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."
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
Can you? For me, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. And even when it does work, I've still got that stupid Play symbol superimposed over the video after I click it.
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.
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
I just want to see open and honest government
I hate to disillusion you, young fellow, but I've been voting since Nixon was in office and I think you'll see unicorns before you see an open and honest US Federal Government.
Free Martian Whores!
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?
The issue with #3 is fair competition. For example, they might release a video press release to the major network, and then a day later post a lower-quality version on their website for download. In this case, the major networks were receiving preferential treatment (both because they were given earlier access and access to a higher-quality version).
The point is that in addition to openness, there should be fairness: the content should be made available to everyone (citizens, news outlets, corporations, etc.) at the same time, with the same quality, with the same "ease", and under the same terms. This means that companies are able to compete fairly in their dissemination/commentary/reporting/whatever (instead of one company having an advantage of some sort). This also means that citizens have the same opportunities for analysis/commentary/mashup that corporations do.
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!
perhaps Professor Lessig doesn't realize 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.
Not only does Lessig understand this, he wrote a book addressing the issue, aside from it being a note in most everything he does; Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. He mentions in a number of speeches and such that copyright is a law that comes into effect when a 'copy' is made. "Reading a book, sharing a book, selling a book, and sleeping on a book don't make copies, so there no 'trigger' for copyright law". What has thrown the whole system into chaos is that in the digital world "every act creates a copy, thus every use is regulated". When you view a web site, it makes a copy in menory on your computer. every time a packet runs through a router, the information is copied and recopied for it to reach its destination. In this respect it makes as much sense to call this copying as it is tp say that reading puts a copy of the book in your head. It is true, but I don't think that was the intent of the law.
To stress the point, what you say he "doesn't realize" is really what he has built an entire career upon trying to explain to people.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
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