceforge.net]!
o/~ Join us now and share the software
I agree that some agencies have this fear, but I believe it is unfounded. Software written by a US government employee is automatically in the public domain. But this makes it trivial to contribute to a GPLed project. The particular contributions of that person will be public domain, but the overall project is still GPL.
Think of it this way: a government employee sees a GPL project. He writes some code that enhances it. He puts his code on his website, saying that it is released to the public domain. The, the GPL project downloads the public domain code (which has no restrictions on it whatsoever) and incorporates it into their GPL project. Their project is GPL, and anyone who tries to copy/fork it must follow the GPL. Of course, if someone wants to copy the particular lines of code written by the government employee, they can certainly do that.
There is no conflict between GPL and US government employees. The only restriction is that if the entire project was written by government workers, then the entire thing is public domain, and they cannot release it as "GPL-only". However, anyone else is free to fork a GPL version of this project.
The important thing to remember is that public domain has no restrictions: including no restriction of incorporating it into GPL projects! (I would appreciate it if someone would correct me, if I'm horribly mistaken.)
Perhaps most importantly, he knows what to say--just look at the excitement that has built up around somehow who's been in national politics for two years.
As a non-USian, I have to wonder how much of that is due to the Bush effect. When Bush took over from Clinton a massive conversational vacuum seemed to open up - a chasm of non-communication and verbal gaff. Not to take away from Obama, but Bush would make almost anyone sound good.
You're talking about a guy who promotes the fact that he had a huge number of Internet Donors in the 1Q, comparred to his opponent who had mostly large donors. This was played over the press for days. And where does most of the credit belong? With the MySpace page that got him tons of positive coverage.
So what does he go out and do? Try and take control of the page, which makes a lot of sense, but screws up the negotiation. Once he realizes he screws it up, he has his campaign spreads rumors that the guy was trying to cash in on the opportunity, which is utter bullshit because the guy spent 2.5 years on the project. It's not like he registered the name and tried to get money for it.
So basically, the point of the whole thing was that Obama doesn't care about his supporters, he just cares about the positive press they generate for him.
..and that's good enough for me
:(){
Why would anyone read an article?
My guess would be: so they don't look like complete idiots, flaming someone for no good reason, asshole.
Sorry, but you deserved that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, no, obviously he has no idea about copyright law! How else could the Slashdotters be smarter than him?
V's extended alliteration, with each V word hyperlinked to Dictionary.com, along with a YouTube clip of the scene.
V's Annotated Extended Alliteration
:(){
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
You're right, he has voted rather leftishly but I think that may have something to do with the current administrations "rightish" persuasion and general tendency to do things The Wrong Way(tm GWB).
That's the beauty of it. The Democrats shoot themselves in the foot for doing this, and they've given the Republicans the tools to do. That makes the Democrats look like complete idiots for even suggesting this.
Using the CCL to mix and match whatever people are saying by taking things completely out of context is something we should be fighting, not endorsing. It's completely dishonest.
Let people see the full context of what these jokers are saying and let them decide based on THAT, not on someone else's manipulation of what they said.
And if you think it's one side that'll do it and not the other, you're out of your mind.
There, solved your problem for you.
Note to self: get a sig.
I want to clarify some things:
1. Joe Anthony "locked out" the Obama campaign by changing the password after the campaign rejected his $50k offer. So they no longer had access.
2. Anthony violated MySpace ToS by creating a site representing himself as Barack Obama. He didn't call it a fan site. He didn't say "People for Obama" or whatever.
3. Obama didn't take ANYTHING from Anthony EXCEPT the URL. That's it. All Anthony has to do is pick another, more acceptable URL and his page with all 160k friends will be restored
4. The page was being updated less and less frequently and at the same time it was growing more and more popular. The campaign needed to manage its resource more effectively. Go figure.
If you don't care about word order, then the result could be a lot more interesting.
This is not my sig
No, you need the protection to enforce the CC license as well.
I'm not trying to troll, but I've seen transcripts and whatnot of presidential speeches, addresses, and these things broadcast on TV and radio, and I've never noticed or heard of copyright before (unlike sports, movies, TV programs, etc).
Presidential speeches -- ones actually given by the sitting President -- are in the public domain, as a product of a U.S. government official created during the course of their duties.
