Slashdot Mirror
Romney Invokes Fair Use In Dispute With NBC Over Campaign Ad
An anonymous reader writes "Mitt Romney's campaign is airing an ad that is basically 30 seconds lifted from an NBC News broadcast and NBC is trying to stop them from using the ad. I found it interesting that the Romney campaign is invoking fair use to defend the ad. Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said 'we believe it falls within fair use. We didn't take the entire broadcast; we just took the first 30 seconds.'"
This is great!
Big Media Outlet: Waaah, we're the only ones allowed to exploit fair use, not other people...
Tom Brokaw was, "extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign."
This is more of the same, "Infringe on someone else's freedom to protect mine? Sounds good! Infringe on my freedom to protect someone else's? Hell no!"
Bullshit...
The funny thing is, we'll be seeing more and more of this type of hypocrisy as copyright becomes more powerful and media becomes easier to catalog for the average person.
Information needs to be free to prevent tyrants and dictators from using our ignorance against us. /paranoia :) Cheers!
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
This doesn't stop them from passing laws that would make their own actions illegal...
MABASPLOOM!
Precisely. Except it's not.
Please post a link to the video. Thanks.
Its all or nothing assholes! Thanks for ruining the world!
NBC: Mitt Romney, tear down this ad. Yet NBC keeps running it, getting paid
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I support fair use and I love that people don't need to wade through paperwork or legalize to use something in academia, analysis, or news reporting.
Fair use is supposed to cover things like media criticism, allowing the entertainment media to show clips of television shows or films and offer constructive commentary or feedback. "Two thumbs up for Tropic Thunder" or whatever. Movie and film reviews are not always protected under fair use though and there are many times that YouTube channels with film reviews are axed. The way to get around that is usually to only use clips from the freely released movie trailers. Big media love to use clips themselves but they'll hound sites or video sharing services that allow for clips coinciding with negative reviews.
Fair use is also to cover academia, using clips for education purposes. Showing someone how a movie scene is made or why this film's scene is iconic or so on. My professors didn't need to obtain a license from whatever studio to show a hundred of us Goodfellas and The Godfather in college.
Fair use is even for news reporting, if a story needs to have a clip that might be copyrighted, and it benefits the public and actively augments the news story, then invoking fair use to use a clip with copyright might be appropriate.
But claiming 'fair use' for a political advertisement? I don't think so. There is nothing academic going on here. There is nothing being analyzed for the sake of teaching. And there is no objective news reporting occurring here. This is simply a politician taking a reporter out of context to create an artificial soundbite to further his political career. It's pathetic. It is not fair use to use a news report in a political advertisement.
That being said the news media should not be surprised. Between the shows like 'Crossfire' or the O'Reilly Factor where nothing is objective at all, and newspapers endorsing presidential candidates, the news media has been directly involving themselves in politics for years by getting involved with ideological arguments and directly supporting candidates. Now the candidates have figured out that they can just bypass the media and use the reporters words, even out of context, to help them campaign.
I just can't wait until a reporter deliberately says "I support what X candidate is doing" because he has an under the table deal to be featured in a campaign. It would be easy. Get on TV, say you "want this candidate's ideas to become realized in America", and then wait until that clip is featured all over in a major campaign because of fair use. Most of these "journalists" and "reporters" care more about fame than objectivity so they'd likely welcome the attention.
This is not fair use but the media is so worthless and corrupt that it's almost impossible to care when a politician fucks them over. The media has been screwing America for the last decade with no sign of slowing down. Now if you'll excuse me I need to watch the fifth season of The Wire.
Newt Gingrich ethics violations video
then it isn't fair use, it's blatant copying. If the Romney campaign want's to license it, that's another matter.
This doesn't stop them from passing laws that would make their own actions illegal...
That totally ignores the fact that when we were backing down politicians from SOPA it's mostly Republicans that responded.
Hollywood and the MPAA has a FAR greater influence over the Democrats than they do Republicans (though yes, there are also some Republicans who are bought with MPAA money too). The difference is that thanks to the Tea Party, Republicans are actually starting to be afraid of the voters. The Democrats are only afraid of Hollywood...
Vote for the future you prefer, those afraid of you or Hollywood. Over the next few years the direction you choose will be crucial.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'd like to point out that this isn't fair use. Fair use is taking some-else's content and using it with your own in some manor that isn't primarily based on the taken content. While fair use is quite often arbitrarily diminished by major producers this isn't the case here.
Here you have a guy taking a copyrighted work and reproducing it for personal gain with almost no modification.
Someone with a nick of 'VinylRecords' asserts an overly narrow definition of fair use. I am shocked.
I'm sure there are many more, but I didn't want to spend my entire Sunday listing them. The point is: they've been doing this for many, many years.
The ad in question is a 27-second (unedited) clip of Tom Brokaw reporting that Newt Gingrich was found guilty of ethics violations. I don't know how you could say that's out of context.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
after all, he stole someone else's copyrighted material, and used it without permission for his own personal benefit. he should be in jail in accordance with the damage he has done to the owners of the copyright.
it is too bad SOPA didn't pass, he could be branded a terrorist.
First off, "I only used X seconds" is almost never a complete argument for fair use. How much is too much? Sampling a fraction of a second of music for a new song is enough to cause a lawsuit in some cases; likewise, having a few seconds of music in the background of your unrelated YouTube clip can get it pulled. A few seconds of a copyright work in a movie can lead to a 6 figure settlement (12 Monkeys). There is a concept of the "heart of the work" in copyright law (e.g., publishing a book review of Ford's memoirs that included only a page or two of quotation was not fair use, because those pages were the most interesting part). In the case of the broadcast clip, it'd be quite easy to argue that the lead story is the heart of the work.
Second, fair use for what purpose? It's not current news, it's not parody, the work is not transformative. Maybe you could argue it was "educational," but that's a stretch, and usually only applies in an actual educational context, not in a political ad during campaign season.
