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."
Video professor (Score:5, Informative)
What happened to Video Professor [citizen.org]? Should have made the list IMO:
Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They forgot one (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.
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.)
Re:NPR is on here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They forgot one (Score:3, Informative)
Mod Parent troll (Score:5, Informative)
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: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: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: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:NBC - MSNBC ? (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-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.