However, a campaign speech that someone gave while running for election wouldn't necessarily be in the public domain, nor possibly would a campaign speech given by the President (since it's arguable as to whether campaigning is really part of his official duties as a U.S. government employee). Now, in reality, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone blocking the publication of transcripts of campaign speeches -- they're usually pretty easy to get -- but I expect that they're copyrighted either by the candidate's committee (the nonprofit corporation that also holds all their campaign money, and employs the speechwriters).
In addition to that, which would be the copyright on the text of the speech itself, the networks who broadcast the speeches and debates also claim copyright on the video recording (although other networks use clips from each other without formal permission, under Fair Use, all the time: e.g. Jon Stewart frequently shows news clips with the originating network's banner blurred out). It's an open question in my mind whether this is defensible: copyright law in the U.S. doesn't protect "sweat of the brow" or simple movement from one media to another, but it does protect something that is 'fixed' into a medium. The question then is whether, if you record the President giving the State of the Union, are you actually fixing that speech into a medium, and deserving of copyright protection? Or has the President (or his speechwriter) already done the creative act, by writing the speech, and the TV camera is simply mechanically reproducing this. I would like to believe the latter (actually I'd like to have a blanket law that anything recorded, written, spoken, or performed in the U.S. Capitol or any other place where the Legislature is in session is automatically in the public domain, but I'm not getting my hopes up), but I suspect that the courts would probably find for the networks. (There's probably precedent on this somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.)
But you're right to think that actual Presidential speeches are free and clear; if you want to print out the State of the Union and make it into wallpaper, or perform it in front of an audience, or sing it to your dog, nobody's going to stop you.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"That's not a trap, it's called being minimally observant."
No it's called being willfully ignorant. "Conservative" addresses a group of ideas that are not necessarily related to religion. Your attempt to make them appear so displays your ignorance.
The fact that a "religious nut job" calls himself a conservative DOES NOT make him a conservative. The fact that his opponents call him conservative DOES NOT make him conservative. His actions and beliefs make him conservative, or in this particular case, NOT conservative.
Stop pretending that your desire to label your opponents to more easily discredit them makes those labels valid.
I think "the excitement" that you see is the crazy people that attend the political rallies. The people at these mob-gatherings are so liquored up and amped that they would cheer at a tomato. Makes me wonder if it's Obama himself posting here...
Besides that though- Obama is calling for "universal healthcare". Because of that, I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse.
He is promoting the right thing, for the wrong reasons, meaning I don't trust him to actually do it. In analogy, removing suppressive dictators with the use of force is in my opinion the right thing to do, but if you do it only because you have a big Oil lobby backing you, then I don't trust you to do it right, or to do it when it happens somewhere that doesn't have Oil. What reason do we have to suspect that Obama will not suddenly change his mind the moment a republican opens a my-space site quoting the democratic campaign? He may not even back on the copyright front but instead push the libel front in the wrong direction. There are still many reasons to prefer him from his opponents, but I really don't trust him on this one.
exactly as long as it takes him to get elected.
Then
there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection
will become:
this particular class of content needs protection in order to keep my bribes, errrr, DONATIONS coming in!
Many politicians are not rich when they get elected to their first office, but they rapidly become so afterwards, particularly at the federal level. You need no other reason to be cynical about government.
uhm... I think a lot of people missed the point here... This isn't about the little myspace thing. This is about NBC thinking they own the debates. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/ 28/0646215
Sheesh..... Way to hijack.
-T
What if we could get these guys to pander to me, er, us? I have to think we've got a better shot at an organized response than some of today's very powerful groups.
Will he fight for a GNU/Creative Commons/whatever license for the source code to the voting machines? THAT will make a difference ...
Bark less. Wag more.
The campaign asked the guy to name a price for a popular site/url, content, 160,000 contacts AND to walk away from a labor of love. The guy named that price. The price ($39,000 + fees if any - that would not be in Joe Anthony's pocket) is largely regarded as low for the hours spent and amount of contacts (160,000). The campaign, not liking the price - WHICH THEY ASKED FOR - did an run around with MySpace. As for password access, it was Joe's (MySpace) site and changing the password was entirely his perogative. Do you control access to your websites/accounts? Thought so.
The campaign also misrepresented the facts to make a dedicated volunteer look like an extortionist and a cybersquatter. If a lawsuit is pursued, Obama will have to discuss with the press why his campaing 1) negotiated in bad faith 2) libeled a volunteer on a national scale and 3) is too fucking cheap and too fucking stupid to avoid this public black eye for a measly 50 G's.
