Slashdot Mirror
EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame"
netbuzz writes "Recognizing that public shame is a potent weapon, the Electronic Frontier Foundation today launched a new Web site — its Takedown Hall of Shame — that will shine an unflattering spotlight on those corporations and individuals who abuse copyright claims to stifle free speech. Among the early inductees are NPR, NBC, CBS, and Diebold."
I for one welcome our shameful overlords
How about the Church of Scientology? /b/tards started harassing them.
Their censorship is the entire reason the
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What happened to Video Professor? Should have made the list IMO:
I think given the high volume of abuse by some of these people, wouldn't some sort of tally/grouping work better? Also, what exactly are the criteria being employed by the EFF here?
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
......and even hassled a benefactor in Australia to take down his mirror
My web domain.
The problem is that nobody uses their material except for parody, so they don't have anyone to sue.
I understand that they are trying to make a point about applying fair-use across the board. But you'd think they'd choose something other than NPR trying to mute gay bashes as an example. It's like trying to get bees with vinegar.
PS. here's the censored youtube clip incase you were wondering what was actually said.
Having fun with the strawman?
How about this?
Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?
Stand for Marriage Maine (SMM) created an ad criticizing same-sex marriage that excerpted a brief portion of an All Things Considered interview. Although the ad's use of the content was clearly necessary to its critical political message, NPR sent a takedown demand to YouTube resulting in the removal of the video. NPR failed to recognize that SMM's excerpting is simply another clear-cut example of a fair use in political speech -- the 21st century equivalent of an issue pamphlet.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
How many billions have been tied up with his threatened takedowns of everyone and their dog who ever looked at Linux?
Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?
*if* normal folk come across this, I'm sure big outfits will just spin the EFF as some anti-corporate evil pinko deal...
And the sheep will go for it, too.
kind of a choir preach type deal, no?
Sent from my PDP-11
Tell that to Glenn Beck and the lawyer defending gb1990.com, troll.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yeah well I guess I'm just sick of it. I'm now listening to White House people who are collecting salaries from MY taxdollars claiming fox is a "wing of the Republican party". Don't these persons have anything better to do than sling mud at the free press??? Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party. Which is fine - one channel's left - the other is right - the truth lies in between. I like BOTH channels because it's democracy in action.
Anyway this tidbit is interesting:
.....Fox News had sent three notices of copyright infringement demanding the takedown of Progress Illinois' videos. In the videos, Progress Illinois, a union-sponsored blog, apparently used short clips of Fox News coverage of local and national political events to set up political commentary about those events.....
It's also disappointing that YouTube hasn't already restored the videos. When similar shenanigans took down campaign videos by Senators McCain [CBS] and Obama [NBC] during the presidential election season, we called on YouTube to take steps to protect online speech, among them human review of videos that have been subject to a counternotice, and immediate restoration of videos that are clearly noninfringing fair uses.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I thought this is what Chilling Effects was for?
Or was the EFF unable to push the spotlight idea through the other partners they have for Chilling Effects (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Don't feed the trolls ; )
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
News flash: Nobody is that interested in your opinion.
Parent is trolling; Fox has an extensive history of censorship.
I think the GP was making the point that some 'evils' are greater than others.
Obviously though, if you want to choose the greatest evil, always go for the option with Cthulhu.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Examples:
Now, it's normal for a media outlet to have its own slant or bias; even a corporation evolves a "culture" which colors what is reported. However, Fox is not even rationally consistent with its judgements; take, for example, back to back reports on Britney Spears' younger sister being pregnant vs. Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Bill O'Reilly went from calling Spears' parents "pinheads" to saying that "the liberal media's judgement of Palin is outrageous" without taking a breath. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Local Fox affiliates have normal news. The parent news agency, with their "Fox and Friends", Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and more, are entertainment at best, a propaganda agency at worst, even in those segments where they claim to be news.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Consider NPR a private organization with a (very small) government subsidy. Does everything with a subsidy automatically become public domain?
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
A list of abusive, lying corporations that includes De Beers on it!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party.
Yeah... an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman. Get real - if you honestly think MSNBC is guilty of anything like the sort of slanting that goes on at Fox News, that can only mean you've never watched it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Warner Music, being the big pile of hate and control freaks they are, issued DMCA take down notices for videos on there own channel. The Slipknot video of PsychoSocial as the prime example. The local rock station would provide a link to the video, go to the link, and video removed by order of DMCA copyright infringement. As hosted under the Warner Music group channel, almost all the videos they had had the takedown notice. Why not just um, remove the video from the channel? I guess they needed to feed the lawyers
So you're
1. trying to get the troll mod removed by threatening more trolling, in the process trolling
2. confusing "modding down" with censorship
3. a fox news apologist
I'm not quite sure if you're making trolls look bad or making fox news fans look bad.
....and this is a waste of time. If these people had any shame we wouldn't be in the position we're in, legitimate customers wouldn't end up out of pocket and with an unusable product etc. etc. This is like trying to shame that obnoxious house mate your friend has that doesn't shower or shave and walks around their apartment naked in mixed company.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
...who used their own news wire to send out a pre-emptive takedown notice to basically the entire Internet.
