To license (creative) work under a Creative Commons license does NOT mean to have that stuff "uncopyrighted" - not even outside of Europe, where copyright is mandatory and cannot be renounced at all (except for by the death of the work's author having passed for some 70 years or so). "Uncopyrighted" would probably mean to have the work put into the public domain - that's, however, not true for the CC-licenses, nor is it for any other "free" license (like GNU GPL, GNU FDL, BSDL, MITL and Co.) I know. All these licenses cleverly make use of copyright to guarantee certain freedoms and/or restrictions.
Untrue. I've prohibited it in my house. If you want to disclaim copyright on a work then you can go someplace else and do it. My house, my rules.
Likewise, cannabis isn't illegal at my place.
It's the sort of thinking we need to overthrow this system. Start thinking of ourselves as sovereign peoples, sovereign households - streets - communities.
So, don't go to the rape house and you won't get raped. Keep your kids away from the molestation house. And avoid the weapons house, but if the weapons weren't illegal in the first place, there'd be no issue there.
Then criminals can have rape houses where rape isn't illegal, houses where child molestation is legal, distribution centers for illegal weapons... What a great idea!
Take the idea of the sovereign individual. Everyone has their own sovereignty. Now rape houses and molestation houses are clearly a violation of the individuals sovereignty. Saying you have the sovereign right to abuse someone elses sovereignty is not really what I was thinking.
The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom.
Hey, I'm with you there. You guys have it easy in Australia, down here (good ole US of A) we WISH it was only about fighting corporations, rather than masses of extreme right wing/evangelist nutjobs. I never said voting changes anything, but in a democracy voting has a better chance of changing something than breaking the laws that exist because of the fact that we put democracy into use. Also, nobody said that democracy is ideal in any way. If science was as fanatically reliant on public consensus, we would
In Sweden one can only publish books that are copyrighted. Any book that has noone claiming copyright for it means that the printer of the book are forced to take the responsibilty _and_ the copyright for the book. If the original author are found he/she cant disclaim their copyright.
Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.
Thus every book published will have someone who holds the books copyright.
I doubt Sweden is the only country that have laws like this.
Cool, good thing I've already claimed copyright on the bible in Sweden. I have to go call my lawyer now, a have a feeling I need to sue a TON of people.
In Sweden one can only publish books that are copyrighted. Any book that has noone claiming copyright for it means that the printer of the book are forced to take the responsibilty _and_ the copyright for the book. If the original author are found he/she cant disclaim their copyright.
Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.
What happens when a publisher or author who owns a copyright dies without heirs? Or if an author submits a book to a publisher using a false id? Or if a publisher prints a book anonymously?
Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.
Thus every book published will have someone who holds the books copyright.
Hmmm...sorry, but I'm really sceptical about this claim. Got any references to substantiate it?
What happens when a publisher or author who owns a copyright dies without heirs?
First he must be an orphan, otherwise his closest relatives will inherit the copyright. They can say no to inheriting anything. In that case all his belongings are belong to the state, including the copyright.
Or if an author submits a book to a publisher using a false id? Or if a publisher prints a book anonymously?
It's even worse: using a Creative Commons license doesn't mean what most people think! Some of those licenses are free/open source, but others are proprietary!
[...] nor is it for any other "free" license (like GNU GPL, GNU FDL, BSDL, MITL and Co.) I know. All these licenses cleverly make use of copyright to guarantee certain freedoms and/or restrictions.
The BSD, MIT, and a few other licenses, are such a tiny step away from public domain, that it's pointless (and pedantic) to go out of your way to make the distinction.
Yeah, you aren't allowed to change those 3 lines at the top of every.c file, but that is all.
Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate?
I think this is a good trend. Once the debate is recorded, let it be debated over and over again on the Internet. Perhaps this will one day lead to more honest campaigns and candidates. I'd like to see each of the debaters face the record of their campaign, by being presented with whatever the Internet has to say about them, including their voting history (what they supported and didn't) for the last 15 years or so. I would hope that this would keep the debates and election from being about the buzzword is
The article and summary seem to be treating "Creative Commons" and "copyright free" as synonyms. This is not the case. "Creative Commons" is an umbrella term for a number of different licenses and a dedication to the public domain. It's entirely possible (and usually the case) that Creative Commons works are copyrighted and not in the public domain.