Other factors... did they take only what was necessary? In this case, no... why do all the other campaign ads only need to use excerpts of broadcasts, rather than the whole thing? And, aside from copyright, Brokaw may have an argument based on personality rights, although I don't know how being a newscaster would affect that argument.
It find it ironic that despite all the Congressional rhetoric surrounding piracy and copyright infringement, these campaign folks (who are of course being advised by lawyers) simply rip off 30 seconds of copyrighted work and then cry "fair use."
Note that personally I believe this kind of use should be allowed, but from what I see of how current copyright law is actually applied in practice, it is not allowed.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Are you kidding? Political speech is at the *core* of First Amendment protections. If Fair Use should cover *anything*, it's political speech. Mitt Romney's a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who's right on this one (just like McCain was, in 2008).
But claiming 'fair use' for a political advertisement? I don't think so. There is nothing academic going on here. There is nothing being analyzed for the sake of teaching. And there is no objective news reporting occurring here. This is simply a politician taking a reporter out of context to create an artificial soundbite to further his political career. It's pathetic.
He's using a clip to support an argument. That is fair use.
It is not fair use to use a news report in a political advertisement.
That's insane. Political advertisements are an important part of of the election process. More importantly, news reports should not be allowed to be copyrighted in the first place. They're reporting on facts, facts can't be copyrighted, and this whole thing about "the way in which we compile the facts can be copyrighted" is bullshit that we need to get rid of.
...the first thirty seconds of the movie "Star Wars" to promote my non-profit website. I totally support the Romney campaign in their...wait...there's a bunch of people with letters on the back of their windbreakers kicking my door in...help!
reread the copyright act
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
while they may have an argument about the use creating a false impression that NBC the company endorses Romney that is NOT a copyright issue.
Although I agree with most of your points, in this case I have to disagree. Fair use comprises these four standards:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
1- The ad is not using Brokaw's reputation to sell a candidate, rather (pun intended) it is just repeating some factual reporting he did about another candidate. And I'm pretty sure campaigns are NFP organizations. Nor does the use as far as I can tell change the tone or character of the original work.
2- The nature is news reporting, not some kind of creative work whose value might be diminished by others copying it.
3- This they might be in trouble for, as I doubt the 30 seconds versus a 30 minute program metric will apply. More likely, it will be how much of the story about Gingrich they played. If that was the whole piece, could be problematic. If it is the first 30 seconds of a 6 minute piece, it's probably OK.
4- Same as #2. Brokaw and NBC aren't diminished by simply repeating what they said on a newscast from 15 years ago. It's not like they are selling "Best of the Nighly News" DVD box sets.
Be glad he admits at all. Most bastards in the record industry don't seem to think it exists at all.
Fuck 'em all, I say. I hope pirating puts the entire entertainment industry out of business. Then maybe, once the ground is scorched, we can have a rational discussion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So if I had a 30s add for my product, I could use video or music I want and call it fair use since its only 30s?
Bullshit. If you think Republicans will raise a finger to defend your rights, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under for the past few decades.
Neither party cares much about copyright, because outside of Slashdot, not many people care. On literally every other issue, it's the Democrats who have tried (meekly) to defend individual rights.
You're right about one thing. Our direction over the next few years is hugely important. If you want more corporate money in politics, more rights for corporate persons, fewer civil liberties, war with Iran, the privatization of Social Security, the elimination of Medicare, and even lower taxes on the top 1%, then vote Republican.
Freedoms come in levels.
Your innate Right to exist is of a higher level than someone else's assumed freedom to kill you, morally-speaking at least.
That being said, if they have a gun and you don't; then you are really trusting this other person's moral compass and/or incentives.
The key being that example is a direct dispute between an innate Right versus an assumed Freedom;
Innate Rights are something which no legitimate government may strip from you; in very rare circumstances Freedoms must be curtailed to protect other's Innate Rights, but these are limited in scope (i.e. you aren't allowed to experiment with radioactive isotopes in your basement or aren't supposed to yell fire in a crowded theater) by definition.
Classical liberal economists (Suggested reading being Locke, Hobbes, etc.) would argue that your freedoms extend to a certain social contract into which governance and the governed enter and wherein specific rights and/or freedoms must be protected by government - namely security, labor opportunity, and a certain amount of self governance & expression. Going even further, FDR and other 'New Deal'-era politicians wanted to re-define these contracts to include an assurance of economic opportunity - so that High School graduates could go get a job and live well enough to raise a family, College Grads would be hired into the workplace in an equivalently skilled position, and total overall productive work would continue to grow; manufacturing, innovation, resource development and nation-building. For a look at how exactly this didn't work out and some of the numbers proving it, with sources, I recommend Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson's - Winner Take All Politics - How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned its Back on the Middle Class.
Back to your question though,
Freedoms and Rights shouldn't get confused, especially in the case of corporate entities who are virtually infinitely wealthy when those corporations claim their Assumed Freedom to limit that which is actually the Innate Right of a real person and therefore precluded from their ability to limit.
My fear is this will only worsen as technology continues to outpace the judiciary.
Well, you know, if the democrats are out for your digital rights and the republicans are out for your reproductive rights, at the end of the day, you just have to keep one thing in mind..
You can't pirate a baby.
It seems obvious to me. They didn't have to use NBC's content to make their point, and Mitt Romney can certainly afford to license this or similar content that would make the same point. They WANT to be sued. That makes controversy you can't get any other way and makes BIG MEDIAâ the enemy of the Romney campaign.
That's red meat to the Republican base. Also, later when negative stories about Romney inevitably hit the press, the campaign will have poisoned the well.
Maybe that's because they were largely for it? You can't change your mind to against unless you were for it. I don't have numbers, but here's a picture with a source attached. It doesn't look all that clear to me.
What is clear is that Democrats are typically not on the censorship bandwagon that Republicans have to be to establish their evangelical bona fides and get the Good Christian vote. So Hollywood supports Demorats, California Republicans (and CA has a lot of Congress people), and people like Reagan and Arnie who have been part of the entertainment industry. That's the only reason Hollywood supports one side, and if that side fights back the support dries up.
Republicans did not flip due to support, they flipped because someone got it through their heads that they were passing a law that would really piss off a lot of their voters. Not the ones who contribute this time, but people who would go register to vote in order to save their WikiPedia so they could copy and paste college assignments.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/images/sopa-opera-count.png
"1- The ad is not using Brokaw's reputation to sell a candidate, rather (pun intended) it is just repeating some factual reporting he did about another candidate. And I'm pretty sure campaigns are NFP organizations. Nor does the use as far as I can tell change the tone or character of the original work. "
Its most certainly using Brokaw's reputation to sell. If reputation didn't matter they could use a clip of any Joe Smo. Also attacking a competing product is selling your product. If Coke put out and anti Pepsi add, and never said coke, and ripped of someone else's material, they would be sued, just like the Super PAC will get sued.
Oh please, Republicans love Hollywood money as much Dems do, though you're right that historically Hollywood gives more to the Dems. Mostly because Hollywood doesn't want future repeat of McCarthyism, or Republican "Family Values" type legislation forced down its throat. But when it comes to legislation that benefits the **AA's, the Republicans have been right there supporting it, though you'll be hard pressed to know exactly who because almost every DCMA type legislation from the late 70's to now gets passed by a "voice vote" or "unanimous consent" in the applicable House of Congress. Both parties have been very careful not get pro-corporate IP issues used against them in elections. Until now.
His defense claims fair use. But what about Brokaw's right to protect his public image? Especially since he has gone out of his way to remain neutral in politics?
NBC might be unable to pull the ad due to equal airtime requirements, or may be enjoying payment as long as other networks are doing the same. But Romney's defense don't cover the whole scenario, which may get this taken down everywhere, not just at NBC.
historically Hollywood gives more to the Dems. Mostly because Hollywood doesn't want future repeat of McCarthyism,
Which is funny because while McCarthy was a Republican, the people who committed the actual abuses (as opposed to just demagoguing about them) were Democrats. The House UnAmerican Activities Committee was established and controlled by Democrats.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The reason Republicans were the ones who backed down the most from SOPA is because they were the ones most supporting it in the first place.
I don't have numbers
Sure you do, but you're pretending not to because if you acknowledge the real numbers, you'll be admitting that you know you're lying.
Most of SOPA's legislative supporters are Democrats. Most of those opposed to it are Republicans.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're right about one thing. Our direction over the next few years is hugely important. If you want more corporate money in politics, more rights for corporate persons, fewer civil liberties, war with Iran, the privatization of Social Security, the elimination of Medicare, and even lower taxes on the top 1%, then vote Republican.
I'm sorry, but everyone of those things you've mentioned has been supported by our current president and most of the Dems in Congress in one form or another. The difference between the parties are really just a matter of degrees of support for the same goals, rather than fundamental differences based on ideological principles. Save for the same old social wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, prayer in school, etc. there is no difference between the parties now.
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Well, it seems to me that it would be an easy argument to make that a political ad is for "nonprofit educational purposes". It, also, seems to me that this ad would be unlikely to negatively effect the potential market or value of this copyrighted work. I do not see how you can say that this does not fall under fair use from that definition. No where does the statute say that educational use only counts formal education.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The clip IS the argument, so what is it supporting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEE0qpfeig
*Poof* there goes one of my points. I blame the the Communists. Thanks for the correction.
yeah, damn him for pointing out most, if not all, of the ways fair use currently applies to modern copyright.
oh, he didn't mention time/format-shifting or other such usages, which we could lump together as 'personal'.
education, critique, journalism, personal...what else is he missing that makes his definition of fair use narrow?
I do have numbers; they were easy to get. Support was evenly mixed.
The original sponsor was R. There were 32 cosponsors (including the original sponsor), 16 D and 16 R.
It is true that more republicans withdrew support than dems: 6 R withdrew vs 2 D.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261
The character of the use (as in the distinction between unmodified copying and preparation of derived works) is one of the factors which a judge weighs in determining whether something is fair use, but it's not the only one -- and by no means whatsoever are derived works guaranteed to be fair use. It's a fuzzy line, not a solid definition with clear boundaries.
Completely unmodified reuse, but of a short clip only, with zero diminution in commercial value, for educational purposes only, of a work of historic nature (yes, "nature of the copied work" is one of the factors)? Certainly, a reasonable judge could find it to be fair use.
They are still airing the ad...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
What's funny about this is when a campaign add becomes news for some reason the networks will show it on their news segment. Seems like turnabout is fair play.
Maybe Brokaw can invoke droit morale.
How long before Romney invokes droit du seigneur? Maybe it's allowed in Utah.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... to NBC: Sue 'em
... to Romney: Counter sue 'em
This is America, in case you don't know.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
From now on, all my mp3's will only have 99% of the song. Sure, I may miss the end of the song now and again for certain ballads I enjoy, but I can always claim that I never lifted ALL of the song. Just a part of it.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
It find it ironic that despite all the Congressional rhetoric surrounding piracy and copyright infringement, these campaign folks (who are of course being advised by lawyers) simply rip off 30 seconds of copyrighted work and then cry "fair use."
That's not ironic. It's basically the entire point.
The people being elected to congress are not prepared to pass legislation that has actual consequences. They think they're doing the boring job of maintaining the country, which is why hardly anyone takes it seriously. They think it's okay to be selfish and accomplish nothing. They think that peace and prosperity will never end--or worse, they think that you have to have to be superstitious and cowardly, maintaining the previous order at any cost. The proper way to go about it would be to take it seriously, take it slow, and not do anything drastic just because of momentary industry pressure.
