Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama recently submitted a letter to the DNC asking for the Presidential debates to be licensed under the Creative Commons. This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish. "I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."

Good for him

[ohearn]

This is definately something I can stand behind regardless of which party it comes from.

Re:Good for him

[cayenne8]

"This is definately something I can stand behind regardless of which party it comes from."

I have to 2nd that!! I'm still VERY open minded to this next election...and this just put a big "+" mark next to his name so far.

Anything that starts to 'buck' the system a little I'm for. I thought I'd heard that MSNBC? was covering the debates, and was trying very hard to lock in all the content to themselves where no one could really publish parts of it, etc. The debates are (should be) and important part of the US public's decision making, and should therefore be completely free for use and analysis by the general public as they see fit.

You know...I've heard it say that the govt. takes your freedoms a little piece at a time. Well, maybe it works in reverse too? Every little thing that helps change the old party way/style in the elections, helps break the grip and open it up more to change......and I'm all for that.

If we could next somehow blow away the primary system for something else more open...we might be able to someday get actual GOOD candidates to the elections, rather than the predestined crap we seem to get from the parties which is largely decided either in advance, or apparently by the early primaries that seem to hold nothing in common with the majority of the US.

But, that's another story....start with baby steps....baby steps.....

Re:Good for him

[travdaddy]

I thought I'd heard that MSNBC? was covering the debates, and was trying very hard to lock in all the content to themselves where no one could really publish parts of it, etc.

You thought right: Here's the previous Slashdot Article [slashdot.org].

USG employees' work is pub. domain

[Kadin2048]

I'm not trying to troll, but I've seen transcripts and whatnot of presidential speeches, addresses, and these things broadcast on TV and radio, and I've never noticed or heard of copyright before (unlike sports, movies, TV programs, etc).

Presidential speeches -- ones actually given by the sitting President -- are in the public domain, as a product of a U.S. government official created during the course of their duties.

However, a campaign speech that someone gave while running for election wouldn't necessarily be in the public domain, nor possibly would a campaign speech given by the President (since it's arguable as to whether campaigning is really part of his official duties as a U.S. government employee). Now, in reality, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone blocking the publication of transcripts of campaign speeches -- they're usually pretty easy to get -- but I expect that they're copyrighted either by the candidate's committee (the nonprofit corporation that also holds all their campaign money, and employs the speechwriters).

In addition to that, which would be the copyright on the text of the speech itself, the networks who broadcast the speeches and debates also claim copyright on the video recording (although other networks use clips from each other without formal permission, under Fair Use, all the time: e.g. Jon Stewart frequently shows news clips with the originating network's banner blurred out). It's an open question in my mind whether this is defensible: copyright law in the U.S. doesn't protect "sweat of the brow" or simple movement from one media to another, but it does protect something that is 'fixed' into a medium. The question then is whether, if you record the President giving the State of the Union, are you actually fixing that speech into a medium, and deserving of copyright protection? Or has the President (or his speechwriter) already done the creative act, by writing the speech, and the TV camera is simply mechanically reproducing this. I would like to believe the latter (actually I'd like to have a blanket law that anything recorded, written, spoken, or performed in the U.S. Capitol or any other place where the Legislature is in session is automatically in the public domain, but I'm not getting my hopes up), but I suspect that the courts would probably find for the networks. (There's probably precedent on this somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.)

But you're right to think that actual Presidential speeches are free and clear; if you want to print out the State of the Union and make it into wallpaper, or perform it in front of an audience, or sing it to your dog, nobody's going to stop you.

Re:Good for him

[Ngarrang]

It seems like an empty gesture to me. Do the politicians actually answer any questions these days? The last few debates I have watched, the answers were to poorly constructed, or circular, or not an answer at all, as to make the point of debates in this modern day needless.

Ask them a simple question, and get a complex non-answer.

So, props to Obama for trying to look like a progressive to those who cannot see through such ploys for voter support.

Re:Good for him

[fbjon]

So, props to Obama for trying to look like a progressive to those who cannot see through such ploys for voter support.

What's your point? That you won't support his proposal, or that you hate politics in general?

Re:Good for him

[UbuntuDupe]

Do the politicians actually answer any questions these days?

I think that's a good question, about the need for politicians to better address voter needs. In my campaign, we have had a tremendous, just, two-way dialogue with the voters in this country and that is definitely the way to go. That's why I have always been a big supporter of education. If I'm elected, I will give a lifetime tax exemption to anyone who pursues a PhD in anything. And that's what America needs right now.

Re:

[Paradise Pete]

This is definately something I can stand behind regardless of which party it comes from.

So then is it correct to infer that on some issues you may reject an otherwise reasonable position simply because it comes from the "wrong" party?

Re:Good for him

[God'sDuck]

Parent angry? Yes. Troll, no.

