Slashdot Log In
McCain Campaign Protests YouTube's DMCA Policy
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Oct 15, 2008 07:11 AM
from the sauce-for-geese dept.
from the sauce-for-geese dept.
Colz Grigor writes "It appears that CBS and Fox have submitted DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for videos from the McCain campaign. The campaign is now complaining about YouTube's DMCA policy making it too easy for copyright holders to remove fair-use videos. I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win...
No, it isn't.
they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?
It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Funny)
CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.
Yeah, FOX *loves* Obama.
What, are you stoned?
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Funny)
FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist.
Best. Joke. Ever.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Funny)
Socialised healthcare? MADNESS, and it'll never work anyways. Name at least one first world country that has public health care!
Oh, wait... All of them, sans the US.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol.. Waiting one hour is no where near the same as waiting 5 or 6 hours or the dreaded waits of days and years that cause people to shop other countries for health care that they can get for free in their own countries. India has a pretty thriving medical tourism industry specifically because of flaws and waits in other countries. You don't seriously think someone would jump a flight to india to see the doctor one hour sooner do you?
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
No, buy many Americans jump on a plane to India because they can't afford to get their treatment in the US. It is common to have to wait months to see a specialist in the US. The difference is, when you do get to see them it can bankrupt you (even if you thought you had insurance).
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Not if you do it right (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is, when you do get to see them it can bankrupt you (even if you thought you had insurance).
My wife had to have a very expensive procedure done. Twice. I'm not going to get into it but it did wind up costing more than the house we live in.
The doctor would not proceed with the procedure until after we contacted our insurance carrier and got a letter of confirmation from them. We told them what we wanted done, they said ok, and once the doc had the letter in hand the procedure would commence.
All you really need to do is contact your insurance beforehand and CYA. It's not such a big deal.
BTW, my wife's condition is ultra-rare, there are only 3 or 4 specialists in our entire state, and we've never had to wait more than a week. Hell, they'll call us if they think we should have a checkup and schedule it for us. I don't know where you go for your medicine, but if they're making you wait for months on end you should shop around more and find some people who care.
Parent
Re:Not if you do it right (Score:5, Insightful)
The operation was going to cost $40k+.
She got a letter from her insurance company handed it to the doctor and the operation was completed. Shortly after all, these bills started showing up and the insurance company reneged on their promise. They claimed it was a "cosmetic surgery". After two years of legal battle they finally yielded and paid the doctor.
So I'm sorry you're wrong. Your letter isn't a golden ticket to hassle free surgery.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
No, buy many Americans jump on a plane to India because they can't afford to get their treatment in the US.
No. No no no. This is terribly and awfully anecdotal. You cannot just sling around words like "common" and "many" without providing even minor evidence of such. You need to provide evidence of the number of Americans that actually travel to India and then conduct a discussion around whether or not this number would qualify as "many" Americans. You cannot take something you read in a magazine or saw on 20/20 and start formulating policy based on that.
If we could see evidence that -- just for sake of discussion -- 0.1% of (just guessing) 200 million insured people had to go to India for a procedure they could not afford in the US, there'd be some merit to your argument. Otherwise, you're just telling stories that may tug at the heart strings, but aren't at all useful for the purpose of making broad decisions.
Again, how many is many?
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks [www.cbc.ca].
And how is that relevant to Obama's health care plan? He hasn't purposed a single-payer Gov't sponsored system.
Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.
No, it's not, but the point is that health care in this country is already broken. Pointing to other countries where it's broken more doesn't justify leaving our existing system in place.
We don't have enough primary care doctors because they don't make as much money as specialists yet have the same costs of doing business (malpractice insurance being the big one). Ditto for OB/GYNs. Our insurance system sucks -- what's the point of having insurance if you wind up paying out more money than you can afford in deductibles and co-payments? Isn't insurance supposed to protect you from financial disaster? What's the point of having insurance if you have to argue with them on your death bed to get them to pay the bills? Why can my car insurance company offer a simple deductible after which all damage is fully covered but no health insurance provider can?
Our pharmaceutical industry sucks -- why can they profitably sell drugs in Canada at cheaper prices than they can in the United States? Why do they get away with making minor reformulations of their product (typically an "extended release" version) to extend/get new patents and shut out generics? Why do they spend more on marketing than they do on research? Shouldn't life-saving drugs sell themselves?
