EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame"

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

[TubeSteak]

How about the Church of Scientology?
Their censorship is the entire reason the /b/tards started harassing them.

Re:They forgot one

[Penguinisto]

...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...)

NPR is on here?

[commodore64_love]

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.

Clear number 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?

Re:NPR?

[Locke2005]

The one thing I hate the most is hypocrites. I'm a staunch advocate of same-sex couples having the same legal rights as mixed-sex couples, but fair use is fair use. Your principles should apply equally to those whom you esteem and those whose viewpoints you find repugnant. Opponents of same sex marriage have a first amendment right to use any legal, non-threatening method to communicate their viewpoint to others. I'd prefer they stick to facts, but apparently they have no legal obligation to do so, and except for being taken out of context, use of this clip was entirely factual. As Voltaire is credited with saying, "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Re:NBC - MSNBC ?

[bennomatic]

That's one of the sillier posts I've ever seen. There are lots of things that a media outlet can do that are worthy of complaints even if they are not under the umbrella of censorship.

Examples:

• Promoting lies and misrepresentations as if they were facts.
• Creating a fake "grassroots" movement and promoting it as if it were real.
• Publishing verbatim talking points from one political party as if they were objective news.
• Claiming to be a news agency while dropping any hints of objective reporting.

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:NPR is on here?

[mrmeval]

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:They forgot one

[bertoelcon]

I would much rather just consider Common Sense a superpower now.

Re:Youtube and Warner

[roguetrick]

If I produced a Slipknot video, I'd DMCA myself too.

Re:NPR is on here?

[mrmeval]

The law gags the churches and ham radio operators which I will accept if it's applied to NPR.

Re:NPR is on here?

[commodore64_love]

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, just because they received a few billon taxpayer dollars, then surely he can do the same with NPR and demand that their creations be available under an ope license.

Of course I also think it's ridiculous that Oregon copyrights its legal pamphets, and issues takedown notices against website owners if they dare publish them. Government "of, by, and for the people" is rapidly becoming "of, by, and for politicians and copyright-holders".

WTF?

[namespan]

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 ownership of anything produced by any 501c3 or any other tax exempt organization, too?

Re:Video professor

[commodore64_love]

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.

Judge by actions

[Nerdposeur]

The test of whether someone is fit for the list should really be "Would this company support the creation of such takedown laws factoring in the damage they can have on fair use if they did not exist".

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?

It may well be that NPR agrees with you entirely, but if they don't use it it wont just go away, so they might as well use it, just as their opponents would.

And it may well be that NPR would send goons to beat up their enemies if they thought they could get away with it. I doubt it. But how can we tell?

You cannot judge people by the intentions you think they may have. You must judge by actions.