I'm miffed at Obama's crew for their action as well -- not that they took over the profile, but that they did it in a hurry, without coming to some sort of agreement with the guy. Heck -- they even could have offered him a prime spot in the campaign if they wanted to. I still think I'd vote for Obama if the election were tomorrow....but a poor show all around, really. I hope they at least try to make it right with him, rather than steamrolling on.

Re:

[spottedkangaroo]

This pattern of speech coming out of DC, where they ask a yes/no question and then immediately answer it makes me want to jam pencils into my ears so I don't have to hear it anymore. It's excellent to be able to read it too. Perhaps I'll have to jam my eyes out as well. It'd be a lot harder to write code without eyes...

Re:Good for him

[eln]

Is that style of speech annoying? Yes. Will they ever stop it? No. Will jamming pencils in your ears keep you from hearing it? Yes. Is is a wise thing to do? No.

Re:Good for him

[tbannist]

What exactly is the fiasco? He (or his campaign staff) decided he didn't want to buy a myspace channel for $50,000. On the flip side of "stealing" from the guy who registered the myspace page in his name without his permission, he's a politician who chose not to squander $50,000. If he had bought it, the same political trolls who are crying about him ripping this guy off would be crying how "Obama wasted $50,000 on a myspace page".

This appears to be a simple case of "Sorry, your price is too high", unless someone can actually give a cogent (and truthful) reason why anyone should care.

Re:Good for him

[Omestes]

More like "your price is too high, and thus I am going to steal it from you with dubious means and no negotiation".

Thats what gets me, is that discourse was never an option. It was just "I want it, and I will have it". Yes the guy who made the page asked an unacceptably high amount for the page, but still does not justify the Obama campaigns actions. I think Obama could have lived without "ownership" of the MySpace page, and thus resisted ALL headlines about his spending, or lack thereof. The page was in competent hands, and the campaign could still manipulate people using the page (they had full access). The status-quo was not broken. Obama's campaign just want COMPLETE control over everything dealing with their candidate, which I find more frightening than the MySpace ordeal itself.

As for the registering in his name bit; we must remember that this page is OLD, it wasn't spurred by Obama running for president, but by Obama originally running for senate, meaning this was a local thing and not some big hijacking thing.

I do wonder how much of this actually involves Obama himself, though, and how much is just an over-zealous campaign manager. At what level was this whole thing initiated.

Re:Good for him

[Rei]

The guy was cybersquatting. He wanted half the price of a house plus a high-paying staffer job. It's not supporting a candidate; it's blackmailing a candidate.

Could the Obama campaign have handled it more gracefully? Obviously. But I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy for a person who creates a site ostensibly to support a candidate, and then tries to use it to leach the candidate out of as much money as he can.

Clarification..

[encoderer]

I want to clarify some things:

1. Joe Anthony "locked out" the Obama campaign by changing the password after the campaign rejected his $50k offer. So they no longer had access.
2. Anthony violated MySpace ToS by creating a site representing himself as Barack Obama. He didn't call it a fan site. He didn't say "People for Obama" or whatever.
3. Obama didn't take ANYTHING from Anthony EXCEPT the URL. That's it. All Anthony has to do is pick another, more acceptable URL and his page with all 160k friends will be restored
4. The page was being updated less and less frequently and at the same time it was growing more and more popular. The campaign needed to manage its resource more effectively. Go figure.

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

Uh...no? He didn't create a new page, he got mySpace to hand the old page over to him. By your analogy it's more like asking for the price on a house, balking at it and getting the government to claim it as needed for a park or something then give it to you for no price. (Oh and by the way, someone else did the calculations. 32 cents per friend is not a lot of money AT ALL for a political campaign, they wanted the mySpace and needed a good excuse for taking it so they asked for a price and said he was money

Re:Good for him

[tbannist]

Actually, I think he's more or less correct:

1) Obama's team started a new site.
2) They applied to have the url myspace.com/barackobama pointed to the new official site.
3) Myspace shut down the old fan page because the owner wasn't Barrack Obama

I don't know if Obama's team intended for step 3 to take place. When you understand the events, it's hard to see this as a black and white issue instead of just an angry disagreement between people. It wasn't handled very deftly, so I guess the lesson for everyone involved is:

When you act like an ass you get burned.

That applies to both the volunteer and Obama's campaign staff.

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

Pst...Obama's people asked him for a price, he gave one. If you're really going to condemn the guy as someone "in it for the money" when he was asked for a price then you obviously have a different viewpoint than me. For me, if you ask someone for a price on something you don't then balk and go in and get it shut down or whatever, you negotiate and try to get a better price or you give up and let him keep it.

Re:

[tbannist]

Sorry, if I don't care that much. I read the story and when you ignore the sensationalizing, it's pretty mundane. The volunteer decided the campaign was taking advantage of him because they weren't paying him for the site, the campaign decided the volunteer was trying to take advantage of them because he was demanding to be paid.

While I think this could have been handled more deftly, I generally require more than one minor public disagreement before writing someone off.

Re:Good for him

[Captain Splendid]

But, prior to the MySpace fiasco

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Fucking up a "cakewalk" land war is a fiasco. Calling a minority a racist name, getting caught on video, and subsequently losing a previously easy election is a fiasco. Soliciting underage boys online and having everyone know about is a fiasco. Lying under oath and then getting caught is a fiasco. This is more like a scuffle.

Re:Good for him

[squidfood]

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Fucking up a "cakewalk" land war is a fiasco.

You mean, getting involved in a land war in Asia?

Re:Good for him

[inca34]

And how comfortable would you feel having someone else, with whom you are not affiliated in any way, run a MySpace page that presumes to be you? If that happened to me you had best understand that I would consider it nothing less than identity theft and a gross invasion of privacy. And I have no doubts that my good friend Tom would help me resolve the situation.

Is the Obama MySpace incident a reason to not vote for him? Absolutely not. Is it something that could have been done better? Yes, without question. It is nowhere near the order of magnitude of say, GW's business track record, which IS relevant voting information IMHO. Speaking of relevant information for voting, this is it:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Speculation.htm [ontheissues.org]

Re:Good for him

[cgenman]

What does that have to do with standing behind the request for creative commons?

Good people do bad things. Bad people do good things. That doesn't change the action itself, or whether or not we should get behind it.

Re:

[popeyethesailor]

Good people do bad things. Bad people do good things. That doesn't change the action itself, or whether or not we should get behind it.

Offtopic, but there are no "good" or "bad" people - only their actions are qualified as such.

Re:

[tbannist]

Actually, that's wrong. There are good and bad people, they are identified by the history of their actions. Good people are those who do more good than bad and bad people are those who do more bad than good.

Re:Good for him

[spun]

From research I have seen recently in economics, it appears that about 15% of people are always prone to good (i.e. fairness, reciprocity, sharing, kindness, loving, etc.) , 5% of people have sociopathic tendencies and will tend to act selfishly with callous disregard for others. The rest pretty much do as their society tells them. That means they will be good in a good society and evil (selfish, dishonest, lacking in empathy, harmful to others, etc.) in an evil one.

Most societies are prone to evil. Most socioeconomic systems are founded on evil premises. Therefore, most people in the world are prone to evil, but they would be just as prone to good in a better system. Still, your optimism and assumption of goodness are themselves a good thing. "Doing what society tells them" is another way of saying "doing what other people expect of them," and you are doing your part by expecting good things of people.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's complete bull -- that sort of thing is the very definition of fair use. The notion that a candidate would ever pay to use an opponent's debate answers in an attack ad is completely absurd.

What Obama wants is people passing around videos of him on YouTube.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

"So that means you support him Stealing a webpage/myspace page and screwing the guy that put all his work into it as well?"

How would you feel if I decided that from here on out, I'm going to become Lumpy, and speak for you in place of you on Slashdot? Don't worry, I'll surely put "hard work" into protecting your name and making sure everything you say is correctly represented here... I'm certain I won't leave anything out, or get paid to trash your name, I'll be nice and benevolent, I promise.

So how about i

Re:

[Mr. Underbridge]

So that means you support him Stealing a webpage/myspace page and screwing the guy that put all his work into it as well?

That guy named a site after a well-known person and attempted to hold it ransom for much more than it was worth. The guy didn't have a right to Obama's name. He also didn't have a right to force himself into the campaign as he attempted. Note that only the link - barack obama's name - got transferred, the idiot still has his page. He deserves what he got. If you don't want your sit

Re:Good for him

[slughead]

That guy named a site after a well-known person and attempted to hold it ransom for much more than it was worth.

It was clearly marked as a "fan site.".. The price tag the guy set on it was to pay him back for the 160,000 user community he had formed which even myspace said he had a right to. He didn't want to stop doing the page--he would've kept doing the fan site for free. He asked for cash because, since they were forcing off his own project anyway, he thought he should be compensated for what he had lost.

The campaign didn't negotiate with him, and ended up promising him $10,000. This happened briefly before they strong-armed myspace to step in. It is not for you to say how much he can sell his OWN stuff for. Judging from the amount of work he put into it, and that he didn't want to give it up, it's obvious to me that he was not asking for too much.

The guy didn't have a right to Obama's name. He also didn't have a right to force himself into the campaign as he attempted.

He wasn't doing anything like that. He made the page and started it from the ground up and was an avid supporter of Obama, just trying to do his part. Over time, the community got huge under his care, and Obama's campaign stepped in and said "hey, nice work, gimme!".

Note that only the link - barack obama's name - got transferred, the idiot still has his page.

What? No. They transfered it to another URL [myspace.com] and dropped his friends. All myspace did was transfer his text to another account. He lost EVERYTHING of value.