We need solutions from both sides of the aisle to fix this problem. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies need to be reined in and regulated better (typically a democratic solution). Scum-sucking ambulance chasers need to be reined in (typically a republican solution). Punitive damages shouldn't be allowed unless the health care provider was grossly negligent -- if he/she wasn't than you shouldn't be able to collect more than your actual damages.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks. Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.
Necessary surgery != Surgery you need today.
In Canada, its a perpetual system of triage. People who need the surgery most get it first.
That combined with budget limitations means that there are a lot of people who 'need' surgery but have to wait a long time to get it. In some cases they are perfectly fine, other times they are in discomfort or pain until they get it but their lives aren't at risk, and the condition isn't likely to worsen while they wait. And so these people end up waiting an unfortunately long time creating the long average times.
But if you need surgery now, its an immediate threat, or they expect your condition is going to worsen, you are moved up to the front of the queue. If its serious people get surgery within hours of showing up at the doctor.
So yeah, the Canadian system is a bummer for people who 'need surgery soon', because they usually have to wait a few months.
But contrasted with the American system, and I'm not sure what you are so smug about. Millions of uninsured people can't get the surgery at all. Millions of insured people are 'under insured' and won't get the surgery, millions more have adequate insurance and their insurance company still elects not to approve the procedure... "18 weeks" vs "No".
By any metrics Canada is healthier than the US. Lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, better overall health. The majority of americans would actually be better off under the Canadian system than the American system, yet the wealthy elite have convinced them otherwise. Suckers.
Doubly so, because the wealthy elite are never subject to the system anyway, they can ALWAYS fly to Cuba or wherever to get some procedure or other done tomorrow, so by keeping unified health care out they aren't even protecting themselves from 'long wait times' because they'd never be subject to them anyway. They'd just rather see millions of their fellow american's die in the street than pay more taxes.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
Earlier this month, I had a kidneystone; three ER visits before it got under control. ($4,151 each, according to the bill): $12,453 The surgery was $7,162. The surgery to remove the stent they had put in was $6,812.
So, this month, healthcare has cost me $27,627. I can barely afford my deductible; you really think people can pay that kind of cash out of pocket?
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
And whose fault is that? Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year. ----- Maybe then you could afford the healthcare. Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative".
Oh, blow it out your fucking ass with the self-responsibility bullshit. I don't waste money on any of those things that you mentioned and I have a pretty decent chunk of change tucked away (six months of my income). In spite of all of that I still couldn't afford a major medical diagnosis without insurance. It would bankrupt me.
Ever known anyone that got cancer? Those bills run into the hundreds of thousands. Mind telling me how someone who is making middle class wages can afford to take a hit like that?
Funny you mention this example, because that's EXACTLY what I do. In the event of an accident, buying a used car for $3000-$5000 makes a whole lot more sense than paying ~$15,000 per decade to the insurance rapists. I have the state-required minimum, but I do not insure my car. It's cheaper to just junk it, and buy a used one.
Well kudos to you for being financially responsible. Next time my wife gets sick I'll tell her it's cheaper to just junk her and find a new one.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a loaded question. To someone outside of the medical community, it might seem fair but it is not. First-hand, objective accounts of such stories are difficult to come by because patient records are confidential and healthcare providers have an ethical obligation (and legal obligation, a la HIPAA regulations) not to speak of such matters without approval from their patients. Plus, the chilling effect of rampant medical malpractice lawsuits has made many doctors silent out of fear of losing their livelihood for speaking the truth.
Another part of the problem with this question is the disparity between how a clinician might define "life-saving" and how the lay-public defines it. When most people think of "life-saving surgery" they often think only of surgical emergencies. It is true, in this respect, surgical emergencies are treated regardless of the ability to pay. But this is only a small aspect of medicine. Something as simple as bariatric surgery could literally be life-saving. A more mature definition of "life-saving surgery" might be: surgery for a medical condition which falls under the accepted standard of medical care and causally prevents death from that medical condition or associated complications. In that sense, the United States medical system frequently fails patients. And this failure is not limited to surgery.
An interesting aspect to all this is that by washing our hands of all non-emergency patients, the health care system may paradoxically end up being more expensive. Consider the hypothetical case of an uninsured heart attack patient who shows up in the emergency room and subsequently receives triple-bypass surgery. The associated costs with such a patient could be enormous. But what if this condition had been prevented by proper screening and preventative treatments like cholesterol or blood pressure reducing medications? In comparison, such expenses are negligible. And yet, hospitals are more likely to eat the cost of the former and not the latter because that is what the law and government incentivizes them to do.