Does anybody know if they are really dedicating the footage to the public domain, or are they using one of the more restrictive CC licenses?
It's more than usually the case.. if something is in the public domain, you don't need a license.
Yes, but as Vain Gloria points out, Creative Commons offers a public domain dedication too. In common usage, the term "Creative Commons works" include those works that have been dedicated to the public domain using the CC dedication.
Read the fucking article.. it's one click away..
Read my fucking comment. The article seems confused. It says "uncopyrighted" in the headline, but keeps talking about
Thanks to you and everybody else in here complaining (rightfully), I've edited the article on my website to hopefully reflect the corrections people are offering. The Slashdot summary is not editable by me though.
Also, in answer to your question, a specific license has not been announced yet, but CNN has indicated that people will be free to do whatever they like with it (remix it, edit it, use it in a documentary, post it anywhere they want, etc).
One of the specific points that Obama had was that he wanted the footage to be free for people to use in creating things like remixed YouTube videos, etc ("end user created content").
I have posted previously about my disappointment and the mainstream media 'manipulation' of these debates. I dont really see what the difference is here. It will probably just degenerate into 'we'can do it better or cheaper with the clips than 'they can'' and does really bode well for political discourse.
The companies want to choose the "acceptable" candidates for you rather the populace choosing themselves. The primaries are very important in party politics and when people complain that they only have a choice between a douche and turd on election day must be informed that they get whittled down to that choice because they consider eleection day all important and not the primaries and that "vote". May not be fair but it is true.
The mainstream media is silent on these candidates, but Digg is abuzz with Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Please looking up these two and consider actively spreading the word about who you like (either of these two or other candidates you find). Or do you guys want to be stuck with a Bush vs. Kerry like candidates in 2008 with both sides sucking?
I don't own a television. Transcripts don't really give a complete sense of the candidate's performance. Luckily I've been able to find the debates so far for both parties on YouTube.
Just search for "republican presidential debate part" or "democrat presidential debate part" respectively on YouTube. They're split into 9 minute chunks.
I think it would be awfully bad form for MSNBC to pull these from YouTube. But I commend the candidates and CNN for making this issue public. We shouldn't have to rely on the good will (or hesitant takedown action) of MSNBC in order to get coverage of the men and women, one of whom will in a relatively short amount of time hold the highest political office in our democracy.
But sometimes I'm not sure why I care, or that I do. Especially when I see headlines like this: "FLASH: FOXNEWS O'REILLY TOPS MSNBC GOP DEBATE".
And look at the viewership numbers. That's right, not only did less than 1% of elligible voters even WATCH that debate, MORE people watched some blowhard talk about the debate than watched the debate itself.
This should dominate mainstream broadcast and print media. This should preempt regular programming on every broadcast channel.
This should dominate mainstream broadcast and print media. This should preempt regular programming on every broadcast channel.
Calm down. This is just a couple democratic PRIMARY debates we're talking about. Later, you can expect some debates to get broadcast on various network channels.
As for EVERY channel, that's just idiotic. I am capable of changing the channel myself, thank you.
There are plenty of people that can't vote, anyhow, and don't need to be annoyed. There are also plenty of people who simpl
Come on. The debates themselves ARE commercial-ridden clips. The pandering? The acting? The party-line quotes? The weeks of "prep time" these alleged law-makers indulge while honing their so-called "debate" skills? The "I'm presidential" BS? So what if MSCNBCNSC runs them with commercials.
After two stories on this in a few days, is Slashdot sure it wants to hang their hats here on this issue?
The debate format died 20 years ago, was resurrected by Saint Perot, and then was again laid to a peaceful sleep.
The debates now are nothing more than traps. If you attend a debate and get caught in a trap, you are dead. If you lose your temper or slip up, or say "um" too many times, you are dead. Does anyone really think that some candidate will suddenly have some nation-shocking insight that will capture us?
All debates now require that news programs compare every candidate's makeup to Richard Nixon in 1960. WTF? CCGIGO. Creative-commons garbage in...
Nice knee-jerk. The GP's point was that, notwithstanding the fact that the presidential debates being available to everyone is a Good Thing (TM), it does not actually matter, if those debates are shallow and pointless (and they will be). Presidential candidates have become nothing more than actors. It is all about "talking points" and grand-standing. The actual issues are just glossed over. The important thing is how a candidate is perceived. People, by and large, don't vote for or against a candidate based on his or her stance on issues (if they even really have one). They vote for or against them based on two things:
1. Is this person toeing my chosen party's line well enough?
2. Do I "perceive" ("gut feeling," truthiness, et cetera) this person properly?
The GP is absoultely correct in his statement. In this case, I think that there are two root causes. Firstly, our government and the career politicians who comprise it do not want an informed public, by any means. An informed majority would be disastrous for these people. However, it is rather difficult to suppress information within a country that is supposed to be democratic. Dissidents do not just disappear without a trace (yet), and journalists aren't thrown in jail for articles which are critical of the government. A delicate balance must be maintained: the majority must believe that they are informed and conscious, and the information must be ladled out "properly," i.e. dumbed down to "talking points," presented as black and white, with no grey areas, and so on. In traditional totalitarian or dictatorial states, the public is left completely uninformed. That method will not work in the United States. In ours and other pseudo-democratic states, the goal is to have a misinformed public.
The second cause, I believe, is affected somewhat by the first one. The majority get their news on the run, and from the humongous conglomerates such as CNN or Fox. They do not research anything that they are exposed to further. They see the latest "Left vs. Right: Smackdown!" show on CNN, watch it for awhile, take one side or the other, and call it a day. This is how the majority establish their stances politically. When the option of further research and the establishment of a view based on the facts instead of the opinion of a talking head on a "news-er-tainment" network are given (and I have experienced this firsthand, many times), they claim that they are just "too busy" to worry about things like that. While I realize that it does take a bit more time and effort to become an informed individual, is it really too much? I also think that it might have a lot to do with the fact that policy-makers decisions, as opposed to one hundred years ago or more, do not appear to affect a great deal of our lives. The policy may be a ticking timebomb, but the majority do not realise it.
All of this amounts to what we have today: debates that are, in reality, nothing more than popularity contests. As for a solution, I honestly do not know if there is one in the short term. The majority in this country cannot be forced to care enough to become informed; they must choose to do so themselves. I have never had much faith in most people when it comes to things like this, but then again, I am a devout pessimist. Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point, who knows?
The moderation of the parent is horrible. How do these people keep getting mod points? I hope someone meta-mods the hell out of whoever is responsible for that one.
The mods must be on crack tonight. The GP was not saying by any means that there should be no debates. That is just ridiculous. He was stating that the debates have become absolutely pointless stage shows, and I agree. It is very telling that they are now scripted, with candidates knowning beforehand what they will be asked. As for your Dukakis example, do you actually think that would even be an allowed question today? The mic would probably be cut, and the questioner escorted out of the building.
Youtube is going to be clogged with eight-billion videos of clips out of context and "deep" bad voiceovers explaining why [Candidate X] is the worst/best thing after the devil/Jesus
And the annoyance of having links of all of them e-mailed to me pales to the joy that America is becoming (slightly) more democratic
Damnit, I want a lawnmower that lets me accidentally turn an appendage into burger without requiring heavy modification and there is no good reason not to give me one.
OK, true. But there is no good reason to want one, either.
I wanted to watch the GOP debate, but my Linux (Gentoo/GNOME) box would not load video from the MSNBC page. I was told that I needed Firefox (which I had) and Flash (which I had). I tried in OS X with Firefox and Flash. No dice. I tried with Safari (which it said would work) and Flash on my Mac. Same message. I used the latest version of Firefox, Safari, OS X, and the Flash plugin on both machines. STILL was unable to watch on Microsoft's site. On OS X I also had the Microsoft WMV Quicktime plugins [microsoft.com].
American public political speech for the purposes of running a civil society should be de facto uncopyrightable. This is how you run a (supposed) democracy. If they don't like it, they can pay the entire annual FCC budget for every clip they want to keep to themselves. We GIVE them spectrum, we PAY to defend and protect it for them, this REALLY IS the very least they can do. Personally, I think they should be compelled to air ??? hours of campaign content to help run the system that makes them their fortu
Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates. Having just released a photo project under a CC license, it appears that there are at least four basickinds of CC licenses, and some varients on them:
The most restrictive CC license is either the Developing Nations 2.0 [creativecommons.org] or possibly the Founders' Copyright [creativecommons.org], both of which would place the debates under normal copyright in the United States. Using either one of these would be a great disservice.
There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons licenses grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative Commons license" is to leave all important questions about the work's licensing unan
I dont know about anyone else here, but its nice to see something positive happening now. This is at least something in the right direction. Now if we can get CSPAN to do the same.
Under C-SPAN's contract, they use government-provided cameras on the House and Senate floor for constitutional reasons. Everything that is shot on government equipment is in the public domain by default. The only copyrighted-material that C-SPAN creates is material they make with their own cameras (such as footage from events outside of Congress, like the White House Correspondents Association dinner, etc).
There was a big hullabaloo over whether or not C-SPAN should us
CNN announced that it plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts in their upcoming presidential debates under a Creative Commons type license Saturday.
"Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public," CNN said in a statement, "CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate."
FTS:
"After calls from several prominent bloggers and a couple of presidential candidates, CNN has agreed to release the footage from its upcoming June presidential debates uncopyrighted.
How does a CC license mean the same as noncopyrighted?
IT DOESN'T! Creative Commons, like the GPL, relies on copyright to license works.
Furthermore, according to the CNN website, [cnn.com],
The presidential debates are an integral part of our system of government, in which the American people have the opportunity to make informed choices about who will serve them. Therefore, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.
To me, that reads "public domain" and not even Creative Commons. What am I missing?
I don't care what license they release the presidential debates under. It will be "closed source" until the debates establish reasonable guidelines under which minor party candidates are allowed to participate.
I'm a Democrat, but the exclusion of Independents and candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Socialist, and Reform parties (among others) is a far worse abuse of power than anything done by Microsoft at the height of its antitrust powers.
These are not non-partisan debates -- they are bipartisan affairs, and the rules are deliberately constructed to preserve the political monopolies of the two main parties. It makes for boring, highly scripted debates, where the same old questions receive the same pat soundbite answers. The U.S. Constitution does not provide for a two-party system, and voters deserves better.
Any party or independent campaign which has gotten itself on enough state ballots to theoretically win an election if they carried those states' electoral votes belongs in the presidential debates. As it stands now, a candidate's party must also meet an unrealistic standard of previous electoral performance. This is pretty much impossible, given that minor parties are denied the millions of dollars of free advertising doled out by the media to the already well-funded Democrats and Republicans.
Rather than talking about open licensing for a series of closed debates, let's talk about forbidding their free broadcast over public airwaves until they amount to more than an undocumented campaign contribution by the networks.
Open the damn debates and quit feigning openness with this BS about a Creative Commons license.
On a closely related sidenote: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Uncopyrighted" would probably mean to have the work put into the public domain - that's, however, not true for the CC-licenses, nor is it for any other "free" license (like GNU GPL, GNU FDL, BSDL, MITL and Co.) I know. All these licenses cleverly make use of copyright to guarantee certain freedoms and/or restrictions.
Re:On a closely related sidenote: (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know how that rumour got started.
Parent
Re:On a closely related sidenote: (Score:5, Funny)
Untrue. I've prohibited it in my house. If you want to disclaim copyright on a work then you can go someplace else and do it. My house, my rules.
Parent
Re:On a closely related sidenote: (Score:4, Funny)
It's the sort of thinking we need to overthrow this system. Start thinking of ourselves as sovereign peoples, sovereign households - streets - communities.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then criminals can have rape houses where rape isn't illegal, houses where child molestation is legal, distribution centers for illegal weapons... What a great idea!
Take the idea of the sovereign individual. Everyone has their own sovereignty. Now rape houses and molestation houses are clearly a violation of the individuals sovereignty. Saying you have the sovereign right to abuse someone elses sovereignty is not really what I was thinking.
The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, nobody said that democracy is ideal in any way. If science was as fanatically reliant on public consensus, we would
Re:On a closely related sidenote: (Score:5, Informative)
Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.
Thus every book published will have someone who holds the books copyright.
I doubt Sweden is the only country that have laws like this.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, of course, is absurd.
Don't let the americans find out.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Sweden one can only publish books that are copyrighted. Any book that has noone claiming copyright for it means that the printer of the book are forced to take the responsibilty _and_ the copyright for the book. If the original author are found he/she cant disclaim their copyright.
Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.
What happens when a publisher or author who owns a copyright dies without heirs? Or if an author submits a book to a publisher using a false id? Or if a publisher prints a book anonymously?
Thus all books are copyrighted by someone - but it may not always be the original author.
Thus every book published will have someone who holds the books copyright.
Hmmm...sorry, but I'm really sceptical about this claim. Got any references to substantiate it?
Re:On a closely related sidenote: (Score:4, Informative)
First he must be an orphan, otherwise his closest relatives will inherit the copyright. They can say no to inheriting anything. In that case all his belongings are belong to the state, including the copyright.
The copyright is then the publishers.
Parent
Even worse than that... (Score:2)
Re:Even worse than that... (Score:5, Funny)
(Sorry but the enthusiasm with which you said that was a little much or at least that's how I read it
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The BSD, MIT, and a few other licenses, are such a tiny step away from public domain, that it's pointless (and pedantic) to go out of your way to make the distinction.
.c file, but that is all.
Yeah, you aren't allowed to change those 3 lines at the top of every
Uncopyrighted... (Score:3, Funny)
Is of course quite different from a Creative Commons license. (Assuming by "uncopyrighted" they mean "into the public domain").
Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate?
(That was a rhetorical question, please don't comment on it).
Re:Uncopyrighted... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate?
I think this is a good trend. Once the debate is recorded, let it be debated over and over again on the Internet. Perhaps this will one day lead to more honest campaigns and candidates. I'd like to see each of the debaters face the record of their campaign, by being presented with whatever the Internet has to say about them, including their voting history (what they supported and didn't) for the last 15 years or so. I would hope that this would keep the debates and election from being about the buzzword is
Creative Commons != copyright free (Score:2)
The article and summary seem to be treating "Creative Commons" and "copyright free" as synonyms. This is not the case. "Creative Commons" is an umbrella term for a number of different licenses and a dedication to the public domain. It's entirely possible (and usually the case) that Creative Commons works are copyrighted and not in the public domain.
Does anybody know if they are really dedicating the footage to the public domain, or are they using one of the more restrictive CC licenses?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but as Vain Gloria points out, Creative Commons offers a public domain dedication too. In common usage, the term "Creative Commons works" include those works that have been dedicated to the public domain using the CC dedication.
Read my fucking comment. The article seems confused. It says "uncopyrighted" in the headline, but keeps talking about
Re:Creative Commons != copyright free (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, in answer to your question, a specific license has not been announced yet, but CNN has indicated that people will be free to do whatever they like with it (remix it, edit it, use it in a documentary, post it anywhere they want, etc).
One of the specific points that Obama had was that he wanted the footage to be free for people to use in creating things like remixed YouTube videos, etc ("end user created content").
Parent
Interesting (Score:2)
Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
The mainstream media is silent on these candidates, but Digg is abuzz with Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Please looking up these two and consider actively spreading the word about who you like (either of these two or other candidates you find). Or do you guys want to be stuck with a Bush vs. Kerry like candidates in 2008 with both sides sucking?
Ron Paul:
http://digg.com/search?s=%22ron+paul%22&submit=Se
Mike Gravel:
http://digg.com/search?s=%22mike+gravel%22&submit
Parent
Breaking news : now MSNBC will do the same (Score:2)
(Pay attention to the MS prefix in MSNBC and you will get what i meant)
A little late in the day, isn't it? (Score:2)
You can watch them on YouTube anyhow (Score:4, Informative)
Just search for "republican presidential debate part" or "democrat presidential debate part" respectively on YouTube. They're split into 9 minute chunks.
I think it would be awfully bad form for MSNBC to pull these from YouTube. But I commend the candidates and CNN for making this issue public. We shouldn't have to rely on the good will (or hesitant takedown action) of MSNBC in order to get coverage of the men and women, one of whom will in a relatively short amount of time hold the highest political office in our democracy.
But sometimes I'm not sure why I care, or that I do. Especially when I see headlines like this: "FLASH: FOXNEWS O'REILLY TOPS MSNBC GOP DEBATE".
And look at the viewership numbers. That's right, not only did less than 1% of elligible voters even WATCH that debate, MORE people watched some blowhard talk about the debate than watched the debate itself.
This should dominate mainstream broadcast and print media. This should preempt regular programming on every broadcast channel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Calm down. This is just a couple democratic PRIMARY debates we're talking about. Later, you can expect some debates to get broadcast on various network channels.
As for EVERY channel, that's just idiotic. I am capable of changing the channel myself, thank you.
There are plenty of people that can't vote, anyhow, and don't need to be annoyed. There are also plenty of people who simpl
Commercial-Ridden Clips? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on. The debates themselves ARE commercial-ridden clips. The pandering? The acting? The party-line quotes? The weeks of "prep time" these alleged law-makers indulge while honing their so-called "debate" skills? The "I'm presidential" BS? So what if MSCNBCNSC runs them with commercials.
After two stories on this in a few days, is Slashdot sure it wants to hang their hats here on this issue?
The debate format died 20 years ago, was resurrected by Saint Perot, and then was again laid to a peaceful sleep.
The debates now are nothing more than traps. If you attend a debate and get caught in a trap, you are dead. If you lose your temper or slip up, or say "um" too many times, you are dead. Does anyone really think that some candidate will suddenly have some nation-shocking insight that will capture us?
All debates now require that news programs compare every candidate's makeup to Richard Nixon in 1960. WTF? CCGIGO. Creative-commons garbage in...
Moe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Commercial-Ridden Clips? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Is this person toeing my chosen party's line well enough?
2. Do I "perceive" ("gut feeling," truthiness, et cetera) this person properly?
The GP is absoultely correct in his statement. In this case, I think that there are two root causes. Firstly, our government and the career politicians who comprise it do not want an informed public, by any means. An informed majority would be disastrous for these people. However, it is rather difficult to suppress information within a country that is supposed to be democratic. Dissidents do not just disappear without a trace (yet), and journalists aren't thrown in jail for articles which are critical of the government. A delicate balance must be maintained: the majority must believe that they are informed and conscious, and the information must be ladled out "properly," i.e. dumbed down to "talking points," presented as black and white, with no grey areas, and so on. In traditional totalitarian or dictatorial states, the public is left completely uninformed. That method will not work in the United States. In ours and other pseudo-democratic states, the goal is to have a misinformed public.
The second cause, I believe, is affected somewhat by the first one. The majority get their news on the run, and from the humongous conglomerates such as CNN or Fox. They do not research anything that they are exposed to further. They see the latest "Left vs. Right: Smackdown!" show on CNN, watch it for awhile, take one side or the other, and call it a day. This is how the majority establish their stances politically. When the option of further research and the establishment of a view based on the facts instead of the opinion of a talking head on a "news-er-tainment" network are given (and I have experienced this firsthand, many times), they claim that they are just "too busy" to worry about things like that. While I realize that it does take a bit more time and effort to become an informed individual, is it really too much? I also think that it might have a lot to do with the fact that policy-makers decisions, as opposed to one hundred years ago or more, do not appear to affect a great deal of our lives. The policy may be a ticking timebomb, but the majority do not realise it.
All of this amounts to what we have today: debates that are, in reality, nothing more than popularity contests. As for a solution, I honestly do not know if there is one in the short term. The majority in this country cannot be forced to care enough to become informed; they must choose to do so themselves. I have never had much faith in most people when it comes to things like this, but then again, I am a devout pessimist. Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point, who knows?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
youtube (Score:5, Insightful)
Youtube is going to be clogged with eight-billion videos of clips out of context and "deep" bad voiceovers explaining why [Candidate X] is the worst/best thing after the devil/Jesus
And the annoyance of having links of all of them e-mailed to me pales to the joy that America is becoming (slightly) more democratic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, true. But there is no good reason to want one, either.
This is great news (Score:2)
I used the latest version of Firefox, Safari, OS X, and the Flash plugin on both machines. STILL was unable to watch on Microsoft's site. On OS X I also had the Microsoft WMV Quicktime plugins [microsoft.com].
Ju
Re: (Score:2)
Work to some extent sure. But to be broken unless you use all MS software is to be expected with MS services.
I'm offended that it's legal to copyright this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I think they should be compelled to air ??? hours of campaign content to help run the system that makes them their fortu
But Which CC License? (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates. Having just released a photo project under a CC license, it appears that there are at least four basickinds of CC licenses, and some varients on them:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [creativecommons.org]
The no-derivitives license in particular could have a big impact, especially for people looking to throw up stuff on YouTube and whatnot.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Free Software Foundation warns about CC licences [gnu.org]:
Wonderful! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Under C-SPAN's contract, they use government-provided cameras on the House and Senate floor for constitutional reasons. Everything that is shot on government equipment is in the public domain by default. The only copyrighted-material that C-SPAN creates is material they make with their own cameras (such as footage from events outside of Congress, like the White House Correspondents Association dinner, etc).
There was a big hullabaloo over whether or not C-SPAN should us
Let me be the first to say.... (Score:5, Funny)
Creative Commons!=no copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
FTS:
How does a CC license mean the same as noncopyrighted?
IT DOESN'T! Creative Commons, like the GPL, relies on copyright to license works.
Furthermore, according to the CNN website, [cnn.com],
To me, that reads "public domain" and not even Creative Commons. What am I missing?
Admit minor parties, then I'll care. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care what license they release the presidential debates under. It will be "closed source" until the debates establish reasonable guidelines under which minor party candidates are allowed to participate.
I'm a Democrat, but the exclusion of Independents and candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Socialist, and Reform parties (among others) is a far worse abuse of power than anything done by Microsoft at the height of its antitrust powers.
These are not non-partisan debates -- they are bipartisan affairs, and the rules are deliberately constructed to preserve the political monopolies of the two main parties. It makes for boring, highly scripted debates, where the same old questions receive the same pat soundbite answers. The U.S. Constitution does not provide for a two-party system, and voters deserves better.
Any party or independent campaign which has gotten itself on enough state ballots to theoretically win an election if they carried those states' electoral votes belongs in the presidential debates. As it stands now, a candidate's party must also meet an unrealistic standard of previous electoral performance. This is pretty much impossible, given that minor parties are denied the millions of dollars of free advertising doled out by the media to the already well-funded Democrats and Republicans.
Rather than talking about open licensing for a series of closed debates, let's talk about forbidding their free broadcast over public airwaves until they amount to more than an undocumented campaign contribution by the networks.
Open the damn debates and quit feigning openness with this BS about a Creative Commons license.
Re:Presidential debates (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
they amount to a stretch mark
on, say, Rosie O.