YouTube Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video 187
Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York. The video shows protesters gathering outside the building at night and projecting images of the Olympic symbol, 'tank man,' Tibetan riot footage and clips of victims of the Chinese police crackdown in Tibet. After receiving the request, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked if it really planned to pursue a claim. The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'"
I have a mod point... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Best watched with the sound off. It's the same music all the way through.
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:5, Insightful)
This video is a perfect example of the Streisand effect. It's a horrible little clip with ear-jarring music, poor video quality and even worse editing. I wouldn't have even known what it was about without the article, and even so it does not contain much of a message. Very few people ever would have seen this video if the IOC hadn't issued the takedown notice in the first place, but now it's on the
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:4, Insightful)
The /. front page?
You mean THE slashdot? Well I'll be fucked. I bet China takes notice now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, China declares war on Russia because of its cyber attack, not realising that their melted servers are slashdot's doing rather than the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few people ever would have seen this video if the IOC hadn't issued the takedown notice in the first place, but now it's on the /. front page.
I've just watched the video, and to be honest, still very few people have seen it. The count is currently 1947. It would have been a lot better if the article had linked directly to the YouTube video. Then thousands of slashdot readers possible would have opened it.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been a lot better if the article had linked directly to the YouTube video. Then thousands of slashdot readers possible would have opened it.
RTFA?? You must be new here.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the second one , never saw the first.
Strange thing is , being a man , i don't find the second one offensive , but i do find the first one offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
that's the problem with the IOC and the local organizing commitees they are whacko organization theat routinely steamrollers anyones rights to protect their perceived turf or more importantly their revenue stream.
IOC could be best described the offspring of the UN and the RIAA
Re: (Score:2)
I find them both funny too. The problem I have nowadays is that the second one is typical of the type of presentation of men that is prevalent in TV & advertising today. Men are portrayed more often than not as insensitive, stupid, dirty louts, who have women to guide and babysit them.
After having my kids taken away by a clueless judge and given to my ex-wife based solely on her qualification of having a second X chromosome (no amount of proof of lack of parenting ability would sway him), I have a probl
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's a user but he didn't want to comment as himself because then he wouldn't be able to moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
What did the IOC plan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China's propaganda hasn't been about communism for a long time.
"Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a wildcard because it can mean just about anything. Currently it is defined as socialist market economy.
Re: (Score:2)
People only noticed the fake big-foot, little did they know China is a fake-communist country.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that much of a dictatorship. The people get to vote on which CP member gets in. It's a bit like the US really, but with one less party.
:-)
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:4, Informative)
It's a bit like the US really
Except in the US you can criticize the party in power without being arrested and hauled away by the cops.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:5, Insightful)
People who live in glass countries shouldn't throw bricks. In the US you don't have to critize anybody to be arrested and hauled away by the cops [illinoistimes.com].
What's your point? Governmental officials abuse their power? Nobody would deny that. The difference between the US and China is that we have a free press that can investigate those abuses of power and bring them to light. In China they can't even get answers as to why their schools collapsed and killed thousands of their children during the recent earthquakes.
Remember that Democracy is the worst form of Government ever -- except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't understand in this discussion is why the American on the street is so hot to criticise China, today. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that China is fifty or a hundred years behind the US on human rights issues. For much of its history, the US has been fifty or a hundred years behind Britain in similar ways. But the US has been proud during that time of the rate at which it has advanced. To take one obvious example, the US is proud of having abolished slavery in (I think) 1865, despite t
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:4, Informative)
As to the free press issue, American reporters go to jail over politics, too [cnn.com]
No, American reporters go to jail for refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. Bit of a difference there. I would argue that we need a press shield law on the Federal level (my state has one) but there's still a difference between going to jail for contempt of court and being whisked away for investigating Governmental abuses or corruption.
the right to free speech is supposed to be the right to not speak as well
Actually, no, there is no right not to speak if you are subpoenaed to testify. You have a right against self-incrimination but if you are offered immunity (i.e: nothing you say can be used against you) then you don't have the right to refuse to testify. This is based on hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
This is based on hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition.