Losing a URL to a website, as any idiot can piece together, often ends an online community. This community was not created by the obama campaign. They could've setup an "official" page with a different URL and left this poor guy alone. Instead, they hijacked myspace's terms of service and fear of law suits to steal this guy's URL and destroy all his work.

The site was clearly labeled "unofficial," and the entire community knew it as such. The campaign simply wanted the address. Personally, I think it hurt them more than their new URL could ever help.

He deserves what he got. If you don't want your site to be transferred, don't name it after a public figure. If this had been a registrar issue the result would have been no different.

Registrar issues are vastly different than free myspace accounts. He wasn't even posing as Obama, so there's no legal issue here. Obama does not own the myspace.com/barackobama url any more than he owns en.wikipedia.com/Barack_Obama.

If I were Joe Anthony, I'd sue the Obama campaign if I could.

Re:Good for him

[StrawberryFrog]

Obama does not own the myspace.com/barackobama url any more than he owns en.wikipedia.com/Barack_Obama.

Debatable. I would expect the wikipedia page to be content about Barack Obama, and the myspace one to be content from Barack Obama. Those two sites work differently, you can't equate them so easily.

The campaign simply wanted the address.

yes, because that's where you'd expect to find, you known: Barack Obama on myspace.

Re:Good for him

[ClosedSource]

"Obama does not own the myspace.com/barackobama url any more than he owns en.wikipedia.com/Barack_Obama."

Sure, that's why they call the site "SomebodyElsesSpace.com" instead of something like "myspace.com". Oh wait ...

Re:Good for him

[rmckeethen]

That guy named a site after a well-known person and attempted to hold it ransom for much more than it was worth. The guy didn't have a right to Obama's name. He also didn't have a right to force himself into the campaign as he attempted. Note that only the link - barack obama's name - got transferred, the idiot still has his page. He deserves what he got. If you don't want your site to be transferred, don't name it after a public figure. If this had been a registrar issue the result would have been no different.

I think you're missing a few key points:

• The 'guy', Joe Anthony, didn't name his site after Barak Obama. Everyone seems to agree that he created the site in support of Obama, which is why this isn't even remotely like your standard cyper-squatting case.
• In point of fact, Anthony never tried to force himself or his MySpace page on anyone -- the campaign came to him, first requesting, then demanding control of a site Anthony created on his own dime.
• If public finger-pointing and accusations from your candidate's campaign staff are what you expect after providing two years of grassroots support on MySpace, than I suppose you're right; Joe Anthony got what he deserved.

I doubt we'll ever know exactly what went on behind closed doors in this situation, but one thing seems clear -- Barak Obama's campaign made a huge mistake in letting this affair become public. No matter how you shake it, Obama has lost some of the squeaky-clean public image he enjoyed before this debacle. Obama's requesting liberal copyright policies for future presidential debates isn't going to fix the public relations issue his campaign created this week, and I suspect he'll be spending a lot more than $50k on damage control over the whole Joe Anthony/MySpace issue.

Re:

[Skye16]

Uhm, just going by the other Slashdot article, there's no mention of "stealing" a myspace page. The guy asked for $49,000+, they said "uhm, no, that's okay, we'll start a new one", and that was that. That isn't theft. That's declining to agree to a deal they felt wasn't worth it. Mayhaps things have changed since then, but there's a big fucking difference between not buying what someone is offering and then finding an alternative, and just taking it from him. By that logic, every time I decline to purc

Creative Commons is good, but

[Dachannien]

I'd still like to hear his thoughts on related topics like the content cabal's continuing crusade that confounds consumers' capabilities to copy in conditions commensurate with copyright law.

Re:

[WarlockD]

Gezz. Try saying that 10 times fast:P

If he takes a stand against alliteration

[Overzeetop]

then he's got my vote.

Re:If he takes a stand against alliteration

[flimflam]

He actually articulated an aggressive argument against alliteration.

Re:

[zrobotics]

While I would also like to have more info on what his position is on copyright law, this is still an great thing. Things like this should be in the public domain. Not only is it important for people to watch these debates, but they also need to discuss them, both in their private lives and in public. This gives anyone the freedom to quote the original source, which should be a given in a democracy in matters concerning politics. It may not work out to Obama's advantage; there may be people who use what he s

Re:

[ktappe]

related topics like the content cabal's continuing crusade that confounds consumers' capabilities to copy in conditions commensurate with copyright law

Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding v

Interesting.

[Rob T Firefly]

It's worth noting, though, that if this is just a Democratic National Committee matter, it would of course only apply to the Democrats' internal debate, and not the actual presidential debates which come later. Baby steps, baby steps..

Re:

[modmans2ndcoming]

Yes... but the debate participates set the rules of the debate and negotiate.. so.. if the democrats say "we won't debate unless the video is CCed... then that is a good incentive to CC the content... As for the Presidential debates... the candidates have even more power to set the copyright standards on those.

Yea.

[AltGrendel]

Gotta start somewhere.

Silly Obama...