It's all about the liberal agenda ... ... which is why the NPR is in there for sending a takedown that used a very small NPR clip in an ad against gay marriage.
Only an idiot of massive proportions like you would think that Fox is anything other then a right wing propaganda machine.
Are you really as stupid as your posts indicate?
It's kinda funny how stupid people get all pissed off at this.
If you ever actually watched Beck or Hannity, or listened to their radio shows, you would know that they never claim to be balanced. Hell, they'll be the first to tell you that they're conservative.
It's like whining that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have a liberal bias. Hannity and Beck are entertainers.
Of course you know that, but it's just not a good troll if you admit it, right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But Fox is not there?.. How come? Why are they so special? Certainly could've come after all those calling them "Faux", for just one example...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm now listening to White House people who are collecting salaries from MY taxdollars claiming fox is a "wing of the Republican party".
Fox News? A wing of the republican party?
Don't be absurd! /sarcasm
BTW, I'm not a democrat.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Anyone else worried about this turning into an infinite takedown notice loop the brings the whole internet to it's knees, as the corporations send takedown notices to take down the takedown notices which are then put up only to be followed up by more takedown notices for the takedown notices of the takedown notices, which of course will then have to be put... Can anyone stop this madness?
Hmm, let's see. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert -- Comedy Central.
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity -- Fox News Channel.
You're right; absolute equivalence. I can't believe those damn liberal hypocrites!
Look, nobody's bitching that Rush Limbaugh isn't balanced. Not only does he not claim to be, nobody claims he's anything but a man paid to stir up conservatives. But when your show airs on a news network above the banner "Fair and Balanced," yes, you're doing everything you can to pretend toward an air of impartiality that you not only don't have, but have absolutely no intention of trying for. It is exactly what the OP suggested: Opinion masquerading as if it is impartial news.
If they want to get their own TV shows on Comedy Central, they're more than welcome to them and you will hear nary another word about their lack of impartiality. So long as they're airing on the biggest network news channel in the nation, above a claim of balance, they deserve to be held to a higher standard. We'll start with the standard their own damn network branding claims to set and go from there.
They get for free multi-billion dollar valued airwaves all over the country.
Neither NPR nor CPB actually have any spectrum, let alone get it for free. They produce programming which is licensed by other broadcasters. The radio stations themselves are generally operated by public education institutions (with the occasional private university or ad hoc community organization thrown in).
That '2%' you cite is more if you consider the taxes not collected from the 98 percent donated.
Are we going to claim ownership of anything produced by any 501c3 or any other tax exempt organization, too?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Its a crime (felony) to criticize food products in some states (Texas for example). Your basically fucked unless your name is Oprah and you got $1 mill laying around to defend yourself.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
>>>an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman
At first I didn't know who you meant, and then I saw the name Joe Scarborough. He was a Republican, but he's no conservative. Just as Republican Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats, so too should Joe.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Which is impossible to answer. You're giving NPR the benefit of the doubt, but not others. Why? All these organizations might say, via their PR people, "we don't like this tactic, but we have to do it." How would you decide who is lying?
And it may well be that NPR would send goons to beat up their enemies if they thought they could get away with it. I doubt it. But how can we tell?
You cannot judge people by the intentions you think they may have. You must judge by actions.
forgot to click preview first
Instructions for filing a DMCA counter notification with YouTube are easy to find [google.com] and clear enough. You can even send it by e-mail.
The counter notification is sent to whomever submitted the original take down request. If they notify YouTube that they have filed for an injunction, then YouTube won't put back the materials. But if they don't file for an injunction, then YouTube may reinstate the materials.
Does YouTube typically decline to reinstate materials when no injunction has been filed? I don't know. Professor Wendy Seltzer has successfully gone up against the NFL [seltzer.org] with YouTube's counter-notification process. I'm pretty sure that the NFL has more monetary resources than she has.
If YouTube does decline to reinstate materials after receiving a counter-notification, they are acting more conservatively than the law requires them to act in order to avoid monetary liability. This wouldn't be a breakdown in the DMCA, but a problem with YouTube's own policies and procedures.
I doubt that most instances of materials being taken down permanently do not involve counter-notification. I suspect that the more typical case is that a person's posting to YouTube is removed because of a take down notice, but the poster never sends a counter-notification. I don't know why this would be the case. It might be that the posters are unaware of the counter-notification proceedings. Maybe they choose to minimize their risk of getting sued and thus deliberately abandon the effort. But, when there is a legitimate dispute regarding an alleged act of copyright infringement, someone has to champion the case that there is no infringement. If nobody (i.e., neither the service provider nor the poster) is willing to take responsibility for keeping the material posted, then there is nothing the law can do to prevent the material from being taken down.
You're replying to a jackass. While I do applaud your efforts to educate him, I think you're doing so in vain. Idiots of that sort can't learn.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
First, that's not an example of partisan bias.
Second, for every such incident at MSNBC, there are a dozen at Fox News, like how every Republican who's indicted or caught with his pants down is "accidentally" labeled on-screen as a Democrat. The scale is vastly different here; you're ignoring reality.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Greg Sargent points out a bigger problem with Fox News:
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.