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)."
Re:That's why... (Score:3, Interesting)
FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Colleges and universities have a huge amount of power to influence this debate and reasonable copyright law is perfectly inline with the mission of a public education and research institution. So go get linux in the campus computer labs and work up from there!
Gay marriage (Score:3, Interesting)
So who do the gays vote for, huh?
Go Democracy!
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
On one level it's that argument about philosophy stemming from Wittgenstien - things are what we call them there are no illusions seperate from "reality" because this *is* what we call reality. So regardless of there being another level of existence, the *name* of this one is "reality" so it cannot be "illusion".
This leads to the question of, if this is democracy it is only such because that is what democracy has come to mean.
And it's only that because people like you don't do shit, they just complain.
see?
I wish every cynical countercultural bullshit artist would pull their fingers out and start organised political parties and actually *do* something, because you are just confirming your own bullshit by lying there and doing nothing.
Bottom line, the definition of democracy is still up for grabs. And until the day we slip into facism, and even after it, people like me will fight for democracy. And no doubt people like you will say "it's not facism" it's just an illusion of facism.
Well Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Interesting)
Over seven months. Not in-country, not close inshore, but on a DE doing shore bombardments among other things. And, I once saw six inch shells landing within 30 yards of my ship. Nice, neat, cone-shaped splashes about 18 inches tall. Weird, really, it was so like an effect in a good movie that it was hard to be scared. I don't know what happened the day Kerry saved that man's life and I'm not going to guess. All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship.
Re:Gay marriage (Score:5, Interesting)
How about, for the one that didn't try to carve its position into the actual living flesh of the Republic, the Consitution?
I am getting so sick of people saying that there is no difference between the two parties. Guess what? We heard "It doesn't matter which one wins" in 2000. Then we ran the experiment. If you honestly believe this nation would be where it is is now, had Gore been sworn in, then you are either ill-informed or insane.
Nader (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to the local Nader nominating convention here in Portland. It was a 3 ring circus. There were Rupublicans there who wanted Nader on the ballot. There were Democrats there filling the seats and refusing to sign the petition because they wanted to keep him off of the ballot (they were unfortunately successful). And then there were those of us who thought that it would be nice to have Nader on he ballot so we could have a real choice if we decide in November that we can't go with Kerry.
Amazingly, at the end, Nader took questions from the audience. Unfiltered questions. Some of the questions were form angry Democrats. One question was from a guy that was not mentally all there (and Nader was quite gracious with him, I thought). I was so impressed by this Q&A session. Not that the questions were all that great, but that Nader opened himself up to questions like that and handled then well. It would have been unimaginable at a Bush or Kerry rally.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Where does the link you provided state Badnarik's position on copyright? He has a good number of position papers at that site, but I don't see any mention of "intellectual property" (too use that poor catch-all phrase).
It is true that libertarians (except for the Ayn Rand fanatics) seem to be leaning toward the idea that IP laws are unjustified government intrusion that undermines physical property ownership. However, I'd like to see where Mr. Badnarik's opinion lies before voting for him.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Politics is a game, and it's a pragmatic game at that. You can't get everything you want, so you try and maximize what you can get. It's pretty obvious that this year no one except a Democrat or a Republican will get into the White House. So you have to pick which one is in your better interest.
If you're going to get involved in politics, get involved and play the game. Otherwise, don't vote.
And really, your vote among ~300 million people means very little. If you are that interested in getting a 3rd party elected, speak out. Try and educate as many people as you can about it. Public discussion has a lot more power than your one little measly vote.
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all good. What we really need is for Perot AND Nader to run. Then everything would be ballanced.
Re:Mistake (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm sure you'll receive a classy "Shove It" response though...
Re:Yes it is (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Gay marriage (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php [kucinich.us]
So there you go. Kucinich is the only politician that I know of that doesn't classify humans into "people with rights" and "people without rights".
Re:anyone else? (Score:1, Interesting)
but I will vote for Kerry because, unlike neo-con radical Bush and his cronies, Kerry is a political moderate (despite the "liberal" tag). Unlike Bush, he is not going to go around actively undermining our republican democracy.
Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the dems lose this election, they ought to disband the party. The 2000 election should never have been as close as it was, and now that everyone can see what Bush really stands for, this election shouldn't be close either.