If they are both equally at fault that only means Joe Anthony (who!?) will not win the presidency. Neither will Obama. I am from Illinois, don't like Obama, and could not be more pleased. My only fear is that Joe won't press the issue 'cause he is a pussy Obama fanboy.
Not being from US, I don't wholly understand this attitude of "I am (insert political mindset), therefore I am voting for (insert associated candidate)". Is this a common behavior?
Well, it's not as much fun as jumping up and down in the street and then burning something down, but we get by.
Hey to be a leader of our country you have to understand the importance of negotiation
ie:
"Give me a price"
"I don't like that price and I am bigger then you"
"I will just take it. Nice doing buisness with you"
Just ask Iraq......
The US has been doing this for years, at least we know Obama would fit in.
Actually, his stated opinions are alarmingly conservative--he's been involved in closing the border with Mexico (including authorizing the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border), has spoken out in favour of modernizing the military, he's irrationally pro-Israel, he's openly considering military action against Iran, so on and soforth. I'm probably not voting for the man, among other things because he furthers the disgusting notion that the Democratic party ought to be the "not quite as conservative" party.
Creative Commons has a Founders' Copyright project, which releases items into the public domain after fourteen (or twenty-eight) years. It's a number with some good historical backing.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"...recut, and edit the debates..."
Oh I'm sure nobody will abuse this.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Yes, that's the unfamiliar sensation of being inspired by your candidate, not disgusted by them. Ask your parents what it was like, 'cause nobody under thirty remembers. If Obama or Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, I'm going to be pulling the lever for the blue team without holding my nose, for the first time in memory.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
they took the site from him.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I can't believe there's even a question as to whether government proceedings should be publically licensed in the US. What the fuck's happening down there guys?
Maybe it's nitpicking, but I wish people would get this right. Choosing to license your work with a Creative Commons license does not mean you're giving up your copyright. The contents of my blog are still mine and ©Tim Wilson. I'm simply giving permission to use the contents under the specific terms of the Creative Commons license I choose. In other words, if I select a non-commercial variant of Creative Commons and a publisher includes my content in a for-profit publication, I can still go after them for violating the license.
The widespread misconception that (Creative Commons == public domain) is holding Creative Commons back from wider adoption.
Every society does what it thinks is good and right.
Evil is just other people doing good opposite of you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age.
Well, he just lost my vote. Let's see if Al (yes he's running) or Hillary make the same mistake.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
After all, once you call into question the veracity of one online video (that was "hacked" by the other party), you basically cast doubt on all online videos. Which makes it that much harder to bring down a campaign with a Youtube video of your candidate pandering to a bunch of racists by making racist remarks.
The Seinfeld-like political system in america is highly susceptible to superficial flaws (one of the reasons it has degraded into almost being an episode of seinfeld. hint: that is bad in real life)
Nobody in their right mind would endorse representation they did not ultimately control. Part of their error was working with him and thereby endorsing his page by making it a somewhat official source. Something mildly improper like "nappy headed ho" can be blown into a news stopping scandal and Obama's campaign takes the blame and has no way to fire him or stop him from stepping on another land mine.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
John Edwards is calling for Creative Commons debates also.
Also though it's a bit offtopic I thought it was necessary to add this as well. Sooner or later in this discussion someone is bound to mention something about the RIAA or MPAA. Considering the various cheers that arose here when Jack Valenti died I thought that some people may benefit from Lessig's perspective.
I stole this Sig
I'm not sure if its easy to ensure that the people that use the licensed material (depending on the license you chose) is used the correct way. I was using CC to license the drawings that i made with the Draw software at the Openstudio website from MIT, now out of service (they say for the moment), and people were using my drawings how ever they wanted (changing them even tho i had restricted that option and then posting them under their names like they made them in the first place). I really don't care much if they do, but the license wasn't of much use it seemed.
You really take those moderations seriously?
When something is modded: "Flamebait", it really means "moderator has a stick up his ass".
I'll admit to posting in haste, but I won't admit to doing so for purposes of baiting a flame.
Your feeling a need to flame it is more a statement of your self than my post.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If the "I do wonder how much of this actually involves Obama himself" is actually a question, someone (if not many someones) should send him e-mail or snail-mail or something to insure that he is aware of the problem. His response, or lack there of, will be significantly more interesting than reiterating on how what was done was wrong.