If the sub-prime mortgage crisis is any sign, I think we are reaching a breaking point in our society. Greed and self-interest do not, in most cases, result in maximizing efficiency. It's the prisoner's dilemma and we have chosen self-interest over altruism--paradoxically at our own peril. In my opinion, the quintessential mistake of the past couple decades seems, to be a dogmatic belief that free market capitalism will always prevail in an unregulated environment, regardless of whether the underlying fundamentals to a free-market system are present and irrespective of the context. Medicine is not a widget. Greed is not good. The sooner we come to realize this, the better off we will be.
-Grym
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I have cable, Internet access, cell phone, and two computers bought in the last two years. And I can get public healthcare whenever I want.
You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).
What country do you live in where you get to have tax paid for you by your neighbour? I pay taxes too.
There are arguments for public healthcare that are nothing to do with whether we should have welfare for the poor:
* Everyone benefits from a healthy society, such as stopping contagious diseases, and having a healthy workforce.
* Private companies tend to discriminate, making it unfair to anyone with any pre-existing conditions for example. I'm happy to pay for costs myself (whether towards a policy, or taxation), but I'd rather not gamble my health with the private insurance companies, thanks.
The US has state schools does it not? Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system? And what about the military, what's this nonsense about Government funded defence? Anyone who suggests otherwise has a "gimme gimme gimme" attitude, and they want to "raid their neighbors' wallets", right?
You see, even if the US, there are lots of things where things are funded by the Government, and it is sensible to do so. My views lean towards right-wing pro-capitalist, but this doesn't mean that we have to have an entirely 100% laissez-faire capitalist society. I find this attitude that any kind of regulation amounts to "socialism" rather odd, especially since the US clearly isn't anywhere near a 100% laissez-faire capitalist society, anyway.
(I'm also curious how you manage to save 1/2 a million in just five years just by not having cable etc?)
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay $0 on cable, $180 on internet, and I haven't bought a new computer in six years. As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years, and I can EASILY afford a doctor's visit at any of a hundred hospitals within driving distance.
Given your estimates, you'd have saved $18,000 in 5 years. Your ability to save $500,000 in five years is helped by your frugality, but your frugality is certainly not the reason for your ability to save. Your above average income is.
If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.
Yea, that's a really arrogant statement coming from someone who obviously is able to make $100,000+/year. I grew up the only son of a Bartender(mother) and a non-Union(Unions are evil through, right?) Bricklayer(father). Obviously, we did not have health insurance. I distinctly remember weeks of ramen and huge pots of homemade soup after I came down with strep throat, because the doctor's appointment and prescribed amoxicillian depleted the family budget for the month. This draconian cost cutting would happen anytime I got sick a as child. Can you even imagine how that made a young sick child feel? To know that his illness is essentially bankrupting the family?
Its not about "raiding" your wallet. Its about the acknowledging the value of human life and human dignity. Entitlement programs aren't there to keep fat rednecks on their couches in trailer parks. Yes, those people exist, and yes they do take advantage of government programs. But that is simply part of the cost. It can be mitigated with good regulation, and it can be controlled with good planning and thoughtful program design. But these programs are there there for people like my parents. Who built your house, served your beer, and who the rest of the world has to stand on top of to be "wealthy".
Because you can't on the top of the pile without standing on all the people underneath.
And to the GP: Don't worry. Obama's proposals will let you keep your employer coverage you covet. So you don't have to stand in line with the "Rabble".
One last thing, before you dismiss me as a poor parasite who wants to take your money away too. I'm a Sr. Software Engineer at a major development house, and I also run a consulting company. I will clear over $200,000 this year. I will pay for these programs too -- probably more than you will.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
For-profit corporations owned by capitalist stockholders can benefit from a strong, central government that works on behalf of capitalists. That's what we've had at least since the 1950s rise of the "military industrial complex".
They would not benefit from a socialist government.
The problem here is that you - like many Americans - are operating under an incorrect definition of socialism. Since the Red Scares of the early 1900s, it's been just about impossible to have a reasonable discussion of socialism in the U.S., until it's reached the point that a large number of people think socialism, communism, and Stalinism are the same thing, and that the only possible alternative to being fucked over by capitalist robber-barons is to be fucked over by a Stalinist state.
Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work. It contrasts with capitalism, an economic system based on the control of capital by a state-backed minority class of "owners".
Both can be found in free-market and in command economy forms, and both can co-exist with authoritarian or with libertarian policies on social issues. For examples of free-market socialism, consult your local libertarian socialist [slashdot.org], a.k.a. anarchist; for command economy capitalism, review the U.S. during WWII.
If control of capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, you've got capitalism; if it's spread out democratically, you've got socialism. Slapping a few regulations on a capitalist system does not make it socialist, any more than installing a speed governor on a northbound train makes it head south.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Continue to believe what you want to believe. But the repeal of this act had nothing to do with the current crash. The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans. The repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk. That was just greed. And the fact is that the Fair Credit Act specifically required that banks take into account borrowers' ability to repay when making loans. Had existing regulation been enforced, none of this crap would have come to pass.
I am a fiscal conservative, and hate to see government regulation when it isn't necessary. What I see coming to pass is a lot more feel good legislation, and lax enforcement. We have the proper level of regulation in place right now, but when it is not enforced, it is worthless.
But, hey, good job trying to pass the buck. Of course, prefacing it with "FOX luvs the Democrats!!!111!" kinda outs you right off the bat.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
Glass-Steagal has everything to do with the current crisis. Without its repeal there wouldn't be a quadrillion in derivatives [google.com] (of course no one knows the real value of that). That is the big black hole that is causing this entire mess. It is why gold and other commodities were going down even though the FED was pumping in 100's of billions of dollars. People were liquidating their paper assets of gold because they had no physical gold to cover their positions.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html [pbs.org]
In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage).
After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.
On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.
Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
I suggest reading the whole history on the link I provided. You can't blame just one party for it. Had the Republicans been completely against it it would have never passed. Had Clinton vetoed it, it wouldn't have been overridden. Alan Greenspan is also to blame.
In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).
This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Hol
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 w
The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans.
Actually both of you are right. The market deregulation that passed in Nov of 1999, and was signed by Clinton, allowed these financial institutions to speculate with near unlimited leveraging in the derivatives market (particularly the credit default swaps). That is what built the house of cards which is currently falling on our heads. The totally insane lending and even crazier repackaging of bad loans as AAA rated securities is what lead to the bottom level of cards being yanked out.
Incidentally had the 1999 market deregulation not passed that year, it would have reared it's ugly head again the next and it would certainly have been full of even more deregulation madness.
Watch your heads, there are something like 60 trillion dollars of impossible to value credit default swaps hanging out there waiting to come crashing down on us. Makes the $0.7 trillion bailout seem paltry. And that's nothing compared to the over one half quadrillion market for derivatives, that is equally shaky. Most of those derivatives are leveraged to the tune of 60:1. Leveraging in the range of 10:1 to 20:1 is what lead to the stock market crash of 1929. This ain't anywhere near being over with.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
(For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)
Look it up: any bill passed by more than two thirds is veto-proof.
I do blame the Republicans as well as the Democrats in congress for passing the bill, but we have bank lobbyists to thank for that!
In case you are forgetting, the senate currently has 51 democratic senators, not nearly enough to override Bush's inevitable veto.
Next time you contribute, please at least try to educate yourself on the basic principles of our government.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
THE DEMOCRATS had control of Congress from 2007-8. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand to correct it.
Wow, you make it sound like a 51-49 Senate with an executive of the opposite party constitutes a nationwide mandate.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Informative)
CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.
>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.
Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?
** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org] was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.
I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [wikipedia.org] (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates [wikipedia.org] to the AIG situation [npr.org] and how that affected [motherjones.com] the banks.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
As a conservative, I generally vote Republican. However, I am mature enough to recognize that many of the elected officials in the Republican party have directly or indirectly caused the current economic situation. I am also knowledgeable enough to recognize that the elected officials in the Democratic party are equally to blame.
The blame lies with Republicans, Democrats, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch. (I don't have enough information to blame the Judicial branch for anything.) ALL are equally guilty, and BOTH parties make equally valid statements about the other's responsibility.
Yes, Clinton's fiscal decisions (Glass-Steagall act repealed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, others) had their hand in creating this downturn. Yes, Republican legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and partisanship also had their hand in creating this downturn.
Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue. Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?
Unfortunately, our electoral system does not have a "throw the bums out and replace them with good, solid human beings" lever. So, with due respect, your analysis doesn't actually help us do anything about the situation.
Sure, let's say all politicians are to blame. What then? I mean, we can vote against the incumbent in every election, but mostly that just means some other party-supported figure gets in, and that's that. We could try to vote third party (where there are even serious candidates) but it's mostly a losing proposition. This country has a winner-take-all approach to running elections that fundamentally makes it difficult to elect parties outside of the big two.
