Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech 1324
MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."
Mirror (Score:2, Informative)
One is the cover picture that appeared on Kerry's book, The New Soldier which Kerry tried to suppress in 1972. It depicts several unkempt demonstrators crudely handling an upside down American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima.
Read letter below:
March 5, 2004
By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
and By Email usveterandispatch@earthlink.net
Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
P.O. Box 246
Kinston, N.C. 28502
Re: vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com
Dear Mr. Sampley:
Please be advised that this office represents the professional photographer George Butler. The above-referenced website is currently hyperlinking to a website which displays an infringing photograph, and is making false statements about this law firm. This must be remedied, or our client and this firm will be forced to commence legal action against you.
Your online service provider, EastLink, was contacted by this office regarding two photographs taken by Mr. Butler that were being used without permission on your website. To ensure compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 United States Code 1200 et seq.), EastLink removed the infringing photographs on March 4, 2004.
In response, you posted the above-referenced statements and hyperlink to http://www.grunt.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=953
Moreover, the statement that "lawyers representing John Kerry's interest threatened our Internet server with legal action unless the picture was removed" is a false statement of fact. As stated above, this firm represents George Butler. John Kerry is not, and has never been, a client of this firm. In addition, we did not threaten your Internet server, EastLink, with legal action. Rather, our letter and phone calls were required by law to afford EastLink the opportunity to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA that protect the interests of online service providers before commencing an action against any of the websites they host.
Thus, you remain in violation of copyright law by continuing to link to the above referenced website and have published false statements of fact on your website, which is actionable as well. You must immediately remove the hyperlink and the false statements from your website.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Wolff
cc: George Butler
Yeah, right... (Score:4, Informative)
This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Informative)
Those reasons really suck, and I'd love to vote for somebody I could actually like voting for, but there's just too much at stake this time.
Re:Yes it is (Score:4, Informative)
Neither was Bush. He's still only achieved 85% of Reagan's deficit.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:1, Informative)
Mistake (Score:4, Informative)
That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring. He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.
Misleading (Score:4, Informative)
This article makes it sound like both candidates are engaging in a campaign of suppression. If you actually follow the links, you find out that there is (as far as i can tell) only one lawsuit per candidate, and that the suits were not filed by the candidates.
I think copyright holders are wrong in both cases, but the candidates aren't necessarily behind it.
If you want to know where a politician stands on an issue, you should ask them and check their record. It's not enough to find one example where they've benefitted from someone else's lawsuit.
Come to think of it, how come these suits are only evidence in one direction? The candidates aren't party to the lawsuits. You could just as easily say that both candidates are against copyright suits because a movie that helps Kerry is being suppressed and so is an ad that helps Bush.
Fact checking... (Score:4, Informative)
BZZT! Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is not Micheal Moore, but another Iraqi War documentary maker: Robert Greenwald, who is trying to use the clip.
Source: This editorial from Wired about, not-ironically, big media and copyrights suppressing democracy.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.htm
Re:Yes it is (Score:4, Informative)
Both bad (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Informative)
The veterans against Kerry's campaign are here [swiftvets.com] and they most certainly did serve along side Kerry. Steve Gardner was his machine gunner.
At least know what you're talking about if your're going to run your gob
Re:Yeah, right... I claim Moderator Bias!!!!! (Score:2, Informative)
I know my posts are mostly ignorable, but there must be SOMEONE the doesn't believe Kerry and says so good enough to get moddedup
Re:That's why... (Score:3, Informative)
Your Vote (Score:4, Informative)
Vote Libertarian?
Re:That's why... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:1, Informative)
No one seemed to mind that Clinton dodged Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now.
IMO, when Kerry started answering every question with "When I was in Vietnam...", he made his record fair game. However, he has not fully released that record. I wonder why not? There can't be much there for just four months.
Oh, and a few John Kerry quotes since you don't believe that he called soldier's criminals. This is from VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971 (http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKe
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Informative)
MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?
SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:4, Informative)
The best link is here [factcheck.org]. That site, FactCheck.org, is a fair, non-partisan research group solely devoted to debunking false claims in politics and the media.
In short: One purple heart was for a contusion to the arm and shrapnel taken during the explosion of a nearby swiftboat. He *also* recieved shrapnel shortly before this in the buttock from a too-close toss of a handgrenade at a stockpile of rice to deny the VC foodstuffs. One of the silver stars being falsely questioned was for charging his swiftboat into an ambush and routing an entrenched VC force. Regardless, go read the analysis by factcheck, and you'll better understand exactly how fraudulent these slanders of John Kerry are.
Re:That's why... (Score:4, Informative)
It *is* true that there is some precedent for non-compliance with the Constitutions mandate of full faith and credit: anti-miscegenation laws. Back before Loving vs. Virginia, some states indeed excluded marriages valid in other states. What a surprise that many of the very same people who are today's homophobes grew up as yesteryears' racists.... well, they were homophobes then too, and mostly they're still racists now. But it's a matter of priorities.