[chrismcdirty]

Don't you know that nobody profits if it's released under Creative Commons?

i'm conservative, but ...

[boxlight]

I'm conservative and I'll probably vote for McCain and/or Giuliani, but I have to say there's a lot to like about this Obama fellow. He seems rather "tuned in".

boxlight

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

... but you'll vote for McCain or Guliani? That's hardly conservative.

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[EastCoastSurfer]

You fallen for the trap that conservative == religious nut job. There are lots (I hope the non-vocal majority) of conservatives that don't want to blow up abortion clinics and force religion on people. The same way there are lots of liberals that don't think choice means allowing abortions 9 months into a pregnancy.

It's easy to label people with extreme views, but in reality most people are somewhere in the middle.

Re:

[otacon]

Right, I'm definatley conservative, I have my beliefs. I may be against abortion, but I don't want to blow a clinic up. I don't want to make someone believe something, it is and should be solely their choice. I think it is the radical ends of both wings that ruin it for everyone else.

Re:

[Sancho]

Abortion comes down to whether or not you feel that the fetus is a human being, deserving of all of the rights and privileges that all human beings have. If you believe this to be true, then abortion is murder, and should be treated as such. If you don't believe that the fetus is a human, then there is no good reason to ban abortion.

Don't think that all people who are against abortion want to take away the choices of other people. They have a fundamental difference in perception of the fetus, which leads

Re:

[Cornflake917]

It's generally their religious beliefs that leads them to the conclusion that abortion is murder. Pro-lifers trying to make abortion illegal under the idea that their religion tells them it's murder is the equivalent of them telling everyone else , "My religious beliefs are superior to yours, so we have the right to take freedom of choice from you."

Abortion isn't the only thing that various religions equate to murder. Should all of those actions/thoughts be illegal too?

Re:

[gfxguy]

It's generally their religious beliefs that leads them to the conclusion that abortion is murder.

Actually, as he pointed out, you're quite wrong. The religious nuts are the ones blowing up clinics, but the rest of us, like Sancho pointed out, don't even mention religion or the bible or God at all. I don't need God to make me believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. Up until this point,

On the other hand, I'm not the one going out protesting abortion clinics and so forth - that really is the fringe,

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[Anivair]

That's not a trap, it's called being minimally observant.

I agree that conservative should not = religious nut job, but that's irrelevant. I'm sure there are plenty of nice moderate guys in the KKK but the guys in charge are wackos, and as a result anyone who supports their organization is supporting hate filled whack jobs and the same applies here. Until the conservatives in this country grow a pair and get someone other than a fundie cretin in charge of their political party, the game is still over and conservative might as well be the same as religious nut job. Because it's the religious nut jobs at the top making all the decisions and the fact that you are probably a nice reasonable conservative doesn't make them saner.

Re:

[Jerf]

I agree that liberal should not = nut job, but that's irrelevant. I'm sure there are plenty of nice moderate guys in ANSWER but the guys in charge are wackos, and as a result anyone who supports their organization is supporting hate filled whack jobs and the same applies here. Until the liberals in this country grow a pair and evict the fascist whackos who won't be happy until total thought policing is implemented for The Cause, the game is still over and liberals might as well be the same as religious nut

Re:

[gfxguy]

That's ridiculous - we can say the same thing about any group at all, you can condemn all Muslims "until they grow a pair" and kick out all the "fundies", and then I can certainly condemn liberals for the likes of Ted "back stabbing" Kennedy and Nancy "the happy socialist" Pelosi.

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[Theaetetus]

The same way there are lots of liberals that don't think choice means allowing abortions 9 months into a pregnancy.

You do know that elective abortions in the third trimester are illegal and have always been, right?

Let me repeat: no one just "decides" to get an abortion nine months into a pregnancy. Even 8 or 7. Again, no one says, "oh, I hadn't made up my mind until now, and just decided to get an abortion." This is documented and figures are freely available online. There has not ever been an elective abortion that late.

Now, on the other hand, there are very rare abortions performed that late when the fetus is hydroencephalic and has a cranium filled with water and swollen up to the size of a watermelon. The fetus is brain dead, and if left to continue to swell, would kill the mother. This is exceedingly rare, but the only safe way to remove the fetus is D&E. You can do a C-section, but that's major surgery - it involves actually lifting the intestines up out of the body and putting them on the chest so that you can get to the uterus underneath. Scary shiat.

So, just drop the whole "those indecisive women" meme. It's stupid, dishonest, and is 100% wrong.

Re:

[Theaetetus]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but where do you get the idea that a C-section involves moving the intestines out of the way? My wife had a C-section when our son was born and no such thing happened -- I watched the whole procedure. Are you just talking about C-sections for removing hydroencephalic fetuses?

In your case, she probably had what's called a bikini incision - low, horizontal, and where it would be covered by a bikini. For emergency C-sections (and hydroencephalic fetuses, and they actually used to

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[Hard_Code]

"conservatives that don't want to blow up abortion clinics and force religion on people."

Please, please, take your party back over. I am not conservative (I think the world is a lot more complicated, and therefore require solutions that do not necessarily extrapolate directly from the minimal precepts of individual liberties, although I do think individual liberty is a fundamental prerequisite; I am left leaning, but also skew very libertarian), but I believe conservative thought is legitimate and honest. I would much rather have an intellectual debate at that level than somebody who may violently agree with me for all the wrong reasons...sometimes a position informed by my preferred ideology will be the right one, and sometimes not (at which point the ideology is irrelevant). Ideology is only necessary when there aren't enough facts for a clear best solution to be obvious (in fact, I'd like debate to move beyond ideology entirely). Yes there are extremists on the left, but I am much more afraid of apocalyptic militant religious nutjobs (that fundamentally reject the notions of individual liberty the nation was founded on) than I am by annoying nanny-staters that want to make me completely safe from everything.

Re:

[hsmith]

If you are going to vote for either of those two, you don't really know what being a conservative is. Period.

Re:

[Miseph]

Well, unless he's a fiscal conservative, and not a social conservative. You know that's possible, right?

Re:

[Moridineas]

Well, I would tend to agree... but who says if you vote for them you don't know what a conservative is? I would say Bush isn't a conservative either, that doesn't mean a lot of conservatives didn't vote for him.

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[danpsmith]

Not being from US, I don't wholly understand this attitude of "I am (insert political mindset), therefore I am voting for (insert associated candidate)". Is this a common behavior?

Ah what you don't get. See, in this country, parties are like football teams. You pick your favorite and defend their bad decisions (play calls) until the end. Even in the face of overwhelming defeat and obvious bias in the referee's calls and penalties, you defend your team until the end. Cuz if you don't have a team, you are a bandwagon jumper! So you must pick your preconceived ideology and vote strictly based on that, despite the value of the actual candidates.

You've just realized one of the fundamental flaws of this America's government system.

Political candidates shouldn't be "enemies", they should have opposing viewpoints. The candidate who wins the most arguments should win the debate. But this is America, so all of that logic flies out the window and in the newly ajar window the "political pundits" come in and confuse everyone into thinking that each side did equally well. So that we can continue to believe there are two versions of the truth, and the only difference is which side you are rooting for.

Re:i'm conservative, but ...

[Jerf]

You pick your favorite and defend their bad decisions (play calls) until the end.... You've just realized one of the fundamental flaws of this America's government system.

No, that's not how it works, and it's trivially provable and obvious.

That's how it works for the people who speak up, post on the internet, etc. That's always how it works. Few people are assertive enough to post on the internet while not holding a position so strongly that almost no conceivable evidence will change their mind. Those that do are generally ignored, because they do things like talk about the good counterarguments, which is far more boring than spewing bile and invective every which way. This is even stronger on TV since only the most "interesting" handful of people can own a show.

But if what you're saying was actually true, then every election would turn out effectively the same, regardless of the candidates, and that is not how it works. States swing back and forth, and while the last couple of Presidential campaigns may have been close to 50%, there's been radical alterations in the makeup of Congress in the meantime.

If what you are saying was true, then the Republicans would still control Congress. Obviously, this is not true.

This is one of those cases where cynicism of the system blinds you to the truth. Some cynicism is good, but you need to be careful with it. You need to look at all of the evidence, not just the evidence jumping up and down demanding to be heard or that reinforces your cynicism, and consider whether the obvious consequences of some claimed truth are coming true.

Re:

[k_187]

In the US, the preference aggregation and labeling functions of parties are utilized to a much greater extent than in other places.

Re:

[Moridineas]

Do you have any data to back that up?

Re:

[Miseph]

Sadly, yes.

Some people even go so far as to hope that the opposing party will pick a weak candidate with no good ideas so that theirs is more likely to win... of course, then it backfires and you get where we are today.

Re:

[networkBoy]

Sadly yes. Many people do not take the time to research any of the issues (even I don't research them all) and rely on their "roll model" (snoop dog, Rush, local DJ, Tom Sullivan (me)) to determine how to vote on people and issues. I research most of the issues, and usually (9/10?) Tom and I are of the similar enough opinion to vote the same, thus if I am short on an issue I usually follow his lead.

The vast majority of Americans either do as above (but without looking for themselves), or have so totally

Re:

[Moridineas]

So you're telling me that in Britain / Australia / France / Germany / -- I have no idea where you're from, but where you are from -- nobody votes party lines? I try to follow international elections a lot, and I can't think of anywhere in the world that would fit that description.

Is it common? That's hard to say... I would say yes and no.

How much has the population of the US changed from 2004-2006? Numberswise, not a lot...some youth in, some elderly died, some immigrants, some emigrants, etc. Does that cha

Re:Or not--or not again!

