Printable View
To quote from the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
As you can see, the article relies on nonsense to manipulate the readerQuote:
With 11 homes and 13 cars, it's not terribly surprising that McCain is calling for special treatment for the YouTube videos of politicians.
It's like saying: "Smoking a pack a day, it's not terribly surprising that Obama wants universal healthcare for all Americans."
Come on! jeez!
Regardless of their distracting comment (it is a blog site afterall), the mere fact that a US Senator - running for Prez - is insisting that he be treated differently is sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
How about you don't use other peoples' work in your ads? The GOP already got spanked for using Heart's music at the convention w/o permission...
Insisting? sad? No, he simply wrote a letter requesting to be treated differently for better campaign resources. That's a man of action isn't it? What's wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
Heart did what McCain did: wrote a letter asking for different treatment.
Are you also willing to say YouTube has already been spanked for automatically pulling campaign videos that should be allowed as fair use?
Nope....one rule for all when it comes to intellectual property. If the campaign thought there might be an issue, they should have submitted it earlier.
I believe Heart's issue was that someone used the song without permission. However, as the GOP has a license from ASCAP to play the song at a venue, Heart doesn't have much to stand on, legally. They have made their views known....one of the guitarists said he was glad for the publicity...he intends to give any proceeds from the playing of the song to Oabma's campaign.
The GOP can play the song, as they have a license...and continue to get bad publicity for it. However, that license does not cover attaching a song to a video or ad...that's a differnt license type. Similarly, the DMCA, covers how video from other sources can be used (length, etc.) and with Google/YouTube and Viacom going at it, I doubt Google/YouTube is willing to risk another suit.
YouTube is not a new site...if the GOP thought they might want to use it, they should have planned better, clearing with YouTube what they wanted to post, content length, etc., as well as contacting potential sources for the video. That could be a burdensome process, but then so it the GOP asking YouTube to manually review every video brought into question. Same for the Obama campaign...don't compalin after the fact.
okay, but that has nothing to do with the previous points that McCain is sad and insistent in wanting preferential treatment. The blogger was just looking for any little thing he or she could find as an excuse to run McCain into the ground a little more, which was why I quoted the 11 home 13 car bitQuote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Yes, I agreed with you on that point. But for a lawmaker to expect an company to incur additional expense or to create exceptional processes, just to handle political content, is not acceptable...regardless of the party.
Besides, there are probably a lot of people who feel the political vids are utter crap and would rather look at a vid of Little Susie's birthday party or dogs wearing hats....YouTube feels they treat all content fairly - if a complaint is filed, down it comes.
Prior Planning Prevents P#ss-Poor Performance
Of course because politicians are above the law a s a ruling class, the laws they pass are for everyone else not them. Its very obvious by their behavior, no?