Re:That's why... (Score:2, Informative)
Snoped. (Score:5, Informative)
From the good folks at snopes: link [snopes.com].
I trust you won't be repeating such bullshit lines again.Herman Goering Once Said (Score:5, Informative)
~S
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is parent modded as troll? (Score:4, Informative)
not quite, just pointing out that there ARE repubs trolling sites masquerading as lefties to encourage people to not vote for kerry. same as there ARE microsoft astroturfers posting pro-microsoft fud on various blogs. Of course not all anti-kerry or pro-microsoft stuff is such astroturfing or trolling, but it does exist, and i want to let people know about it.
no pot/kettle/black since i'm obviously pushing kerry and stating it. i don't see how i could have been a troll. I can see you someone either right or left of me would not like what i'm saying, but that doesn't make me a troll.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Informative)
NBC said no, not for any copyright related reason, but because it was "not very flattering to the president."
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Informative)
In America, it's different. We've evolved into a two party system, which some theorize is more stable because the coalitions don't break apart over crisis and the leadership and government cannot be dissolved by parliament, but only by the electorate (except in extreme cases like criminal wrong doing) With less factions, there is also less chance of paralysis do to infighting (although a hefty part of our government is set up to paralyze the powers) Elections are handled by a general populace election. In EACH STATE not NATIONALLY the canditate must win a plurality of votes (more than any other candidate). If the candidate wins the popular vote IN THAT STATE then he can send his (or the party's) hand picked delegates (the electoral college) to chose him IN THAT STATE as the president. The person wins the most votes from the electoral college (the number go delegates to the e.c from each state is determined by population) wins the election. Therefore, Al Gore might have won more votes, but did not win more states and so lost the election. Very complicated. most Americans have a hard time explaining it to you.
It is also possible that the electoral college can chose some one other than the person who won the plurality of votes in the state. Eg. If Ross Perot ran for Florida but did not win the state, George Bush Sr. Delegates could theoretically vote for Ross Perot anyway: the delegates are not (theoretically) automatons although traditionally they have consistently voted according to the will of the people).
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Informative)
I know this is the number one attack, Kerry is flip-flopping, but can you actually give me an example? I say this because I know of several examples of Bush flip-flopping.
The problem for Kerry and many less ideology driven (may I say single minded) politicians are that today even the most complex policy is supposed to be summarized in a few words, preferably in a slogan to be repeated in a TV commercial. Why not see for yourself what Kerry said at the Senate floor, October 9, 2002, when Kerry cast that vote? [independentsforkerry.org] Some quotes that I found relevant:
But you are right, it all ends up into one "yea" that is supposed to say it all...
Read the quotes I gave above once more and ask yourself if Bush would ever be caught saying something similar. Then ask once more if there is any difference between Kerry and Bush.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Informative)
You have Chirac (right of center by French standards / left wing by US standards), Jospin (left / ultra-left wing) and LePen (far right / fascist) in the "first round". Chirac gets 20%, LePen gets 17%, Jospin gets 16%. Now suddenly the election is between Chirac and LePen, and Chirac is now the shoe-in even though the majority of the voters originally wanted "Anything but Chirac" (sound familiar?).
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Informative)
It would be hard to dispute that Kerry saved some guys life, since that guy is a registered Republican who has been on the campaign trail with Kerry. The guy was even with Kerry on the stage in Boston [boston.com] together with all the rest of the surviving crew of the boat that Kerry commanded in Vietnam. The guy's name is James Rassmann [wikipedia.org]. By the way, this is not the only Republican Kerry has saved the life of :) [lasvegassun.com].
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Informative)
From his mailing list when I posted a this direct question:
Q: "...Does anyone know where Mr. Badnarik stands in regards to the issues I mentioned (DMCA, P2P/RIAA, ETC?) I think that in my little circle those would probably be some of the most persuading issues in the campaign, and they are being ignored by the big two."
/. interview
happens, Mike will have come up with some solid positions on those issues.
A: I asked him about "Intellectual Property" last night on the conference call. He admitted that it was an issue he had not worked on much yet, and that he had more studying and thinking to do on it, and reserved the right to change his answer... but he said that one thing he believed was that copyright should be limited to the lifetime of the copyright holder.
He didn't really address patents, DMCA, etc. He did say that he fundamentally agrees with the concept of "IP" though, although he also said that it was "very abstract and hard to define."
Even within the Libertarian Party there is considerable debate about those issues, apparently. Hopefully by the time the
Hope this helps, also Michael Badnarik has been told that he will be interviewed by /. editors in the month of September. He did state in his constitution class that I took that he is a firm supporter of the Government not being allowed to limit technology (he comes from a comp. geek background as weel) like encryption, etc. because they don't deserve to be handed the lock to your "papers" due to the fourth ammendment, I think of all the canditates, he is most in tune with the /. crowd's concerns.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:1, Informative)
As if that's NBC's call to make. What if Abraham Zapruder had said the same?
