I love Youtube. As most can tell from my past three post subjects, but here is an interesting twist on the Youtube/Viacom showdown. Now activist organizations are suing Viacom for requesting the removal of a parody of The Colbert Show. While it contained clips from Colbert, they groups claim that they were protected under "fair use" doctrine and that Viacom erred in requesting its take-down.
Got to love it when trying to protect your copyrighted material comes back to bite you in the ass. For me this just illustrates another flaw in the "take-down" request logic embodied in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Inevitably someone (one of these Youtube scanning employees at these big time corporations) is going to screw up and request that something be taken down that probably has a right to be there. With the volume of take-down requests that go out every single day, it is unlikely that there is much oversight. One employee steps on the wrong persons toes, and the company gets tied up in a free speech lawsuit potentially costing it big bucks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of a scenario.
Ultimately, I think this just adds fuel to Viacom's larger complaint/suit against Google and Youtube. Now, take down requests come with teetch if they are not executed carefully. THis limits the ability of the copyright holder to effectively manage the massive volume of postings each day on Youtube. Inevitably copyright privileges will be violated, and there is not much the company can do about it under current law.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Political advertising not just for the rich anymore...
The dimensions of political campaigning are transforming yet again as tech-savy activists exploit Youtube as a forum for posting cheap, provocative campaign ads. If you haven't seen it yet - here's the link for the new "1984" Anti-Hillary Youtube ad.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Youtube under fire...
I wondered how long it would take for someone to attempt to slay the internet video goliath ... and once Google bought Youtube the money got real big.
Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?
In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.
While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.
Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?
In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.
While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
How not to sell "Brand Romney"
If there is one thing the 77-slide Romney powerpoint illustrates - leaked to the Boston Globe - it is how not to go about "selling Brand Romney." I realize that today we have started to commodify presidential candidates. We wrap them in a nice, shiny packages for the public and sell, sell, sell! We have taken the lessons of advertising, public relations, and branding to heart in how we structure political campaigns. Campaign politics have become more about creating a "brand" identity, then actually talking about meaningful issues.
It seems to me though that people are tired of being treated like idiots. We ahve heard enough about character and looks qualifying a president. We are tired of being told that we should elect a candidate because he has good or bad hair. Hair has nothing to do with POLICY. Yet, for corporate CEO's, it is all part of the packaging - which at times sells the product more than the actual qualities themselves. This "branding" notion is reflected in the misguided Romney campaign strategy.
Ultimately, the powerpoint presentation is just an example of bad PR. The fact that the document was leaked, alone is a PR nightmare. But, for Romney's sake, it might be better that the strategy was leaked - at least now he has reason to start over and change what was a surefire strategy for defeat.
So here are some suggestions for the Romney campaign - lets call it PR 101.
1. Next time you write a PR plan - DON'T LEAK IT! Lock down a reliable campaign staff that will be honest with you. The key words here: trust and honesty. You need people who you can trust not to leak sensitive information, and who will tell you the honest truth when it comes to how you can best present yourself to the American public. In my opinion - Romney does not have that.
2. STOP WORRYING ABOUT HOW YOU LOOK! Perot had big ears, Kerry had perfect hair, W looked like a monkey - in the end it doesn't matter with a majority of the voters. People are going to find ways to ridicule you, looks are an easy target. You counter this by talking about sound policy options, and inspiring hope for the furture.
3. Stop trying to spin that you are not really flip-flopping, when you are! Instead just be honest, if you support gay unions, if you are cool with abortion then just say so. Or take the Guiliani strategy and just ignore the social issues all together! Either way, you will be rewarded more for your honesty then for trying to spin the issues like a typical politician. Nothing will kill your chances in the Republican party like insincerity.
4. Distinguish yourself positively - forget the attacks. This is already going to be a bloodbath of an election, there is no need to start it by turning on your own party. If you see yourself as innovative, as different, as being the future of a new type of politics - then say so and act so. Make that fresh, smart, inspiring image show through in your campaign by refusing to stoop the usual drudgery that is American campaign politics.
In the end, I like Mitt Romney. I wish he stood a chance of getting the nomination because I do think he is a unique politician. I hope he takes this chance to change his campaign strategy.
It seems to me though that people are tired of being treated like idiots. We ahve heard enough about character and looks qualifying a president. We are tired of being told that we should elect a candidate because he has good or bad hair. Hair has nothing to do with POLICY. Yet, for corporate CEO's, it is all part of the packaging - which at times sells the product more than the actual qualities themselves. This "branding" notion is reflected in the misguided Romney campaign strategy.