So is bullfighting. Doesn't make it right. We must assert our right to resist all authority. Because we DO have that right. "Contempt of court" is a very convenient way of locking up "undesirables", and is frequently used for the explicit purpose of whisking people away. Grand juries can be quite politically corrupt also. As is usually the case when dealing with reporters and the "war on drugs". They have no right to force me to do anything
Re: (Score:2)
So is bullfighting. Doesn't make it right
You are comparing bullfighting with societal attempts at obtaining justice? That's the underlying reason that our judicial system has the right to compel testimony. Do you really think a witness to a murder (or any crime for that matter) should be able to refuse to testify?
Grand juries can be quite politically corrupt also
Any institution made up of human beings can be corrupted. But I'd rather live in a system that requires the consent of the community (via the jury process) to take away my freedom than one that requires the consent of some appointed b
Re: (Score:2)
*shrug*, at no point have I claimed that our system is perfect. The biggest problem with our system is people that neglect their civic responsibilities. Why bother staying informed and holding public officials accountable when the new season of survivor starts soon?
Still, I'll say it again: Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really think a witness to a murder (or any crime for that matter) should be able to refuse to testify?
Yes. I do not agree with drug laws, and if I were on a jury in a drug case (well, I wouldn't be because the prosecuting attorney wouldn't let it happen) I could not in good conscience vote "guilty", no matter what the evidence. [wikipedia.org]
If I were called to testify against someone selling pot, I would be in a very bad place indeed; I would have a moral mandate to refuse to testify, but if I did refuse I would f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I do not agree with drug laws, and if I were on a jury in a drug case (well, I wouldn't be because the prosecuting attorney wouldn't let it happen) I could not in good conscience vote "guilty", no matter what the evidence.
That's your right and one of the beauties of the jury system. I'm opposed to the war on drugs and would probably consider jury nullification as well, though I would take the facts of the case into account -- I wouldn't nullify a charge of violence for example.
The fifth amendment gives the criminal the right to remain silent, the witness should have the same right.
I'm sorry but I disagree. The accused (not a criminal until conviction) has the right to remain silent so they don't have to incriminate themselves. The witness has an obligation to tell the community what happened. In this scenario I think that th
Re: (Score:2)
If my child committed murder I would go to jail rather than testify.
You know, you're generally in the ethical clear when you simply tell the truth. I think you're over-complicating things... and that can be dangerous when it comes to morals.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I cut the Chinese more slack than I do us. The Chinese have tried before and been smacked down by their Government. We don't even bother to try. Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The press in America isn't free, its perpetually sitting on the auction bloc
I love how you talk about the press as though it's some monolithic entity. The press consists of everything from the major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC), cable news networks (MSNBC, Fox, CNN), news magazines (Time, Newsweek), other magazines (The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc), PBS, NPR, the AP, Reuters, blogs, newspapers, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hell, that doesn't even count the numerous foreign press (the BBC, Le Monde, etc) sources that are only a few mouseclicks away in the information age.
You don't like w
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a rather rosy view of journalism in the past. Ever read about yellow journalism? William Hearst's activities in the run up to the Spanish-American war? The media has always been vulnerable to corruption, propaganda and particularly sensationalism (it sells copy). This isn't a new phenomena by any means.
All you can do is obtain your news from a broad range of different media and media outlets. They all have their vested interests, the big one being making money (for the for-profits) but
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing my point, which is not that I don't 'like' the news or how mainstream media delivers it.... its that news is a business, and that other entities with far more money determine the shape of the news. The old model was report good story = sell more newspapers. The new model is propaganda for hire. None of the news sources you mentioned are immune from this.
You obviously have no knowledge of the history of news reporting in the U.S. (and I am betting that the rest of the world has similar things in its history). The old model was select a policy outcome that the paper's owner wanted to have happen, report news stories that inflame the public in favor of said policy, profit. See "yellow journalism"
Re: (Score:2)
If only I had mod points...
