Comments on: Copyright Law and Political Ads http://blog.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/ Technology for the Good of People Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:17:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: nick peyton http://blog.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-168 nick peyton Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:00:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/#comment-168 Sean Kellogg, I was thinking of you today. It is about two weeks away from that damned NAGPS conference, Adam is off living life off $20,000 and I was taking a check to Kane Hall to pay for a room. I just wanted to say that I know we had our differences at GPSS, but when shit went down, you always had my back, even if you didn't believe it to be the wisest thing. You made sure that I understood and you would back me up. There should be more people like you in workplaces. Someone who will challenge but at the end of the day back you up. So thanks for that. Your blog could use some more random rants about life and less legal stuff, but I guess it is "'probono'geek." Keep on keeping on. Peace Sean Kellogg, I was thinking of you today. It is about two weeks away from that damned NAGPS conference, Adam is off living life off $20,000 and I was taking a check to Kane Hall to pay for a room. I just wanted to say that I know we had our differences at GPSS, but when shit went down, you always had my back, even if you didn’t believe it to be the wisest thing. You made sure that I understood and you would back me up. There should be more people like you in workplaces. Someone who will challenge but at the end of the day back you up. So thanks for that. Your blog could use some more random rants about life and less legal stuff, but I guess it is “‘probono’geek.” Keep on keeping on. Peace

]]> By: srcastic http://blog.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-167 srcastic Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:26:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/#comment-167 Sean, I couldn't agree with you more. While I generally don't think that copyrighted works should be used to advance one's political campaign without permission, when it is footage, edited or not, of an elected official (or candidate for office) speaking on their political positions, that is no place for copyright law to interfere. It is absolutely outrageous that the public statements of what our elected officials say could be so removed from the public debate. Sean, I couldn’t agree with you more. While I generally don’t think that copyrighted works should be used to advance one’s political campaign without permission, when it is footage, edited or not, of an elected official (or candidate for office) speaking on their political positions, that is no place for copyright law to interfere. It is absolutely outrageous that the public statements of what our elected officials say could be so removed from the public debate.

]]> By: Sean Kellogg http://blog.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-166 Sean Kellogg Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:53:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/#comment-166 anonymous... I don't condone the ad, nor do I condone the general tactic. However, when it comes to political speech I believe the cure is more speech, not the threat of judicial intervention. <br /><br />Voters are welcome to punish Burner (who, incidentally, I went to Law School with) for refusing to denounce the ad... but the editorials main thrust is that copyrights are being violated and I just don't think that's the situation here.<br /><br />As for allowing TVW cameras into political events... well, that's a long running issue with both parties and more a product of what viewers reward/punish TV stations for airing. If viewers were more interested in hearing our leaders speak of hope instead of watching them make fools of themselves, I think we'd see quite a shift in the dynamic of public access. anonymous… I don’t condone the ad, nor do I condone the general tactic. However, when it comes to political speech I believe the cure is more speech, not the threat of judicial intervention.

Voters are welcome to punish Burner (who, incidentally, I went to Law School with) for refusing to denounce the ad… but the editorials main thrust is that copyrights are being violated and I just don’t think that’s the situation here.

As for allowing TVW cameras into political events… well, that’s a long running issue with both parties and more a product of what viewers reward/punish TV stations for airing. If viewers were more interested in hearing our leaders speak of hope instead of watching them make fools of themselves, I think we’d see quite a shift in the dynamic of public access.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Anonymous Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:30:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2006/10/copyright-law-and-political-ads/#comment-165 There are a few issues you are missing here. The editorial is not referring to the legal aspects of copyright law. It is appealing to the dignity of the candidate. TVW is a non profit public service in Washington State that seeks to keep the public informed, like CSPAN. And much like CSPAN, it has set up "rules" about their broadcasts so that they will not be manipulated or used in political ads. What the DCCC has done in running that ad in the Seattle media market has ruined the credibility of TVW who are seeminly powerless to stop it. This will stop candidates in both parties from allowing TVW to film their events. TVW has a bipartisan board who are outraged by this incident. The editorial comes from the fact that the candidate who did not the ad but benefits from it - Darcy Burner - refused to show leadership and agree that the ad should be taken down. Never mind that the ad uses the old "cut off the tape at the right moment" trick to falsely accuse someone of something. This puts her at odds with Rs and Ds alike who have worked very hard in WA to create and defend the state's CSPAN, TVW. As for the issue of politicians trying to avoid the cameras, who can blame them when stuff like this happens? Certainly Darcy Burner knew enough to block voters from seeing her at public events:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwORKkJe-FQ There are a few issues you are missing here. The editorial is not referring to the legal aspects of copyright law. It is appealing to the dignity of the candidate. TVW is a non profit public service in Washington State that seeks to keep the public informed, like CSPAN. And much like CSPAN, it has set up “rules” about their broadcasts so that they will not be manipulated or used in political ads. What the DCCC has done in running that ad in the Seattle media market has ruined the credibility of TVW who are seeminly powerless to stop it. This will stop candidates in both parties from allowing TVW to film their events. TVW has a bipartisan board who are outraged by this incident. The editorial comes from the fact that the candidate who did not the ad but benefits from it – Darcy Burner – refused to show leadership and agree that the ad should be taken down. Never mind that the ad uses the old “cut off the tape at the right moment” trick to falsely accuse someone of something. This puts her at odds with Rs and Ds alike who have worked very hard in WA to create and defend the state’s CSPAN, TVW. As for the issue of politicians trying to avoid the cameras, who can blame them when stuff like this happens? Certainly Darcy Burner knew enough to block voters from seeing her at public events:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwORKkJe-FQ

]]>