Slashdot Mirror
Lessig Launches Open Transition Principles
soDean writes "The Principles for an Open Transition and a petition were co-launched by Lawrence Lessig, Mozilla, and the Participatory Culture Foundation today. This was in reaction to the announcement that Obama would be posting his transition videos to YouTube.
The petition encourages Obama to publish his transition videos with open licenses, make them available for download, and preferably use royalty free/open video formats and standards. Unless YouTube makes some radical changes, the videos will need to be hosted elsewhere."
Lessig sounds like he's writing letters to Santa...
No sig for the moment.
They do it all the time. http://www.infowars.com/?p=6313
Since gnash can play youtube video, this isn't a restriction in practice. Much ado about very little.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also fairly certain that copyrightable material produced by the federal government of the United States is automatically public domain and could not be placed under a more restrictive license such as any copyleft. The office of the president elect is under the purview of the General Services Administration, and I imagine would be under similar requirements.
Since the Office of the President Elect (web address: Change.gov) is a federal government office, anything it produces is automatically in the public domain.
But here's the problem with Lessig and company... it costs money to mount a video service, especially something that would be as popular as this is. If The Mozilla Foundation (main funder: Google) is willing to convert and host the videos, then the most likely could get the source from the governement. If they're complaining to YouTube (owner: Google) to change their ways, then they're just biting the hand that feeds them.
"Don't listen to other people who make these claims. Either they're trying to hook up with you, or THEY'RE LAWYERS!!!"
I'm also fairly certain that material that comes out of that office cannot be copyrighted, and I'm also certain that as long as the videos can be viewed by anyone, the videos have served their purpose.
And everyone else I know can, too. It's very ubiquitous. If "open/free" makes it any more difficult to access than YouTube, it's toast. With Jelly. And peanut butter. Yum!
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
Nice. Something ever so slightly silly about that.
Join the Free Software Foundation
Here we have another example of ideology trumping practicality. It costs Obama next to nothing to post the videos to Youtube. Just about anyone with a computer can view them there, and there are programs out there that can download the videos on Youtube.
There would be a lot more work in putting the videos into an open and downloadable format as they would then have to host them somewhere. Not to mention, there are a lot more people surfing Youtube rather than, say, any of the government's sites. To put it another way, if one wants real openness (as in getting the word out about what you are doing), it also helps to avoid obscurity by targeting things people actually pay attention to.
The weekly videos are a step in the right direction. But I was hoping to see more frequent communications from a variety of different faces on the transition team, talking about their progress and the work they're doing.
I just want to see open and honest government, and a three minute communique every week doesn't really do that for me. I liked the press conference Monday, but I feel like I want to be able to see more. I want my government to finally be accountable!
I don't see any issues here.
Anything made by the government should already be available with an open license, and I'm pretty sure that YouTube will be willing to bend a few policies for the President of the United States if they are asked.
I also don't think that it would be difficult for someone working with Obama to just convert the videos to various open formats and put them up on the official White House website, as well as YouTube so Joe the Plumber can watch them easily. (Most people wouldn't watch the videos if they couldn't just find them immediately on YouTube.)
I don't think they need a whole petition, none of this is hard to do. Just ask nicely and I think Obama would gladly agree? Or is there some large problem I'm missing here because I didn't read the article?
it also says to download the article in "pdf" format.
where is the "standard, universal format" ?
it makes me think it's just an article to ripe on you tube.
Since when is there an "Office of the President Elect" let alone a seal. Whose ego is driving this anyway?
First, he isn't even the President elect until the 15th (or whenever the electors cast their vote) though the vote is not in doubt, it just is factual to declare the title is not applicable yet.
Second, there is no office of the President Elect, there is no authority other than what the current President grants; I doubt it is even legal for the sitting President to do so.
I don't want to sound like part of the tinfoil hat crowd but all this wrapping oneself in an air of authority/royalty really is marketing gone amok or an ego gone amok. I hope its the marketing side because if its the later we are not in for a good four years.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How much ad revenue has YouTube made off of ChangeDotGov fireside chats? I know the particular page has no ads on it, but the press they are getting is phenomenal. Also visitors who path through the site to get to ChangeDotGov are generating revenue for them.