You might even consider pointing him to the two slashdot articles. This is a fairly simple feedback mechanism that insures he is not just seeing an individual's opinion.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
I could give a rat's ass about having permission to freely edit the presidential debates unless the debates themselves were opened.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
There's a trivial compromise to be had here. Give a network exclusive rights to the debate for 24-48 hours, to give them incentive to air it, and then release it with a creative commons license. It's already old news by then anyway, and the networks will never air an old debate. So then it can become public property.
If I can edit and recut the debate, I can make a YouTube video where the candidates are saying what I want them to say, not what they said actually. Creative Commons certainly would give me that right. It's just a humorous mix, right?
by trying to change the focus off Obama
"oh look, he isn't bad, cause someone else did bad too!"
considering how much we have heard the media and other pundits oraclize that the internet/online world is going to play a greater role in this election (and they always emphasize how important this is for obama) well, even mark foley would admit that pissing off half of your new fan base is a fiasco.
From the summary: "This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish."
This sounds cool, but the "edit" part is problematic. Editing debates to make a candidate you don't like say something that he/she didn't say, then posting it on YouTube, and making that candidate's campaign waste precious time trying to debunk the video wouldn't be a good thing.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Bullshit! He didn't register the myspace and then simply leave a link to his email with a "This MySpace can be available for $39k". He built up a friend network of 160k people. He obviously asked for more money than they were willing to pay, but he was also delivering a tangible product The other side of the spin that I've read is that he changed the password and then demanded money to give them control. If that's the real situation or if the campaign was really doing all the work and he just had the account, then fuck him.
As for people saying he was a volunteer so he shouldn't expect anything -- if you devoted time and code to an open source project and suddenly it went closed, wouldn't you want to be compensated? Obviously you'd be unhappy if it did go closed, but would you be out-of-line to want something in exchange? That's what I see essentially happening here: It was essentially an open project between the campaign and the volunteer and the campaign decided it needed to become closed. The volunteer would rather continue working on it, but since they don't see that as an option he wants to be compensated for the time & resources he devoted to the project. This sounds reasonable to me.
You're out of context. He wanted $49k total and he lives in Los Angeles. That's barely a down payment on a small condo on the outskirts of town. I don't know about the staffer-job request, but more importantly did Obama's campaign managers even counter his offer or did they just go into "shut him down" mode? If I read anywhere that they said "no, but we'll give you $25k and a picture with him if he's elected" I could respect them more...
I know it's pedantic, but you seem to be confusing your C-section incisions a bit. Getting through the skin and getting through the uterus are two separate issues.
The "bikini" (Pfannenstiel) incision is the superficial, skin incision.
The midline vertical incision is also a superficial, skin incision.
The midline vertical is sometimes used in emergency C-sections due to a relatively rapid entry with minimal blood loss. A skilled obstetrician can usually get into the abdomen with no difference in time or outcome with a Pfannenstiel, provided a controlled OR to work in. In extreme emergencies, such as death of the mother in an MVC, a vertical incision all the way to the baby can be made with no tools besides the scalpel. That is a relatively rare scenario.
Once through the skin (and fat, fascia, and peritoneum) you enter the abdomen and need to make an incision in the uterus to get the baby out. The choice of incision depends on several factors, including the position of the baby, location of the placenta, fibroids, ability to get the bladder out of the way, etc. That said, the choice of incision is almost always a low transverse or low vertical incision, even in emergencies.
High vertical incisions don't heal as well and are more prone to rupture in subsequent pregnancies. They are very rare, in spite of your claims to the contrary.
At any rate, I have never seen a C-section where the obstetrician is "lifting the intestines up out of the body and putting them on the chest so that you can get to the uterus underneath" as you claim in your previous post. It is actually almost physically impossible. I would question the sanity of the obstetrician who tried it to see if it could be done.
"Ignorance is not innocence, but sin." --Robert Browning
ROCK THE FUCK ON OMBAMA!
Maybe his 1 year stint in politics hasn't corrupted him to the point of any other canidate.
Would Hillary Clinton even know what Creative Commons involves? Nancy Pelosi? - Doubtful.
This is a major thing, he has just shown an ever so small glimmer of hope that this man could reform the copyright office,
and bring about real change in the "click to buy" and other bogus patent issues....
I'm a libertarian, but the mention of Creative Commons intrigues me.... I'll be keeping an eye out for any future mention of drm/copyright, etc... so far I dig his cause!
Though born in the US, the guy spent his childhood elsewhere.
This may mean that his personal experiences lead to some countries being inappropriately favored over others. There should be only one favorate, the USA itself.