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."
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:
The problem is that nobody uses their material except for parody, so they don't have anyone to sue.
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
Free speech is free speech. Picking and choosing your examples is just as bad as censorship.
Gone!
Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?
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
Parent is trolling; Fox has an extensive history of censorship.
The one thing I hate the most is hypocrites. I'm a staunch advocate of same-sex couples having the same legal rights as mixed-sex couples, but fair use is fair use. Your principles should apply equally to those whom you esteem and those whose viewpoints you find repugnant. Opponents of same sex marriage have a first amendment right to use any legal, non-threatening method to communicate their viewpoint to others. I'd prefer they stick to facts, but apparently they have no legal obligation to do so, and except for being taken out of context, use of this clip was entirely factual. As Voltaire is credited with saying, "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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?
A list of abusive, lying corporations that includes De Beers on it!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If I produced a Slipknot video, I'd DMCA myself too.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
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.
>>>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.