Only people in the tech industry see now (by which I mean plus or minus a decade) as being a crossroads, where legislation can make things better, can keep things the same, or can utterly decimate technological and cultural innovation. Congress sees it as kids playing, and like a lot of bad parents, they equate "kids playing" with "slacking off" rather than growth and development.
Because it's not included in a news program aired at 6:30 PM over a decade ago?
If Romney wants to say that Gingrich was found guilty of ethics violations, then Romney can get in front of a camera and say it.
He can't steal footage of Brokaw saying it and use that.
The only reason he's using the footage of Brokaw is to imply an endorsement from Brokaw. That's not legitimate. He can convey the facts without using the likeness of someone else who doesn't want to be used in that manner.
paintball
Fair use text in full
18 USC 107
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec=107
Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
above factors.
Keep this in mind - the right wing and the left wing are attached to the same vulture.
George Wallace had it right decades ago when he said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties (though he was a real asshole, too).
If you have 200 million dollars!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Its most certainly using Brokaw's reputation to sell. If reputation didn't matter they could use a clip of any Joe Smo. Also attacking a competing product is selling your product. If Coke put out and anti Pepsi add, and never said coke, and ripped of someone else's material, they would be sued, just like the Super PAC will get sued.
There is no selling. Romney's name is never mentioned until the mandated bit at the end. NBC and Brokaw have no commercial interest in the quoted material. It seems to me that fair use is corrupted by the concept that a report that is used in a context that the creator didn't intend represents a violation.
There's no context cutting here. No expansion upon the message. This is simply a "Hey, remember this..." ad.
I thought there was some SCOTUS guidelines for time for free use? Like at least 10 seconds, in a particular case? And it is for news and education, and critique and review. What next, the DNC suing the RNC (and vice versa) for using video clips from past ads, sponsored and recorded political speeches, etc. to paint the others' candidate into a bad spot, for violating "fair use"?
If Brokaw has a problem with the words he recited willingly and publicly, isn't that his problem?
Isn't putting putting the public record on display fair use?
If Brokaw has a problem with what he reported to us back in the day, he should apologize to us now.
Thats why he mentioned the tea party. You know those disruptive fellows senior republicans flat out said to the media they needed to co-opt and control?
Most have been voting the way they were elected to, and for. It's been disruptive to both sides getting their garbage done.
You can think they're racist all you want, but you'd be wrong. They also have more in common with the occupy movement than anyone will admit.
Personally, I'd go a lot farther: few if any "journalists" or "reporters" give a damn about objectivity or make the slightest attempt to be neutral. Almost all of them think they have a God Given Right to slant the news to fit whatever adjenda tehy happen to have at the moment. In fact, I'd bet that over 90% of them would be surprised to find out that there was a time when they were expected to stick to the truth in reporting and keep their personal opinions for the Editorial Page.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Here's the best part about it. NBC is whining like a baby over it. But, where are the ads airing? NBC!!! They could simply stop running them if they wanted, but as long as the checks keep coming, they'll keep running them.
Hypocrites.
Someone with a nick of 'VinylRecords' asserts an overly narrow definition of fair use. I am shocked.
Which is funny as the only people under US copyright law that can decide what is or is not a "fair use" are Federal Judges. Let's just forget that any sane person would find it difficult to argue that the ad, essentially the first 30-seconds of that news broadcast in unedited form, could be considered a fair use. The /. crowd are just anti-ownership pro-pirate dipshits whose opinion on the matter doesn't really count.
FTFY.
My principal from 45 years ago is not only still alive, he's one of 500+ members of the Facebook group for my elementary school. Not only was he principled, but he was (and presumably still is) a helluva nice guy.
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
Oh, don't give me that. I think only changing the system or introducing a viable 3rd party is going to choose any directions here. The choice between Democrats and Republicans will roughly comes down to allowing gays to marry and whether the poor will have any social programs left at all. These are both important issues, but I so wish that my vote affected any other issues.
He'll have no problem signing bills that destroy fair use.
I once had a candidate (for Mayor of Baltimore) lift an op-ed piece I'd written for the Baltimore Sun and use it, full-length, as a campaign flyer without asking permissions I billed her. And after a little screaming, she paid -- once she realized that I was a freelancer and had sold *only* first publication rights to the Sun.
Over the next few years the direction you choose will be crucial.
When was this never true? The next election is always more important than the last. Not just the ones when your clan tries to regain power.
You are correct that Democrats, by and large, stand on the wrong side of this issue because of their allegiance with Hollywood.
You are incorrect in asserting that Republicans are afraid of the electorate because of the Tea Party. "Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people. All those black people who rushed out to vote for Obama in '08. Those same black people who didn't vote in the congressional elections in 2010 because Obama wasn't up for reelection. Most importantly, the same black people who will make 2012 another record for voter turnout, reelecting Obama and kicking the Republicans out of congress. And the scariest thing of all for the Republicans has to be, from 2012 - 2016. If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.
Personally, I'd rather fight the Dems on copyright issues than let the Republicans back in. It's pretty weak-sauce of the Democrats to allow Hollywood to hold this much control over them, but that doesn't SCARE me. It pisses me off. Republicans starting a war with Iran scares the shit out of me. Their economic policies scare the shit out me because I'm not rich (and even if I was, I would still be morally opposed to them). And their opposition to socialized medicine is indefensible.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
But unfortunately the legislature and the courts have not given us any clear description on what is and is not fair use. The only way to find out is to take a case to the courts and have a judge evaluate the evidence and issue a ruling.
So Romley needs to do exactly that ... have his ad pulled by a DMCA takedown. Appeal that. Have NBC sue (and get an injuction to stop him using this video until the case is resolved). Go to court. All this could easily be resolved by mid-2013 (unless the loser appeals to pregressively higher levels of the court system).
Wait - you say you need this ad now, while the primaries are going on? Sorry - that's not how it works.
Mitt: Time for a campaign promise to fix these damn laws so that they provide clear guidelines for fair use - I'd certainly take notice if you did that (you'd have to drop a bunch of other stuff before I could be persuaded to vote for you).