You're not going to get a perfect outcome no matter what you do, so here are the practical measures I'm taking:
1. I think deregulation has a lot to do with the financial meltdown, so I'm voting for the candidates (and parties) that seem most likely to bring back sane regulation. I'm not expecting perfection (unfortunately), but I'm going to be as pragmatic as I can.
2. Within the national party that I choose, I'm going to contribute to and vote for candidates that even further support that approach.
3. I'm going to strongly work for campaign finance reform laws, because I think that a lot of the compromises we've seen in Washington have been transparent sellouts for campaign contribution.
4. I'm going to try to identify /which/ party really stands behind each piece of bad legislation (i.e., if all members from party A voted for it, and 10% of party B did, then I'm going to identify party B as the one I'm most likely to be able to influence and I'm going to support certain candidates within that party).
I don't think these are going to be perfect, but if enough people take action, I believe we'll make things substantially better. Unfortunately, complaining about "all the bums" in DC is just a great way to make sure they get to keep doing what they're doing.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Funny)
You are Karl Rove, and I claim my £5.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)
Odd, I'd blame the banks for their crisis by investing stupidly. I guess it's like a kid who just turned legal, going out, getting entirely plastered, driving home, and hitting nearly everyone they see on their way. Except that here mommy and daddy have to pay about $700B for bailing them out.
Mind you, I'm on the House and Senate Republicans' side on this one. They took the risk, they should pay for it. If they don't, and see that mommy and daddy will always bail them out, will they ever learn?
Maybe the US needs a constitutional amendment to make these bailouts illegal. Then maybe corporations will learn to take reasonable risks - ones that, if they should fail, won't put them under. And then pass a law requiring that 95% of board members' pay (and that should include all chief officers) are in the form of stock and stock options: 10% stock, 90% stock options (none of which can vest in less than 5 years). Then they'll take the long-term view of their corporations.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is they won't. Here they have clear and direct personal experience of the DMCA as currently implemented preventing legitimate content from being posted. You'd think that would do it. But they're* pleading special case for politicians, rather than calling for reform of the DMCA as a whole. And if they're taking that stance now, while the issue is hot and they might win a few votes for challenging an unpopular law, there's little chance of them turning around and calling for reform later.
*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
It's completely different provisions that make the DMCA unpopular.
Shielding service providers as long as they promptly process takedowns and put content back up on counter-notices is a Good Thing; without it YouTube wouldn't exist. Moreover, the DMCA provides for legal penalties if misused -- if a supposed copyright holder has something taken back down after the person who posted it gave a counter-notice, they're on the hook if such was done wrongly.
The McCain campaign is presumably whining about the process because the information they're trying to promulgate is time-sensitive (only relevant up to the election) and they don't want the downtime it takes to provide counter-notices -- but once they do provide counter-notices, CBS/NBC/whoever won't be able to have it taken back down without risking their own necks. It's a good process, though, and I don't see any reason to fill it with loopholes.
The parts of the DMCA that make it illegal to circumvent the dongle check in the 15-year-old piece of accounting software my consulting client's small business uses (company long out of business, dongle recently broken) are complete BS, but the takedown and counter-notice process is reasonable.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.
Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.
Here is the thing, if this issue really is that important to you, then you must be willing to make sacrifices (Voting for McCain if you were planning to vote Obama, or the reverse). They need to know that their position, or lack thereof is worse than people not voting for them, they are actively voting against them. It is a bitter pill to swallow, for them and us. Who will blink first?
This holds true for whatever candidate you support. Threaten to withdraw that support, and mean it, if there are issues you need addressed. The other candidate may not be what you prefer, but you can be damned sure that all promises made to special interests will be forgotten if keeping them means costing them the actual election. If there is one thing that politicians like more than lobbyist money, it is winning the election in the first place.
If IP/copyright reform is as important to Slashdotters as we claim, then you HAVE to take positions like this to force it to be a real issue. Again, a bitter pill, and not for everyone, but you have to ask yourself, how important is copyright reform to me?
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Checkmate (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.
That would be perfect.
Since there does exist an actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party [wikipedia.org] Pirate Party. Now put a political message in the metadata of your files, and claim your exemption.
I'm certain that The Pirate Party would have no issue endorsing files so that they received DCMA exemptions.
(The Pirate Party of Podunk County has approved this message)
Parent
Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (Score:5, Funny)
they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.
McCain looks and acts like a 300 year old vampire. Obama is gonna give him an ass kicking Blade style!