I could see something like a New Democratic Party, just like the old Democratic party, only with competent people running the campaigns. IMHO, the biggest mistake the Democrats make is trying to make rational arguments to people who are not rational. They need to learn to appeal to emotion, religion, fear, and hatred.
Ok, I'm a little bitter, and Democrats have a lot of other faults. But when Kerry said in his convention speech that he believes in science, it struck me that that, more than anything else, is what distinguishes him from Bush.
Science and rational thought need a serious modding up in the world, and the people who believe in it need to hang together until it happens. We can always split into Socialists and Libertarians later.
Political Compass (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you know where you stand?
Political Compass (2 Axises) [politicalcompass.org]
Another site: ontheissues.org [ontheissues.org]Re:That's why... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, many republicans have been trolling various blog sites lately, under the guise of being bush-hating left-wingers, encouraging others to vote 3rd party strictly to take votes away from Kerry.
I'm not blaming you of being a republican troll, but I'd like people reading your post to be aware of this possibility.
Republicans, Democrats... All the same.
If you really think this you are either entirely oblivious to history and politics, or under the hypnotic spell of radical leftist or rightist propaganda.
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Interesting)
And I'll never forget Waco, ever. Democrats seem to think it's a crime worthy of a paramilitary assault to be part of a cult. Democrats seem to think they know how people should act, should live, and should believe and they aren't above force in seeing people comply. Yeah, I remember that spell of political correctness. There's a certain justice that the new political correctness makes the democrats the target. I'd laugh at it, except that people like me get hit with the PC of both sides. Forget it man. Read the pentagon papers. Learn from history.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Interesting)
So they were not under enemy fire but yet they were under enemy fire, eh? Sorry, you can't have both.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:1, Interesting)
"He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home."
"...engagements that earned him bronze and silver stars"???!
Do you really know the circumstances under which he received those awards? ( leave alone the very idea of getting rewarded in a situation/environment in which you are there to _kill_ people. )
What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html [counterpunch.org]
"How long were you there, my friend?"
Is that supposed to be some sort of indolent sarcasm??
Well, golly - because it's probable that the poster didn't spend any time in vietnam - he surely has no business disparaging Kerry's time there... That Kerry chose to go. That Kerry chooses to shamelessly politicize (i.e. whore out ) his time there. That Kerry quite likely didn't earn a damn thing while there, regardless of what he was handed.
As far as the topic as the two so called "candidates" being mostly the same, I believe Chomsky stated it quite well recently:
In the forthcoming presidential elections in the US, there is a choice: between two candidates who were born to wealth and political power, attended the same elite university, joined the same secret society that instructs members in the style and manners of the rulers, and are able to run because they are funded by largely the same corporate powers.
Re:That's why... (Score:2, Interesting)
in a democracy, the sheep dies.
In a republic, the sheep and a wolf die, and the others pay tax on the meal. They also cannot shag afterward.
Judges are for determining fact and applying the law. Writing law by decision was never their purpose.
And so, i must CALL BULLSHIT!
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright isn't the biggest enemy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even Slashdot is incapable of demolishing the most creative inventions of the mass media. Watch "Outfoxed" (outfoxed.org) if you don't believe me. Imagine all those FOX News viewers hearing these deliberate falsities repeated everywhere and having their world picture altered to include all of it. Or to include SCO's latest fabrications? What room does this leave blogs and the alternative media to reveal to the mainstream that Kerry really isn't that French and that the Bush administration really wanted invade Iraq long before 9/11?
I wrote a decent essay on this topic four years ago. [afn.org]
A better democracy, alternative systems? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, just to keep the 'bullshit' straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
What's fair is fair, right?
Re:Why is parent modded as troll? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I agree the stakes are a bit high, we have a choice between a religeous nut and a self confessed war criminal for the two major parties. I rather think both a BAD choices for president. We really NEED to vote for someone else.
Bush is blocking needed research on religeous grounds (I'm not 'pro-choice', but he's being stupid here) and trying to amend the constitution over what's essentially a private (usually religeous) issue. And unconstitionaly detains people in cuba.
Kerry can't tell the same lie the same way twice and testified in congress that's he commited 'atrocities' that qualify him for war criminal status and then tries to run on the 'war hero' theme (which is it?) using faked video and medals he did/didn't/sorta threw over the fence.
Both should be tried for thier admited crimes, would teach the next few people in office to tread lightly around the people serve (as in opposite of rule!).