Save for the same old social wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, prayer in school, etc. there is no difference between the parties now.
So in other words, other than issues like individual rights, the parties are the same...
If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth
Optimism springs eternal...
The Equal Opportunity clause of the FCC rules for Political *Candidates* is quite clear. Network television may not refuse a political ad from a candidate, nor can they "overcharge".
Support a few technologists in Washington.
looks like romney is using piracy to get his words across.
Wonder if they will sue him for copyright violations!
Not every issue. The demo's are by and large hostile to the second amendment.
They also have more in common with the occupy movement than anyone will admit.
To include Tea Party Republicans themselves. To be honest, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone that self-characterizes as a Tea Party Republican say anything that wasn't totally negative or disparaging about either the Occupy Wall Street movement or the protesters themselves.
Hell, I remember back in early 2011 here in Madison, WI, when Governor Scott Walker went to war with the unions up here, people pretty much occupied the Wisconsin State Capitol for 2 months (over 100,000 at one point), you couldn't go more than 5 minutes without someone that called themselves a Tea Party member bitching and complaining about the people occupying the capitol, how "disgraceful it all is" and all that nonsense, how they have no right to protest. People from a movement that itself is named after one of the most famous protests in our nation's history, whining about protesters and the "legality of protesting", because, you know, sneaking aboard ships in Boston Harbor and throwing thousands of dollars worth of privately owned tea was totally legal back in those days or something....
There may be some overlap (and by all rights, there should be a lot more) but for the most part, they're two completely separate movements and until both sides are willing to respect each other (doubtful) they are going to continue to oppose each other even if they agree with each other on paper. The Tea Party, for the most part, has dismissed the OWS movement as being a bunch of whiny children just looking for handouts. Go read any article covering OWS, here's one from CNN's front page right now, and read the comments. I'll bet you a million bucks 99.999% of the people posting those negative comments, ask them what their political affiliation is, and they'll tell you Tea Party. Try it for yourself if you doubt it...
Maybe that's because they were largely for it?
Yes, of course. And they they were swayed away- by the PEOPLE.
That is my whole point. Republicans can be scared off something we do not like. Look at the magnitude of repines against SOPA, huge names and so forth - yet Democrats were not swayed out of that forbidden tree.
If you think you will get a politician who will never climb that tree you are an idiot. That is why your only REAL option is to vote in people who will listen to what you say when you yell loud enough instead of doing nothing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bullshit. If you think Republicans will raise a finger to defend your rights
They are. You can plainly see it with SOPA. It's right there man.
If they Democrats controlled both house and senate still, it would be passed. That is simple fact. If you return Democrats to power in November, SOPA will be passed before the end of the year. Why do you doubt this?
If you want more corporate money in politics
Then you should also vote Democrat. They are the ones who bailed out the large banks, who threw the insurance industry trillions of dollars in mandatory insurance purchase via Obamacare. The Democrats are the ones who bought GM and run it as a government puppet.
If you love giant corporations then by all means note in more Democrats who have brought corporate favoritism to levels unseen at any point in history. Just where do you think the deficit comes from?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
On your #1, Brokaw's reputation is really irrelevant to the copyright analysis. If Brokaw wants to do some sort of right-of-publicity claim, he can always try that, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether the use was fair.
In this case, the real point of factor #1 is that this is political speech, which is something that the government has always been leery about limiting since it's at the core of the purpose of the 1st amendment. Fair use has always been a vehicle for balancing the two concerns.
I think characterising anything related to politics as 'non-profit' is ludicrously ironic despite the puported purpose of representing the public good. Beyond the kickbacks (read Campaign Donations), cushy jobs with industries they regulated, and wealthy friends who appreciate their 'hard work' over the years US Senators have an average rate of return on their stock investments on 30.2% annually compared to a 17.9% market average (Representatives average 23.9%) and in fact consistently outperform corporate insiders (who only manage 25.3%). Unless you somehow believe that Senators and Representatives are better stock traders than professional brokers it is pretty clear they are using insider information on bid distributions, regulations, and hearings to profit.
He is a complete Mormon.
There FTFY. Oh wait, it's the same thing.
Beyond the fact that NBC has a history of doing this with political ads (for both parties) which clearly are fair use, I think this particular use does not rise to the criteria of fair use. The entire ad is the copyrighted material with nothing else except the legally mandated "paid for by" and thus is not transformative, doesn't comment or criticise it, and is simply a recitement of facts on record that could be presented in a different way without using the copyrighted material without losing any impact. Except to falsely imply an endorsement by Brokaw there is no reason that they couldn't have presented the exact same facts in this ad without using the NBC clip.
A political post that goes over several different viewpoints without ridiculing any? On MY Slashdot?
God, what has the world come to? Please tell me you're new here. We can't have this kind of calm-headed rational discussion hereabouts, else how are we going to get 700 irate comments on mundane flamebait stories?
What is clear is that Democrats are typically not on the censorship bandwagon that Republicans have to be to establish their evangelical bona fides and get the Good Christian vote.
Democrats are totally on the censorship bandwagon. The only difference is that Ds believe things should be censored for the sake of the protection of copyright and patents and other "intellectual property", while Rs believe things should be censored for the sake of "national security". Between them two, they neatly cover most everything, and so long as they can agree on censorship in general as a crucial tool to suit their agendas... it'll stay.
Rights? Go look at the civil rights struggles. The Republicans were the defenders of civil rights; the Democrats were the ones trying to make black people sit in the back of the bus. You really think a Dem would call in the national guard to let a little girl go to a better school? And that difference goes back to the 1800s when the Republican Party was founded.
Now, the "Affordable Care Act" already chokes down Medicare over the next 10 years. So that's done. Hey, any Repubs vote for that one? Strike 1.