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's another explanation, which is that a lot of symbols surrounding the Olympics are trademarked. And, in the US, trademark law requires that you take steps to protect your trademark, or you risk losing some or all of your rights to it. It's debatable how much that has to do with this case, since at least one of the Olympic symbols (the interlocking rings) is protected by a special statute that falls outside normal rules for this sort of thing, but it could be a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite understand the relation between the Tibetans and the Olympics. It is just a sports event and it has only 1/200 Chinese element in it, among the 200+ nations. The game will last about 10 more days. So after that are we going to see, Nike, G.M., MacDonald, Rolex, Gucci, Kentucky chicken etc... protest along with their Lion flag? If they are after the Chinese govt, why drag with the Olympics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may have 1/200 Chinese athletes, but it has 100% of Chinese commercial interests, and more importantly to the billions of magpies watching, it's shifting attention away from the great vices of the Chinese government, painting them as a happy friendly internationally-welcoming country.
There's a reason China is feared, they have a ton of American money, and they have the morals of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein all chopped up into one big bad cloak of violent oppression.
Unless you like the idea of being dragge
Re: (Score:2)
So in the same line of argument, Nike, Gucci, Apple, Microsoft, HP, Coca Cola, MacDonalds, ..... should be slapped in the face because "they are shifting attention away from the great vices of the Chinese government, paint them as happy friendly internationally welcoming country" too. Chinese should put on rubber shoes, dress in dark cloths, use only abacus, drink chinese tea and eat only chow mien ....
The questions why just pick on IOC. Not anyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, WTF does the Olympics do with the Tibetans. That is the question. If the pro-Tibetans movement want to protest, it is the Chinese government. Not the Olympics. If they are after the Olympics for some free publicity, fine. Just look at the effect of their action. Could you find their banner drawing any supporter. Sorry, there isn't much. And if they want people's attention, they should have known that other ethnic groups such as the Manchus, Mongols, Muslim and other minorities also suffe
Trademark law does not say that (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite honestly, the IOC brand has been so di
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking about the same inhabitants whose leader got on with all of his sisters, and pit half-siblings against each other for sport?
The same ones who broke up a marriage over a beauty contest?
The same ones whose punishment for a trade secrets violation involved evisceration?
Re: (Score:2)
This myth keeps getting propagated by trademark holders, but it is not correct. You have to protect your trademark to prevent others from using it to sell or represent the same kind of goods and services as their own. But this was obviously not the case here. Nobody with a brain cell thought that the protestors were trying to pass off what they were doing as an alternative "Olympics", or suggest that they were the only IOC-authorised brand of anti-Chinese protest.
Quite honestly, the IOC brand has been so diluted since 1936 by its association with nasty dictatorships, corruption and junk food that the inhabitants of Mt. Olympus should call and ask for their good name back.
My guess is that Greek Gods don't just call and ask for something. They just strike somebody down instead.
Re: (Score:2)
People keep saying this, but I don't think that trademark law says quite what you're claiming.
News clips routinely show city scenes with easily-recognizable brand names all over the place. To use the traditional auto analogy, you never hear of Ford or GM attempting to block broadcast of videos that show cars
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you saw the section in the clip using the Olympic rings as handcuffs. My guess is that is what they're upset about, not just the Olympic rings up on the buildings.
I don't know if it's legal or not, but I could see how any org would be upset if their org logo was used to handcuff someone.
See the clip at 1:11 to see the shot I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao [youtube.com]
I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or another, just pointing out a fact not everyone might have notice
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's a parody, which falls under fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no, no, no. The Olympic symbol used in the video are protected by treaty and by statute. Unlike ordinary trademarks, its status cannot be lost that way. So the IOC does not have that excuse. Even if they did, in order to use the DMCA they had to commit per
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?
Not sure, but had it not been for the IOC's intervention, who would have seen or even known about the video to begin with?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
s, there have been laws passed here in the UK granting extra protection to their trademarks.
