Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890117)

I for one welcome our shameful overlords

They forgot one (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890147)

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

Re:They forgot one (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890223)

...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:They forgot one (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890803)

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:They forgot one (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891225)

Streisand Effect in full effect.

Re:They forgot one (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29892619)

...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...)

Xenu is the bad guy in Scientologists' cosmology, and by extension the glorious leader of freedom-loving nerds everywhere. Hail Xenu!

Re:They forgot one (5, Funny)

bfmorgan (839462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890225)

EFF might not have enough lawyers to fight the take down notices from the Church of Scientology... Whoops, I just got one.

Re:They forgot one (3, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890581)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890995)

I don't see why not, that sounds like a positively riveting idea my fellow.

And we can engage in wars of knowledge with The Church Of Silliness and Church of Immaturity.

Re:They forgot one (4, Funny)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891045)

Church of Common Sense

To few members to start a church. At these small numbers, it would just be a cult.

Re:They forgot one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29892007)

Farting in a less than full church is no where near as much fun

Re:They forgot one (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892311)

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:They forgot one (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891219)

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:They forgot one (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891335)

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:They forgot one (2, Insightful)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891239)

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

Re:They forgot one (1)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890685)

Gentlemen, Start your attorneys!

Re:They forgot one (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890245)

Sensor my penis penetrating your anus [goatse.fr] . I'd like to see you try.

Re:They forgot one (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890397)

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:They forgot one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890483)

That was only after the kids decided to take over from the people who originally started it, me being one of the original.
It honestly shouldn't have left the group, but hey, people on the internet are idiots, and there is always someone in a group who is the idiot and will ruin everything.

If anything, the only good thing that came out of it was the publicity of all the idiots in masks.
Mind you, it probably didn't change anything, Scientology will still find those helpless fools in the streets looking for guidance and use their misinformation to screw them up.

Re:They forgot one (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891359)

Yeah, you keep up your internet war against Scientology. We all know you're the biggest threat on their radar, you OG you.

Re:They forgot one (1)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891787)

MOD PARENT UP. The Church of Scientology has repeatedly used copyright to stifle free speech.

Video professor (5, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 (3, Informative)

ubercam (1025540) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

NBC - MSNBC ? (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890239)

Forget NBC. What about FOX News? 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? Well su'prise su'prise su'prise.

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890303)

The problem is that nobody uses their material except for parody, so they don't have anyone to sue.

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (0)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890335)

Having fun with the strawman?

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890517)

Yeah well I guess I'm just sick of it. I'm now listening to White House people who are collecting salaries from MY taxdollars claiming fox is a "wing of the Republican party". Don't these persons have anything better to do than sling mud at the free press??? Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party. Which is fine - one channel's left - the other is right - the truth lies in between. I like BOTH channels because it's democracy in action.

Anyway this tidbit is interesting:

.....Fox News had sent three notices of copyright infringement demanding the takedown of Progress Illinois' videos. In the videos, Progress Illinois, a union-sponsored blog, apparently used short clips of Fox News coverage of local and national political events to set up political commentary about those events.....

It's also disappointing that YouTube hasn't already restored the videos. When similar shenanigans took down campaign videos by Senators McCain [CBS] and Obama [NBC] during the presidential election season, we called on YouTube to take steps to protect online speech, among them human review of videos that have been subject to a counternotice, and immediate restoration of videos that are clearly noninfringing fair uses.

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891101)

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:NBC - MSNBC ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891775)

Only an idiot of massive proportions like you would think that Fox is anything other then a right wing propaganda machine.

Are you really as stupid as your posts indicate?

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (0, Troll)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892653)

I'm now listening to White House people who are collecting salaries from MY taxdollars claiming fox is a "wing of the Republican party".

  Fox News? A wing of the republican party?

  Don't be absurd! /sarcasm

  BTW, I'm not a democrat.

SB

 

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (1)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890611)

Don't feed the trolls ; )

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (3, Informative)

fatmonkeyboy (257833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890337)

How about this [eff.org] ?