Lower taxes on the top 1%? They make 19% of all income and pay 28% of all taxes. The top 20% makes more than $73,000/yr as a family and pays 69% of all taxes. Realize that most people on this board are in that group, then further realize that, at some point, those people choose to stop making money in the USA. Another little point for you is that 47% of Americans pay absolutely no Federal income tax, and a large portion of that 47% actually makes money by filing a tax return. You can have all of no pie, a huge piece of a tiny pie, or a slice of a gigantic, growing pie. Pigs get slaughtered, dude. Econ/math fail, strike 2.
Social security will *fail* if something drastic isn't done. The more folks like you fearmonger about any possible solution, the more hard-core that solution will need to be. It's ending. It can't go on. Deal with it and move on. You're just FUDing now, strike 3.
Fair use isn't a First Amendment defense. It's a defense under the Copyright Act. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, because the issue isn't whether Romney can say what he wants to say, the issue is whether he can use somebody else's copyright-protected work. If he wants to go on camera and state, in his own words, exactly what the Brokaw clip says, he is free to do so. But that's not what he did.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.
A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election
I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.
That's funny, really.
Racists’ for Cain
If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.
‘Stop Whining’?
Blacks and Republicans
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
while they may have an argument about the use creating a false impression that NBC the company endorses Romney that is NOT a copyright issue.
Actually it is. "Moral Rights" are a part of copyright law via international convention. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)#Moral_rights_in_the_United_States
There's definitely a good chance that Romney's use of Brokaw's mage could be a violation of Brokaw's Moral Rights.
... and then they built the supercollider.
The issue is not that you "only took 30 seconds."
The issue is that the 30 seconds you took is the ENTIRE AD!
If you're entire "term paper" is one long quote, it's called "plagiarism", not "quoting".
Fair use by anti-medical-cannabis scum sucker: denied.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This isn't fair use, the fuckers using it for personal gain, in this case the White House.
On the bright side, he's the least bad fucker on the republi-tard ticket. Which is fucking scary.
And yes that includes fucking teabagger-Ron Paul.
Using a short clip of a news program is fair use. But using the clip in a misleading way, such as making it appear a journalist is shilling for you is fraud. That's the angle NBC should be using. Romeny's campaign has has already had to deal with complaints about using clips out of context. In this case it's probably a tort.
All his words. But without the context of any of the other words he's said or why he said them. And it would be fair use but if I ran it as a political ad it'd be libelous.
This ad of Romney's is damaging to NBC news. It makes it appear that they are taking a side and part of their buisness model is being officially neutral. This love of out of context political ads is biting him on the ass.
And it is well deserved, it isn't as if his opponents haven't said enough with context to hang themselves with but the Romney people want to go that extra mile and be assholes about it. I think a jury would side with NBC.
Posted by an AC no less! OK, what have you done with the real Slashdot?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
But you can baby a pirate.
Nice arguments but this isn't unprecedented. FOX gave up on a very similar case: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/fox-backs-down.
>Rights? Go look at the civil rights struggles. The Republicans were the defenders of civil rights; the Democrats were the ones trying to make black people sit in the back of the bus. You really think a Dem would call in the national guard to let a little girl go to a better school? And that difference goes back to the 1800s when the Republican Party was founded.
At the time - the Republican's were also the party of the Northern States. The South voted democrat all the way. That was Lincoln's republicans and they were just about the exact OPPOSITE of the modern day republicans. Not least as evidenced by the fact that all the states that were red states in Lincoln's time are now blue and the ones that were blue are now red.
The two parties neatly swopped spots in the years after the civil war. They will probably do so again in the next 50 to a 100 years.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Back in 2006 a democratic candidate ran a similar ad, using a 24 second clip of Fox News anchor Chris Wallace to attack her opponent by showing Wallace questioned his ethics. Fox sued the candidate in 2011, but eventually gave up: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/fox-backs-down
Your last sentence threw a wrench in the works, otherwise I would have come on much harder:
> fair use for what purpose?
Well, basically for the main purpose for which the 1st amendment was meant: namely, political speech.
If there's any purpose at all to free speech as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it's for political speech. Quoting a newsclip verbatim regarding one's political opponent seems to be at the very heart of what speech is supposed to be for--talking about politics. Think about it: you just fought a revolution against the Brits, and the new laws are going to ban political pamphleteering of the kinds that won the revolution?
Finally, the copyright clause is part of the original constitution. When an amendment passes, it amends all parts of the Constitution necessary for it to function. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_implied_repeal) The 1st amendment amends the original constitution. Ergo, the 1st amendment amends and (trumps) the copyright clause.
This is an important point, and I'd like to ask mods to mod this up, and spread it wide: the 1st amendment amends the copyright clause.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Without knowing the details of that case, I can't really give an informed opinion, but I think what sets this Romney ad apart is the amount of the broadcast it uses... almost a full, uninterrupted 30 seconds. I don't think I've ever seen that in a campaign ad before. Also, while the lawyers in that article may be right in that most actual suits involve monetary damage, I would argue that most cease and desist requests don't involve monetary damage - all the takedowns of YouTube videos aren't about money, they're about control.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
you for got commentary
even an implied commentary is still a commentary.
I think the difficulty with that argument is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 1st amendment does not give a blanket license to infringe copyright. The 1st amendment was just invoked in the Golan v. Holder case, and the opinion states (not the first time) that there is no reason why exercising your 1st amendment rights requires you to infringe copyright. They could just as easily have accomplished the same thing by using less of the broadcast.
Also, the traditional four factors in determining fair use include the "purpose" of the use, which is often interpreted as "does this use advance the goals of copyright law" - i.e., promoting creativity. Thus courts invariably look for "transformative" uses. That's why parodies are pretty much free and clear. While political speech is of course protected by the first amendment, I think if this ever did go to court (and I doubt it will, I'm sure they will settle), the court would rule that the purpose of the use was not one that is traditionally envisioned/promoted by fair use.