I remember watching this Meet The Press when it first aired. The reason it's "not very flattering to the president" is because he was being himself; smug yet clueless, telling off-topic lies with well written sound bites, then looking like a stammering idiot caught in the headlights when Russert refused to take the bait and asked the same questions two and three times.
"There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat" - apparently supporting them in Veterans Hospitals is a little trickier.
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:5, Informative)
Would be replies, finish reading before reacting.
I was raised Catholic. My two sisters and I regularly argued theology with the parish priest-- mutually educational and broadening. =)
Under the contemporary view of Catholicism on marriage, marriage is a sacrament [newadvent.org], an external sign of god's grace. Furthermore (and pay attention), Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. [newadvent.org] In other words, any two people who declare themselves married before the community have ipso facto married. However, it has also held that marriage, like other sacrements, must be performed with the approbation (spiritual approval) of the church.
Even when leaving aside questions of non-Christian faiths, not all faiths recognize the Authority of the Patriarch of Rome to give approbation. Furthermore, under the American precepts of the separation of church and state, the government of the United States lacks jurisdiction to establish whether the Patriarch has that authority or not.
Therefore, any union recognized by the state is ipso facto a civil union. Whether it is also a marriage is not a question for the courts of men, but for the court of God-- and ought be presumed valid by the state given the acceptance of any church.
Therefore, I would hold that the government has no business discriminating between ANY "marriage". Mind you, they might conceivably have some business deciding which civil unions to recognize (which is why arbitrary declarations as above may be valid canonically but not civilly without a marriage licesne), but that would be a fairly straightforward civil rights case... which neither the politicians nor the preachers like the taste of.
In short, I'd say that the problem is that the politicians aren't theologians, and that the theologians want to be theocrats. Technically, the only thing politicians can discuss by definition is whether gays (or straights!) can have civil unions, not whether they can get married! Of course, neither the politicians nor theocrats are that precise in their speaking or thinking.... which is Unhelpful in discussing the issues.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Informative)
For the record, I'm a Left-liberal leaning towards Statist.
Re:Again, another article with disinformation (Score:2, Informative)
"Moreover, the statement that "lawyers representing John Kerry's interest threatened our Internet server with legal action unless the picture was removed" is a false statement of fact. As stated above, this firm represents George Butler. John Kerry is not, and has never been, a client of this firm. In addition, we did not threaten your Internet server, EastLink, with legal action. "
Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform (Score:2, Informative)
You sir, have not read your jury pamphlet. Jury Nullification [google.com]. Juries are _supposed_ to override unjust laws. It's in their mandate. The judges just don't tell you.
Re:difference (Score:3, Informative)
The soldiers were "muzzled" by the government, which ran an unwinnable war from afar for its political benefit, as well as its military contracts. It's well established that the troops themselves were tactically superior (over 1M Vietnamese dead to about 55K Americans, >20:1), while the Pentagon was strategically incompetent - to end the war, but very competent to stay in the war business. Kerry is a good example of people who supported the troops, like the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which he headed, but fought the politicians keeping them in a meatgrinder. When the troops returned home, they weren't supported by the public, because the politicians identification of "the troops" with "the war" backlashed when the war became unpopular. The actual atrocities committed by some soldiers, necessarily revealed to stop the war, added to their shame. Despite the dignity with which people like Kerry made the case that the war's victims included our own troops, unjustly sent to fight on false pretenses of cause and conclusion.
Kerry's vote to send troops to Iraq was, along with everyone else in Congress, a vote based on not only the intelligence, but presidential assumption of authority for it, and the policies they voted for. In fact, the vote Kerry joined was a sensible, responsible vote for "necessary force" to disarm Hussein:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." (October 9th, 2002). [pfavoterfund.com]
When WMDs were shown to be a Tonkin-style hoax, Kerry worked against the use of force. On his vote against the specific $87B Iraq war funding bill, Kerry voted against that version because its $18B for reconstruction had no accountability to ensure its application - and to date, only $0.5B has been spent on reconstruction, just as Kerry suspected. While several billion has been sucked up by Halliburton overcharges, to Cheney's delight. That's why Iraq is already another Vietnam, and Kerry has the experience, insight, and leadership to get us out.
Sure, all those politicians grabbed the "faulty intelligence" cover story that exonerates their bad judgements, including accepting it. Clinton at least had the judgement not to invade Iraq just based on the bad intelligence, while his campaign disarmed Iraq. The "bad intelligence" that overestimated Iraq's threat at worst led him to contain and defang Iraq, while Bush's people devoured it and demanded more, to justify their invasion. Where we're still stuck today, years after they declared the war over, losing more troops than ever.
The perpetuation of these conflicts is testament to the inconclusive power of foreign policy developed by, for, and of the Pentagon. The Korean stalemate that Eisenhower produced has kept over 40,000 American troops there for over a half century. Carter's Israel/Egypt peace is kept by another 40K American troops on the border. American troops
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's why... (Score:2, Informative)