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (0, Troll)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890515)

Tell that to Glenn Beck and the lawyer defending gb1990.com, troll.

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890601)

If you "mod" me troll, I will just repost the same message tomorrow. Modding me down to -1 in an attempt to censor me doesn't work.

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890659)

News flash: Nobody is that interested in your opinion.

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (0, Offtopic)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891309)

So you're

1. trying to get the troll mod removed by threatening more trolling, in the process trolling
2. confusing "modding down" with censorship
3. a fox news apologist

I'm not quite sure if you're making trolls look bad or making fox news fans look bad.

Mod Parent troll (4, Informative)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890757)

Parent is trolling; Fox has an extensive history of censorship. [google.com]

Re:Mod Parent troll (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890851)

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.

Re:Mod Parent troll (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891577)

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 ? (5, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890917)

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 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891953)

It's kinda funny how stupid people get all pissed off at this.

If you ever actually watched Beck or Hannity, or listened to their radio shows, you would know that they never claim to be balanced. Hell, they'll be the first to tell you that they're conservative.

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?

Re:NBC - MSNBC ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29892559)

oozing a yellowish goo made up of cum, rectal fluids and fecal matter, a smelly, sweaty, fat and hairy man positions his anus directly over your open, waiting mouth. as the goo slides down your throat, a wave of nausea comes over you and you start to vomit. At the same moment the fat man fills your mouth with his distended anus and unloads a hot, steamy load of liquid excrement, shooting its way down your throat.

How about a tally? (1)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890247)

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:How about a tally? (-1, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890613)

Pro gay marriage, pro Islam. You know, the usual liberal agenda. When they start defending the right to buy firearms online, I might throw some money their way.

Re:How about a tally? (1)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890739)

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

Re:How about a tally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891137)

You can practice any religion you want, as long as it meets sharia law...

Re:How about a tally? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891357)

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?)

way to jump to conclusions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891375)

It's all about the liberal agenda ... ... which is why the NPR is in there for sending a takedown that used a very small NPR clip in an ad against gay marriage.

Re:How about a tally? (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892083)

> 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:How about a tally? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892679)

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.

NPR? (1)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890319)

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:NPR? (1)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890327)

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

Re:NPR? (5, Interesting)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890359)

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

Re:NPR? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890999)

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 correction to get to reality again.)

Or in one simple sentence: Who's the lying bastard!

Now the logical rule, coming from this, is: When you can punish someone, for spreading lies about you, others can sue you, for spreading lies about themselves. (Assuming the lies resulted in harming the other side.) You can't have one without the other.
Which is an interesting thought. And I think the law for it, is called "fraud". Isn't it?

So if they sue you for revealing the truth, you can sue them back with a class action suit, for harming everyone with their lies.

Re:NPR? (1)

IntricateEnigma (148093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891479)

What? Picking and choosing your examples = having an opinion. Resources aren't infinite, therefore examples must be picked and that will occur according to the decision making authority's perspective and opinion. Using political, legal, or other resources as a tool to oppress the expression of opinions=censorship.

Re:NPR? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890565)

>>>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 (1)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890841)

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.

Re:NPR? (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#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."

Re:NPR? (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891019)

The antidote to speech with which you do not agree is more free speech, not limits on speech. As much as I might not like that message, if we start getting into battles about what's acceptable and what's not, then it's inevitable that everyone will be unhappy with the result.

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 catering to the lowest common denominator works, to some degree, but suggesting that it should have been OK to sue to present that ad altogether just because it promoted the views of the asinine would be going down a very dark path.

Now, if that quote attributed to teacher Allen were somehow fabricated or edited such that it was inaccurate, then sure, it should be blocked because it contains libel. Otherwise, it's up to clearer heads to simply counter it.

NPR is on here? (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890411)

And that's why NPR is on there, for trying to restrict fair use of their stuff. What was your question again?

Re:NPR is on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891033)

His question is right there:

"shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law? "

Re:NPR is on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890531)

NPR is mostly funded by direct contributions by listeners. ~2% comes from grants and other government sources.

Re:NPR is on here? (4, Informative)

ral (93840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890605)

About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government [npr.org]

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890721)

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? (3, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

ral (93840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890875)

From the article I linked:

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:NPR is on here? (2, Insightful)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891123)

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:NPR is on here? (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891279)

Yeah, and I own churches too since they don't pay taxes. I also own HAM radios. You're stupid.

Re:NPR is on here? (2, Insightful)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891805)

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

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892641)

You must be a Car Talk listener.

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890619)

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:NPR is on here? (1)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890773)

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.

Re:NPR is on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891207)

Tell that to Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Rockwell, Lockheed, Halliburton, etc.

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890761)

Your premise seems to be unfunded [wikipedia.org] .

For everybody else's luck, EFF was impartial and also added a same silence attempt from the same-sex marriage opponents. [eff.org]

Re:NPR is on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29892263)

Yeah, impartial in the sense that the NPR one was clearly outrageous (I mean, they quoted someone who was quoted on NPR - that's fair use right there) while the one you've linked to should in no way be on that list.

Basically, someone posted a clip from a copyrighted show onto YouTube. The National Organization for Marriage pointed that out to YouTube, and YouTube took the clip down like they should have.

It was copyrighted, and the poster did not own the copyright. YouTube acted appropriately.

The NPR clip, on the other hand, is from a recording of a public speech. NPR is no way owns the clip used.

Being "impartial" doesn't mean you make crap up to represent "the other side." Same-sex boosters censored marriage supporters' speech. The marriage supporters' didn't try and censor the same-sex boosters. End of discussion.

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890795)

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:NPR is on here? (2)

znerk (1162519) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891191)

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:NPR is on here? (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891427)

Lets put the A-Bomb in the commons!

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29891323)

By that logic, all government funded research and drug discovery should be considered public domain as well....

Well, if money is stolen from citizens in the form of taxation to fund something we should at least get royalties from it. Public domain would be preferred, however. Really though, rather than giving the pharmaceutical companies more corporate welfare we should focus on nutritional medicine. Let's start curing and preventing disease rather than milking people for every last cent as they die.

Re:NPR is on here? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890797)

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.

They aren't the BBC (1)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890935)

Consider NPR a private organization with a (very small) government subsidy. Does everything with a subsidy automatically become public domain?

Obligatory Darl comment (1)

rjshirts (567179) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890379)

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

Re:Obligatory Darl comment (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890455)

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.

Clear number 1 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29890475)

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

Re:Clear number 1 (5, Informative)

RIAAShill (1599481) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

I'm not sure who this will help? (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890485)

*if* normal folk come across this, I'm sure big outfits will just spin the EFF as some anti-corporate evil pinko deal...
And the sheep will go for it, too.

kind of a choir preach type deal, no?

Re:I'm not sure who this will help? (1)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890787)

That kind of people was bound to think that of EFF regardless of this new effort. Just look at all the mischief [eff.org] they do ; )

Chilling Effects? (3, Informative)

Misch (158807) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890587)

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! (2, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29890943)

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

Re:shocking! (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892417)

Blood Diamond

a.k.a. Non-cartel diamond

and the media has fallen for it.

Youtube and Warner (1)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891161)

Warner Music, being the big pile of hate and control freaks they are, issued DMCA take down notices for videos on there own channel. The Slipknot video of PsychoSocial as the prime example. The local rock station would provide a link to the video, go to the link, and video removed by order of DMCA copyright infringement. As hosted under the Warner Music group channel, almost all the videos they had had the takedown notice. Why not just um, remove the video from the channel? I guess they needed to feed the lawyers

Re:Youtube and Warner (2, Insightful)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891475)

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

These people have no shame (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891313)

....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 (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891329)

...who used their own news wire to send out a pre-emptive takedown notice to basically the entire Internet.

EFF privacy? (-1, Offtopic)

blakhol (919393) | more than 4 years ago | (#29891341)

I was very surprised to find that the unique email address that I registered with at the EFF seems to have been sold to another group.

One network is missing... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29892633)

NPR, NBC, CBS

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...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>