Slashdot Banner
Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 163 +-   EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame" on Tuesday October 27, @05:03PM

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday October 27, @05:03PM
from the more-chilling dept.
censorship
themedia
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."
story

Related Stories

Submission: EFF launches "Takedown Hall of Shame" by netbuzz (955038)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame" 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday October 27, @05:08PM (#29890147) Journal

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

  • Video professor (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brian Gordon (987471) on Tuesday October 27, @05:14PM (#29890215)

    What happened to Video Professor [citizen.org]? Should have made the list IMO:

    In mid-August, in federal court in Denver, the Video Professor, a self-proclaimed consumer advocate, sued his own customers for posting comments on two consumer comment Web sites. The sites, infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com, are run by a Nevada company, Leonard Fitness, Inc.

    The Professor alleged that his detractors had violated federal trademark laws by saying negative things about the name of his product, as well as committing defamation and several violations of state law

    • Re:Video professor (Score:4, Informative)

      by ubercam (1025540) on Tuesday October 27, @06:02PM (#29890849)

      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.

    • 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.

  • 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?

      • Do you mean pro equality and freedom of religion? It seems your bias is showing, do you also say Pro-abortion?

  • 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.

    • oops, messed up the html; here's the link [youtube.com].

    • Re:NPR? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by schnikies79 (788746) on Tuesday October 27, @05:24PM (#29890359)

      Free speech is free speech. Picking and choosing your examples is just as bad as censorship.

    • >>>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.

      • I think the GP was making the point that some 'evils' are greater than others.

        Obviously though, if you want to choose the greatest evil, always go for the option with Cthulhu.

    • 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)

      by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday October 27, @06:03PM (#29890867)
      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."

        • 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

  • NPR is on here? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday October 27, @05:22PM (#29890339)

    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)

      by ral (93840) on Tuesday October 27, @05:41PM (#29890605)
      About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government [npr.org]

      • 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)

          by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday October 27, @06:03PM (#29890869)

          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.

          • 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:3, Insightful)

        by mrmeval (662166)

        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.

        • WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by namespan (225296)

          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:3, Insightful)

            by mrmeval (662166)

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

    • 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?

      • Is that an attempt to argue that none of it should be in the public domain?

        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.

    • 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....

      • 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.

    • Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio

      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.

  • Clear number 1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27, @05:31PM (#29890475)

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

    • Re:Clear number 1 (Score:5, Informative)

      by RIAAShill (1599481) on Tuesday October 27, @06:19PM (#29891063)

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

      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.

  • Chilling Effects? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Misch (158807) on Tuesday October 27, @05:40PM (#29890587) Homepage

    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.)

  • A list of abusive, lying corporations that includes De Beers on it!

  • Anyone else worried about this turning into an infinite takedown notice loop the brings the whole internet to it's knees, as the corporations send takedown notices to take down the takedown notices which are then put up only to be followed up by more takedown notices for the takedown notices of the takedown notices, which of course will then have to be put... Can anyone stop this madness?

    • Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Brian Gordon (987471) on Tuesday October 27, @05:19PM (#29890303)

      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)

      by fatmonkeyboy (257833) on Tuesday October 27, @05:22PM (#29890337) Homepage
      How about this [eff.org]?

    • Mod Parent troll (Score:5, Informative)

      by virtualXTC (609488) on Tuesday October 27, @05:53PM (#29890757) Homepage
      Parent is trolling; Fox has an extensive history of censorship. [google.com]

    • Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bennomatic (691188) on Tuesday October 27, @06:07PM (#29890917) Homepage
      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:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Dhalka226 (559740) on Wednesday October 28, @03:35AM (#29894311)

          It's like whining that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have a liberal bias. Hannity and Beck are entertainers.

          Of course you know that, but it's just not a good troll if you admit it, right?

          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.

          • >>>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

    • How many billions have been tied up with his threatened takedowns of everyone and their dog who ever looked at Linux?

      Rounding to the nearest billion? Zero.
Search
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.