If Obama wants to be fair to commerce he shouldn't align his content solely with YouTube.
According to this version of blip.tv's wikipedia article, Lessig has praised blip.tv for already meeting some of these standards.
The actual source is an article on Lessig's blog.
that i with lessig can now ask people online if theyre "down with OTP"
Good people go to bed earlier.
No Legal Barrier to Sharing
Both Senator McCain and President-elect Obama endorsed this principle in the context of presidential debate video rights. The same principle should apply to the transition. Change.gov now respects this principle
Seems to be no problem there
No Technological Barrier to Sharing
For example, while content may be posted on a particular site such as YouTube, because YouTube does not authorize videos on its site to be downloaded, transition-created content should also be made available on a site that does permit downloads.
As a lawyer rather than a technologist, perhaps Professor Lessig doesn't realise that a YouTube video must be downloaded to be viewed, at least in a manner that would have the RIAA sue you if it was one of their copyrighted works.
However, having someone in the White House seed torrents wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Free Competition
Governments should remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas. Transition-generated content should thus not be made publicly available in a way that unfairly benefits one commercial entity over another, or commercial entities over noncommercial entities.
For example, if video of a press conference is made available in real time to television networks, it should at the same time be made accessible in a standard, universal format for download and sharing. The transition team's decision to make press conference video available on its website is a step in the right direction
I really don't understand #3 at all. If it's free, and in the public domain as other commenters have pointed out, what's the problem?
Last, the summary isn't very good. It isn't just Lawrence Lessig, the document was also signed by:
Change Congress
Shari Steele for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Josh Silver, Free Press
Mozilla
OpenCongress
Participatory Culture Foundation
Participatory Politics Foundation
Students for Free Culture
Ellen Miller for the Sunlight Foundation
Xiph.Org Foundation
Cory Doctorow for Boing Boing/Happy Mutants LLC
William Vass, President and COO for Sun Microsystems Federal
Adam Green, Moveon.org
Eli Pariser, Moveon.org
David Colarusso, communityCOUNTS.com
Dan Gillmor, Center for Citizen Media
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive
David W. Kralik, americansolutions.com
Lawrence Lessig
Tim O'Reilly
Micah Sifry, editor, techPresident.com
Clay Shirky
Aaron Swartz
Jimmy Wales
Mitchell Kapor
John Amato - Founder of Crooksandliars.com
Matt Stoller
Jonathan Zittrain
Free Martian Whores!
This week the videos are available in MPEG4 format. Is that open enough?
http://change.gov/newsroom/blog/
John S. Jacob * jsjacob@iamnota.com * www.iamnota.com * pgp: ac6ace17
What a blowhard move. It comes off as (read in a snobby self-rightious tone)"If you're going to be transparent, you must only do it in the way that _I_ and my other pretentious a-hole freinds approve of. Otherwise, don't even bother, it won't be relevant." This is almost as stupid as Greenpeace slamming on Apple for making a greener laptop by complaining about all their other products.
A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[2] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright." As an exception to section 105, 15 U.S.C. Â 290e authorizes U.S. Secretary of Commerce to secure copyright for works produced by the Department of Commerce under the Standard Reference Data Act.[3]
In addition, many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others (e.g., patent applications, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, public comments on regulations, etc.), and this rule does not necessarily apply to the creative content of those works.
Also, certain works, particularly logos of government agencies, while not copyrightable, are still protected by other laws similar in effect to trademark laws. Such laws are intended to protect indicators of source or quality. The Central Intelligence Agency logo, for example, cannot be used without permission. This is intended to prevent the appearance of endorsement, under the CIA Act of 1949.[4]
The federal government can hold copyrights that are transferred to it. For example, in 1837, the federal government purchased former U.S. President James Madison's manuscripts from his widow, Dolley Madison, for $30,000;[5] if this is construed as covering copyright as well as the physical papers, it would be an example of such a transfer.[6] More common examples are works of independent contractors, where the contract specifies that the copyright is to be transferred to the government.
