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."

Comments

Good for him

[ohearn]

This is definately something I can stand behind regardless of which party it comes from.

Re:Good for him

[cayenne8]

"This is definately something I can stand behind regardless of which party it comes from."

I have to 2nd that!! I'm still VERY open minded to this next election...and this just put a big "+" mark next to his name so far.

Anything that starts to 'buck' the system a little I'm for. I thought I'd heard that MSNBC? was covering the debates, and was trying very hard to lock in all the content to themselves where no one could really publish parts of it, etc. The debates are (should be) and important part of the US public's decision making, and should therefore be completely free for use and analysis by the general public as they see fit.

You know...I've heard it say that the govt. takes your freedoms a little piece at a time. Well, maybe it works in reverse too? Every little thing that helps change the old party way/style in the elections, helps break the grip and open it up more to change......and I'm all for that.

If we could next somehow blow away the primary system for something else more open...we might be able to someday get actual GOOD candidates to the elections, rather than the predestined crap we seem to get from the parties which is largely decided either in advance, or apparently by the early primaries that seem to hold nothing in common with the majority of the US.

But, that's another story....start with baby steps....baby steps.....

Re:Good for him

[tbannist]

What exactly is the fiasco? He (or his campaign staff) decided he didn't want to buy a myspace channel for $50,000. On the flip side of "stealing" from the guy who registered the myspace page in his name without his permission, he's a politician who chose not to squander $50,000. If he had bought it, the same political trolls who are crying about him ripping this guy off would be crying how "Obama wasted $50,000 on a myspace page".

This appears to be a simple case of "Sorry, your price is too high", unless someone can actually give a cogent (and truthful) reason why anyone should care.

Re:Good for him

[Captain Splendid]

But, prior to the MySpace fiasco

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Fucking up a "cakewalk" land war is a fiasco. Calling a minority a racist name, getting caught on video, and subsequently losing a previously easy election is a fiasco. Soliciting underage boys online and having everyone know about is a fiasco. Lying under oath and then getting caught is a fiasco. This is more like a scuffle.

Re:Good for him

[spun]

From research I have seen recently in economics, it appears that about 15% of people are always prone to good (i.e. fairness, reciprocity, sharing, kindness, loving, etc.) , 5% of people have sociopathic tendencies and will tend to act selfishly with callous disregard for others. The rest pretty much do as their society tells them. That means they will be good in a good society and evil (selfish, dishonest, lacking in empathy, harmful to others, etc.) in an evil one.

Most societies are prone to evil. Most socioeconomic systems are founded on evil premises. Therefore, most people in the world are prone to evil, but they would be just as prone to good in a better system. Still, your optimism and assumption of goodness are themselves a good thing. "Doing what society tells them" is another way of saying "doing what other people expect of them," and you are doing your part by expecting good things of people.

Re:Good for him

[tbannist]

Actually, I think he's more or less correct:

1) Obama's team started a new site.
2) They applied to have the url myspace.com/barackobama pointed to the new official site.
3) Myspace shut down the old fan page because the owner wasn't Barrack Obama

I don't know if Obama's team intended for step 3 to take place. When you understand the events, it's hard to see this as a black and white issue instead of just an angry disagreement between people. It wasn't handled very deftly, so I guess the lesson for everyone involved is:

When you act like an ass you get burned.

That applies to both the volunteer and Obama's campaign staff.

Creative Commons is good, but

[Dachannien]

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.

Good first step, but let's see more.

[laughingcoyote]

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.

Re:Check

[Hobart]

Ok, that's the `keep the nerds happy with something to do with copyright` box checked.

OP is on the mark with this line. It's very nice to see Obama making a reference to CC ... but, what's this over here on Lessig's blog? (reads TFA) Pay closer attention! Obama's request is that they

1. WAIVE THE COPYRIGHT AND PLACE IT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN , or barring that,
2. place it under (SPECIFICALLY) the Creative Commons (Attribution) license. (Yes he specified one: http://creativecommons.org.nyud.net:8080/licenses/ by/3.0/ , if it's down, here's Wikisource of v2.5 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_Att ribution_2.5#English )

Reading the /. summary neither mentions the public domain, nor makes it clear that Obama's letter shows an understanding of the distinction between waiving copyright and licensing.

Article summarizations that give half the story like this are why rms has to be such a pedantic language lawyer when speaking. Clarification of the article would be appreciated, scuttlemonkey.

--
Slashcode bug # 497457 - unfixed since December 2001 - Go look it up!

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[danpsmith]

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?

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.

Re:Or not--or not again!

[Moridineas]

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.

Re:If he takes a stand against alliteration

[flimflam]

He actually articulated an aggressive argument against alliteration.

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[Anivair]

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.

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[Theaetetus]

The same way there are lots of liberals that don't think choice means allowing abortions 9 months into a pregnancy.

You do know that elective abortions in the third trimester are illegal and have always been, right?

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.

Clarification..

[encoderer]

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.