Ultimately, the powerpoint presentation is just an example of bad PR. The fact that the document was leaked, alone is a PR nightmare. But, for Romney's sake, it might be better that the strategy was leaked - at least now he has reason to start over and change what was a surefire strategy for defeat.
So here are some suggestions for the Romney campaign - lets call it PR 101.
1. Next time you write a PR plan - DON'T LEAK IT! Lock down a reliable campaign staff that will be honest with you. The key words here: trust and honesty. You need people who you can trust not to leak sensitive information, and who will tell you the honest truth when it comes to how you can best present yourself to the American public. In my opinion - Romney does not have that.
2. STOP WORRYING ABOUT HOW YOU LOOK! Perot had big ears, Kerry had perfect hair, W looked like a monkey - in the end it doesn't matter with a majority of the voters. People are going to find ways to ridicule you, looks are an easy target. You counter this by talking about sound policy options, and inspiring hope for the furture.
3. Stop trying to spin that you are not really flip-flopping, when you are! Instead just be honest, if you support gay unions, if you are cool with abortion then just say so. Or take the Guiliani strategy and just ignore the social issues all together! Either way, you will be rewarded more for your honesty then for trying to spin the issues like a typical politician. Nothing will kill your chances in the Republican party like insincerity.
4. Distinguish yourself positively - forget the attacks. This is already going to be a bloodbath of an election, there is no need to start it by turning on your own party. If you see yourself as innovative, as different, as being the future of a new type of politics - then say so and act so. Make that fresh, smart, inspiring image show through in your campaign by refusing to stoop the usual drudgery that is American campaign politics.
In the end, I like Mitt Romney. I wish he stood a chance of getting the nomination because I do think he is a unique politician. I hope he takes this chance to change his campaign strategy.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A tragic loss for America...
Today America has lost a great Congressman. This summer I was given the privilege to work in the office of Congressman Charlie Norwood, and it was there that I was given hope again that politicians could actually serve the best interests of this nation.
A simple dentist from Georgia, Charlie was not your typical politician. A pitbull in committee, he stood up for and fought for all that he thought was right in America, even through his battles with lung cancer. He was a Congressman who truly listened to and cared about not only his constituency, but the American people. Known for his battles to improve our nations healthcare system, Charlie's wisdom and insight will surely be missed in the coming years as we attempt to once again grapple with this pressing issue.
I ask for your prayers and condolences for his family and lovely wife Gloria.
A simple dentist from Georgia, Charlie was not your typical politician. A pitbull in committee, he stood up for and fought for all that he thought was right in America, even through his battles with lung cancer. He was a Congressman who truly listened to and cared about not only his constituency, but the American people. Known for his battles to improve our nations healthcare system, Charlie's wisdom and insight will surely be missed in the coming years as we attempt to once again grapple with this pressing issue.
I ask for your prayers and condolences for his family and lovely wife Gloria.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
A little more talk and alot less action...
Like I do on most days, today I picked up a copy of the New York Times on my way to class. While I generally only glance over most political hoopla involving the War in Iraq (mainly because it is alot of yelling and screaming without action by politicians) I decided to read the front page article over a Senate vote Monday to bring about debate on the President's "troop surge" plan.
Sen. Harry Reid was quoted on the floor as saying to Republicans, “You can run but you can’t hide. We are going to debate Iraq.” Didn't we just do that this past summer? I sat in on those debates in the gallery of the House, and the same debates occurred in the Senate. The arguments have not changed much since the first non-binding resolutions were debated. Republicans want to stay in Iraq, and Democrats want out. Why do we have to debate it again?
Before I go any further, lets just say I love the art of the non-binding resolution. It is so tactful, so safe... so much bullsh*t. Here are our newly elected Senators, who might I remind you ran on platforms of CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, voting on and debating resolutions that in effect accomplish NOTHING! Oh, but it sends such a strong political message... yeah, and so do the obscenities I shout from my couch at various politicians on TV every night.
Ultimately, all this resolution is going to do is give Senators one more chance to stand up and express their disapproval of the war on Congressional Record before ELECTION 2008 roles around. We ask for change... and we get more rhetoric. Here's an idea, if you want to send a political message how about voting on something that might actually change the President's plan - like removing funding!
Secondly, what the threshold for bipartisanship? Because you get someone of the opposite party to agree in writing a bill - does that make it bipartisan? One person, two? How many does it take? What meaning does this term have left? It seems to me that bipartisanship requires a little bit more muster than we give it on Capitol Hill to be meanigful. Bipartisanship engenders a sense of cooperation between the parties on a much larger scale than simply a few republicans or democrats crossing the line. Rhetoric used in the Times article characterizing the resolution as bipartisan I think misses the point. When only 2 republicans voted for the bill, it says something. The bill is partisan! It divides the Senate. This is not a bipartisan issue. If it were bipartisan politicians would not be arguing so fervently. So lets not sugar-coat it. This is a bitter partisan struggle.