AdObama4Pres-Blade1.torrent 619.43 MB
----------------------
McCain is 72 years young, and as strong and healthy as when he was 20!
AdMcCainYoungAndVigorous-Cocoon.torrent 601.45 MB
-
Parent
Fair use or Political attacks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should McCain be against takedowns? That seems to be the entirety of his election strategy this year.
Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Insightful)
McCain voted for a bill (the DMCA) that made service providers responsible for doing an immediate takedown of content alleged to have been improperly posted regardless of the merits of the complaint if they wanted the fullest protections the law could provide. Complaining when a company is complying in full with that law hardly seems fitting.
It's almost a shame the Obama campaign isn't submitting more content (defensible as fair use) that could be mechanically considered to infringe themselves; if this were the case, there would be less perception that YouTube is pushing a political agenda via their takedown process.
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Insightful)
DMCA aside, videos published on the web don't *have* to be published through YouTube. If you don't like your publisher's policies, change publisher or publish it yourself. Americans are always very protective of the free market, and this is an example of why it is a good thing - there are alternatives to YouTube, use them.
Parent
Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!
I'd say you could potentially gain back some of your totally trampled credibility by suddenly proposing a repeal of the DMCA with your senate position, but I somehow doubt that such a miracle would occur...
Obama foresaw this and prevented it (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone remember this article?
Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates [slashdot.org]
That is when I started liking the guy. Seems like he was even more prescient than I thought.
Want to end the campaign now? Ask this: (Score:5, Interesting)
I would love to have this question asked at tonight's debate.
"Senator McCain, your campaign is complaining that it is being unfairly censored by the DMCA. How do you reconcile your complaint when you yourself voted for this exact measure?
I'm no Obama supporter, but I'd love to watch him answer that question.
Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this: (Score:5, Funny)
My friends, I've always been a maverick and an outsider. So when I voted for the DMCA, I knew that I was sticking it to the man. Because, as a Senator, I am 'The Man'. It was the most logical way for me to stick it to myself.
Parent
Web Forms - So you can laugh at your Senator (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a copy of an email I sent to my fellow Arizonan:
Ah, John. Your ill-advised vote back in 1998 for the DMCA has come back to bite you. It was with great pleasure that I read that Youtube was taking down your campaign videos due to a DMCA demand by Fox and CBS. You helped pass it. Sir, Barry Goldwater was a conservative. William Buckley was a conservative. A conservative wants FEWER laws, not more. LESS government regulation, not more. A conservative encourages a business-friendly environment - NOT a "business gets anything it wants" environment. You have forgotten the difference, and now you are paying the price. Your presidential campaign is all but over. You have lost the conservative base with your poorly-thought-out desperate attempts to please everyone. You had us, right until you took the supremely idiotic step of suspending your campaign - which was a clear political ploy that backfired. Capitalism is vital, but part of the price of capitalism is sometimes suffering failure. Bankruptcy, too is part of the failure process - entrepreneurs and other people need to know that they have a chance to start over if they fail. Your vote on the Bankruptcy Act of 2005, making it MORE difficult for all but the richest Americans to declare bankruptcy was another gift to business. And still, you persist in giving business whatever they want, at the expense of average Americans, with your recent idiotic vote on the "Copyright Czar" legislation. The record companies and motion picture companies have a broken business model that is being supplanted by new technologies, and like your ridiculous bank bailout bill you have chosen to give them what they want rather than letting them pay the price of failure. I will be voting for Bob Barr this election, not out of any hope that he will win, but rather in the hope that Republican political operatives will realize that increasing numbers of their traditional base can no longer stomach voting for so-called "Republicans" who don't seem any different from Democrats. I look forward to supporting your continued efforts in the Senate on behalf of Arizona, but your presidential campaign is over.
Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Informative)
here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.
What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.
Parent
Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.
What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.
People like the person you were addressing are a serious impediment to rational discourse on the internet. They are insulated by the web, and have created some sort of cognitive dissonance that hides the real world situation from themselves.
Typical fanboy behavior. Unfortunately, it applies to all aspects of society; Sports teams, cities, nations, ethnicities, OS, and obviously politicians all have their fanboys. What really bugs me is when people like him get so wound up in their own fanaticism that they begin to engage in the old practice of 'If I can't have it, then no one can.'
But thanks for looking up the vote totals. I like to see that sort of information tossed back at these fanatics at every opportunity regardless of claims to any political ideology.
Parent
Re:Oh, Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Money == <access to advertising slots>
Parent