Copyright As Weapon In US Senate Campaign 409
kfogel writes "Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for US Senate in Nevada, is using a copyright 'cease-and-desist' letter to stop her opponent, incumbent Harry Reid (currently majority leader in the US Senate), from reposting old versions of her campaign website. The old pages are politically sensitive because Angle campaigned from the far right in the primary, but is now toning that down for the general election."
As kfogel notes, the letter "also accuses the Reid campaign of intending to impersonate Angle's campaign, which seems doubtful, but who knows?"
Wrong state? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't think it will matter (Score:4, Informative)
Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
By "reposting old versions of her website," what the submitter actually means is "copying all of the code and images from Sharron Angle's old website, registering a new domain (therealsharronangle.com), and re-creating the entire (old) website." There was even an operable section to sign up as a volunteer, thus collecting the personal information of people who might accidentally come to the phishing site instead of the actual Sharron Angle site. This is known as phishing, and is indeed a violation of copyright.
Gee, Slashdot spreading a misleading story in a bid to make an unfavored politician look bad. Unfortunately, this isn't really unusual for Slashdot.
Re:RTF letter and link (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the site in question is no longer up, (it redirects to another one), so we can't tell whether or not the complaint is legitimate.
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
It is an open book. However, having dealt with a number of design contracts, there may have been a written agreement between the designer and the campaign that nobody else would use that site design, which this would violate to some extent. Nonetheless, there are ways around that: posting screen shots with commentary, for example, or just quoting the text.
I'd also expect Angle to contact The Wayback Machine [waybackmachine.org] if she doesn't want old copies of her site online...
Re: Wrong state? (Yes, my fault, not Slashdot's) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, should have been Nevada, not Arizona -- and the fault was mine in the original submission, not Slashdot's. Sorry about that! I'm glad they updated the post.
-Karl Fogel
Re:Fair use? (Score:2, Informative)
"I haven't had time to look at this in detail" - the key part of your comment is this.
The summary makes it sound like they took screenshots and posted them on harry reid's website. What actually happened is that they copied Sharron Angle's old website in its entirety, created a new domain with her name in it (therealsharronangle.com), and hosted a copied version of the website themselves, without indicating on the website that is was a parody. This is known as a copyright violation, and could even be seen as a phishing attempt.
disgusting on both sides (Score:4, Informative)
Sharron Angle's attempts to keep her old campaign pages out of the public record are reprehensible. However, Harry Reid's portrayal of her positions is also reprehensible, misrepresenting the reasons behind her votes (e.g., claiming that she is in effect supporting child molesters).
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2, Informative)
By "reposting old versions of her website," what the submitter actually means is "copying all of the code and images from Sharron Angle's old website, registering a new domain (therealsharronangle.com), and re-creating the entire (old) website." There was even an operable section to sign up as a volunteer, thus collecting the personal information of people who might accidentally come to the phishing site instead of the actual Sharron Angle site. This is known as phishing, and is indeed a violation of copyright.
That would have made it into the summary if it had been a Democrat this was happening to.
Here comes the infamous ultra-conservative persecution complex. If this was happening to a democrat, Fox News would have been telling us how it's the God-given right of any candidate to do exactly what Reid is doing.
Maybe it didn't make it into the headline because there's no evidence that any data was actually captured?
Re:Boo fuckin' hoo (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is not that Senator Reid's campaign merely reposted parts of her website. Or that she was running away from positions she has taken in the past.
It was that the Reid campaign created a website to look like hers and used that site to get names, emails and other information from people who believed it was her site.
Re:Don't Ask Don't Tell? (Score:3, Informative)
The KKK was founded as an organization to uphold traditional christian values as perceived by its members.
You can try to rewrite history if you want to, but minority and women's rights were and still are very much a religious issue.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)
Lawyers don't lie? Lawyers get it wrong 50% of the time - go to any courthouse and watch - there's always at least one loser in every case (and sometimes there's no winner). The only thing "broken" is your understanding of copyright.
Read Title 17 [cornell.edu] before you spout any more bullshit.
You can start with Fair Use [cornell.edu]
Re:Don't Ask Don't Tell? (Score:1, Informative)
Obama can't repeal don't ask, don't tell with an executive order. It was codified into federal law in 1993.
Re:Boo fuckin' hoo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Boo fuckin' hoo (Score:2, Informative)
Extremist views are extremist views, regardless of which side it comes from.
Not entirely - it depends on what side you're on, and what stage you're considering. In the US, at least, we don't have a true left-wing party like the rest of the world does. We have this weird dichotomy of ultra-right-wing, (Republican) and Moderate-right-wing (Democrat). Even an extreme left-wing-Democrat would be considered Moderate in the rest of the world.
An extreme left-wing view in the US wouldn't be an extremist view in the rest of the world by any stretch.
However, it is amusing to find out that politicians are just learning the golden rule of "stuff you put on the internet stays there forever".
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh.
narCONon is a $cientology front group. It has repeatedly been found either ineffective or downright harmful [wikipedia.org].
Narcotics Anonymous [na.org], on the other hand, is an actual treatment program, the name of which $cientologists deliberately mirrored in their scam setup in order to confuse people into thinking narCONon is somehow legitimate.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)
From the C&D Letter:
Doesn't really fall under fair use - at all.