Sen. Harry Reid was quoted on the floor as saying to Republicans, “You can run but you can’t hide. We are going to debate Iraq.” Didn't we just do that this past summer? I sat in on those debates in the gallery of the House, and the same debates occurred in the Senate. The arguments have not changed much since the first non-binding resolutions were debated. Republicans want to stay in Iraq, and Democrats want out. Why do we have to debate it again?
Before I go any further, lets just say I love the art of the non-binding resolution. It is so tactful, so safe... so much bullsh*t. Here are our newly elected Senators, who might I remind you ran on platforms of CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, voting on and debating resolutions that in effect accomplish NOTHING! Oh, but it sends such a strong political message... yeah, and so do the obscenities I shout from my couch at various politicians on TV every night.
Ultimately, all this resolution is going to do is give Senators one more chance to stand up and express their disapproval of the war on Congressional Record before ELECTION 2008 roles around. We ask for change... and we get more rhetoric. Here's an idea, if you want to send a political message how about voting on something that might actually change the President's plan - like removing funding!
Secondly, what the threshold for bipartisanship? Because you get someone of the opposite party to agree in writing a bill - does that make it bipartisan? One person, two? How many does it take? What meaning does this term have left? It seems to me that bipartisanship requires a little bit more muster than we give it on Capitol Hill to be meanigful. Bipartisanship engenders a sense of cooperation between the parties on a much larger scale than simply a few republicans or democrats crossing the line. Rhetoric used in the Times article characterizing the resolution as bipartisan I think misses the point. When only 2 republicans voted for the bill, it says something. The bill is partisan! It divides the Senate. This is not a bipartisan issue. If it were bipartisan politicians would not be arguing so fervently. So lets not sugar-coat it. This is a bitter partisan struggle.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
My view...
Peanuts & Politix... being from Georgia it seemed like an appropriate title. Yet, beyond the obvious reference to one of our beloved state crops, Peanuts & Politix refers to the resemblance of American politics to any modern "spectator sport." Sit down with your bag of peanuts, turn on your choice news program, and put your feet up as you prepare to watch what resembles a cage death-match in professional wrestling. Lock those politicians in the chamber, and whoever comes out alive from the partisan bickering gets to go back again tommorrow! No one survives and no one wins.
While I am exaggerating to an extent, the truth is that something is wrong with our current political system. The partisanship on Capitol Hill has pushed us too far apart and meaningful policy change seems even less likely of a possibility. We are obessessed with "bloodshed" - something goes wrong and someone must be too blame. Republicans blame democrats... Democrats blame republicans... and in the end both come out tattered & worn, leaving the AMERICAN PEOPLE who they represent... uninspired.
Well, I am tired of being uninspired. I am tired of the bickering. I am tired of people not truly THINKING, and EVALUATING meaningful policy options. I vote. I participate when I can in the policy process... and now I am entering the blogosphere.
I am here to make my voice heard, my opinion public, and my ideas available for discussion in the marketplace of ideas and knowledge. This blog will be my ideas, my opinions, and my thoughts on the salient issues of our times. As a reader, I encourage you to comment, questions, and challenge my opinions and assumptions. Please do so respectfully and I will provide you the same courtesy. It is only through open, honest discussion and a willingness to examine an issue from all possible angles that I believe we can change American politics. The change starts here. Put down the peanuts, and lets inspire Americans once again.
While I am exaggerating to an extent, the truth is that something is wrong with our current political system. The partisanship on Capitol Hill has pushed us too far apart and meaningful policy change seems even less likely of a possibility. We are obessessed with "bloodshed" - something goes wrong and someone must be too blame. Republicans blame democrats... Democrats blame republicans... and in the end both come out tattered & worn, leaving the AMERICAN PEOPLE who they represent... uninspired.
Well, I am tired of being uninspired. I am tired of the bickering. I am tired of people not truly THINKING, and EVALUATING meaningful policy options. I vote. I participate when I can in the policy process... and now I am entering the blogosphere.
I am here to make my voice heard, my opinion public, and my ideas available for discussion in the marketplace of ideas and knowledge. This blog will be my ideas, my opinions, and my thoughts on the salient issues of our times. As a reader, I encourage you to comment, questions, and challenge my opinions and assumptions. Please do so respectfully and I will provide you the same courtesy. It is only through open, honest discussion and a willingness to examine an issue from all possible angles that I believe we can change American politics. The change starts here. Put down the peanuts, and lets inspire Americans once again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)