Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Government Media Politics Your Rights Online

CNN To Release Debates Under Creative Commons 151

Posted by kdawson
from the coming-to-their-senses dept.
remove office writes "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. Senator Barack Obama was the first candidate to call for all presidential debates to be released under Creative Commons, with fellow Democratic hopeful John Edwards following shortly afterwards. CNN will be the first to do so with their June 3rd and 5th Democratic and Republican debates. MSNBC hosted the first presidential debates recently but refused to release them under Creative Commons, opting instead to post online only commercial-ridden clips in Windows Media format."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN To Release Debates Under Creative Commons

Comments Filter:
  • by c0l0 (826165) * on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:58PM (#19006201) Homepage
    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.
    • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:05PM (#19006253) Homepage Journal
      There is no-where in the world where you are prohibited from disclaiming copyright on a work.

      I don't know how that rumour got started.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:11PM (#19006315)

        There is no-where in the world where you are prohibited from disclaiming copyright on a work.

        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.
        • by essence (812715) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:21PM (#19006401) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Start thinking of ourselves as sovereign peoples, sovereign households - streets - communities.

            I've lived in places where this happens, like West Philly where I am now. People get shot for walking down the wrong street.
          • by Plutonite (999141)
            That's funny, I didn't know you had internet access in jail :)

            On a serious note, this is NOT the thinking we need at all. It's the sort of thinking that will get you behind bars, that's all. Protesting against the system should be done by voting, not by violating the laws you disagree with. We cannot ignore the apparatus of democracy and then claim that the system failed us. I personally don't think we have become a totalitarian country (US) just yet, and if anybody was about to refute me by saying that, pl
            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              by essence (812715)

              Protesting against the system should be done by voting
              You really are deluded. Is your life that hunky dory?

              So I get to vote every 3 years or so (Im in Australia) and neither of the major parties that always take power represent me. It's bullshit. Voting does nothing. The major parties are paid for by big business. And because they have the most money, they can afford more advertising etc to brainwash all the people who take no interest in politics.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Plutonite (999141)
                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
                • by rtb61 (674572)
                  It is often the little things that make a big difference. The main difference between US democracy and Australian democracy is compulsory voting.

                  Initially with young indifferent voters it might not make so much difference but as they get older and more mature, as they have to vote any how, they start to think who they are going to vote for and why. They might no make better decisions but because by far the majority do vote, it results in the moderation of politics, nothing to extreme can get up or survive

      • by a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:40PM (#19006515) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by QuantumG (50515)
          Sounds to me like Sweden has no concept of a public domain at all then.

          Which, of course, is absurd.

          Don't let the americans find out.
        • You mean retarded laws that make no sense? You're right, I think every country in the world has and continues to dabble in that area.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by aichpvee (631243)
          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.
        • 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?

          • by houghi (78078) on Sunday May 06, 2007 @02:48AM (#19008531)

            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?


            The copyright is then the publishers.
            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by Perey (818567)

              all his belongings are belong to the state

              You are on the way to no public domain.

              What you say!!

              You have no chance to disclaim make your freedom.

        • by emurphy42 (631808)
          Presumably this is why e.g. Wikipedia offers things like "I release this to the public domain; if that doesn't work for some reason, then I grant anyone the right to use this in any way".

          Out of curiosity, does anyone know the reasoning behind the no-public-domain law?
    • by pfhlick (900680)
      This is still a step in the right direction. I am looking forward to see what people will do online with this footage. I think that this is an important step for the democratic process in the United States, an inevitable consequence of information technology and the web. The next presidents will be under intense scrutiny by far more people than ever before. The internet is changing the way we choose our leadership and has the potential to make our leaders more accountable to us.
    • 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!
    • That's why I like the Creative Commons logo. It has the nifty slogan "Some rights reserved."
      • by geekd (14774)
        I have "some rights".

        I ain't got much, but I have "some rights"

        (still, in the USA)

        Now, where did I put my gun?

        -geekd
    • "not even outside of Europe, where copyright is mandatory and cannot be renounced at all"

      Nice made up bullshit, bozo.

      On another note -- kickass CNN! This is a good deal for everyone (CNN literally gets their logo plastered ALL OVER the place)
    • by evilviper (135110)

      [...] 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.

  • by 26199 (577806) * on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:58PM (#19006203) Homepage

    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).

    • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:05PM (#19006257)

      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).
      What's the point of making a comment if you don't let people comment on it?
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What's the point of making a comment if you don't let people comment on it?
        What's the point of replying if you don't contribute to the discussion?

        oh wait...
    • by zappepcs (820751)

      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?

    • by QuantumG (50515)

      It's entirely possible (and usually the case) that Creative Commons works are copyrighted and not in the public domain.
      It's more than usually the case.. if something is in the public domain, you don't need a license.