This would also apply to works for hire. Government owns the copyright to the contracted work, but it does not become public domain. Further, as noted, the rule only applies to the federal government and not the government as a whole.
:) The wiki page cites good sources.
I mentioned this in part above, but without references. Seems like it was about time to do so
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Do people really care about this? Are the transition team videos something people are clamoring for? They seem to be of very little value unless you need some change/hope porn to get your fix now that the election is over.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
We're working on the assumption that Title 17 USC 105 applies to these works as results of official duties of an officer or employee of the United States Government, which would make the videos produced public domain content.
We have volunteers posting them onto Bittorrent now:
http://beta.legaltorrents.com/creators/101-changegov
and notifications go out onto Twitter, Facebook, and onto custom RSS and email feeds to our members on LegalTorrents
I though that This Development essentially made this a none issue? Am I missing something?
The Long Now Foundation
... to the list of worn-out figures whose relevance has declined so far that they resort to inserting themselves into every trendy news story and how it needs to be made "free" for sycophantic geeks who refuse to use the same file formats as everyone else?
Other distinguished members include Eric S Raymond and Richard Stallman, among many others.
Seriously, though, nearly every digital recording system these days uses MPEG-4, if not natively then as an intermediate stage. If you object to the government distributing files in patent-encumbered formats because using those formats is immoral, you're not avoiding MPEG-4, you're just getting someone else to do your dirty work for you (i.e., converting into Theora). And that's DEFINITELY immoral.
In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[2] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."
don't you understand?
.
This is all about control of that public domain information, by Obama, by the USGov, by corporations, by telcos.
If it's really public domain material, just post it on the main access point, e.g. whitehouse.gov. For all it matters it'll end up on the bittorrent sites--more efficient in the long run.
Put it in a torrent. Besides costing almost nothing, that would send another, very important, message: it's not illegal to use P2P.
Her: "Is there a way you can save videos off of youtube and watch them later?"
Me: "i'm sure there's some browser plugin or other 3rd party tool that lets you do it, but I don't think youtube allows it explicitly. Why?"
Her: "I want to download and save all of the Obama videos. I'm worried that they're going to change or disappear later"
There are a surprising number of videos that get axed from youtube for what would appear to be politically motivated reasons.
The ease of changing or erasing information in the digital domain is offset by the ease of replicating it. But if something curtails the ease of replication, digital information is potetially much more amenable to disinformation or manipulation.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
First off, is the transition team a government entity? Does it in reality have any association with the US Government at all? I suspect it does not. Therefore, all the yammering about the videos being in the public domain may not apply at all. The videos may be created by an independent contractor paid for as part of the non-governmental transition. The transition team is not paid by taxpayer funds, you know...
If these videos are in fact public domain, then I can create my own version of them. For humor, parody or any other purpose whatsoever. I can use this source material and inter-edit it with anything else I would like to and publish the results. Is this a good idea? Let's have a contest for the most outrageous, over-the-top video composed of at least 20% Obama public-domain video and see what we get, shall we?
Obama should tell all media that while they are free to make any recordings (still, audio, video) they wish to of him - since he's a public figure - but that all such recordings - the portions including him - must be fully Open and public domain if they want to use his image/voice for their commercial benefit.
Any "internet lawyers" who'd care to comment on the legalities/illegalities of that?
> I think you'll see unicorns before you see an open and honest US Federal Government.
So all we have to do is splice some narwal genes into a horse and work out the kinks? That wouldn't take too long if there was funding for it.
I mean, they've made plenty of things glow in the dark by splicing genes for bioluminescence. This can't be that much harder...
One thing that G W Bush got right is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/rss you can download thousands of speeches by G W Bush.
I hope EVERY talk Obama gives will be posted. History deserves this record, and the noise media will do everything they can to prevent it. (recall the copyright suits over "The Prise.")
Andy
Gavin Newsom has also attempted something similar. Local pundits are trying to get him to follow Obama's lead by licensing content CC, which Obama has done recently.