The more I think about it, the more I am coming to believe that this was a brilliant strategic move by the Romney campaign. Think about it: boldly violate copyright law to attack your opponent. Purposefully get the media mad at you; then, your base will view it as a partisan media attack on you. By the time the ad gets pulled, the damage is done, and everyone knows it won't go to court. At worst, maybe a token settlement.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Some voters were only four when that was first broadcast, so it might be educational for them.
"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
They seem to be very different. Take a look at the bullet point summary of neo-conservatism in this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7825039.stm
No, they interpret it differently, emphasizing the "A well regulated militia" clause.
Whether that's right nor not is orthogonal to hostility.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Holy fuck you're ignorant.
In the 1800s? Yeah, the Dems were the conservative party, hostile to minority rights. In the civil rights era? The southern Dems (Dixiecrats) left the party because they were told that bigotry wasn't compatible with the national party. Guess which party welcomed the bigots with open arms. The Republicans.
The rest of your post is wrong, but it's not so egregiously ignorant of history. Quit listening to media personalities who are paid to tell you what to think.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Classical liberal economists (Suggested reading being Locke, Hobbes, etc.) would argue that your freedoms extend to a certain social contract into which governance and the governed enter and wherein specific rights and/or freedoms must be protected by government
Economists? WTF? Rights and freedoms are outside an economist's expertise. It's philosophers you should listen to in matters of philosophy, economists in matters of economics, and biologists in the matter of the workings of life.
However, I guess if you worship money, an economist is the guy to go to for all questions, just as a Catholic would go to his priest for all questions.
Free Martian Whores!
I have little problem with Romney using the footage. I love the irony.
However, which the news story was accurate at the time, it is an unfinished story. Two years later, the real, non-politically motivated investigation was completed:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/04/us/irs-clears-foundation-linked-to-gingrich-s-ethics-dispute.html
Gingrich wasn't squeaky clean, and he most likely mislead the house ethics committee. He apologized for "unintentionally" doing so.
Political ads like this also mislead the public by not providing a complete story.
Neither party cares much about copyright, because outside of Slashdot, not many people care. On literally every other issue, it's the Democrats who have tried (meekly) to defend individual rights.
No. The best you can say about the Democrats is that they have given lip service to defending individual rights. Every time they have the chance to affect policy though, they choose the authoritarian policy.
Neither D nor R give a shit about individual rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'd wager that 95% of the bills that pass congress have nothing to do with individual rights. 5% difference is by far and above not enough.
Bad bet for you. You underestimate the influence conservative talk show radio. The language negative language you describe is practically word for word from Rush and others.
Sigh. Your ignorance is appalling. From that oft-quoted and much maligned source, Wikipedia:
These gus weren't just economists. They lived at a time when the term probably didn't even exist. What they did, though ( among other things) was lay the foundation of much of Western philosophy and political thought. In case you haven't noticed, that can include discussions of economics now and again. So, an economist showing how rights and freedoms have a direct economic impact is now outside his area of expertise?
Did it ever occur to you that many, Many, MANY issues cross multiple areas of expertise and require multiple points of view? Conversely, did it ever occur to you that an individual could become an expert in more than one field?
Have you ever heard the term, polymath? How about Renaissance Man? No? I think you need to broaden your education a bit.
You can't pirate a baby.
But you can baby a pirate.
awwww jeeze, I think you just invoked rule 34.
I wonder if wetriffs makes any money?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And carefully ignoring the "right to keep and bear arms" part. Note that "rights" don't apply to States (who maintain well-regulated militias), nor to the Federal government (who write laws regulating militias).
Also note the Militia Act for a good picture of who the "well-regulated militia" is - everyone capable of bearing arms in the country, basically.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Wrong. They interpret it as the right to keep and bear arms as being there /because/ of the need for a well-regulated militia.
That is, the idea is that the need for "a well regulated militia" is the reason for the "right to keep and bear arms", not in and of itself.
It's Yet Another Place the framers could have chosen their words better to be more transparent.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
NBC and MSLSD is the broadcast PR department for Obama.
Serious question - if you feel that the Republicans are the only party that's defending our rights or are afraid of you, than answer this - when was the last time the Republicans (or the Democrats for that matter, I don't see any party being any better) passed or repealed a law that increased the power of the middle class? Then, check out all the other laws, and note how they basically increase the power of the wealthy and/or government, typically at the expense of the middle class. You may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome if you think the Republicans have changed, but once again - show me how they increased our (the people's) power.
And those words are parroted by millions of Tea Party Republicans all over the country every day.
I know there are people on both the far left and the far right spewing their hatred, but in all honesty I hear a lot more of the idiocy Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck like to inflict upon the world regurgitated at me than any other demagogues. Maybe it's just that the people that listen to them are more likely to comment on news articles and such and thus the results are skewed, maybe not...
Hell, our legislators are doing the same shit now up here. When one of the Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate (which holds a single seat majority) did not fall into a party-line vote to force the recall elections to take place in the newly created (and obviously very favorably Republican) districts, against a century of precedent, they all but lynched him and he's pretty much persona non grata with the Tea Party Republicans, despite the fact that he's voted with them many, many times over the last couple years. The extremism has pervaded even our elected officials who now openly call half of their constituents whiners who want handouts. There's no middle ground anymore, they've all taken the Rush Limbaugh "I'm just a guy telling it like it is!" attitude whenever they say anything that is offensive to anyone. Look at the GOP Presidential debates, it's almost like these guys relish in the fact that large segments of the population find their views offensive and racist, they wear it like a badge of honor, and there are millions of people that think it's just fucking great, even if they wouldn't dare admit it in mixed company because they know it's a bigoted mindset.
Yes, the old "collective right" interpretation, on which the Supreme Court has spoken clearly. In every other instance where the Constitution mentions a right, it has *always* been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right. Second amendment cases have in all but a couple of cases interpreted it as an individual right. Most recently, in the Heller case, which was decided 5-4 in favor of Heller, even the first paragraph of the dissenting opinion holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. That's right, it was a 9-0 decision on whether it is an individual right. It was 5-4 on whether D.C. law was constitutional, but 9-0 on whether the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right or a collective right.
