Slashdot Mirror
Copyright As Weapon In US Senate Campaign
kfogel writes "Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for US Senate in Nevada, is using a copyright 'cease-and-desist' letter to stop her opponent, incumbent Harry Reid (currently majority leader in the US Senate), from reposting old versions of her campaign website. The old pages are politically sensitive because Angle campaigned from the far right in the primary, but is now toning that down for the general election."
As kfogel notes, the letter "also accuses the Reid campaign of intending to impersonate Angle's campaign, which seems doubtful, but who knows?"
Maybe he SHOULD stop hosting old versions of the site, and just link to them in google cache instead. Let her fight google. Should be good for headlines, and maybe raise some awareness about the idiocy present in copyright law.
Its not stupidity though, its simple downright shiftiness! She campaigned ultra right to get through the primary, and is now claiming a more moderate stance for the general election. This is why American politics is broken.
In 1948, Truman issued an order desegregating the military. By 1954 (and thanks in no small part to the help of his Republican successor, Dwight Eisenhower) the job was done,
Kind of.
IMO, racial minorities still faced pretty extreme discrimination in the military for decades. Truman also had the benefit of having a huge military that needed trimming anyway, so he had some ability to shape it. By comparison, Obama is trying to effect this change during a time when the military is overextended and arguably understaffed. And the concern now is not just preserving the dignity of those currently oppressed, but assuaging the concerns of the rest of the military (bigoted and offensive as some of those concerns might be).
Plus Truman and Eisenhower both had experience in the military, so they had the benefit of some experience and held some credibility with the troops (Ike certainly). Obama probably not so much.
By the time I read this news item, the site Reid posted, www.therealsharronangle.com, was redirected to a site that is clearly mocking Angle. However, if I understand correctly, Reid's campaign originally reposted her entire website verbatim, with no indication that it was not being hosted by Angle's campaign.
If so, Angle's complaint may not be without merit. She seems to deserve a lot of mockery, but you don't get to pretend you're someone else in a political campaign, especially when you have a functioning mailing list sign-up form on your 'fake' site.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
Fair use covers excerpting for a number of purposes, but there are limits to how much can be used. The complaint in the letter is not that they excerpted from her Web site, it is that they mirrored the entire thing. That's not in any of the gray areas where there are disagreements about whether you've used to much or not; it's an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement, should the copyright holder decide to pursue it. The Nevada Democratic party clearly isn't going to fight this. The link provided in the complaint letter now redirects to a different site that does not appear to be a copy of the original site.
The limits on what can be used are not set in stone, and it depends on the type of work and what it is being used for. Political commentary tends to get the widest exceptions to copyright, and posting a site in its entirety seems quite reasonable for political purposes, as it provides all of the context of the original site, and there aren't the issues of market dilution that you have with commercial works. By doing it this way, they can say that they are accurately representing her views rather than quote-mining, because her views are displayed exactly as she displayed them herself.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer