Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security Running NBC-Owned PSAs
An anonymous reader writes "A few months ago, Homeland Security's ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) group started placing an anti-piracy video PSA on various domains that it had seized. What it didn't say was who created the PSA. A Freedom of Information Act request by Techdirt has revealed that the videos are actually created & owned by NBC Universal, but nowhere does Homeland Security publicly admit this. As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs? So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?'"
It's called a Congressional hearing, they hold 'em every day!
That's "Must See" as in "you are legally required to watch and learn, citizens."
The press wouldn't care, because they do it too. They happily run videos produced by corporations and present them as news. It makes them a little money and helps them be lazy.
Besides, who's going to report than NBC produced the videos? NBC?
So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?
Yes, we should, but I'll be happy to wait until after they've answered the more pressing question about what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.
And now Comcast and NBC are one..
So if i download NBC content on my COMCAST ineterweb service.. is it legal or not?
I have to return some videotapes...
What was 'Homeland Security' created for? What is its charter?
Have gnu, will travel.
In the UK we call this the public-private partnership (PPP - no, not that PPP), private finance initiative, introducing competitiveness into service provision, blah, blah, blah. What it actually means is a hegemony of large corporations selected by government cronies which siphon money off the tax payer to provide a service you either didn't want in the first place or which was once provided much more effectively at cost.
When finding out that a government is paying money to a corporation for a service, there is only one necessary question: what compensation will be paid to the men in government who made the decision by the executives of the firm which just won the multi-million-currency contract?
*bum*bum*bum*bum ...starry rainbow logo...
NBC bid the production and won... nothing to see here except the whining from the bidders that didn't make the cut.
You wouldn't steal an CAR, would you????????
"why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?"
The Dept of Homeland Security can contract out jobs like video production to whoever they want. I haven't seen the video, but it should be judged for what it is and nothing more. If it is one-sided, then the DHS is to blame because they are ultimately responsible for the project. Who made it is simply irrelevant in my opinion.
What we really need to know is... do they have a proper license for the content? ;-)
Also, do they have to prove they have a proper license if someone files an improper DMCA takedown request in order to counterclaim it?
I logged in before posting, but when I went to preview the CAPTCHA was "hostage". Apropos. How very apropos.
Corporate Security has the ring of authenticity to it.
This happens all the time. PSAs don't come from nowhere... it is always some well-funded lobby with an agenda. Some groups are just better at hiding their tracks than others. . The abuse of power begins the moment the power is created. All government agencies exist because the pols want to be the focus of the corporate influence. Without these government agencies the actual citizens would be "lobbied" with, *gasp*, better services, prices and policies.
Who cares who made it, IF the content was accurate(*) then fine. IF, and this is admittedly a big if, ICE gave some sort of specification or script to NBC then does it really matter? Producing a video might be the sort of thing you would want the government to outsource.
Alternative IF NBC wrote the script and the government found it to be accurate(*), then fine.
Note that I am not commenting on this video. I'm just challenging that idea that if someone else produced the video there is inherently a problem.
(*) Perhaps some would prefer "consistent with the government's position" rather than "accurate".
Not saying that there isn't a conflict of interest here but the analogies fail because neither McDonald's nor Goldman Sachs are in the business of creating PSA's (basically advertisements) whereas NBC is, so you could argue that the Feds just outsourced the job to someone with expertise in the field.
Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?
US Agricultural policy is written by lobbyists for the likes of Monsanto and ADM. And are there any high-ranking officials in Treasury who don't have strong ties to Goldman or Bear Stearns?
The question isn't how the press would react, it's how the citizens react. And the answer is, they don't.
There have been many documentaries, exposes, and so forth about the incestuous relationships between industry and US regulators and law makers. The response has been a collective yawn.
Everyone (other than W.) in the White House or Congress who had any major role in getting the prescription drug plan passed went on to work for the drug industry. You don't need to imagine the reaction; just look around.
There's no need to ask.
Laws in the US are written at the behest of large corporations, to serve large corporations, with the people who enact those laws being paid by those large corporations.
The fact that the Department of Homeland Security is performing raids to protect the intellectual property of corporations is pretty much proof of that. Why is an agency tasked with the physical security of a nation responsible for seizing domain names suspect of copyright infringement? Because pretty much all US law and policy is in service to the wishes of the owners of this intellectual property.
When Goldman Sachs writes your economic policy, you seriously need to ask these questions?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How's this different than the PSA's that the Ad Council regularly runs? They're often done by outside corporations. They're usually "nonprofit" corporations. That doesn't always mean they don't have an agenda. Often the agenda is their very reason for being.
Don't believe me? Well, the NRA is a nonprofit corp, for example. At least portions of Earth First are nonprofit corp. The American Conservative Union Foundation that puts on CPAC is a nonprofit corp.
I could go on, but I've given examples that should be suspect to various parts of the political spectrum.
Is the point that it's only OK if they partner with $(groups) that $(individual) agrees with?
"So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?'"
Um, no. Let the Government do what they damned well please.
Or start firing your representatives, and hiring new ones. THEY are the ones not doing their jobs. It's called an election, and they happen every 2 years. Fire your Representatives, and your Senators, and your President, until they get it right. Then they will have to look over the other branch (judiciary) and get them re-oriented as well. This will take decades, my friends. It's ok, BTW, for the Congress to instruct the Judiciary, by law and by appointment. We have influence on that, if we choose to exercise it. Even the SCOTUS answers occasionally to Congress, in the form of nomination confirmations, and in new law to address disagreements. Not instantanous, not perfect, but it can work.
You know how at work, if the boss isn't paying attention, then the staff gets into trouble screwing around and failing to even try for goals, much less achieving them? Same problem with government. We are lax in our management of our own government. This must stop.
Gotta steer the boat, or it will end up on the rocks. Rock beats sailboat.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Besides, who's going to report than NBC produced the videos? NBC?
The more important question is why would any other network want to show a PSA that credits NBC? The lack of references to NBC probably has more to due with network rivalry than anything else. I have a faint recollection that the networks like to overlay *their* logo over the PSA, "this PSA brought to you by [insert network here] and ICE."
The Fed was also created and owned by a private companies, and how many people know who made it? Homeland security is just following their example. http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
Seems like worrying that the pit bull coming for your neck has a tick.
Hmmm... I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason I think it has something to do with the current administration...
...and just the other day...
For those of you that voted for Obama, apparently you didn't notice that he choose Mr. Joe Biden as his Vice President running mate. Mr. Joe is bought and paid for by the RIAA and MPAA. Now you get to see what all that campaign money bought. Congratulations!
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
If it is government policy information I should be able to use it without violating copyright (under U.S. law, government publications are public domain). However, since this was created by NBC and NBC retains copyright on it, I need their permission to use it.
Second, this means that NBC is making government policy on copyright.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What's Internet Justice? I made it up, but I'm sure it will solve your problem.
Hint: Net Neutrality doesn't prevent an ISP from pushing random crap down your pipe.
As opposed to every other economic system, where the people who make the rules get all the money?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A government agency running a corporate sponsored ad campaign? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Who would have expected that?
I mean, aside of people who have been living on the planet for more than a decade...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A have to admit, that's actually a very slick video that gets its point across in a very human and humorous way. And I agree with the point that they're making.
If everybody stopped going to theaters and buying DVDs (... or now using NetFlix, iTunes and other streaming media outlets...) then they are right, Hollywood would collapse putting thousands out of work and severely impacting the economy. (And while they are overreacting, it has already had an impact on the music industry.)
They are clearly exaggerating the impact, but PSAs always did. Remember the "this is drugs, this is your brain on drugs" ad from the 80s? Was it an exaggeration? Of course. Was it both correct AND effective? Let's face it, getting stoned every day is not going to improve your intellect and only the most radical would attempt to argue with that. While the "War on Drugs" has been a horrible failure, public education about the risks and costs of excessive consumption have been very successful. Everything in moderation kids, a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at the BBQ fine, but getting shitfaced every night is not so cool.
On one hand I would like to see the **AA organizations go away and stop trying to sue all and sundry for minor copyright infringement but at the same time I would really like the media industries to appropriately reward the artists whose work I enjoy.
Society is about finding the BALANCE between people rights, sadly not everything can be free.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?
Not if you value your weekly dose of Chuck:Super-Nerd, Consumer.
Is this the message of the short film? Buy our movies, they might be crap, but they also might be good, and they cost a lot because we can't be bothered to keep up with new technology. Otherwise this working woman looses her job, because, you know, we won't cut it from the salaries of people choosing to produce bad movies, and we won't cut our HUGE winnings when make a blockbuster. We like it as it is, and you the consumer must support our funny ways or we'll fire the poor women.
Whose the pirate there? "Give us your money or we cut this woman here! Aaargh!"
Watched the video.
Message: Take these pirated movies, and this woman (Sound stage tech) loses her job.
Sub-message: The people that still take the movies are heartless scum.
As article points out, shameless PSA produced by NBC; proffered by HSA.
That over with--
1) This assertion (Take pirate DVD, woman loses job) makes a series of fundamentally broken assumptions:
i) Content production companies (like studios-- like the one which made the PSA) live so hand-to-mouth that the failure to monopoly dominate sales/transfers of the content they create will cause them to lay off workers.
Reality: The phase 'hollywood accounting' exists for a reason. Any such 'Hand-to-mouth' type economics exists exclusively on paper, to avoid paying actors, authors and film crew while simultaneously generating huge profits for the production company. It exists exclusively as a contrived mechanism to avoid paying royalty money on the very sales the video harps about. This makes the video a hypocritical, bold faced lie from the get-go.
ii) The act of taking the pirated DVD would cause the person to lose her job, because you are not paying-- EG-- the lost sale angle.
Reality: Multiple redundant studies have shown that consummate media pirates on average BUY MORE products than their 'legitimate purchases only' counterparts.
Additionally, the pirate is only interested in the product to begin with because he does not have to invest anything; EG, the appropriation of the pirated DVDs are NOT lost sales.
Without the piracy option, the consumer would simply not have consumed, reducing media penetration, and realistically doing far worse than what piracy allegedly would have done. At least when the product gets pirated, the pirate gets a direct assessment of the quality of the product, and if it is any good, would now have direct motivation to buy additional products. Eg- Pirate downloads first matrix movie-- likes it, orders the trilogy box set. The subsequent sale would never have taken place if the initial piracy had never occurred. The notion that the pirate would have just sunk down 50$ for the box set of movies he has never seen and is dubious about, is pure insanity.
--------------------
What I personally took away from the video PSA:
'See this poor token production worker? See her frazzled hair!? Doesnt she look pathetic?'
See me? I am in my fancy suit, and have perfect teeth-- Isn't it terrible that you would cause me to take money away from this poor frazzled worker because you would dare upset the apple cart?
Never-mind that I am obviously not hurting for money (As seen by my quarterly finance reports), or that I am a lieing shyster who personally is responsible for this poor token floor worker's plight because I care about my corporate bonuses more than her and her welfare---OR that I am being a hypocritical bastard by passing that blame on to you...
Just Pretend that simply isn't the case and embrace the fantasy we spin for you about how it is YOUR fault she suffers, and it's all because you don't impulse blanket-buy everything we shit out on store shelves blindly! (In fact, she probably isnt even a real sound boom operator to begin with, and is probably some poor soul we conned into thinking might get an acting career if she did this humiliation gig, whom we will probably never call on again.)
That you would take these DVDs for free and 'force' me to fire this woman (Again, because I value my own bonus more than her or her employment-- but never-mind that) whom I barely pay purely out of my own greed and do legal gymnastics to get out of responsibility for; Why that makes you a disgusting person! You should be ashamed of yourself!'
Message brought to you by the federal Homeland Security Administration.
As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public?
As opposed to the FACT that the heads of the FDA are always major industry players who have or will work for the same companies that they're overseeing? Like Monstanto people working in the FDA?
How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?
As opposed to the FACT that the department itself is run by Goldman Sachs people (such as Henry Paulson) who pushed through to give Goldman Sachs billions of dollars during the whole manufactured "the world is going to end!" financial problems?
Well, chances are, NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT. They didn't give a shit bout these facts. Nothing is being burned down and nobody is being chased with pitchforks. Nobody gives a shit and nobody will give a shit about the actions of the DHS until it is too late to legally voice your giving a shit about the actions of the DHS.
Well at least I favor thinking for myself as opposed to wanting the elites to do it for me.
What you don't seem to understand is that the problem you referred to is not a "capitalist system" problem, but a human nature problem.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, it means NBC is making videos about government policy on copyright.
If the government didn't pay for it, the government doesn't own it, which means it's not public property.
If it was somehow not in line with government policy, there might be a point here, but it is in line with government policy, so this entire article is a troll.
Capiche?
If the government didn't pay for it, then it should be broadcast as an NBC PSA, not as an ICE PSA.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
what you dont seem to understand is that boosting something you deem as a 'human nature problem' by institutionalizing and encouraging that problem is not the way to solve that problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
there is no difference in between feudalism and capitalism. latter is just a 'free for all' version of the former, until an established hierarchy totally settles.
Read radical news here
Please feel free to recommend the economic system you prefer. However, limit yourself to actual economic systems not purely theoretical ones that have never existed in the real world.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This woman from the clip is a sound engineer. Before sound cinema era there were piano players who used to play live "soundtracks" for silent cinema. And all those people lost their jobs. So I take all DVDs from the table... you sound-bi.ch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
with your proposed logic, we should have never gotten out of stone age.
Read radical news here
"DHS hires producer of TV commercials to produce TV commercial." Gee, what a shocker.
So, who should they have hired instead? Is there any production company, writer, or actor that doesn't have a vested interest in this matter? Were you expecting a PSA to show a reasoned intellectual debate about the pros and cons of copyright infringement? Would you expect Smokey the Bear to discuss how fire is a natural and necessary part of the life cycle of the forest, so go ahead and leave that campfire burning once in a while?
Stay tuned, kids. Tomorrow's great expose is sure to be, "FBI hires janitorial firm to clean toilets."
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
OMG, fucking DUH! A television network producing TV commercials! Producing PSAs is media production. [sarcasm]What a goddamn shock that is. "Oh, why doesn't DHS just use a camcorder and do it in an office?"[/sarcasm] This is how PSAs get made, people. What's the problem? It's not like DHS doesn't direct the content.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
And following your preferred economic models we would return to the stone age.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
would weee noooow. and your logic for that is ?
Read radical news here
Having seen what has happened every time they've been tried.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Mod parent down for believing the Matrix is a trilogy.
The "villain" in this production is a pasty middle-aged white man, with poorly-done, slick hair, wearing a business suit. He's a little unsure of himself, and he sneaks away with an even greater number of DVDs (3) than what was previously mentioned (1 or 2), indicating greed.
The heroine is a very attractive ethnic-appearing female. She is dressed very trendily. Not only is she attractive, but she is intelligent. While the "villain" stammers in his decision, our heroine looks down in careful contemplation, as if she is making some life-altering decision, then boldly states her objection.
They created the villain by taking things most people would reject subconsciously, and they use the same tricks in the opposite way so we identify with the heroine. Nevermind the fact that the MPAA-types would almost EXCLUSIVELY appear like the villain does, and most of soulless pirates are probably closer to the heroine.
you mean, each and every time in which the party which you are defending (capitalism) have either directly attacked, or indirectly intervened or created a military standoff in order for it to not succeed ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
ironic how the 'leader of the free world' britain lands with 18 other nations that deem to be there for freedom, in order to suppress free people revolting against monarchy, with a clear and stated goal to reestablish monarchy.
Read radical news here
Says who?
Says me. You are free to disagree, but if a PSA is going to present the corporate line (NBC's in this case) I would prefer that that be stated in the PSA (especially if the PSA is also presenting government policy).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why is DHS doing anti-piracy anything???
...They have comments on the video disabled. Otherwise they would have gotten an eyeful of criticism.
The government has free speech, too. If they want to let NBC produce their PSAs for free, they can.