And please, before anybody starts going off on me being some kind of right wing gun nut -- re-read the above. It is just facts. No opinion in there, except the Supreme Court's opinion. You won't find my opinion in there anywhere.
The Governator said the same thing, almost those exact words, a few years ago when he was still running California, on Meet The Press.
Free Martian Whores!
One thing to remember about the Boston Tea Party:
Most (much?) of the tea that was tossed overboard was recovered by smugglers, and resold. Yes, this was a protest against unfair and abusive taxation. It was also an act by smugglers to raise their profits. You can't disentangle the two.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Innate Rights are something which no legitimate government may strip from you; in very rare circumstances Freedoms must be curtailed to protect other's Innate Rights, but these are limited in scope (i.e. you aren't allowed to experiment with radioactive isotopes in your basement or aren't supposed to yell fire in a crowded theater) by definition.
In which case, you have no innate right to life in the US. The (legitimate) government can strip you of your right to life and sentence you to death, carrying through with the execution.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
They should simply not show his face or say his name on the air or on their web site for 1 week. Every time he would come up, just lump him with "Other" as in Polls (58% support Other), discussions of candidate statements ("In addition to Ron Paul, other candidates have commented on Gingrich marital problems, one stating 'abcdefg hijkl' ") and so forth. Maybe a couple of pictures of the back of his head at debate would be good.
Especially the bit about using excerpts from print media. Too bad Tom doesn't like it, it's part of the job.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
...in the material in question, I don't see how NBC/Brokaw can claim that they seem to be endorsing him.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
But what about Brokaw's right to protect his public image? Especially since he has gone out of his way to remain neutral in politics?
Compare footage of his interactions with McCain and Obama from 2008. Neutral my ass.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Using National Review for all your citations about the tea party is like using Mother Jones for all one's citations about unionism. You really expect a magazine founded by William F. Buckley to be anything but extreme right wing propaganda? I would no more trust National Review for an unbiased citation than I would trust Mother Jones.
The "racists for Cain" is a good example -- Cain was only running so they could claim to not be racist, plus it pits a black man against a half black man. And notice that they chose a black man who appears to be batshit insane to most people, ensuring that he had no chance of being nominated while giving a reason other than racism?
America has been a place where people could start out poor and work their way to wealth.
True -- my grandparents were dirt-poor farmers, my Uncle became very wealthy, but it takes more than just hard work, even though hard work is needed. It also takes intelligence, skill, and a shitload of luck.
That is becoming more difficult under the Obama administration due to the laws and policies they are enacting
That's just bullshit. It's no harder now than it was in WWII when Uncle Dan started his prosthetic business. It's just as unlikely now as then, as well. 99.9% of the 1% were born into wealth. These people, to quote a Texan whose name I can't recall, were born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Free Martian Whores!
Considering he has never retracted this story, nor reported on the fact that Gingrich was later exonerated of the charges, I think that's a fair assessment of him.
Gingrich was not exonerated; after negotiation he was reprimanded and fined $300,000 (apparently the cost of the investigation) for ""intentional or . . . reckless" disregard of House rules. The matter was then referred to the IRS for review and they eventually concluded that the the foundation broke no laws. The foundation was exonerated, Gingrich was not!
from Wikipedia: "The Ethics Committee's Special Counsel, James M. Cole, concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated and left that issue up to the IRS.[71] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations[72]."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
Well, I pretty well despise both of the main parties of entrenched politics. During the last big round of budgetary show down, I sifted through a lot of polls. It appeared, at first, as if there was a stark divide amongst the American people. On the one hand, you had the "balanced budget amendment" crowd, and on the other, the "close up the crazy loopholes and raise actual taxes collected" crowd. These appeared at first blush to be two different crowds. However, on close inspection, it was not two crowds, but one. The American people were signalling both.
The Republicans listed to the half of the argument they liked, the Democrats the other. While each party portrayed itself as the voice of reason in selectively editing out the one of the two positions it didn't like, another nasty bit of political realty was also clear: amongst us mere mortal voters, both positions had majority support in both parties. I.e., the majority of Democrat voters were in favor of balanced budget, and the majority of Republican voters were in favor of a raise in effective tax rates.
So our entire political system has been hijacked.
And any time I hear a shrill voice decrying how one of the specific two parties is to blame, but not the other, the only thing that is clear to me is that I'm hearing one of the many voices that is part of the disease and not the cure.
C//
You say that as if it's not an accurate assessment of the Occupoopers. Going on rampages, shitting on police cars, demanding one freebie after another, illegally occupying both public and private property...need I continue?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
It is hard to argue with someone who fails at reading comprehension though.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It appears quite clear that it is a right of the people. Also, if you use the definition of a militia from the time of the constitution, it is very difficult to argue it didn't mean everyone. I am not particularly sure how that could be made any clearer.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Holy fuck you're ignorant.
Governor Orval Fabius of Arkansas, Democrat, in 1957 used the Arkansas National Guard to keep black kids out of white schools after the US Supreme Court ruled for integration in Brown v. Board of Education.
President Eisenhower, Republican, took over the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne to get those kids into school.
This kind of thing happened all over the segregated South. Yes, through the 1950s and the 1960s.
You aren't just ignorant, but arrogant about pushing your completely fabricated version of history. Push your toxins where people don't read.
Hmm. It was in the Johnson era that the Dixiecrats left to practice their bigotry in a party that would still allow it.
I'm sure I won't /convince/ you that you're wrong - you seem to be a Fox News true-believer - but I still must try.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Just 30 seconds?! That's a whole ad. While that may be a fragment of the newscast, that a significant portion of the ad. Curious that the "conservatives" are suddenly doing all the can to infringe copyright now that SOPA is under extreme fire. They're just being jerks, pushing people's buttons to attempt to garner support for those ridiculous bills.