[Moridineas]

I spent a couple years living in Hyde Park, Chicago -- University of Chicago neighborhood where Obama lived (lives I guess), represented, etc. He's immensely popular there, and very well liked. Everyone I've ever talked to that has met him, has had good things to say about him.

Obama is a hard person not to like. Personally, I'm not wild about a lot of his vews--in his two years in the senate he has one of the very most left-wing voting records alongside Kerry, Kennedy, etc. But despite this, he's somehow managed to garb himself in the clothes of a moderate and a uniter? I'm not sure I see that... I'm not sure where in his record I should look to find this either. Despite this though, I like the guy..

Obama by all accounts HAS kept himself clean (minus some small real estate possible scandal). That's helped him out popularity-wise in Chicago--they carted away current and former politicians by the dozen while I lived there.. Back to Obama.. He's well educated and a powerful public speaker. He's got a definite charisma and he knows how to use it. Perhaps most importantly, he knows what to say--just look at the excitement that has built up around somehow who's been in national politics for two years.

Honestly, I think one could easily draw parallels between Ronald Reagan and Obama on that front--could Obama be the next Great Communicator? I don't know.. I also have no idea what Obama would actually do, beyond the party-line typical stuff that he has said in the past and/or voted for. Like the p/gp/ggp whoever else said, we don't really have a clue what his platform is.

Re:

[joshsnow]

Perhaps most importantly, he knows what to say--just look at the excitement that has built up around somehow who's been in national politics for two years.

As a non-USian, I have to wonder how much of that is due to the Bush effect. When Bush took over from Clinton a massive conversational vacuum seemed to open up - a chasm of non-communication and verbal gaff. Not to take away from Obama, but Bush would make almost anyone sound good.

Brilliant... Maybe

[cyphercell]

If he truly beleives he is the best man for the position, then opening the debates is brilliant. If however this would easily back fire in a matter of weeks, as opponents grab at the documents and hack away. Either way I think it's a pretty good idea for a democracy. So long as the originals are preserved for reference.

Oblig. Simpson's Quote

[i_should_be_working]

Sweet, sweet cans. [youtube.com]

Re:

[teh kurisu]

The appropriate licence would be attribution-noderivs [creativecommons.org].

Re:

[geekoid]

That is why you keep an historical record. If the media starts going on about somebodies reedit, they always have the original to look at.

w00t

[igotmybfg]

how cool is that, a suit who gets it...

Re:

[faloi]

I'll believe he "gets it" when he goes back to some of his big donors in the entertainment industry and starts asking them to consider backing initiatives that support consumer rights and fair use. Until then, this isn't much more than a publicity stunt.

Check

[Threni]

Ok, that's the `keep the nerds happy with something to do with copyright` box checked.

Wake me up when he declares that he'll see to overturning the absurd patent laws should the US electorate vote a black guy into power.

Re:

[locokamil]

I'm sorry... could you please explain to me why the color of his skin should matter in copyright debate?

Re:

[k_187]

Because the guy could have copyright/patent policy that slashdot would cream over, but if he can't get elected, his position is just glory words. Sadly, race is still something that people consider when electing someone.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[theophilosophilus]

Obama's letter shows an understanding of the distinction between waiving copyright and licensing.

The parent makes an excellent point. Also I want to point out that it's not very surprising that Obama knows the distinction between waiving a copyright and licensing, he has a JD from Harvard and taught constitutional law for over ten years See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[geekoid]

og yeah, the large nerd demographic. It's huge. oh wait, most nerds don't vote and hate both parties.

Perhaps he just thinks this is the best thing for America?

Idiot.

Specificly...

[Applekid]

Specificly, from TFA:

"The letter asks that the video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license."

There are many kinds of Creative Commons licenses, and not all of them are as permissive as the requested one.

Actually, it might help if the networks say 'No'

[ip_freely_2000]

A situation like this may force a more serious, mainstream debate if the networks were to dig their heels in. I think the problem with DRM, IP and copyright is the fact is that there has not been a situation like this that the public as a whole can really understand. So here's to hoping we take one step back to take two steps forward.

Re:

[cgenman]

And who, exactly, would carry the serious, mainstream IP focused debate? The networks? Rupert Murdoc's newspapers?

No, the best thing is if the networks decided to spin this for good PR, and talked about how they're putting the presidential debates into the public domain and that anyone can copy and distribute them. Then you get people asking things like "what's the public domain?" "So what else should we be free to distribute?" and "which one is my video editing application?"

Sure, that means you'll get 1

All set for Lettermanisms

[ScentCone]

So, he's all set for high-quality editing jobs that will take quotes like that and produce nice little YouTube videos that say:

"I am a strong believer in ... restricting ... citizens. We should ... make sure that our ... networks benefit from them in all ... ways."

Re:

[Applekid]

Personally, I didn't get into politics at all UNTIL I heard funny edits of the 2004 presidential debates on my local morning radio program. Yeah, I voted with the party line my folks did... never questioned it really. I'd go so far as to say I was a BAD voter since I just went with the flow and didn't really take any thought into anything beyond what the 5 minute blurbs on TV told me. Kind of like how that sort of person might be a bad juror.

The bit was cute. They used a series of clever edits and bleeps to

Good first step, but let's see more.

[laughingcoyote]

I'm not convinced he's not just "throwing a bone" here. How about a campaign promise to veto any copyright extensions or new restrictions that come across his desk? To work to scale back the DMCA, and work the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act back to a genuinely, realistically "limited time", like the Constitution requires? To ensure that if the Internet streaming royalty increases go into effect, he'll work toward scaling them back? It's a nice thought and a good idea, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not much. If this is to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than promise to release one thing, he needs to be willing to take on the deep-pocket content industry, and in doing so, ensure that their bribes^Wcampaign contributions will go to the other side. Otherwise, it makes no real difference.

Re:

[mhall119]

How about a campaign promise to veto any copyright extensions or new restrictions that come across his desk? To work to scale back the DMCA, and work the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act back to a genuinely, realistically "limited time", like the Constitution requires? To ensure that if the Internet streaming royalty increases go into effect, he'll work toward scaling them back?

How about because the President doesn't have the authority to do any of those things? Seriously, he's got more authority now,

Re:

[laughingcoyote]

More technical authority (one vote in Congress vs. 0), probably less, realistically so. Look up "bully pulpit".

Re:

[Drachemorder]

The fact that he prefaced his statement with something to the effect of "I am a strong believer in copyright" indicates to me that he doesn't really understand the debate over copyright, or he doesn't care to get it right and is just tossing out a bone. His statement seems to imply that releasing something under a permissive CC license is equivalent to abolishing copyright entirely.

Most people involved in the debate believe in the idea of copyright; it's just that we disagree over how strong copyright p

Re:

[laughingcoyote]

That'd include me. I'd be all for a 5 or 10 year copyright, designed around the realistic and technological limitations inherent in such a system. But after a few years, either something has made you a profit, or it's not going to. I don't get paid for my work for "life plus 70", I get paid for it when I do it, and the person who paid for it is then entitled to benefit from it in any way and as long as they desire. Why should anyone else get special treatment?

John Edwards too...

[seasleepy]

According to Lessig's blog, John Edwards has also written a letter [lessig.org] supporting this idea.

If the man was REALLY into it...

[Penguinisto]

...how come, as a member of Congress right now, he doesn't introduce and fight for a few bills to reform copyright law so as to bolster Fair Use, and to curb the cartels such as the **AA?

While he's at it, he can do a little politicking to remove software patents, or at least reform it to the point where patent trolls cannot possibly profit (or insanely huge corporations cannot lock out competition with it)?

It's fine and dandy to talk about wanting CC applied to debates, but he's in a position to make far more fundamental changes in his current Congressional position. Let's see him prove he's more than just a typical politician who likes to mouth a few buzzwords for attention here and there.

/P

Why does it need to be broadcast at all?

[michaelmalak]

A reprise of my comment [slashdot.org] from a week ago that was modded "Troll":

Who cares about NBC when there is YouTube?

Here we have a broadcaster willing to broadcast the debate to the entire universe for FREE: YouTube. I blame the political parties for giving exclusive license to a twentieth century media outlet. But that's not the worst of their evils -- that would be excluding candidates who want to uphold the Constitution, such as Ron Paul.

As it turns out, though, Ron Paul did make it to the Reagan Library last nigh

Re:

[TheRaven64]

The request was for 'public domain or Creative Commons.' Among those less fluent with the terms of IP law, it is common to view Creative Commons, Free Software, Open Source and Public Domain as being interchangeable, and so he might not have realised that there are a number of non-Free CC licenses.

It does seem odd that presidential debates are not public domain already. I was under the impression that US government agencies were not able to claim copyright on their output[1], so I would have thought th

Re:

[crush]

Good point, he also doesn't seem to understand that CC type licenses actually use copyright in a socially responsible way.

Re:

[Miseph]

Considering his actual words, as quoted repeatedly in response to this question elsewhere in the discussion, I think not. It's pretty clear that he wants the debate to be public domain OR Creative Commons Attribution because those are the most appropriate licenses for them, not because he doesn't grasp that copyright is involved.

Considering the fact that Obama is a lawyer, and also that he has many supporters with backgrounds in mass media (David Geffen), I find it highly unlikely that he is completely unfa

Re:wtf? I think not...

[frdmfghtr]

Most likely because it IS mentioned, third line, first paragraph...

Dear Chairman Dean:
I am writing in strong support of a letter from a bipartisan coalition of academics, bloggers and Internet activists recently addressed to you and the Democratic National Committee. The letter asks that the video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license.

Re:

[Lord Bitman]

Admittedly, I just read all the posts before commenting, then searched to see if I missed anything.

Why would anyone read an article? That's what editors are paid to do.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion