EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame" 163
netbuzz writes "Recognizing that public shame is a potent weapon, the Electronic Frontier Foundation today launched a new Web site — its Takedown Hall of Shame — that will shine an unflattering spotlight on those corporations and individuals who abuse copyright claims to stifle free speech. Among the early inductees are NPR, NBC, CBS, and Diebold."
They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the Church of Scientology? /b/tards started harassing them.
Their censorship is the entire reason the
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)
...what, and get sued?
(sadly, while originally typed that in a half-assed attempt to be funny, I can almost seeing the Xenuphiles doing exactly that...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They could just like they did Slashdot but judging by the sheer number of reposts on the subject at the time, they did themselves more harm than good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They forgot one (Score:4, Funny)
EFF might not have enough lawyers to fight the take down notices from the Church of Scientology... Whoops, I just got one.
Since we're on the topic of getting sued by an organization that managed to shit an entire religion out of a tinfoil hat within the last decade or three, who's up for a Church of Common Sense? Anyone? Can I get a Hell Yeah!?!
Damn Tom, I was just kidding man, chill...John, c'mon man I need my Interne...
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Funny)
Church of Common Sense
To few members to start a church. At these small numbers, it would just be a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like Ben Franklin, the founder of the Party of Common Sense, of which it seems I'm the only member of now days.
Re: (Score:2)
who's up for a Church of Common Sense?
Sounds good, but the name "Scientology" also sounds like something reasonable and look how that turned out. A "Church of common sense" might in reality be some type of death cult where I give them all my live savings and they boil me alive to remove evil pirate ghosts from spiritual hotdogs that are following me around.
Oops, sorry, that would again be scientology. The level of knowledge of the pirate ghost hot dogs is $900,000, their collection agents will be contacting all of us shortly.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I was a kid, didn't know what to call myself but wanted to say I believed in science. Was interested in Christian Science and Scientology due to that. Holy hell was that a wrong direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
who's up for a Church of Common Sense? Anyone? Can I get a Hell Yeah!?!
I'm working on it - it's harder than you think. Anyone can start a religion, but getting one that has enough momentum (and evangelism) to sustain and grow isn't easy. It's even harder when one refuses to use deception, doesn't preach eternal damnation for those who don't believe, and encourages people to think and challenge the teachings themselves.
And no, I'm not kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just browsed the site a little, there's an important thing missing -- the names of the law firms the people abusing the DMCA are using. They should be shamed as well; they're even worse, as they should have told their clients that they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Yay EFF! Not sure what I'd do if one of those sociopaths sent me a takedown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paralegal? I thought companies used spam bots to send DMCA notices.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The EFF even covered [eff.org] scientology takedowns!
Also, project chanology is a steaming mess of faggotry. The EFG masks and microsoft voice synthesized youtube videos reek of internet tuff guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you keep up your internet war against Scientology. We all know you're the biggest threat on their radar, you OG you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Video professor (Score:5, Informative)
What happened to Video Professor [citizen.org]? Should have made the list IMO:
Re:Video professor (Score:4, Informative)
The EFF has an email address for just such a purpose. You can find the link at the bottom of TFA [eff.org]. Perhaps you should let them know about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or FOX News? I see NBC/MSNBC listed. What about fox? With all the hate I see directed at them from Usenet posters and even our own White House, surely they must be enemy #1 when it comes to censorship.
What?
They don't censor free speech? Hmmm; guess the anti-fox bias has no basis.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you do not see MSNBC listed, unless you have a very vivid imagination. MSNBC's parent NBC Universal is a hardass about SNL footage (except for Andy Samberg's digital shorts, which they don't own) showing up on YouTube and consistently issues takedowns over such clips. This has nothing to do with MSNBC or your personal political differences with that channel.
Let me see if I'm following your "logic" correctly.
This EFF web
How about a tally? (Score:2)
I think given the high volume of abuse by some of these people, wouldn't some sort of tally/grouping work better? Also, what exactly are the criteria being employed by the EFF here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pro gay marriage, pro Islam. You know, the usual liberal agenda.
Wow, I don't know if you're trolling or simply being ironic, but you sure hit the irony on the head, since the very first name on the hall of shame is NPR for shutting down an anti gay marriage ad!
When they start defending the right to buy firearms online, I might throw some money their way.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. I assume that you're likewise not going to donate to the NRA till they start defending your right to post parodies online? (Or trollish/ironic posts on slashdot?)
Re: (Score:2)
> When they start defending the right to buy firearms
> online, I might throw some money their way.
I'm not familiar with the Constitution's online firearms purchase clause, but I'm sure that if anybody tries to stop you from bearing arms in WoW, the EFF will back you up.
And if you happen to be a radical islamic terrorist in a committed gay relationship, do let them know - I'm sure they'd love to hear all about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Up until 1968 you could ... the GCA of '68 stopped that, created the 4473 form, stopped importation of machine guns, and importation of firearms based on size/weight characteristics.
"They" also wanted this one taken down.. (Score:2)
NPR? (Score:2)
I understand that they are trying to make a point about applying fair-use across the board. But you'd think they'd choose something other than NPR trying to mute gay bashes as an example. It's like trying to get bees with vinegar.
PS. here's the censored youtube clip incase you were wondering what was actually said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NPR? (Score:5, Interesting)
Free speech is free speech. Picking and choosing your examples is just as bad as censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule is: The only words you can't legally spread, are lies. Because they actually damage someone's life/reputation/etc. See it as subtracting from normal state: 0 - x
But what these companies do, is keeping up an artificial false view of them, and sue anyone who tries to tell the truth. Like a child rapist saying "I'm a really good person with children. And I sue anyone who disagrees!". See it as removing the addition to normal state: 0+x-x (where the first 1 is their lies, and the second one is the corr
Re: (Score:2)
>>>you'd think they'd choose something other than NPR trying to mute gay bashes as an example
The Maine citizens who produced the "marriage is for heterosexuals" advertisement doesn't have a right to free speech? They deserved to have their ad taken-down from youtube??? This is the anti-free speech position you are adopting?!?!? Not very progressive of you.
Greater evils (Score:2)
Obviously though, if you want to choose the greatest evil, always go for the option with Cthulhu.
Re: (Score:2)
And who decides what is more evil? That is why we have free speech. Both sides can present their arguments and the voters decide. When you start deciding that an idea is too evil for the people to hear you then have set your self up as God. You determine who is worthy of freedom of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech requirements only applies to the government.
It is in turn a form of free speech for a non-government agency to refuse to give voice to someone else's exercising of their own free speech. So a news agency which refuses to repeat points of view it finds objectionable is itself a form of free speech.
Like it or not, news agencies must filter whose points of view they're willing to give voice to. Even in a perfect world, with a perfect news agency, there is no meaningful way to give equal weight to
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with this case. NPR published this media. Another group used it in a way that is totally legal under the concept of fair use.
NPR tried to use legal means to get that media removed. It would be fine for NPR to say we don't like that being used in that way but they had no right to send a take down notice. Since the take down didn't happen the system worked.
The problem is when people think that it is okay for NPR to send a take down notice but not when say FOX news does based on what the
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, my apologies. I misunderstood the behavior which was being criticized.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like trying to get bees with vinegar.
So...you're saying it will work better than using honey? [xkcd.com] =P
Re:NPR? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's another facet to it though, you have to look at the thinking behind the use of such take down notices.
Companies like the media companies do it because they think it's right, because they think they should be able to block and stifle fair use, groups like NPR most likely do not agree with that stance, however are embroiled in a battle where dirty tactics are used, and if the tactic is available then they might as well use it.
It doesn't mean they inherently support the existence of such laws.
Judge by actions (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is impossible to answer. You're giving NPR the benefit of the doubt, but not others. Why? All these organizations might say, via their PR people, "we don't like this tactic, but we have to do it." How would you decide who is lying?
Re: (Score:2)
That ad was ridiculous, but it did not incite violence, did not include anything approaching hate speech. It was idiocy and should--and could--be countered by other communication presenting the other side.
It's a pity that cateri
NPR is on here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?
Stand for Marriage Maine (SMM) created an ad criticizing same-sex marriage that excerpted a brief portion of an All Things Considered interview. Although the ad's use of the content was clearly necessary to its critical political message, NPR sent a takedown demand to YouTube resulting in the removal of the video. NPR failed to recognize that SMM's excerpting is simply another clear-cut example of a fair use in political speech -- the 21st century equivalent of an issue pamphlet.
Re:NPR is on here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you got "2%" but I see this in the link provided:
- 11% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is federally funded
- 9% from licensee support [National Science Foundation and Endowment for the Arts]
- 5% from local and state governments
So we taxpayers own about one-quarter of the products produced. If NPR wants to maintain control, that's fine with me, but their programs should be open-licensed to any non-commercial citizen who desires to use their programs.
Re:NPR is on here? (Score:4, Informative)
Your assumptions are incorrect. The CPB might get federal funding, but only about 17% of its budget comes from the federal government. 23% of it comes from state and local tax revenues, and 60% of the rest comes from private contributions. That makes about 2% of the NPR budget coming out of federal sources.
I also don't understand why you equate licensee support with NSF and endowment for the arts. NPR material is licensed to local radio stations for use - there actually is no NPR station. Only stations that carry NPR material.
So taxpayers across the nation own about 2% of the products produced. And if you want access to their material, I can pretty much download anything I want from the sites of the various local stations.
So what's your point exactly? That they ought to be smacked down for abusing copyright in the case listed? Sure. That they somehow are owned by all Americans? Hardly. If anything, they are owned by those who contribute directly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay thanks for the corrections but you still said, "About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government," and by your own numbers that's not true. CPB donation == (17% from U.S. + 23% state/local government)* 11% == 4.4% given to NOR. And the article says an additional 5% is donated directly to NP$ by state/local government.
That's still almost 10% coming from the government (our pockets). If Obama can order around Bank of America and demand that the top 100 managers get 50% paycuts,
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh, you can't read, can you? I said federal government. That means that unless you live in the state that happens to support NPR via a grant, you only contribute 2% to the budget of NPR.
Finally, the federal government orders AIG around because without the bailout, it would cease to exist. As a result, it is nonsensical to hand out performance bonuses. If Obama wants to cut $900k from the federal budget, I'm sure NPR would continue to produce content.
As for the state budgets, you don't get to bitch about
Re: (Score:2)
Not you. This guy:
by ral (93840)
About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government [npr.org]
He said government. He said nothing about federal, so contributions from "government" would also include state and local governments, and raises the percentage to about 10%, not 2
Personally I don't think NPR should be receiving *any* funding. It's not as if we are lacking for sources of information (dozens of radio stations, hundreds of tv channels, and millions of websites).
Re: (Score:2)
A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.
The data you referenced is how individual stations get funded, not NPR itself. But your point is well taken - a portion of NPRs funding comes from those stations, so the amount of government subsidy is arguable a bit higher than 2 percent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They get for free multi-billion dollar valued airwaves all over the country. That '2%' you cite is more if you consider the taxes not collected from the 98 percent donated. So I own their output until I'm paid back my share of that plus interest plus whatever fees they do not pay on the FCC license going back when they got their bucket of largess.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I own churches too since they don't pay taxes. I also own HAM radios. You're stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law gags the churches and ham radio operators which I will accept if it's applied to NPR.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a Car Talk listener.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to fix my car I pay grease monkeys to do that.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
They get for free multi-billion dollar valued airwaves all over the country.
Neither NPR nor CPB actually have any spectrum, let alone get it for free. They produce programming which is licensed by other broadcasters. The radio stations themselves are generally operated by public education institutions (with the occasional private university or ad hoc community organization thrown in).
That '2%' you cite is more if you consider the taxes not collected from the 98 percent donated.
Are we going to claim ownersh
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I want a big fat chunk of CoS and every other church to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of NPR's funding comes from listener contributions. About 2% comes from government grants. Even the most conservative assessment of where the funding comes from tops out at about 5%. I'm just curious as to how you would enforce that 2%-5%. Should that fraction of each production be public domain? Should 2-5% of all productions be public domain? Or should the donors own the copyright to the shows?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems reasonable to suggest that information produced with any level of public funding should belong to the public. Don't like the terms? Don't take public funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?
By that logic, all government funded research and drug discovery should be considered public domain as well....
Re: (Score:3)
By that logic, all government funded research and drug discovery should be considered public domain as well...
... and the issue here would be...?
As another poster stated (emphasis mine):
It seems reasonable to suggest that information produced with any level of public funding should belong to the public. Don't like the terms? Don't take public funding.
I don't see any problems, here.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets put the A-Bomb in the commons!
Re: (Score:2)
National Public Radio is a private nonprofit that receives most of its funding through membership dues from its member stations, subscription charges from stations to use NPR programming, and corporate sponsorship (corporate sponsorship alone provides around 1/4 of NPR's funding), with somewhere around 2% from various government grants.
They aren't the BBC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They took the money.
We own it, or we control it. Example: GM.
Clear number 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?
Re:Clear number 1 (Score:5, Informative)
No. The DMCA does not mandate removal of allegedly infringing materials. Without the DMCA, copyright holders could still send "cease and desist" letters to service providers, or otherwise request that allegedly infringing materials be removed. Service providers would then have to decide whether to comply with the demand/request or risk being held liability for monetary damages, perhaps under a theory of secondary liability [wikipedia.org]. Even worse, service providers might have faced monetary damages even if they were unaware of specific acts of copyright infringement.
The DMCA "notice and takedown [wikipedia.org]" safe harbor provides a voluntary way for service providers to avoid monetary liability based on the potentially infringing activities of their users. Even better, if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability.
Service providers that use the DMCA notice and takedown safe harbor are thus able to provide public fora without being having an incentive to police user activity to minimize the risk of owing damages in their users engage in copyright infringement. This is good from a free speech perspective.
If a takedown notice is sent, service providers do not have to comply . They can keep the materials online, provided they are willing to risk being found liable. Thus, service providers who choose to use the DMCA to protect themselves from obvious instances of infringement can still choose to protect the availability of their users' submissions.
This is good for service providers and good for users. Why do you think Slashdot [copyright.gov] has designated an agent under the DMCA?
Given the benefits of this provision, Congress should not be ashamed. Only those copyright holders who send out abusive takedown notices and the like, and those service providers who indiscriminatly hang their users out to dry, should be ashamed.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability.
This is where the DMCA idea falls-apart. If MSNBC issues a takedown against my youtube video because I uploaded the snippet where they called a gun-toting black man a "white racist" (i.e. a lie), and then I issue a counter notice to have the video restored, youtube will typically ignore me and side with MSNBC. Why? Because MSNBC has monetary pow
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's where the youtube idea falls apart. Youtube doesn't give a shit about you, nor owe you anything. And yet, people keep stupidly using them to publish videos. Any real ISP (i.e. someone who wants to get Yet Another payment from you next month) will pay attention to your counter-notices.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Lots of corporations are going to look at my fair use content and think, "Well, it's probably fair use, so let's put our necks on the line for user #3,734,173." Hah! No. Pull first, ask questions later. It's the rational thing for most businesses to do. Maybe you can find a company who will stand up for you, but will they serve your other needs? When the DMCA notice shows up, will they chicken out?
I like the idea of the takedown provisions, but there are two serious flaws: One there is a ma
Chilling Effects? (Score:4, Informative)
I thought this is what Chilling Effects [chillingeffects.org] was for?
Or was the EFF unable to push the spotlight idea through the other partners they have for Chilling Effects (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.)
shocking! (Score:3, Funny)
A list of abusive, lying corporations that includes De Beers on it!
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube and Warner (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I produced a Slipknot video, I'd DMCA myself too.
Re: (Score:2)
These people have no shame (Score:2)
....and this is a waste of time. If these people had any shame we wouldn't be in the position we're in, legitimate customers wouldn't end up out of pocket and with an unusable product etc. etc. This is like trying to shame that obnoxious house mate your friend has that doesn't shower or shave and walks around their apartment naked in mixed company.
I can't believe they omitted Dissociated Press (Score:2)
One network is missing... (Score:2)
But Fox is not there?.. How come? Why are they so special? Certainly could've come after all those calling them "Faux", for just one example...
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't Fox there? The answer is simple. They don't deal in news, but rather in propaganda. A news organization wants to get some return on the investment of time, effort and money spent gathering and reporting news. Fox deals in propaganda, and doesn't care so much about profit. Fox is all about getting the message out and influencing public opinion. There will always be people willing to throw money at Fox for its consistent backing of a certain, predetermined point of view. They don't want to s
Inifinite Loops (Score:4, Funny)
How about American Food industry? (Score:2)
Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that nobody uses their material except for parody, so they don't have anyone to sue.
Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:4, Informative)
Mod Parent troll (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is trolling
And you're biting. [kuro5hin.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is trolling; Fox has an extensive history of censorship.
I'm not so sure he's consciously attempting to troll. commodore64_love has shown time and time again that he falls very short on the ability to recognize shortcomings in both himself and those he tries to champion. I think he honestly believes that Fox is the epitome of "fair and balanced" reporting and that they are being picked on because of it.
My take is that the guy is an attention whore.. the obsessive way he replies and tries to stir things up in his own thread is a dead giveaway.
He's probably not thought much about what he is actually saying/supporting, just that it will get a raise out of people and he won't feel so alone in his basement. Actually, loudly making a contentious and weak/false argument like he does, is the best way to get feedback, even if negative. So in a way, is reaching his goal.
Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Examples:
Now, it's normal for a media outlet to have its own slant or bias; even a corporation evolves a "culture" which colors what is reported. However, Fox is not even rationally consistent with its judgements; take, for example, back to back reports on Britney Spears' younger sister being pregnant vs. Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Bill O'Reilly went from calling Spears' parents "pinheads" to saying that "the liberal media's judgement of Palin is outrageous" without taking a breath. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Local Fox affiliates have normal news. The parent news agency, with their "Fox and Friends", Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and more, are entertainment at best, a propaganda agency at worst, even in those segments where they claim to be news.
Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm, let's see. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert -- Comedy Central.
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity -- Fox News Channel.
You're right; absolute equivalence. I can't believe those damn liberal hypocrites!
Look, nobody's bitching that Rush Limbaugh isn't balanced. Not only does he not claim to be, nobody claims he's anything but a man paid to stir up conservatives. But when your show airs on a news network above the banner "Fair and Balanced," yes, you're doing everything you can to pretend toward an air of impartiality that you not only don't have, but have absolutely no intention of trying for. It is exactly what the OP suggested: Opinion masquerading as if it is impartial news.
If they want to get their own TV shows on Comedy Central, they're more than welcome to them and you will hear nary another word about their lack of impartiality. So long as they're airing on the biggest network news channel in the nation, above a claim of balance, they deserve to be held to a higher standard. We'll start with the standard their own damn network branding claims to set and go from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party.
Yeah... an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman. Get real - if you honestly think MSNBC is guilty of anything like the sort of slanting that goes on at Fox News, that can only mean you've never watched it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman
At first I didn't know who you meant, and then I saw the name Joe Scarborough. He was a Republican, but he's no conservative. Just as Republican Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats, so too should Joe.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun
Re: (Score:2)
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
First, that's not an example of partisan bias.
Second, for every such incident at MSNBC, there are a dozen at Fox News, like how every Republican who's indicted or caught with his pants down is "accidentally" labeled on-screen as a Democrat. The scale is vastly different here; you're ignoring reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Rounding to the nearest billion? Zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly any I would think; if you look at the rate of adoption before the SCO thing even became an issue, you can extrapolate that it prevented very few companies from adopting linux.