CNN To Release Debates Under Creative Commons

remove office writes "After calls from several prominent bloggers and a couple of presidential candidates, CNN has agreed to release the footage from its upcoming June presidential debates uncopyrighted. Senator Barack Obama was the first candidate to call for all presidential debates to be released under Creative Commons, with fellow Democratic hopeful John Edwards following shortly afterwards. CNN will be the first to do so with their June 3rd and 5th Democratic and Republican debates. MSNBC hosted the first presidential debates recently but refused to release them under Creative Commons, opting instead to post online only commercial-ridden clips in Windows Media format."

Comments

On a closely related sidenote:

[c0l0]

To license (creative) work under a Creative Commons license does NOT mean to have that stuff "uncopyrighted" - not even outside of Europe, where copyright is mandatory and cannot be renounced at all (except for by the death of the work's author having passed for some 70 years or so).
"Uncopyrighted" would probably mean to have the work put into the public domain - that's, however, not true for the CC-licenses, nor is it for any other "free" license (like GNU GPL, GNU FDL, BSDL, MITL and Co.) I know. All these licenses cleverly make use of copyright to guarantee certain freedoms and/or restrictions.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[QuantumG]

There is no-where in the world where you are prohibited from disclaiming copyright on a work.

I don't know how that rumour got started.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[pfhlick]

This is still a step in the right direction. I am looking forward to see what people will do online with this footage. I think that this is an important step for the democratic process in the United States, an inevitable consequence of information technology and the web. The next presidents will be under intense scrutiny by far more people than ever before. The internet is changing the way we choose our leadership and has the potential to make our leaders more accountable to us.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no-where in the world where you are prohibited from disclaiming copyright on a work.

Untrue. I've prohibited it in my house. If you want to disclaim copyright on a work then you can go someplace else and do it. My house, my rules.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[essence]

Untrue. I've prohibited it in my house. If you want to disclaim copyright on a work then you can go someplace else and do it. My house, my rules. Likewise, cannabis isn't illegal at my place.

It's the sort of thinking we need to overthrow this system. Start thinking of ourselves as sovereign peoples, sovereign households - streets - communities.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Bacon Bits]

That's why I like the Creative Commons logo. It has the nifty slogan "Some rights reserved."

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

In Sweden one can only publish books that are copyrighted. Any book that has noone claiming copyright for it means that the printer of the book are forced to take the responsibilty _and_ the copyright for the book. If the original author are found he/she cant disclaim their copyright.

Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.

  Thus every book published will have someone who holds the books copyright.

I doubt Sweden is the only country that have laws like this.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[QuantumG]

Sounds to me like Sweden has no concept of a public domain at all then.

Which, of course, is absurd.

Don't let the americans find out.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[watchingeyes]

You mean retarded laws that make no sense? You're right, I think every country in the world has and continues to dabble in that area.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? And are we going to load-shed the ultra-civilized muggings like Social Security, etc. as well?
Are you ready to go seriously libertarian, or are you just op-testing your keyboard?

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[aichpvee]

Cool, good thing I've already claimed copyright on the bible in Sweden. I have to go call my lawyer now, a have a feeling I need to sue a TON of people.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Harmonious Botch]

In Sweden one can only publish books that are copyrighted. Any book that has noone claiming copyright for it means that the printer of the book are forced to take the responsibilty _and_ the copyright for the book. If the original author are found he/she cant disclaim their copyright.

Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author. What happens when a publisher or author who owns a copyright dies without heirs? Or if an author submits a book to a publisher using a false id? Or if a publisher prints a book anonymously?

Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.

Thus every book published will have someone who holds the books copyright. Hmmm...sorry, but I'm really sceptical about this claim. Got any references to substantiate it?

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Start thinking of ourselves as sovereign peoples, sovereign households - streets - communities.

I've lived in places where this happens, like West Philly where I am now. People get shot for walking down the wrong street.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Plutonite]

That's funny, I didn't know you had internet access in jail :)

On a serious note, this is NOT the thinking we need at all. It's the sort of thinking that will get you behind bars, that's all. Protesting against the system should be done by voting, not by violating the laws you disagree with. We cannot ignore the apparatus of democracy and then claim that the system failed us. I personally don't think we have become a totalitarian country (US) just yet, and if anybody was about to refute me by saying that, please consider that a solution to a problem of that size will likely need more than a little cannabis.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[morrison]

There is at least one OSI-approved free license that is based on contract law instead of upon copyright law: the NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA). The terms in the agreement do not require copyright (though that certainly strengthens the agreement enforceability) since the U.S. Government cannot claim copyright on original works within the U.S. per U.S. law, though they can be claimed internationally. Copyright in the U.S. can generally only be acquired through copyright assignment (e.g., from a contractor) so having an Open Source agreement that does not rely upon copyright is crucial for many government-owned codes.

The NOSA was tentatively considered for BRL-CAD and was the prevailing option for a while, though BRL-CAD ultimately ended up under the LGPL and BSD license (each for different parts of the package). That consideration was entirely due to copyright issues with the (large) codebase, though copyright was ultimately acquired (through assignment) allowing for the adoption of more familiar Open Source licenses.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

So, don't go to the rape house and you won't get raped. Keep your kids away from the molestation house. And avoid the weapons house, but if the weapons weren't illegal in the first place, there'd be no issue there.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Breakfast Pants]

"not even outside of Europe, where copyright is mandatory and cannot be renounced at all"

Nice made up bullshit, bozo.

On another note -- kickass CNN! This is a good deal for everyone (CNN literally gets their logo plastered ALL OVER the place)

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[essence]

Then criminals can have rape houses where rape isn't illegal, houses where child molestation is legal, distribution centers for illegal weapons... What a great idea! Take the idea of the sovereign individual. Everyone has their own sovereignty. Now rape houses and molestation houses are clearly a violation of the individuals sovereignty. Saying you have the sovereign right to abuse someone elses sovereignty is not really what I was thinking.

The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[essence]

Protesting against the system should be done by voting You really are deluded. Is your life that hunky dory?

So I get to vote every 3 years or so (Im in Australia) and neither of the major parties that always take power represent me. It's bullshit. Voting does nothing. The major parties are paid for by big business. And because they have the most money, they can afford more advertising etc to brainwash all the people who take no interest in politics.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Social Security will be dead long before I'm ready to collect it. All it does is take a substantial portion of my salary right now. Yeah, I think I could do without that. The only social services I'm really thankful for are the free healthcare and high quality education... oh, wait.

Is that the best you can do? If so, let's divide this fucker up into a few thousand fiefdoms and go to town.

Could it be worse? Sure. Could it be worse with all the wealth our economy produces? Probably, but give it a few years and we'll be there.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Plutonite]

Hey, I'm with you there. You guys have it easy in Australia, down here (good ole US of A) we WISH it was only about fighting corporations, rather than masses of extreme right wing/evangelist nutjobs. I never said voting changes anything, but in a democracy voting has a better chance of changing something than breaking the laws that exist because of the fact that we put democracy into use.

Also, nobody said that democracy is ideal in any way. If science was as fanatically reliant on public consensus, we would be in caves right now. But governance and morality is a different matter, and I am willing to give in to the (mistaken) majority if the only other option is to force my view on that majority. That's totalitarianism, and is doupleplusunnice. And if I violate the law, why shouldn't everybody else who is as convinced in their viewpoint as I?

Many share the view that democracy is a shitty system, but nobody has yet suggested viable alternatives. Maybe in the future we will have systems where pluralism is a more mature concept and points of view are "weighted" so as to defeat the herd-mentality problem, but for now, chaos cannot replace democracy while retaining civilization.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[evilviper]

[...] nor is it for any other "free" license (like GNU GPL, GNU FDL, BSDL, MITL and Co.) I know. All these licenses cleverly make use of copyright to guarantee certain freedoms and/or restrictions.

The BSD, MIT, and a few other licenses, are such a tiny step away from public domain, that it's pointless (and pedantic) to go out of your way to make the distinction.

Yeah, you aren't allowed to change those 3 lines at the top of every .c file, but that is all.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[mushadv]

The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom.

Wha? I thought that was libertarianism.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[emurphy42]

Presumably this is why e.g. Wikipedia offers things like "I release this to the public domain; if that doesn't work for some reason, then I grant anyone the right to use this in any way".

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the reasoning behind the no-public-domain law?

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[bhsx]

The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom. Wha? I thought that was libertarianism. Nah, It's Wiccan.
En et harm none, do what ye will...

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Silver Sloth]

After all, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[zsau]

Not even close. The anonymous coward is prohibiting something that's legal on his turf. This is quite reasonable: no-one's allowed to smoke in my house (but smoking is legal); you're not (generally) allowed to eat in a library (but eating is legal).

Your criminal houses are trying to allow something that's prohibited. This is not possible, for the very good reason you point out.

In general, you can forbid thing's that aren't; but you can't allow things that are forbidden. Unless you're forbidden from forbidding it; you can't forbid someone from ever leaving your house (i.e. imprisoning them) for instance!

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[houghi]

What happens when a publisher or author who owns a copyright dies without heirs?

First he must be an orphan, otherwise his closest relatives will inherit the copyright. They can say no to inheriting anything. In that case all his belongings are belong to the state, including the copyright.

Or if an author submits a book to a publisher using a false id? Or if a publisher prints a book anonymously?

The copyright is then the publishers.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[geekd]

I have "some rights".

I ain't got much, but I have "some rights"

(still, in the USA)

Now, where did I put my gun?

-geekd

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Perey]

all his belongings are belong to the state

You are on the way to no public domain.

What you say!!

You have no chance to disclaim make your freedom.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[TheSciBoy]

The reason for this is that you must have a person who is responsible for all publications (in written form) in Sweden. This is to prevent slander or hate-speech, for example, being published and the publisher then claiming "not to know who wrote it". This way, there is always someone (even if it is not the author) responsible for a published text in the eyes of the law.

But Copyright DOES expire in Sweden, just as everywhere else. So there is no need to start shouting "but where is the public domain!?". I'm not sure of the exact length of time, but some time after the copyright-holder's demise (unfortunate or not), the work goes into the public domain.

Another reason why Copyright in this manner is not such a big deal here in Sweden is the simple fact that ALL published works (this includes leaflets for advertisement, and such) must be sent in at least one copy to be archived at a central library in Stockholm. From this library anyone can order a copy for viewing (at the cost of copying the text). This is, for example, the reason why there is nowadays always a member of Scientology at that library, checking out the copy of the Fishman affidavit that exists there. Although, if you wanted to you could get the library to make you a copy.

No, this doesn't mean that the library can get you a copy of the latest Harry Potter-book, the copy would have to be returned, just like any other library book.

I might be wrong on some of the details here, but the gist of it is true. :)

Also, and this might be communist thinking, I don't know, but even if you *do* have copyright on something, that doesn't automatically mean that you have to sue anyone that violates that copyright. Just a thought.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[Anonymous Coward]

So did your momma send you to you Auntie and your Uncle in Bel Air?

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[the grace of R'hllor]

No.

Freedom is doing anything you want. Anarchy is doing anything you can.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[dt_aybabtu]

The United States is not a pure democracy. The political system is summed up nicely in Wikipedia: "The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation, a representative democracy with a government regulated by a system of checks and balances defined by the United States Constitution. The 1789 constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which was in effect from 1781-1789. However, it is "not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[38]" If everything were ruled by majority, things in the US would be quite different.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[vuffi_raa]

haha I can just see the house with the badly painted wooden sign with the backwards letters "child mole-ester houze"....

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[mOdQuArK!]

The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom.

And who does the judging of whether or not someone's freedom has been "denied", who decides on an appropriate response, and who carries out the response?

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[QuantumG]

Ya know, it really does sound like you're using the term "copyright" to mean something completely different to the rest of the world.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[rtb61]

It is often the little things that make a big difference. The main difference between US democracy and Australian democracy is compulsory voting.

Initially with young indifferent voters it might not make so much difference but as they get older and more mature, as they have to vote any how, they start to think who they are going to vote for and why. They might no make better decisions but because by far the majority do vote, it results in the moderation of politics, nothing to extreme can get up or survive for very long.

Other odd things also have to happen when voting is compulsory, like the government has to ensure you are able to adhere to the law ie. voting on weekends, readily accessible polling booths, minimum waiting, in fact they have to go out of their way to ensure that you can fulfil your legal responsibility and vote.

The reality is, that as a citizen of a democratic country it is the very minimum you should do to ensure the survival of your democracy and as an adult you should be punished for failing to vote.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[gfilion]

After all, what have the Romans ever done for us?

For those who don't remember their (Mounty Python) classics

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[TheSciBoy]

Well, yeah, I can agree it's a bit muddled in my explanation.

Copyright in Sweden is the same as anywhere else, it means that you as the author of anything you have written/composed has the rights to decide who can make copies of it.

What's different is that a work that has no definite author (anonymous work) will be copyrighted by the publisher. Though, I guess this is more of a technicality. What I went on and on about in my post was mostly the publisher's responsibility for his published works, whether or not he/she is the author. When you publish here you have to have a person, given by name in the book/magazine, that is responsible for what the material says in the eyes of the law.

So, yeah, you're right, these are two different things that I guess are intermingled in some special cases.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[umeboshi]

The jury

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[mOdQuArK!]

My my, what a completely useless response.

How are the jury members picked? Does the jury also decide when they need to convene, who collects the evidence (and which evidence should be collected), organizes & analyzes its own arguments, decides on the punishment, and then maybe picks one of its members to carry out the punishment? Do all of the jury members get forensic & deductive training, or do you think the "average" citizen (especially people whose education might be a wee bit compromised with an "anarchy"-society-supported "education" system) will make consistently good, rational judgements?

Are there any scenarios where the jury's decisions can be appealed, and who gets to decide whether the appeal can be held, and who hears the appeal? Another jury? Apply all questions about juries to them too.

Does the jury also get to decide whether or not the suspect should be held, and if they decide that he/she's a flight risk, does one of them "hold" the suspect at their house? If they don't, where do they hold the suspect & who gets to pay for such a facility (assuming you've still got a functioning currency system)?

What happens if the suspect is an expert sniper or makes boobietraps & decides to take all of the members of the "jury" out before they can try and take HIM out?

Try and give some details about this "smoothly-functioning" anarchy-based society - I'd really like to be able to imagine how such a society can work.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[umeboshi]

I just noticed the reply, and I really wish I had a little time this morning to expand on what I said.
Juries are not perfect, but no form of government is. Their are two levels of juries. Their are trial juries, and the grand jury.

You raised many good points that I have always feared about runaway juries, especially runaway grand juries.

I had a lawyer defend me once. He arranged a civil suit at the one year deadline from the incident. Immediately after he filed suit, I happened to be indicted by the grand jury to be tried for a felony. This was an obvious response to the civil suit. I asked my lawyer about how I could've been indicted from such skimpy evidence. His reply is that he could indict an oak tree if he wanted to. This helped me understand the current state of our jury system (very poor). BTW, the lawyer used to be a D.A. so he was talking from experience. Since then I've done a little study on what the jury is supposed to be like, and how it compares to the present day.

The common law jury system is really the backbone of the United States. It was the best system that could be created in its time, and our founding fathers would probably be rolling in their graves if they were to see what has become of it.

