Slashdot Mirror
McCain Campaign Protests YouTube's DMCA Policy
Colz Grigor writes "It appears that CBS and Fox have submitted DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for videos from the McCain campaign. The campaign is now complaining about YouTube's DMCA policy making it too easy for copyright holders to remove fair-use videos. I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA."
here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.
What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Continue to believe what you want to believe. But the repeal of this act had nothing to do with the current crash. The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans. The repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk. That was just greed. And the fact is that the Fair Credit Act specifically required that banks take into account borrowers' ability to repay when making loans. Had existing regulation been enforced, none of this crap would have come to pass.
I am a fiscal conservative, and hate to see government regulation when it isn't necessary. What I see coming to pass is a lot more feel good legislation, and lax enforcement. We have the proper level of regulation in place right now, but when it is not enforced, it is worthless.
But, hey, good job trying to pass the buck. Of course, prefacing it with "FOX luvs the Democrats!!!111!" kinda outs you right off the bat.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.
>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.
Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?
** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.
I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates to the AIG situation and how that affected the banks.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
(For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)
Look it up: any bill passed by more than two thirds is veto-proof.
I do blame the Republicans as well as the Democrats in congress for passing the bill, but we have bank lobbyists to thank for that!
In case you are forgetting, the senate currently has 51 democratic senators, not nearly enough to override Bush's inevitable veto.
Next time you contribute, please at least try to educate yourself on the basic principles of our government.
Glass-Steagal has everything to do with the current crisis. Without its repeal there wouldn't be a quadrillion in derivatives (of course no one knows the real value of that). That is the big black hole that is causing this entire mess. It is why gold and other commodities were going down even though the FED was pumping in 100's of billions of dollars. People were liquidating their paper assets of gold because they had no physical gold to cover their positions.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage).
After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.
On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.
Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
I suggest reading the whole history on the link I provided. You can't blame just one party for it. Had the Republicans been completely against it it would have never passed. Had Clinton vetoed it, it wouldn't have been overridden. Alan Greenspan is also to blame.
In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).
This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Hol
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
For-profit corporations owned by capitalist stockholders can benefit from a strong, central government that works on behalf of capitalists. That's what we've had at least since the 1950s rise of the "military industrial complex".
They would not benefit from a socialist government.
The problem here is that you - like many Americans - are operating under an incorrect definition of socialism. Since the Red Scares of the early 1900s, it's been just about impossible to have a reasonable discussion of socialism in the U.S., until it's reached the point that a large number of people think socialism, communism, and Stalinism are the same thing, and that the only possible alternative to being fucked over by capitalist robber-barons is to be fucked over by a Stalinist state.
Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work. It contrasts with capitalism, an economic system based on the control of capital by a state-backed minority class of "owners".
Both can be found in free-market and in command economy forms, and both can co-exist with authoritarian or with libertarian policies on social issues. For examples of free-market socialism, consult your local libertarian socialist, a.k.a. anarchist; for command economy capitalism, review the U.S. during WWII.
If control of capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, you've got capitalism; if it's spread out democratically, you've got socialism. Slapping a few regulations on a capitalist system does not make it socialist, any more than installing a speed governor on a northbound train makes it head south.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I have fibromyalgia. This requires me to take 300mg of preglabin a day. There is no generic. A five day supply, if I didn't have insurance, would cost me a little over $200. That's $1200 a month. I'm a college student, I certainly can't find that kind of money.
Earlier this month, I had a kidneystone; three ER visits before it got under control. ($4,151 each, according to the bill): $12,453 The surgery was $7,162. The surgery to remove the stent they had put in was $6,812.
So, this month, healthcare has cost me $27,627. I can barely afford my deductible; you really think people can pay that kind of cash out of pocket?
I live in a major metro area in the US with more than fifty hospitals and hundreds of smaller medical offices. In fact, my city is known as a center of medical care. Do you know how long it takes me to get an appointment with my PCP, or any other general practitioner for that matter? Two months. There was a newspaper article recently about emergency rooms being overworked; people have to go there for things as simple as the flu, because they can't get to see their doctors in any reasonable time frame. Don't tell me that socialized medicine is the problem here.
No, buy many Americans jump on a plane to India because they can't afford to get their treatment in the US.
No. No no no. This is terribly and awfully anecdotal. You cannot just sling around words like "common" and "many" without providing even minor evidence of such. You need to provide evidence of the number of Americans that actually travel to India and then conduct a discussion around whether or not this number would qualify as "many" Americans. You cannot take something you read in a magazine or saw on 20/20 and start formulating policy based on that.
If we could see evidence that -- just for sake of discussion -- 0.1% of (just guessing) 200 million insured people had to go to India for a procedure they could not afford in the US, there'd be some merit to your argument. Otherwise, you're just telling stories that may tug at the heart strings, but aren't at all useful for the purpose of making broad decisions.
Again, how many is many?
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".