Mycroft
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Interesting)
It means that first you can vote the canditate you like the most, and at second round the one you hate the least. In US it could fix the Bush/Kerry problem, because you could first vote for the one you really like without helping the bad guy getting into office.
Re:Deficit spending vs. Tax the ()*&$% out of (Score:4, Interesting)
hummmm.
- Carter inherited 25B/year defict and ran it up to 50B.
- Reagan inherited 50B/Year deficit and ran it up to 250B/year.
- Poppa Bush ran it up to 325, then back down to 250B, in an effort to start balancing it.
- Clinton, did balance it . No deficit spending and loads of waste.
- W. ran it up and has wasted more than any other admin in history.
I will take Clinton or Poppa Bush (he turned it) any time.What the problem is, when a president and congress are ruled by the same party. What is needed to solve this is
- Line item veto
- Balanced Budget except during times of formal war (as opposed to more of this vietnam shit).
I do not care if kerry ever voted for a tax cut. I want to know if he pushed in waste. Did he push in haliburton? Did he spend his time lieing to us and blaming everybody in his administration. So far, W. has blamed everybody in his admin and not taken one bit of blame. Not "the buck stops here". It is always, "fire that bastard there, he caused it".very much agreed with your sensible arguments but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies (Score:3, Interesting)
If everyone voted for the person they really wanted;
instead of voting defensively against the guy that they don't want;
maybe we could spark a new era of American Politics.
The democrats that I know don't like John Kerry.
And I'd say at least half the conservatives I know don't like Bush (Of course the religious ones love him).
But they're going to vote against each other because thats what the media gives them.
John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson.
If they'd only wake up and vote for someone who really represents what they want;
Maybe our political system would change;
Maybe people could control the government rather than business;
Maybe common sense could prevail.
Re:Censorship at slashdot even (Score:3, Interesting)
They were exposed just days ago as schills, paid for by a major Republican contributor. Why, in you and yours delusion of "liberal media", hasn't this appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al?
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Many countries does this way so that people can vote for the party they like in the 1st turn/ballot and for the lesser of the two evils that stay in the 2nd turn/ballot...
Isn't this the right way??
For being "The land of the free" (Score:1, Interesting)
Can't say I know of any other democratic country that has as little freedom as americans... Well, maybe France (where they actually want to forbid muslim girls to where a veil to school)...
Why GW does few interviews. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Gay marriage (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as you argue against this stuff on the basis of reasonable logic of consenting adults, you will miss the underlying motivations of your opponents in such debates and never succeed in addressing their hidden motivations.
Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:People get exactly the leaders they deserve (Score:3, Interesting)
a) the leaders do something extraordinarily stupid and commit an illegal act (Nixon)
b) you ovrethrow them violently
c) public protests lead to early elections
Option a) is the only option that could possibly happen. The last two are so extremely unlikely it's not even worth considering.
That's why politicians can lie through their teeth all throughout their campaigns, then get elected, do a 180 and continue to remain in office.
Re:Censorship at slashdot even (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, I don't see slashdot moderators modding down other people's websites.
Second, I've even posted articles supportive of Microsoft and didn't get modded down.
Perhaps it's the way you present yourself?
Re:That's why... (Score:3, Interesting)
MA has a law that says a couple can't get married if their marriage would not be legal in the state they reside in or do not plan on moving to MA. Thus, a gay couple from Texas not moving to MA could not come here, get married, move back to TX, and demand their marriage be recognized. Their marriage in MA would be illegal to begin with.
Lessig's View & Arguement (Score:5, Interesting)
The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is free. But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone knows that Charlene will lose though, because she doesn't have as much pull as Alice or Bob with the diners. So no one in their right mind will vote for her, since they are throwing away their vote.
BUT, if you looked at it the way the actual elections in this country run. Try this on for size:
Alice wins with 40% of the vote, Bob gets 35% of the vote, and Charlene gets the remaining 25% of the vote. In four days when the diners vote again, Bob looks at what happened and says "hey, if I could have won over just 6% of those that voted for Charlene I could have won last time. Maybe I should listen to what it is they want and work it into my menu selections, and have a better chance at beating Alice."