You deserve a good reply to the very important points that you raised. I wish I had a little more time, but I would be glad to continue this through email or im/irc.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[mOdQuArK!]

Feel free to respond in this thread.

Frankly speaking, if you don't have easy answers to questions like the above (which I just threw out as they occurred to me), I'm not terribly impressed with the amount of thought that you have put into preparing your argument for how an anarchy-based society could work.

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[umeboshi]

If you were expecting a certain amount of thought preparing an argument on a slashdot forum, you have abnormal expectations. :)

I'll leave you unimpressed with a couple of quick answers.

Jury members are selected by lot.
Jury members decide who collects evidence.
Jury members decide who the experts are going to be.
Juries will sometimes make consistently good, rational judgements, but not always, they are human.
I never implied that the society will be "smoothly-functioning". I think you are looking for Utopia or some other "Ideal State" not "Reality".

Frankly speaking, if you don't have easy answers to questions like the above This quote is the dead giveaway. It gives me insight into why you are not easily impressed.
I have an easy question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I'd like to see an easy answer with an easy explanation that I can't poke any holes in. If you can answer this one question well enough to impress me, I will most certainly make a much better attempt at returning the favor. Good Luck! ;)

Re:On a closely related sidenote:

[mOdQuArK!]

All right, at least something to talk about:

Reponse to 1: Who runs the lot, and what pool are the jury members selected from? Will there be any attempt at avoiding conflict of interest, or if you get a few people on the jury who wants you dead, are you screwed? (Or could you get away with blatant murder if some of the jury members end up being your close friends or didn't like the victim?)

Reponse to 2 & 3: Why would a typical "citizen" be qualified to decide either of those types of things? I think you're making a big assumption about how intelligent and educated these jury members are going to be, which brings up a whole 'nother elephant in a "functioning anarchic state" argument: do you honestly believe that you will get a society where most of the citizens are decently educated and/or trained in critical analysis if you don't have some sort of publicly-supported educational system?

(The obvious response is that most citizens nowadays aren't very good at critical analysis anyway even given the current public education system, which I would be forced to agree with, although I still contend that without a decent public education system you have very little chance of a widely-educated public).

4. I contend that in an anarchic environment, i.e., without a clear, well-defined & _enforced_ legal & justice system, and without decently-educated/trained jury members, you will _rarely_ get any kind of good, rational judgement out of a jury.

Re: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Egg. Eggs existed for many genetic ancestors of the chicken before anything recognizable as a modern chicken even came into existence. This holds true whether you treat chickens as coming into existence incrementally (becoming more and more chicken-like through generations) or if you define some kind of threshhold point of "chickeness" where chickens don't exist until they reached that state of evolution.

If you really want to hurt peoples' heads, you can probably look up some good Zen koans somewhere - they're designed not to have any logical answers :-)

--

I've listened to too many people, when faced with government incompetence & corruption, claim in a knee-jerk fashion that an anarchy-based society is the natural "cure" to such ills, but when you try and get into the practical details about how such a society might work, they haven't put any real thought into it at all.

All my own mental "what-if" attempts at thinking about how such a society might work have been pretty much ended up concluding that it can't work. I'd be thrilled if someone can point me to a decent description of such a society which doesn't depend on the same sort of pie-in-the-sky assumptions about human nature that communism does (or "utopian" capitalism for that matter).

Uncopyrighted...

[26199]

Is of course quite different from a Creative Commons license. (Assuming by "uncopyrighted" they mean "into the public domain").

Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate?

(That was a rhetorical question, please don't comment on it).

Re:Uncopyrighted...

[mobby_6kl]

Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate?

(That was a rhetorical question, please don't comment on it).

What's the point of making a comment if you don't let people comment on it?

Re:Uncopyrighted...

[zappepcs]

Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate? I think this is a good trend. Once the debate is recorded, let it be debated over and over again on the Internet. Perhaps this will one day lead to more honest campaigns and candidates. I'd like to see each of the debaters face the record of their campaign, by being presented with whatever the Internet has to say about them, including their voting history (what they supported and didn't) for the last 15 years or so. I would hope that this would keep the debates and election from being about the buzzword issues only.

Re:Uncopyrighted...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of making a comment if you don't let people comment on it? What's the point of replying if you don't contribute to the discussion?

oh wait...

Creative Commons != copyright free

[Bogtha]

The article and summary seem to be treating "Creative Commons" and "copyright free" as synonyms. This is not the case. "Creative Commons" is an umbrella term for a number of different licenses and a dedication to the public domain. It's entirely possible (and usually the case) that Creative Commons works are copyrighted and not in the public domain.

Does anybody know if they are really dedicating the footage to the public domain, or are they using one of the more restrictive CC licenses?

Re:Creative Commons != copyright free

[QuantumG]

It's entirely possible (and usually the case) that Creative Commons works are copyrighted and not in the public domain. It's more than usually the case.. if something is in the public domain, you don't need a license.

Does anybody know if they are really dedicating the footage to the public domain, or are they using one of the more restrictive CC licenses? Read the fucking article.. it's one click away..

Re:Creative Commons != copyright free

[vain gloria]

It's more than usually the case.. if something is in the public domain, you don't need a license.

You know that and I know that. Just to muddy the waters however, creativecommons.org does in fact provide a PD licence (dedication?) as one of its options.

Re:Creative Commons != copyright free

[Bogtha]

It's more than usually the case.. if something is in the public domain, you don't need a license.

Yes, but as Vain Gloria points out, Creative Commons offers a public domain dedication too. In common usage, the term "Creative Commons works" include those works that have been dedicated to the public domain using the CC dedication.

Read the fucking article.. it's one click away..

Read my fucking comment. The article seems confused. It says "uncopyrighted" in the headline, but keeps talking about licenses in the body.

Re:Creative Commons != copyright free

[remove office]

Thanks to you and everybody else in here complaining (rightfully), I've edited the article on my website to hopefully reflect the corrections people are offering. The Slashdot summary is not editable by me though.

Also, in answer to your question, a specific license has not been announced yet, but CNN has indicated that people will be free to do whatever they like with it (remix it, edit it, use it in a documentary, post it anywhere they want, etc).

One of the specific points that Obama had was that he wanted the footage to be free for people to use in creating things like remixed YouTube videos, etc ("end user created content").

Interesting

[Timesprout]

I have posted previously about my disappointment and the mainstream media 'manipulation' of these debates. I dont really see what the difference is here. It will probably just degenerate into 'we'can do it better or cheaper with the clips than 'they can'' and does really bode well for political discourse.

Even worse than that...

[YA_Python_dev]

It's even worse: using a Creative Commons license doesn't mean what most people think! Some of those licenses are free/open source, but others are proprietary!

Re:Even worse than that...

[Jarjarthejedi]

No! Not Proprietary! Anything but Proprietary! Ahh! It burns! It burns us!

(Sorry but the enthusiasm with which you said that was a little much or at least that's how I read it :P)

Re:Even worse than that...

[YA_Python_dev]

No problem, that was funny. ;-)

Presidential debates

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched one of the democratic presidential "debates" yesterday on Youtube and I think it's a pretty big stretch to call these debates.

Re:Presidential debates

[larry bagina]

I think it's a stretch to call any of them presidential.

Re:Presidential debates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it wouldn't be PC to call them "circle jerks".

Re:Presidential debates

[smittyoneeach]

Together, perhaps
they amount to a stretch mark
on, say, Rosie O.

Re:Presidential debates

[iminplaya]

Just make sure none of them get elected so we don't have to.

Re:Presidential debates

[SonicSpike]

Ron Paul is very presidential and was the only candidates to differentiate himself from the rest of those clowns.

"uncopyrighted"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure but on the other hand it's just plain sad that releasing something with a permissive license is so uncommon that there isn't one word in the dictionary that can accurately represent this concept.

Breaking news : now MSNBC will do the same

[unity100]

... too

(Pay attention to the MS prefix in MSNBC and you will get what i meant)

Re: Breaking news : now MSNBC will do the same

[jhfry]

Yes, in 2024.

Of course they will claim it's something new, patent it, and of course hype the hell out of how they are the "openest news network" on the planet.

PS... I know this is a troll, and I know 'openest' is not a word

Re: Breaking news : now MSNBC will do the same

[unity100]

"PS... I know this is a troll, and I know 'openest' is not a word"

that premade declaration my friend, wont save you from grammar police.

A little late in the day, isn't it?

[John Jorsett]

If candidates wanted the debate released to the public, wouldn't it have been more useful to make that part of the terms up front?

Re:A little late in the day, isn't it?

[nanosquid]

Well, they can't fix it retroactively, but they certainly addressed the problem as soon as they realized it. If only all political problems were resolved that quickly.

You can watch them on YouTube anyhow

[dircha]

I don't own a television. Transcripts don't really give a complete sense of the candidate's performance. Luckily I've been able to find the debates so far for both parties on YouTube.

Just search for "republican presidential debate part" or "democrat presidential debate part" respectively on YouTube. They're split into 9 minute chunks.

I think it would be awfully bad form for MSNBC to pull these from YouTube. But I commend the candidates and CNN for making this issue public. We shouldn't have to rely on the good will (or hesitant takedown action) of MSNBC in order to get coverage of the men and women, one of whom will in a relatively short amount of time hold the highest political office in our democracy.

But sometimes I'm not sure why I care, or that I do. Especially when I see headlines like this: "FLASH: FOXNEWS O'REILLY TOPS MSNBC GOP DEBATE".

And look at the viewership numbers. That's right, not only did less than 1% of elligible voters even WATCH that debate, MORE people watched some blowhard talk about the debate than watched the debate itself.

This should dominate mainstream broadcast and print media. This should preempt regular programming on every broadcast channel.

Re:You can watch them on YouTube anyhow

[evilviper]

This should dominate mainstream broadcast and print media. This should preempt regular programming on every broadcast channel.

Calm down. This is just a couple democratic PRIMARY debates we're talking about. Later, you can expect some debates to get broadcast on various network channels.

As for EVERY channel, that's just idiotic. I am capable of changing the channel myself, thank you.

There are plenty of people that can't vote, anyhow, and don't need to be annoyed. There are also plenty of people who simply don't want to watch the debates, in-full, and will find other, perfectly valid ways to inform themselves. Shoving the debates down everyone's throat would serve no purpose, except to boost ratings on cable.

Re:You can watch them on YouTube anyhow

[Grave]

Some folks get overzealous and become enthralled with "get out the vote" campaigns. If people do not wish to vote, they have that right. If they choose not to vote, and then complain that their elected officials are horrible, they have that right too, although they look like fools as a result.

Suggesting that viewing these debates should be mandatory is silly, especially when virtually no answers are non-rehearsed. It's also not debate when you have a bunch of people simply being asked questions. A real debate would be the candidates having to discuss and debate the issues among themselves, for public viewing and consumption. I'd love to see (although not with a dozen candidates, as this might just become unruly) topics nominated and selected by the viewership given to the candidates for a 10- or 15-minute round of debate. I suspect the results would tell us more about the character and reasoning of these candidates than the current format.

Re:You can watch them on YouTube anyhow

[vagabond_gr]

You don't have a TV?! Then what's all your furniture pointing at?

\joey

Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[moehoward]

Come on. The debates themselves ARE commercial-ridden clips. The pandering? The acting? The party-line quotes? The weeks of "prep time" these alleged law-makers indulge while honing their so-called "debate" skills? The "I'm presidential" BS? So what if MSCNBCNSC runs them with commercials.

After two stories on this in a few days, is Slashdot sure it wants to hang their hats here on this issue?

The debate format died 20 years ago, was resurrected by Saint Perot, and then was again laid to a peaceful sleep.

The debates now are nothing more than traps. If you attend a debate and get caught in a trap, you are dead. If you lose your temper or slip up, or say "um" too many times, you are dead. Does anyone really think that some candidate will suddenly have some nation-shocking insight that will capture us?

All debates now require that news programs compare every candidate's makeup to Richard Nixon in 1960. WTF? CCGIGO. Creative-commons garbage in...

Moe

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[catbutt]

You're right. I suggest we just go back to dictatorship and be done with it.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary voters need to get a feel for these candidates, how articulate and prepared they are and how they respond under pressure. Can they think on their feet, or do they rely exclusively on their canned stuff? I think people watching can tell when someone is dodging a question or changing the subject.

When the emotional tense of the debate changes (for example, someone asks about the families of fallen troops in Iraq), are they sufficiently aware to notice, or are they locked into their message? This is important, because it's hard to lead a country if you can't connect with people on TV. Michael Dukakis lost a debate in 1988 when he failed to recoil at a hypothetical question about his wife getting raped.

Without debates, what we have is network news playing short clips of the top tier candidates delivering applause lines in their stump speeches in whatever town they happen to be campaigning in.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[iminplaya]

(Score:1, Offtopic)

See what happens when you taunt the drones? Yes, the debates are scripted, just like pro wrestling, but the public seems to like it just fine. You are voting for the best looking mop. That's what TV did to the process. I think ugly people should be given some votes up front to level the playing field a bit. Election handicapping.

I hope somebody with points sees through the bad mod.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[FunWithKnives]

Nice knee-jerk. The GP's point was that, notwithstanding the fact that the presidential debates being available to everyone is a Good Thing (TM), it does not actually matter, if those debates are shallow and pointless (and they will be). Presidential candidates have become nothing more than actors. It is all about "talking points" and grand-standing. The actual issues are just glossed over. The important thing is how a candidate is perceived. People, by and large, don't vote for or against a candidate based on his or her stance on issues (if they even really have one). They vote for or against them based on two things:

1. Is this person toeing my chosen party's line well enough?
2. Do I "perceive" ("gut feeling," truthiness, et cetera) this person properly?

The GP is absoultely correct in his statement. In this case, I think that there are two root causes. Firstly, our government and the career politicians who comprise it do not want an informed public, by any means. An informed majority would be disastrous for these people. However, it is rather difficult to suppress information within a country that is supposed to be democratic. Dissidents do not just disappear without a trace (yet), and journalists aren't thrown in jail for articles which are critical of the government. A delicate balance must be maintained: the majority must believe that they are informed and conscious, and the information must be ladled out "properly," i.e. dumbed down to "talking points," presented as black and white, with no grey areas, and so on. In traditional totalitarian or dictatorial states, the public is left completely uninformed. That method will not work in the United States. In ours and other pseudo-democratic states, the goal is to have a misinformed public.

The second cause, I believe, is affected somewhat by the first one. The majority get their news on the run, and from the humongous conglomerates such as CNN or Fox. They do not research anything that they are exposed to further. They see the latest "Left vs. Right: Smackdown!" show on CNN, watch it for awhile, take one side or the other, and call it a day. This is how the majority establish their stances politically. When the option of further research and the establishment of a view based on the facts instead of the opinion of a talking head on a "news-er-tainment" network are given (and I have experienced this firsthand, many times), they claim that they are just "too busy" to worry about things like that. While I realize that it does take a bit more time and effort to become an informed individual, is it really too much? I also think that it might have a lot to do with the fact that policy-makers decisions, as opposed to one hundred years ago or more, do not appear to affect a great deal of our lives. The policy may be a ticking timebomb, but the majority do not realise it.

All of this amounts to what we have today: debates that are, in reality, nothing more than popularity contests. As for a solution, I honestly do not know if there is one in the short term. The majority in this country cannot be forced to care enough to become informed; they must choose to do so themselves. I have never had much faith in most people when it comes to things like this, but then again, I am a devout pessimist. Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point, who knows?

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[FunWithKnives]

The moderation of the parent is horrible. How do these people keep getting mod points? I hope someone meta-mods the hell out of whoever is responsible for that one.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[FunWithKnives]

The mods must be on crack tonight. The GP was not saying by any means that there should be no debates. That is just ridiculous. He was stating that the debates have become absolutely pointless stage shows, and I agree. It is very telling that they are now scripted, with candidates knowning beforehand what they will be asked. As for your Dukakis example, do you actually think that would even be an allowed question today? The mic would probably be cut, and the questioner escorted out of the building.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[xenocide2]

So why doesn't one of the candidates call people out on it? Surely there's room in a ten man race for an outspoken, tell-all-apologize-for-it-later approach that you want.

Also, I think the majority watches CNN on accident. As in "oops, I meant channel 63, not 36" accident. I don't think they spend enough time watching to bother forming opinions on things, as long as the impact is distant and abstract.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[blank axolotl]

I agree with you on almost everything, except I don't think the misinformation is due to malice on the part of the candidates, and they are not fascists in disguise. I think the reason they don't say anything meaningful is because they are afraid to. Once they say something specific, that's something their opposition can criticize them for. If they say things that don't really mean anything, there's nothing to criticize, but it looks like they are taking a stance.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[trifish]

Good Thing (TM)

Sorry for being off-topipc, but, out of curiosity, why do people claim trademark rights in phrases like "Good Thing"?

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[enjo13]

They see the latest "Left vs. Right: Smackdown!" show on CNN, watch it for awhile, take one side or the other, and call it a day.

While a popular viewpoint, I think it's completely wrong. In reality most voters are really issue voters. They have one or two issues that are extremely important to them (ask a farmer about subsidies/tariffs or a factory worker about immigration/outsourcing). They tend to seek out candidates that support they're particular issues of interest. They then select a particular candidate from that group using some combination of charisma, identifiability, and gut instinct.

Once where past the primaries we get further polarized because the voting public really only cares about one or two issues, and with only two candidates to choose from it gets pretty clear cut for most voters.

This is one of the reasons democrats have really struggled in recent elections. The democratic platform tends to be a hodge-podge of vague positions and fractured loyalties. Since a democrat candidate has to appeal to a varied base that care about a LOT of different issues they end up having to take weak stands on a awful lot of them. So called 'blue dog' democrats are a perfect example of this. This 'moderate' group of democrats that can be quite conservative. Many are opposed to gay marriage for instance, so a democrat candidate has to toe a very delicate line of placating both sides of the issue. What you end up with is John Kerry.

The republicans show a tremendous amount of savvy by then attacking these candidates. If gay marriage is your hot button issue then republicans paint a very clear choice which reduces your vote to no choice at all. This can work in reverse as well.. in the 2006 elections it was clear that the Iraq war was the issue of choice for a LOT of voters, which led to a landslide for the Democratic party. However, as soon as the winds of change cause people to find new issues to care about then the Democrats will find themselves back to their same old struggles.

The point being... most voters in this country are much more intelligent than most people think they are. They simply cast their vote for the candidate that most closely aligns with the issues that truly matter to them. It's not that their uninformed sheep, it's that they don't bother to care about the things that aren't important to them. Which seems perfectly rational to me.

As a last note: Political Science junkies will point out that this phenemenon is the best defense of the two party system. In countries with multiple (sometimes dozens) of parties you end up with a highly fractured body of representatives responsible only to a handful of voters whom aligned with them only one or two important issues.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[Shinra]

I agree in most part with what you and the post you quoted have said.

I've found within people my own age and even with the white collar class that
there is a deep and resounding feeling of "Why Bother?" and this is a very telling
tale of what is wrong with this country.

(Please do not take what I am about to say next out of context)

However, the Iraq War, for all of its atrocities and entirely corrosive effect on the
truth in the President and his cabinet, it did provide as a crucial point of discussion for
these same peers. Why? Because it affects a lot of people, including myself. My best friend
shipped off to the Marines last year and knowing that Iraq duty is largely mandatory, I know
I will be worrying a lot more about the positions that the candiates take on Iraq. In effect,
the war brought about a higher percentage of voters, ALMOST enough to slice through the pig fag
and corruption in Washington.

Now regarding my friend: Since he only joined last year, I didn't have quite as much of a real stance on the issue of the War.
Sure, I heard the various viewpoints, but it didn't really strike me at home.
(Disclaimer: I am an Independent, both in spirit and in registration).
Looking back on the 2004 Elections, I can actually see why a lot of people voted for Bush.
The war started in 2003, the Elections were at the end of 2004. I bet a lot of people had convictions in that
Bush would continue his work and end the war in another year or so and we could all go
home and have a drink. If people had an inclination of what Bush would do in the 3 years following,
I would bet that Kerry would have won.

Continuing on, Now that I know someone personally who will be sent to Iraq, I'm naturally going to pay more attention to what
these candidate's stances are, and will be more vocal in my support or opposition of a certain
candidate BECAUSE of their stance on the War. I was watching the Democrat Debate on youtube and
aside from spotting the weasel words, evading the questions (and all the other tricks used in these debates) etc.,
I also noted exactly what were the contingency plans & solutions for the Iraq Catastrophe.

This is part of the reason why the people (The mainstream) don't pay attention to the debates: Because they will
still be able to hear the platforms of the candidates in the primaries for both parties, "so why bother now?".

Final thought: If they gave the same sort of media attention to the president votes that they did for 'American Idol',
I bet we'd see a much more interesting election. If anything it would force those running to actually back their promises up.

The problem with that is: How do we get the majority of American People involved with Politics in the same fervor, excitement
and sheer number size as 'Idol'? Ok, perhaps excitement is the wrong word to use, but... the same level of "Awareness" that
Idol has. I can walk down the street and ask Joe Somebody what they think of Idol, and they will right off the bat let
me know what they think, but if I ask them what they think of Ron Paul or Barack Obama, I MIGHT get a reply of
"Who? Oh the Republican and the Black Guy"... and that's terrible.

Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips?

[d34thm0nk3y]

All debates now require that news programs compare every candidate's makeup to Richard Nixon in 1960. WTF? CCGIGO. Creative-commons garbage in...

Hmm, I have an idea. Maybe we could release these debates under some sort of "free" license. Then, politically motivated people such as youself could remove the annoying commentary. Since the debates would not be copyrighted in the traditional sense this improved version could then be distributed.

youtube

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Youtube is going to be clogged with eight-billion videos of clips out of context and "deep" bad voiceovers explaining why [Candidate X] is the worst/best thing after the devil/Jesus

And the annoyance of having links of all of them e-mailed to me pales to the joy that America is becoming (slightly) more democratic

Re:youtube

[maxume]

It would be way more awesome if we re-embraced freedom. It might be democratic to make laws against doing stupid shit, but it sure isn't all that free. Damnit, I want a lawnmower that lets me accidentally turn an appendage into burger without requiring heavy modification and there is no good reason not to give me one.

Re:youtube

[no reason to be here]

Damnit, I want a lawnmower that lets me accidentally turn an appendage into burger without requiring heavy modification and there is no good reason not to give me one.

OK, true. But there is no good reason to want one, either.

Re:youtube

[maxume]

Not wanting to restart the mower after noticing a stick in the way? Maybe not a good reason... Anyway, more a case in point than something I really really need.

Re:youtube

[The One and Only]

"Barack Obama. The worst best thing after the Devil Jesus."

Re:youtube

[evilviper]

Youtube is going to be clogged with eight-billion videos of clips out of context and "deep" bad voiceovers explaining why [Candidate X] is the worst/best thing after the devil/Jesus

...And more lenient copyright on the material in question will exactly ZERO effect on that, because that would clearly fall entirely under fair-use...

Re:youtube

[xenocide2]

Actually, Devil Jesus is the best worst thing I've ever heard of!

This is great news

[VValdo]

I wanted to watch the GOP debate, but my Linux (Gentoo/GNOME) box would not load video from the MSNBC page. I was told that I needed Firefox (which I had) and Flash (which I had). I tried in OS X with Firefox and Flash. No dice. I tried with Safari (which it said would work) and Flash on my Mac. Same message.

I used the latest version of Firefox, Safari, OS X, and the Flash plugin on both machines. STILL was unable to watch on Microsoft's site. On OS X I also had the Microsoft WMV Quicktime plugins.

Just a quick poll-- has anyone ever had video working on MSNBC with a non-Windows machine? If so, what was your configuration?

W

Re:This is great news

[corsec67]

Wait, you expect a MS site to work perfectly with an operating system that hasn't made any money for MS?

Work to some extent sure. But to be broken unless you use all MS software is to be expected with MS services.

Re:This is great news

[theconartist]

I'm watching at this very moment using ubuntu 7.04, firefox 2.0.0.3, and flash 9 (beta?). No problems at all.

Re:This is great news

[WK2]

Doesn't work for me either. I'm using Debian Testing (lenny) with firefox and flash, the latest versions. The site says it works with Firefox 1.5 and Flash 8. I have Firefox/Iceweasel 2.0 and Flash 9. Sometimes newer doesn't work better. Then again, it's M$, so sometimes following directions exactly doesn't work either.

If they had just hosted wmv files, I could download those and watch them with mplayer.

I looked at the code of the page that doesn't load. Sometimes, I can just figure out where the .wmv file is from the code, and then download it. I had to turn off javascript to see it, because otherwise it forwards to an error page. The page is a convoluted mess of javascript. It would take hours to piece together and figure out how it works. I hate M$. They can't do anything right, except herd sheep.

Re:This is great news

[Ksisanth]

I was having trouble getting it to load at first (Gentoo/Firefox 2.0.0.3/Flash 9), so I checked to be sure it was accepting cookies/javascipt and refreshed several times. Nothing: most of the page wasn't visible, no links worked, just the menu image and "loading..." text. Next I checked the source, cried a little, then changed the user agent. The page changed finally, to insist I needed IE (no mention of firefox), so I set it back to default, closed the tab, hit the link again and...it loaded up fine. I watched a few minutes of the video, decided enough of that, then tried to close it, close it, crash. It works for me, sorta, but I still have no idea what happened there.

Re:This is great news

[ricegf]

I'd never been to MSNBC before, but the debate video (and the *ahem* preceding commercial) played without a hitch on my homebrew Ubuntu 7.04 32-bit machine.

Yes because...

[abshnasko]

Guess what the MS in (P)MSNBC stands for

"Without restrictions" = ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know precisely which license it will be released under, or whether it will public domained?

I'm offended that it's legal to copyright this.

[bobdobbs3]

American public political speech for the purposes of running a civil society should be de facto uncopyrightable. This is how you run a (supposed) democracy. If they don't like it, they can pay the entire annual FCC budget for every clip they want to keep to themselves. We GIVE them spectrum, we PAY to defend and protect it for them, this REALLY IS the very least they can do.

Personally, I think they should be compelled to air ??? hours of campaign content to help run the system that makes them their fortunes - it might start to reign-in some of the insane budgets "needed" to "win" office these days.

Indeed

[rolfwind]

The companies want to choose the "acceptable" candidates for you rather the populace choosing themselves. The primaries are very important in party politics and when people complain that they only have a choice between a douche and turd on election day must be informed that they get whittled down to that choice because they consider eleection day all important and not the primaries and that "vote". May not be fair but it is true.

The mainstream media is silent on these candidates, but Digg is abuzz with Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Please looking up these two and consider actively spreading the word about who you like (either of these two or other candidates you find). Or do you guys want to be stuck with a Bush vs. Kerry like candidates in 2008 with both sides sucking?

Ron Paul:
http://digg.com/search?s=%22ron+paul%22&submit=Sea rch&section=news&type=both&area=promoted&sort=new

Mike Gravel:
http://digg.com/search?s=%22mike+gravel%22&submit= Search&section=news&type=both&area=promoted&sort=n ew

Re:Indeed

[Dirtside]

Mike Gravel? Sounds like someone who ends up fighting an epic battle against Doctor Doom.

Re:Indeed

[choseph]

digg is not abuzz with these candidates, it is obsessed with them. Not just obsessed, hd-dvd-crack-hex-obsessed. The threads there are dominated with people wanting to back the underdog and spread the word -- just as every other article that calls on the 'power of digg to get the word out'. Just like how they treated Obama before...or how they run with the constant impeachment threads...or the random unfair treatment threads.

Gravel seemed far too rude/angry for me. He has no problem talking and yelling and interrupting and calling people out and seemed a bit to course with anything he said (I want them to mean it and speak the truth, but not be a steamroller with their personal opinions). I didn't see that going over any better than the Bush nonsense we get. Same attitude, but in a different direction. He's going to have to convince me that he has the personality and charisma to correct some of the scars Bush has left on the world, and not just going to similarly ignore the country and the international community to push his views through.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

It is unfortunate that Ron Paul does not get coverage in the mainstream media. He is the one republican I would vote for, mainly because he is the only person in Congress that is talking about the dangerous position we've put ourselves in. The US dollar has been so recklessly manipulated that we are in serious risk of economic collapse. If you measure the US economy by anything other than the US dollar (Euros, Swiss Francs, Canadian Dollars, Australian Dollars, Gasoline, Corn, Houses, etc) it becomes painfully clear that the US has been in a recession for the last 7 years. But with our manipulated dollar, we've got pathetic economic growth! Anything to keep it positive I guess. The gross expansion in the money supply is so bad that M3 is no longer reported. Under this administration is will continue to get worse (perhaps someone should be asking why Cheney is sitting on millions of dollars in foreign currency).

Re:Indeed

[k1e0x]

Whoot! Ron Paul!

Actually its funny.. if you watch it almost seems like the media is taking extra time to cut out Ron Paul and ignore his existence. It's like they think he is bad and will go away if they don't mention him.

ABC had a poll on the debates up yesterday with 9 candidates on it.. excluding *only* one.. Ron Paul how absurd.

I say the non-endorsement of these candidates by the main stream media make them even more attractive.

Paul/Gravel in '08!

Re:Indeed

[Mr. Shotgun]

Gravel, Gravel, Gravel.. Oh yeah! He was on the Colbert Report the other day. He sounded like a decent choice, maybe a little off but there's nothing wrong with that. And Buzz Gravel would be a killer name change. P.S. Sorry about the flash heavy Motherload link but Viacom pulled the Youtube videos

Re:Indeed

[rolfwind]

Gravel seemed far too rude/angry for me.

Yes, it's far better when a candidate bullshits you with a genuine smile and a conciliatory tone.

Re:Indeed

[choseph]

Given the option of someone spewing angry bullshit or conciliatory bullshit, I'll take the conciliatory one because it is going to piss me off less in the end. Oh, you have proof that the others are just spewing bullshit and Gravel is the real deal? Great, this should be a quick and easy election then, whew!

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can affect the primaries, as long as you live in New Hampshire, or Ohio, or New Jersey. And that's assuming you'll even get a chance to pick the candidate for your party; in many cases, the bigwigs in your state pick for you.

Now, do I vote for the puppet on this hand, or the puppet on the other hand?

But Which CC License?

[rmckeethen]

Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates. Having just released a photo project under a CC license, it appears that there are at least four basickinds of CC licenses, and some varients on them:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

The no-derivitives license in particular could have a big impact, especially for people looking to throw up stuff on YouTube and whatnot.

Re:But Which CC License?

[Phroon]

The most restrictive CC license is either the Developing Nations 2.0 or possibly the Founders' Copyright, both of which would place the debates under normal copyright in the United States. Using either one of these would be a great disservice.

The Free Software Foundation warns about CC licences:

There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons licenses grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative Commons license" is to leave all important questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement, please suggest making it clearer. And if someone proposes to "use a Creative Commons license" for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately "Which one?"

For example, the nc (no commercial use) and nd (aka NoDerivs, meaning no derivative works) Creative Commons "options" clearly make any license nonfree. Please don't use them.

Re:But Which CC License?

[CiderJack]

"people looking to throw up stuff on YouTube"

Yeah, most of the content on YouTube has that effect on me, too.

Re:But Which CC License?

[Constantine Evans]

This seems to have become a widespread problem with the general public's understanding of Creative Commons, as the FSF had warned. Another example may be found in Obama's main website, which the article mentioned was licensed under a Creative Commons licence. If one goes to the site, a CC logo is visible on the bottom of the front page, but unlike just about every other CC logo, it gives no information about the actual licence being used, and doesn't link to any specific licence (it actually isn't even a link). The Terms of Use has no mention of Creative Commons or licensing whatsoever.

It seems that either there are people in the campaign who don't understand how licensing works, or the term is just being used for publicity purposes; but considering that CNN appears to also be making the same mistakes, my guess is that the former is the actual problem.

Re:But Which CC License?

[evilviper]

Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates.

That might be because there's no indication it WILL be CC at all...

If you would have clicked-through to CNN's press release, it simply says: "available without restrictions"

Nobody knows any more than that. Complaining about the different CC licenses, like CNN is trying to use a loophole to keep it restricted, is nonsense, and completely off-topic.

Wonderful!

[jshriverWVU]

I dont know about anyone else here, but its nice to see something positive happening now. This is at least something in the right direction. Now if we can get CSPAN to do the same.

Re:Wonderful!

[remove office]

Now if we can get CSPAN to do the same.

Under C-SPAN's contract, they use government-provided cameras on the House and Senate floor for constitutional reasons. Everything that is shot on government equipment is in the public domain by default. The only copyrighted-material that C-SPAN creates is material they make with their own cameras (such as footage from events outside of Congress, like the White House Correspondents Association dinner, etc).

There was a big hullabaloo over whether or not C-SPAN should use copyright material shot at committee hearings earlier this year, but AFAIK they gave in to requests from the House of Representatives (in fact I think Speaker Pelosi actually stepped in) that the footage be public domain.

Let me be the first to say....

[moosesocks]

Let the YouTube mashups begin!

Flip-flopping Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely correct.

I for one will not be voting for these flip-flopping cowards betraying the corporate interest under pressure from so called American voters.

This is a slippery slope; what's next, poor people being allowed to vote? I hope the corporations respond in kind and gut the donations to Edwards and Osama.

It's all in your head

[megaditto]

System work very well right now. The market responds to demand exceptionally well: we have PBS and CSPAN for the kooky minority that demands it.

If the pubic makes political copyright a larger issue, the media will meet that demand as well (as in fact they just did).

Plus, once the candidates are elected, all of their speeches given "in capacity" automatically become public domain.

What is it exactly that offends you here?

Re:It's all in your head

[bobdobbs3]

One company made an incomplete accommodation. Another has yet to do so. The possibility for this still exists.

Candidates' speeches given to the public for the express purpose of being placed "in capacity" should be public domain too.

My nation's political discourse is not something to be "given back" to me as a gesture of largesse of the corporations.

Utah Phillips said, "Freedom is something you assume; then you wait for
somebody to try to take it away from you. The degree to which you resist is
the degree to which you are free."

I guess we have a better sense of your degree.

Creative Commons is silly

[Anonymous Coward]

For many decades before the Internet, we had this little thing called the "public domain." What's the point of this Creative Commons crap? It just makes things more complicated.

Public Domain:
Can be re-used in public domain projects, BSD projects, GPL projects, proprietary projects, Creative Commons BY projects, Creative Commons BY-NC projects, Creative Commons BY-NC-ND projects, and EVERYTHING ELSE.

Creative Commons BY-SA:
Can be re-used in Creative Commons BY-SA projects, AND NOTHING ELSE.

Creative Commons BY-NC-SA:
Can be re-used in Creative Commons BY-NC-SA projects, AND NOTHING ELSE.

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND-SA:
Can be re-used in Creative Commons BY-NC-ND-SA projects, AND NOTHING ELSE.

How is that free? That's pointless. It has exactly the same purpose as the public domain, but doesn't work.

Don't use Creative Commons. It's nice in spirit, but it makes no sense in reality (like socialism, the war on drugs, Don't Pump Gas on May 15, etc.).

Creative Commons!=no copyright

[frdmfghtr]

FTA:

CNN announced that it plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts in their upcoming presidential debates under a Creative Commons type license Saturday.

"Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public," CNN said in a statement, "CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate."

FTS:

"After calls from several prominent bloggers and a couple of presidential candidates, CNN has agreed to release the footage from its upcoming June presidential debates uncopyrighted.

How does a CC license mean the same as noncopyrighted?

IT DOESN'T! Creative Commons, like the GPL, relies on copyright to license works.

Furthermore, according to the CNN website,,

The presidential debates are an integral part of our system of government, in which the American people have the opportunity to make informed choices about who will serve them. Therefore, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.

To me, that reads "public domain" and not even Creative Commons. What am I missing?

Re:Creative Commons!=no copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

>What am I missing?

Nothing. You expect people to read and understand either the fucking article, or the fucking fucking article that the fucking article is based on? Just pick a random link and some markov chains and you have a slashdot summary.

Re:Creative Commons!=no copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing you are "missing" is being as ridiculously mis-informed as the mass media.

What is truly hilarious is that the mainstream media, who, let us not forget, are the ones being "encouraged to generate useful content because of copyright law" have very little understanding of copyright. Their understanding, it would seem, is so limited that the only way they can explain Creative Commons is to say "no copyright!"

(Note: another explanation is that the journalist in question does understand the difference, but doesn't think their readership will understand the distinction. This, however, is lazy journalism: if you cannot explain the pertinent facts to your readership, you should step aside and let someone smarter do your job.)

Re:Creative Commons!=no copyright

[frdmfghtr]

What is truly hilarious is that the mainstream media, who, let us not forget, are the ones being "encouraged to generate useful content because of copyright law" have very little understanding of copyright. Their understanding, it would seem, is so limited that the only way they can explain Creative Commons is to say "no copyright!"

Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what I stated; go back and read the part where I stated that a CC license RELIES on copyright.

Since you stated I am as "ridiculously mis-informed," clarify my misunderstanding; what am I missing that ties public domain to a CC license?

Opensource and Campaigns

[Anonymous Coward]

Campaigns have always had a history of turning to low cost alternatives to conserve money. Often, opensource, free software, and other channels where costs are subsidized by third parties/grassroots efforts fills this need.

You can see this behind the recent push on Youtube, where campaigns are able to skimp on bandwidth by having youtube shoulder the cost. Or handmade signs by grassroots activists to save cash for the campaign headquarters. Or the substitution of free or opensource software in place of more expensive proprietory packages.

But though campaigns may avail themselves of free/opensource solutions, they very rarely contribute code back to the community.

