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.
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
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.
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.
... but you'll vote for McCain or Guliani? That's hardly conservative.
I'll believe he "gets it" when he goes back to some of his big donors in the entertainment industry and starts asking them to consider backing initiatives that support consumer rights and fair use. Until then, this isn't much more than a publicity stunt.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Yes... but the debate participates set the rules of the debate and negotiate.. so.. if the democrats say "we won't debate unless the video is CCed... then that is a good incentive to CC the content... As for the Presidential debates... the candidates have even more power to set the copyright standards on those.
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.
Ah what you don't get. See, in this country, parties are like football teams. You pick your favorite and defend their bad decisions (play calls) until the end. Even in the face of overwhelming defeat and obvious bias in the referee's calls and penalties, you defend your team until the end. Cuz if you don't have a team, you are a bandwagon jumper! So you must pick your preconceived ideology and vote strictly based on that, despite the value of the actual candidates.
You've just realized one of the fundamental flaws of this America's government system.
Political candidates shouldn't be "enemies", they should have opposing viewpoints. The candidate who wins the most arguments should win the debate. But this is America, so all of that logic flies out the window and in the newly ajar window the "political pundits" come in and confuse everyone into thinking that each side did equally well. So that we can continue to believe there are two versions of the truth, and the only difference is which side you are rooting for.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
That's not a trap, it's called being minimally observant.
I agree that conservative should not = religious nut job, but that's irrelevant. I'm sure there are plenty of nice moderate guys in the KKK but the guys in charge are wackos, and as a result anyone who supports their organization is supporting hate filled whack jobs and the same applies here. Until the conservatives in this country grow a pair and get someone other than a fundie cretin in charge of their political party, the game is still over and conservative might as well be the same as religious nut job. Because it's the religious nut jobs at the top making all the decisions and the fact that you are probably a nice reasonable conservative doesn't make them saner.
Let me repeat: no one just "decides" to get an abortion nine months into a pregnancy. Even 8 or 7. Again, no one says, "oh, I hadn't made up my mind until now, and just decided to get an abortion." This is documented and figures are freely available online. There has not ever been an elective abortion that late.
Now, on the other hand, there are very rare abortions performed that late when the fetus is hydroencephalic and has a cranium filled with water and swollen up to the size of a watermelon. The fetus is brain dead, and if left to continue to swell, would kill the mother. This is exceedingly rare, but the only safe way to remove the fetus is D&E. You can do a C-section, but that's major surgery - it involves actually lifting the intestines up out of the body and putting them on the chest so that you can get to the uterus underneath. Scary shiat.
So, just drop the whole "those indecisive women" meme. It's stupid, dishonest, and is 100% wrong.
Abortion comes down to whether or not you feel that the fetus is a human being, deserving of all of the rights and privileges that all human beings have. If you believe this to be true, then abortion is murder, and should be treated as such. If you don't believe that the fetus is a human, then there is no good reason to ban abortion.
Don't think that all people who are against abortion want to take away the choices of other people. They have a fundamental difference in perception of the fetus, which leads them to this belief. To them, the assertion that "You're trying to take away a person's right to choose." is equivalent to saying, "You're trying to take away a person's right to randomly shoot people on the street." It's murder, to pro-lifers.
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.
Sorry, if I don't care that much. I read the story and when you ignore the sensationalizing, it's pretty mundane. The volunteer decided the campaign was taking advantage of him because they weren't paying him for the site, the campaign decided the volunteer was trying to take advantage of them because he was demanding to be paid.
While I think this could have been handled more deftly, I generally require more than one minor public disagreement before writing someone off.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's generally their religious beliefs that leads them to the conclusion that abortion is murder. Pro-lifers trying to make abortion illegal under the idea that their religion tells them it's murder is the equivalent of them telling everyone else , "My religious beliefs are superior to yours, so we have the right to take freedom of choice from you."
Abortion isn't the only thing that various religions equate to murder. Should all of those actions/thoughts be illegal too?
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
That's how it works for the people who speak up, post on the internet, etc. That's always how it works. Few people are assertive enough to post on the internet while not holding a position so strongly that almost no conceivable evidence will change their mind. Those that do are generally ignored, because they do things like talk about the good counterarguments, which is far more boring than spewing bile and invective every which way. This is even stronger on TV since only the most "interesting" handful of people can own a show.
But if what you're saying was actually true, then every election would turn out effectively the same, regardless of the candidates, and that is not how it works. States swing back and forth, and while the last couple of Presidential campaigns may have been close to 50%, there's been radical alterations in the makeup of Congress in the meantime.
If what you are saying was true, then the Republicans would still control Congress. Obviously, this is not true.
This is one of those cases where cynicism of the system blinds you to the truth. Some cynicism is good, but you need to be careful with it. You need to look at all of the evidence, not just the evidence jumping up and down demanding to be heard or that reinforces your cynicism, and consider whether the obvious consequences of some claimed truth are coming true.
I agree that liberal should not = nut job, but that's irrelevant. I'm sure there are plenty of nice moderate guys in ANSWER but the guys in charge are wackos, and as a result anyone who supports their organization is supporting hate filled whack jobs and the same applies here. Until the liberals in this country grow a pair and evict the fascist whackos who won't be happy until total thought policing is implemented for The Cause, the game is still over and liberals might as well be the same as religious nut job. Because it's the religious nut jobs (a "secular" religion, but other than the lack of a "God" there's not much difference... and there are often God-like proxies like "Gaia") at the top making all the decisions and the fact that you are probably a nice reasonable liberal doesn't make them saner.
(Recall the frequent observation that extreme leftist and extreme rightism often merge indistinguishably into each other. I can find liberal whackjobs too; what does that prove about you?)
That's ridiculous - we can say the same thing about any group at all, you can condemn all Muslims "until they grow a pair" and kick out all the "fundies", and then I can certainly condemn liberals for the likes of Ted "back stabbing" Kennedy and Nancy "the happy socialist" Pelosi.
Stupid sexy Flanders.