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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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.
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.
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.
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."