      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?
      Read the fucking article.. it's one click away..

      • It's more than usually the case.. if something is in the public domain, you don't need a license.
        You know that and I know that. Just to muddy the waters however, creativecommons.org does in fact provide a PD licence [creativecommons.org] (dedication?) as one of its options.
      • by Bogtha (906264)

        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

    • by remove office (871398) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @08:31PM (#19006801) Homepage
      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").
      • Then until CNN decides to either place the recordings into the public domain (the only way to impose no restrictions) or pick a CC license and retain copyright, it's too early to celebrate.

        Furthermore, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, one must be careful which CC license is chosen. Gone are the days when all CC licenses featured a common baseline of permissions/freedoms. One might recall the recent C-SPAN licensing on Congressional floor coverage (and related footage) where the licensing
  • 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.
    • Indeed (Score:5, Informative)

      by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @08:07PM (#19006655)
      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?

      Ron Paul:
      http://digg.com/search?s=%22ron+paul%22&submit=Sea rch&section=news&type=both&area=promoted&sort=new [digg.com]

      Mike Gravel:
      http://digg.com/search?s=%22mike+gravel%22&submit= Search&section=news&type=both&area=promoted&sort=n ew [digg.com]
      • by Dirtside (91468)
        Mike Gravel? Sounds like someone who ends up fighting an epic battle against Doctor Doom.
      • by k1e0x (1040314)
        Whoot! Ron Paul!

        Actually its funny.. if you watch it almost seems like the media is taking extra time to cut out Ron Paul and ignore his existence. It's like they think he is bad and will go away if they don't mention him.

        ABC had a poll on the debates up yesterday with 9 candidates on it.. excluding *only* one.. Ron Paul how absurd.

        I say the non-endorsement of these candidates by the main stream media make them even more attractive.

        Paul/Gravel in '08!
  • ... too

    (Pay attention to the MS prefix in MSNBC and you will get what i meant)
    • Yes, in 2024.

      Of course they will claim it's something new, patent it, and of course hype the hell out of how they are the "openest news network" on the planet.

      PS... I know this is a troll, and I know 'openest' is not a word
      • by unity100 (970058)
        "PS... I know this is a troll, and I know 'openest' is not a word"

        that premade declaration my friend, wont save you from grammar police.
  • If candidates wanted the debate released to the public, wouldn't it have been more useful to make that part of the terms up front?
    • Well, they can't fix it retroactively, but they certainly addressed the problem as soon as they realized it. If only all political problems were resolved that quickly.
  • by dircha (893383) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:23PM (#19006411)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper (135110)

      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

      • by Grave (8234)
        Some folks get overzealous and become enthralled with "get out the vote" campaigns. If people do not wish to vote, they have that right. If they choose not to vote, and then complain that their elected officials are horrible, they have that right too, although they look like fools as a result.

        Suggesting that viewing these debates should be mandatory is silly, especially when virtually no answers are non-rehearsed. It's also not debate when you have a bunch of people simply being asked questions. A real
        • If people do not wish to vote, they have that right. If they choose not to vote, and then complain that their elected officials are horrible, they have that right too, although they look like fools as a result.

          Does someone still look like a fool if he complains about laws enacted by legislators who were elected before the complainer became old enough to vote? (Specifically, I was too young to vote when the 105th Congress, responsible for the NET Act, the Bono Act, and the DMCA, was elected.) And does voting for a candidate representing a third party such as Green or Libertarian guarantee the right to complain? (Don't blame me; I voted for Badnarik.)

    • You don't have a TV?! Then what's all your furniture pointing at?

      \joey
  • by moehoward (668736) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:23PM (#19006417)

    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
    • by catbutt (469582)
      You're right. I suggest we just go back to dictatorship and be done with it.
      • by FunWithKnives (775464) <ParadoxPerfect.terrorist@net> on Saturday May 05, 2007 @08:39PM (#19006835) Journal
        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?
        • by xenocide2 (231786)
          So why doesn't one of the candidates call people out on it? Surely there's room in a ten man race for an outspoken, tell-all-apologize-for-it-later approach that you want.

          Also, I think the majority watches CNN on accident. As in "oops, I meant channel 63, not 36" accident. I don't think they spend enough time watching to bother forming opinions on things, as long as the impact is distant and abstract.
        • by trifish (826353)
          Good Thing (TM)

          Sorry for being off-topipc, but, out of curiosity, why do people claim trademark rights in phrases like "Good Thing"?
        • by enjo13 (444114)
          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.

          While a popular viewpoint, I think it's completely wrong. In reality most voters are really issue voters. They have one or two issues that are extremely important to them (ask a farmer about subsidies/tariffs or a factory worker about immigration/outsourcing). They tend to seek out candidates that support they're particular issues of interest. They then select a particular candida
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The primary voters need to get a feel for these candidates, how articulate and prepared they are and how they respond under pressure. Can they think on their feet, or do they rely exclusively on their canned stuff? I think people watching can tell when someone is dodging a question or changing the subject.

      When the emotional tense of the debate changes (for example, someone asks about the families of fallen troops in Iraq), are they sufficiently aware to notice, or are they locked into their message? This
      • 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.
    • 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.
    • All debates now require that news programs compare every candidate's makeup to Richard Nixon in 1960. WTF? CCGIGO. Creative-commons garbage in...

      Hmm, I have an idea. Maybe we could release these debates under some sort of "free" license. Then, politically motivated people such as youself could remove the annoying commentary. Since the debates would not be copyrighted in the traditional sense this improved version could then be distributed.
  • youtube (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:28PM (#19006441)

    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

    • by maxume (22995)
      It would be way more awesome if we re-embraced freedom. It might be democratic to make laws against doing stupid shit, but it sure isn't all that free. 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.
      • 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.
    • "Barack Obama. The worst best thing after the Devil Jesus."
    • by evilviper (135110)

      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 more lenient copyright on the material in question will exactly ZERO effect on that, because that would clearly fall entirely under fair-use...
  • 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].

    Ju
    • by corsec67 (627446)
      Wait, you expect a MS site to work perfectly with an operating system that hasn't made any money for MS?

      Work to some extent sure. But to be broken unless you use all MS software is to be expected with MS services.
    • I've posted a couple of creative commons videos to Google, in full, and was wondering if full redistribution was something allowed by the creative commons licenses. The directors/producers didn't seem to mind. A couple of them emailed me to thank me and ask how many hits the videos got. But it is officially allowed by the cc licenses to redistribute an exact copy of the full work, or does it have to be a derivative? I think one was CC Sampling Plus if that matters.
    • by Ksisanth (915235)

      I was having trouble getting it to load at first (Gentoo/Firefox 2.0.0.3/Flash 9), so I checked to be sure it was accepting cookies/javascipt and refreshed several times. Nothing: most of the page wasn't visible, no links worked, just the menu image and "loading..." text. Next I checked the source, cried a little, then changed the user agent. The page changed finally, to insist I needed IE (no mention of firefox), so I set it back to default, closed the tab, hit the link again and...it loaded up fine. I

  • 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
    • System work very well right now. The market responds to demand exceptionally well: we have PBS and CSPAN for the kooky minority that demands it.

      If the pubic makes political copyright a larger issue, the media will meet that demand as well (as in fact they just did).

      Plus, once the candidates are elected, all of their speeches given "in capacity" automatically become public domain.

      What is it exactly that offends you here?
  • by rmckeethen (130580)

    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)

      by Phroon (820247)
      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.

      The Free Software Foundation warns about CC licences [gnu.org]:

      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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by evilviper (135110)

      Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates.

      That might be because there's no indication it WILL be CC at all...

      If you would have clicked-through to CNN's press release, it simply says: "available without restrictions"

      Nobody knows any more than that. Complaining about the different CC licenses, like CNN is trying to use a loophole to keep it restricted, is nonsense, and completely off-topic.

  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by remove office (871398)
      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
  • by moosesocks (264553) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @08:35PM (#19006821) Homepage
    Let the YouTube mashups begin!
  • by frdmfghtr (603968) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @09:48PM (#19007197)
    FTA:

    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.

  • The only reason CNN would ever do this is because the other networks havent yet. That puts CNN on the side of "you" which is complete bullshit and we all should know this by now. Cable news networks dont give a fuck about you, the news, or anything that matters to the public. They are giant corporations that only care about the money.

    This is about money. NBC refuses, Fox refuses, CBS, ABC refuse... and CNN says "Look over here guys, we'll do it!" And now CNN gets their name everywhere on youtube. This is al
    • by Glytch (4881)

      And if you trust CNN or any of these news networks.. such as FOX NEWS, MSNBC... you're insane.

      Because, as we all know, CNN and the other networks have perfected the science of computer voice synthesis and developed 3D CGI techniques to perfectly duplicate human beings, or they've found perfect lookalikes and soundalikes for every candidate in these debates and is faking the entire process.

      Be careful! They're also after your precious bodily fluids!

  • wake me up when they actually have a real debate.

    If using the creative commons license increases the exposure of these sleaze-fests that hardly seems like a good thing.

    p.s.
    Dear "debate" moderators, grow a farking pair.
    The debaters are not your lords and masters, YOU are in charge and have a job to do.

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Working...