And we all know the IOC is nice & fair & reasonable, just like the RIAA and MPAA in regards to copyright claims.
Really, why does the IOC get "extra" protection in regards to trademarks compared to anyone else? What makes the IOC so special? I have grown tired of these organizations that seem to think they are more important than everyone else, trampling over what they see fit.
There's the ultimate battle royal
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering what would happen if the Olympics were held in Seattle. There's a bunch of mountains 50 miles west of the city called "the Olympics", though "the Olympic Mountains" would be the more formal name. Would the IOC demand that the range be renamed? Because of the mountains, there are a number of Olympic-themed place names in the general area. Would they all be forced to change their names? Some of the smaller eateries would probably just laugh and refuse to change.
Maybe this issue would
Re: (Score:2)
It had a misleading title, which caused the IOC to issue a takedown notice before it confirmed that the content matched the description. I would do the same thing, probably.
A QUESTION is going out of your way? (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's so terribly inconvenient that they deserve praise for it?
Lowered Expectations.
Re:A QUESTION is going out of your way? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems only fair, since they keep wanting to screw us...
Don't be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I give Google kudos for doing this. If it were any other company they wouldn't have done anything and would have stated that they will not repost it unless a counter DMCA is issued. I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese. The Chinese are horrible and sure they can make a pretty show but they have total disregard for human rights.
If this were Microsoft or Yahoo (and yahoo has pandered to the Chinese many many times) they would have waited for a counter DMCA or just ignore it and let another site deal with it.
So good job not being evil
*Cheers*
and I swear the Chinese's pretty little show doesn't change anything.
Re:Don't be evil (Score:4, Interesting)
While Google's intervention helped, I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers. Any real effort on the part of Google would have been, while perhaps right, also a potentially disastrous legal move, given the number of copyright battles where Google is currently relying on a neutral service defense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While Google's intervention helped, I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers. Any real effort on the part of Google would have been, while perhaps right, also a potentially disastrous legal move, given the number of copyright battles where Google is currently relying on a neutral service defense.
I know thats why I applaud google.
Although after reading the article it seems like the IOC didn't mean to take down that video. It had the title Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony so in a way it was the original posters fault for posting a misleading title.
I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?
Copyrights != trademarks (Score:3, Informative)
We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?
But text tags are subject to trademark law. Come to think of it, I applaud Google for standing up to someone who tried to use copyright law to enforce a trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.
We shouldn't blame them because they didn't do their jobs properly? They made a mistake, they were careless, they take the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.
We shouldn't blame them because they didn't do their jobs properly? They made a mistake, they were careless, they take the blame.
I am just saying that in their defense they didn't do it to suppress free speech. The video clearly had a title that signified that it was pirated material. It seems totally understandable that at first glance a video with the name "Beijing Opening Olympic Ceremonies" seems to be infringing content. It it the original video poster who decided to put an extremely misleading title.
I am just looking at both sides of the issue. Don't be so quick to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it was more along the lines of a counter DMCA notice from the original authors of the work that got it back up than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
I know hating on the Chinese government is in vogue right now but the IOC's initial DMCA notice had nothing to do with "pander[ing] to the Chinese." The IOC is one of the most aggressive organization when it comes to protecting their rights and, given that this video depicted the five interlocking rings (which the IOC protects very
No Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
Google shouldn't have removed the video in the first place. At least, that's what I refused to do when I received an obviously invalid DMCA request for one of my own customers site.
DMCA requests are being sent out like spam. And when I say spam, I mean that they're being sent out by automated scripts with no human supervision whatsoever. And in many documented cases, DMCA requests are being sent out by people who know damn well the DMCA doesn't apply -- but they just want to have some embarrassing materials taken down as quickly as possible.
So if a human looks at it, like a Google employee must have obviously done to tell the IOC about it, and says 'no', it's obviously an invalid DMCA request, then the video shouldn't be removed -- or if it was removed already -- it should be posted back right away -- before the IOC is even contacted.
Now I realize Google is being sued by copyright holders for not being quick enough to respond to them, but we need to sue Google on the other side of the issue to make sure they don't go too far in complying with the legal threats of these automated DMCA requests. If we don't do this, we'll certainly lose our rights to immediate free speech, and *immediate* free speech is important -- or at least it's gaining more importance every single day -- since sites like YouTube often beat out other traditional outlets in getting fresh same-day footage of armed conflicts, rigged elections, and bloody protests.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a very dangerous thing to do -- you're depriving yourself of the "safe harbor" protections that would mean that only your customer, and not you yourself, has liability. Sure, the claim may be invalid -- but if they try to haul you into court alongside your customer, it would be nice to be able to get yourself back out agai
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese. The Chinese are horrible and sure they can make a pretty show but they have total disregard for human rights...
...and I swear the Chinese's pretty little show doesn't change anything.
Why do you think the Chinese government cares so much about one free Tibet video on youtube? there are already so many other ones uploaded already regarding Tibet and the Beijing Olympics... it would be pretty meaningless.
On the other hand IOC has "long history of overzealously "defending" its trademarks" [techdirt.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Proxy (Score:2)
google.cn doesn't display results that the chinese government don't like.
As I understand it, google.cn blocks results that it knows Golden Shield's great firewall will block, and it lets the user know that this has happened. If you can use a proxy to get around the great firewall, then you can use the same proxy to get to google.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, I'm Chinese, and I would say that I'm mostly not that horrible. And like most average joe's, I don't know much about human rights. Thanks for the blanket statement, Mr Obese-American-Gun-Nut. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, I'm not Chinese and I would like to point out that GP was talking about your government, not you. Unfortunately, countries tend to get judged according to what their governments do, so if you think you're being unfairly painted with the same brush then why don't you try to change the government? You could picket or hold a banner or something. Oh wait... actually, that sounds like a bad idea. China doesn't like it much.
Huzzah! (Score:2)
Good on YouTube, good on Google!
Fuck you, chilling effect.
Prince Charles was right (Score:4, Interesting)
So Google is not so much doing the right thing, but making the tough decision whether to go along with old, obnoxious powerful men who will soon be history, or to keep alongside its demographic.
Several questions arise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you discriminate between free speech and propaganda at all? Counting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian videos as free speech and counting anti-American videos as propaganda might look like an attractive answer to some, but it will not be accepted.
shitload of anti american videos posted by americans are on youtube since 2002.
Re: (Score:2)
Answers:
1. Yes.
2. NOOO. That is so NOT possible. Look, YouTube is an American company. We show dirt on China and Russia. Not on US.
3. Free Speech? You are barking up the wrong tree. This amounts to Racial Discrimination.
4. Yes. And we all should upload Maroon 5 or 50 Cents videos by millions so that their copyright gangsta is swamped.
screw youtube (Score:2)
they took it down first, that's something that should have *NEVER EVER* happened, DMCA or not. Bad laws are there to be broken, the DMCA is as bad as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad laws are there to be exposed so that they can be changed. If all you do is break them:
A) who makes YOU decide which law is good or bad?
B) Not enough people will know, and if its truly a bad law, you'll have to constantly break it instead of having it fixed.
Automated takedown notices need to go (Score:2)
While I'm always happy to flame the DMCA's anticircumvention aspects, I've always thought the idea behind the takedown notice aspect, is basically fair: it either puts the two parties who are in conflict in contact with each other, or removes the conflict, and gets the ISP out of the line of fire. But this kind of situation shows that the implementation of takedown notices, is still brain damaged.
IOC asserted they hold the copyright on the video, and Youtube took damaging action against the real copyright
The IOC are a bit trigger-happy (Score:2)
validity of takedown notice (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless I've missed something, the DMCA deals exclusively with copyright infringement. The linked rings symbol is trademarked by the IOC. There is no copyright in it, and certainly no copyright in the linked-handcuff symbol used in the Free Tibet video. Even granting that the IOC might have a case for trademark infringement, what entitles them to issue a DMCA takedown notice? Indeed, a DMCA takedown notice requires the issuer to attest under penalty of perjury that the issuer holds the copyright in the work in question. Did the IOC or its lawyer not commit perjury in issuing this notice?
Re:Who believes the reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.' AKA 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect their image.'
I'll take what I can get. You act like one of these choices is a bad thing!
Vimeo... (Score:3, Informative)
Vimeo has stood up to the Church of Scientology and the IOC. Their commitment to free speech is absolute. They are far more worthy of our support than YouTube, which regularly knuckles under to media companies whispering "Boo!" in their ears. Vimeo will not allow you to upload your rips of Battlestar Galactica episodes but they will stand by your right to free speech. Plus videos look and sound WAY BETTER there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who believes the reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But they didn't strengthen free speech. Or stand up to anyone. They said, "Dear IOC, did you really mean to issue that notice, a lot of people are saying it doesn't really infringe." IOC said, "Nope, sorry about that." Not a conflict for the ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the rest of this video diary will continue with only the close members of the board in the room.
Right, now that we're alone, lets dicuss the Secret Censoring...
Re: (Score:2)
While one of those versions is sociopathic, both of them are a net benefit for society. Better to have a bunch of sociopathic corporations running around, than our current selection of psychopathic ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, on second thought, I think they already know :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7562669.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Now they need to start doing this outside of their country too. Wouldn't be too hard, especially since you can trivially get past American border security as incidents keep illustrating.
Think how trivial something like this would be for the chinese government (btw the nature of the substance is confirmed, and the culprit is a somali muslim that illegaly entered US via the canadian border) :
http://cbs4denve [cbs4denver.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
free the US?
You do realize we have an election in less than three months right?
After the last 8 years China and Russia aren't looking as bad as they used.
Are you sure [wikipedia.org] about [telegraph.co.uk] that?
Re: (Score:2)
How cute. You think that will make a difference.
Given the fact that both viable candidates seem to against the worst excesses of the Bush administration, yes I think it will make a difference.
Will it solve our bigger problems? Who knows. Democracy doesn't seem very good at solving big issues until they reach the crisis stage. But I'll take it over the other forms of Government that are available to us.
Re: (Score:2)
How cute. You think that will make a difference.
Given the fact that both viable candidates seem to against the worst excesses of the Bush administration, yes I think it will make a difference.
They're against the excesses NOW, because THEY'RE not the ones holding the scepter, as it were.
If either of them was the type to let go of power once it was in his hands, he wouldn't be a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, bumper stickers help more than you think. A big problem with the Tibetan crisis is lack of awareness. The great majority either don't know about it enough to care, or even worse they don't believe it at all.
It will require nothing less than for all the major news networks air a one-hour in-depth special on China's crimes against Tibet and against humanity, with an idiot proof "Free Tibet" message delivered to the TV watching drones. Maybe then, someone will take notice and China will have to an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bumper stickers are more about making yourself feel good than actually doing something to end Chinese oppression.
Why don't the folks who put bumper stickers on their cars and wear the cool t-shirts organize an expeditionary force like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that traveled to Spain to fight Franco's fascists?
And if it ended up being a suicide mission it would certainly draw the attention of all the major news networks and the brave volunteers could go to their deaths knowing they sacrificed their lives f
Re: (Score:2)
Heh.
It always makes me chuckle when I see a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker and an "End War" (or similar) bumper sticker right next to each other on the same car.
It makes we wonder how the owner of the stickers would handle reality if somebody actually started bombing China in order to liberate Tibet.
Re: (Score:2)
well, since they took it down first when they should have stood tall and given the IOC an 'up yours' they definitely did bend. After all, it's the IOC's decision not to pursue a DMCA claim that made them re-instate the video, not because they suddenly grew a pair.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh... the takedown is probably completely automatic. I'm impressed that a real person actually reviewed it... although that was probably just because of the flak they were getting.
Re: (Score:2)