That is the way a third-party vote is not thrown away. Even if you think the candidate you agree the most with will lose, you can influence the other parties by voting along with your beliefs - you show the big two parties that your views do mean something and, being the power hungry twats that they are they will try to coddle to you while in office to get your votes next time. If you vote based on actions and not the empty words of the politicians, then they will have to at least make an attempt to do "your will" while in office to gain those votes next time around.
Re:Gay marriage (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not false, however, that the laws are about consent, otherwise sex with underage boys would be permissible. I think you'll find that while the laws started as you suggest (as various religios codes), in the last century or two the legal profession has done some reasonable work to try and bring some sense, clarity, and consistency to such laws (they are good for something!), and in this day and age consent is what you will find cited. The fact that this cleaning up of antiquated and potentially prejudiced law is still ongoing (like legalising homosexual marriage) shows both how ingrained the prejudices introduced by various religions are, and that we are seeking to move to a more consistent and rational moral code (albeit with some opposition).
Jedidiah.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It really wouldn't be nowadays. Sure, it would have been back in 1776 but is it that hard to get to your local school and vote, say 4 times a year on major issues? It also wouldn't be that hard if the government wasn't involved in EVERYTHING as it is now.
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:1, Interesting)
There's also the possibility that he is just open-minded. I don't see the world in black and white. There are no right answers, no easy solutions (most of the time). I can agree with almost anyone that they have a legitimate point in their argument. I often play devil's advocate to present the counter-argument, just because I can do so honestly. Maybe Kerry is just being honest that X is an issued that can be viewed different ways, and he isn't going to claim any one way is necessarily better than another. Then again, maybe he's just trying to get more votes.
Admittedly, the president has to choose sides at some point, and it would be nice to know which side he will choose before we elect him, but the fact that he is willing to listen to the people puts him a step ahead of Bush, who is 100% certain that everything he does is right and Right! (No matter what the population of the country or the world thinks.)
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just out of curiosity who did you support during the primaries? How many political meetings did you attend? When you went door to door working for a candidate, what did you say?
To tell truth though I havn't seen any politician that I like. There are thousands of people that run for all kinds of office. You are telling me that you have never seen one you like? Are you just looking for someone that parrots your views 100%? T
I really want to contribute to a better world, but I don't see how I can. It is easy to contribute to a better world. But you have to get off your ass to do it.
I've made a commitment with some of my friends that we will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
This is a bullshit line. You should vote for whoever you think will help the country the most. If you think Bush is a dumbfuck who is leading us to hell, then vote for Kerry. Not because he is the lessor of two evils, but because he is better for the country. If you think Kerry would take us down the wrong path then vote for Bush. If you think they BOTH will do bad things for the country then vote third party.
Whining about the lessor of two evils is just an easy way to cop out of thinking for yourself.
LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, that's not to say that there isn't real value in influencing the two parties' platforms.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, they probably don't give them out for very very minor wounds, or fairly minor wounds you stupidly inflict on yourself. You cut yourself shaving or fall off a ladder and sprain your ankle, you probably won't get one...but you could, technically.
What I want to see is someone who was ever denied a purple heart while wounded under fire. Because you won't find it. If people are shooting at you, you can get one for running too fast down a hill and breaking your leg.
The implication that Kerry somehow got special awards that others did simply isn't true.
Re:Wrong (Score:1, Interesting)
Not exactly. We are a capitalist country, albeit an authoratarian-leaning one. The fact that we are heavily taxed does not make it socialism. We are not a socialist country, just as the Soviet Union never really was. Socialism means the government provides for the population. If you've ever walked through a "bad part of town", it's hard to believe that our government is providing for anyone other than huge multinational corporations (the capitalists).
Social welfare in this country is almost nonexistant, especially compared to corporate welfare. That's not socialism, it's publicly financed capitalism. We foot the bills for R&D, they (corporations & stockholders) reap the rewards.
Our tax dollars go to finance new technologies, which get turned over to private corporations, which serve to enrich a very small group of people. In socialism, we would get the money back. At least in theory - in reality, most countries which call themselves "socialist" are just authoratarian command economies. This leads to an inaccurate perception of what socialism is. Kind of like how people in the Middle East think democracy means us bombing them and controlling their oil.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, do to them like they do to us with the "security cameras" metastasing all over the streets and data retention of telco logs.
But back to the original issue. Their political speeches can be considered a "work for hire", where the hiring party is the People. Hence the speech should automatically go to public domain.
If the corporation can own the products of its employees, why shouldn't the people own the products of their politicians?