I think the Wes Clark '04 campaign was special in that they were a truly grassroots effort who gave back to the opensource community. They took SCOOP and modified it heavily and gave it back to the community in the form of BLOOP. Not many other campaigns can say they contributed code to the opensource community.
http://www.crummy.com/cgi-bin/msm/map.cgi/Bloop

Here's hoping Wes Clark decides to run again. We can use more candidates who don't just take code, but actually give code back to the community.

Re:Opensource and Campaigns

[Anonymous Coward]

A better link to BLOOP:
http://www.crummy.com/software/Bloop/

Somewhat related question: redistribution

[ben there...]

I've posted a couple of creative commons videos to Google, in full, and was wondering if full redistribution was something allowed by the creative commons licenses. The directors/producers didn't seem to mind. A couple of them emailed me to thank me and ask how many hits the videos got. But it is officially allowed by the cc licenses to redistribute an exact copy of the full work, or does it have to be a derivative? I think one was CC Sampling Plus if that matters.

good news, but what motives?

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

On the one hand, I am impressed with both Obama and Edwards for keeping up with the times. They are at least aware of Creative Commons, which means that they are aware of copyright issues and the net - which puts them way ahead of the other candidates in terms of relevance to the modern world.

However, in Obama's case I wonder about his motives. Considering his authoritarian tendencies, I am inclined to think that this is more about politics than genuine interest in an open political discussion.

Other posters have mentioned a situation where the Obama campaign decided to forcibly take over a fan site that it wanted, and I also know that the Obama campaign wrote a rather nasty letter to Lindsay Ashford demanding that he remove a photo of Obama and family from his website, Puellula ( http://hfp.puellula.com/Press/2007-02-27.html ), and - more incredibly - demanding that Lindsay should not LINK to the Obama campaign website. His interest in open political discussions seems rather tenuous, when it comes down to it.

If this is how Obama (or at least his campaign) treats his SUPPORTERS, it certainly gives me pause for thought.

Re:good news, but what motives?

[ratsnapple tea]

Obama's authoritarian tendencies?! Now I really have heard it all.

Look, I don't know all the details about those incidents you referenced (though I heard about the Myspace thing), and without hearing Obama's side of the story, it does sound like his campaign went too far. But golly, calling Obama "authoritarian" just makes you sound uninformed.

People accuse Obama of being many things—too deliberative, too self-doubting, too lightweight, even fake. Nobody, to my knowledge, accuses him of being "authoritarian."

Re:good news, but what motives?

[ratsnapple tea]

OK, err. After having actually visited the URL in your post, I have no problem with Obama's campaign wanting to distance itself from that site. Now excuse me while I clear my cache.

Re:good news, but what motives?

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

Oh, I can understand why Obama would want to distance himself.

What I don't understand is the threat of <i>legal action</i> against a website for linking to his campaign website.

If not Obama himself, someone in his campaign has some pretty authoritarian impulses that need to be curbed.

The Devil's in the Details

[jbn-o]

Then until CNN decides to either place the recordings into the public domain (the only way to impose no restrictions) or pick a CC license and retain copyright, it's too early to celebrate.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, one must be careful which CC license is chosen. Gone are the days when all CC licenses featured a common baseline of permissions/freedoms. One might recall the recent C-SPAN licensing on Congressional floor coverage (and related footage) where the licensing terms were so vague nobody could be clear of exactly what they were getting.

One simple phrophesy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I only have a single prophesy:

All the clips of the debates seen on the net will have the CNN logo watermark on them and the MSNBC branding is nowhere to be seen.

Just thinking with _both_ brain cells here

This is good news, I welcome it

[mscsrrr]

This is good news, I welcome it because it will enable the electorate to make a better choice of the candidate. Mscsrrr, http://www.google.com/bookmarks/?hl=en&zx=5869

Admit minor parties, then I'll care.

[kitzilla]

I don't care what license they release the presidential debates under. It will be "closed source" until the debates establish reasonable guidelines under which minor party candidates are allowed to participate.

I'm a Democrat, but the exclusion of Independents and candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Socialist, and Reform parties (among others) is a far worse abuse of power than anything done by Microsoft at the height of its antitrust powers.

These are not non-partisan debates -- they are bipartisan affairs, and the rules are deliberately constructed to preserve the political monopolies of the two main parties. It makes for boring, highly scripted debates, where the same old questions receive the same pat soundbite answers. The U.S. Constitution does not provide for a two-party system, and voters deserves better.

Any party or independent campaign which has gotten itself on enough state ballots to theoretically win an election if they carried those states' electoral votes belongs in the presidential debates. As it stands now, a candidate's party must also meet an unrealistic standard of previous electoral performance. This is pretty much impossible, given that minor parties are denied the millions of dollars of free advertising doled out by the media to the already well-funded Democrats and Republicans.

Rather than talking about open licensing for a series of closed debates, let's talk about forbidding their free broadcast over public airwaves until they amount to more than an undocumented campaign contribution by the networks.

Open the damn debates and quit feigning openness with this BS about a Creative Commons license.

Rosa Parks?

[tepples]

but in a democracy voting has a better chance of changing something than breaking the laws that exist because of the fact that we put democracy into use. Then why did the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat touch off a civil rights movement for people of color?

You guys eat people?!!? (n/t) (also n/funny)

[Mateo_LeFou]

dum dee dum

CNN is just doing it for the money.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The only reason CNN would ever do this is because the other networks havent yet. That puts CNN on the side of "you" which is complete bullshit and we all should know this by now. Cable news networks dont give a fuck about you, the news, or anything that matters to the public. They are giant corporations that only care about the money.

This is about money. NBC refuses, Fox refuses, CBS, ABC refuse... and CNN says "Look over here guys, we'll do it!" And now CNN gets their name everywhere on youtube. This is all about money and image. CNN is saying "we're on your side!"

There isnt a reason NOT to release the debates online and allow people to do whatever they want with them... other than money... So what is the reason for releasing them? Money.

CNN is just trying to fill a void in the market in hopes they will 1 up the competition and in the end earn more viewers through "trust"

And if you trust CNN or any of these news networks.. such as FOX NEWS, MSNBC... you're insane.

Re:CNN is just doing it for the money.

[Glytch]

And if you trust CNN or any of these news networks.. such as FOX NEWS, MSNBC... you're insane.

Because, as we all know, CNN and the other networks have perfected the science of computer voice synthesis and developed 3D CGI techniques to perfectly duplicate human beings, or they've found perfect lookalikes and soundalikes for every candidate in these debates and is faking the entire process.

Be careful! They're also after your precious bodily fluids!

Re:CNN is just doing it for the money.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

if you think its crazy, then clearly you do not know buisness ;)

debates?

[Deadplant]

wake me up when they actually have a real debate.

If using the creative commons license increases the exposure of these sleaze-fests that hardly seems like a good thing.

p.s.
Dear "debate" moderators, grow a farking pair.
The debaters are not your lords and masters, YOU are in charge and have a job to do.

exactly!

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

some idiots at MSNBC, eh?

Voter eligibility?

[tepples]

If people do not wish to vote, they have that right. If they choose not to vote, and then complain that their elected officials are horrible, they have that right too, although they look like fools as a result. Does someone still look like a fool if he complains about laws enacted by legislators who were elected before the complainer became old enough to vote? (Specifically, I was too young to vote when the 105th Congress, responsible for the NET Act, the Bono Act, and the DMCA, was elected.) And does voting for a candidate representing a third party such as Green or Libertarian guarantee the right to complain? (Don't blame me; I voted for Badnarik.)

The MSNBC farce wasn't a debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a bunch of democrats (or republicans) sit up there and give campaign speeches while fielding softball questions from an semi-literate host isn't a debate.