|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright it?
#8306109 - 04/19/08 09:21 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So apparently ABC told other news outlets they can only use 30 seconds of the 4/16 democratic debate without licensing the content. See: omg its liberal-biased NYTimes: http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/abc-restricts-debate-clips-to-30-seconds-cable-channels-may-cite-fair-use/
Should private parties be allowed to host debates?
Should the content be able to be copyrighted?
I think the first should be yes, anyone should be able to host a debate for any reason.
I think the second should be no. Copyright is a creature of statute to advance the creative arts. The constitution has this to say about it:
Quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I don't think a debate qualifies. I think the content of debates that are open to the public, or broadcasted/available to the public, should not be able to be copyrighted. This only impedes the electorate becoming educated on what little items of relevance are discussed.
Decent guidelines need to be in place to define what a debate is, but once we nail that down, why should the content be private? I'm all for the government sponsoring the debates if they like, or private parties doing likewise, but once it is produced, the content should be available for all.
I would imagine the ability to charge admission and run commercials should be incentive enough to get private parties to host these things, and I don't see anything further being neccesary, of right, or prudent....
What do you think?
I don't think this is a socialist idea btw..., I think it is similar to congressional footage or whatnot where the public should own the work. If parties wish to have closed debates, not open to the public, and not broadcast or available to the public, then fine. But if they decide to make it available to all, through either internet, tv, or other similar means, it should be available to all. Any commentary or other things can be retained by the sponsor.
|
Minstrel
Man of Science
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright [Re: johnm214]
#8306189 - 04/19/08 09:45 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, they should absolutely be allowed to do this.
Control over TV needs to be tighter, and in the hands of fewer people, especially with regards to elections.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR
Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright it? [Re: johnm214]
#8306216 - 04/19/08 09:52 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, they should be allowed to host debates, and no, they should not be given any allowance to copyright them.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright [Re: Disco Cat]
#8306328 - 04/19/08 10:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed in full.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright [Re: johnm214]
#8307063 - 04/20/08 02:51 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> Should private parties be allowed to host debates?
Yes. I don't think the US Constitution would allow otherwise.
> Should the content be able to be copyrighted?
I can argue this both ways, but I am leaning towards yes, assuming that no tax money or campaign donations go into the production of the debate.
Problems that arise from the debates being copyrighted by the person that paid the expense of producing the debate indicate problems in the copyright law itself. Rather than make another exception for politicians, we need to fix the law.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright [Re: Seuss]
#8307259 - 04/20/08 07:18 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
At first, I came down on the "You can't copyright news" angle. But it has been done forever. News photos are the property of the news organizations and/ or photographers and there is the well established doctrine of fair-use that limits the extent to which a person's work can be cited without compensation. They sell this stuff, which offsets the cost of acquiring it. Without being able to sell it they couldn't pay to acquire it and hence there wouldn't be any.
Then we have the candidates themselves. Should they be entitled to any and all use of the content? They produced it, after all; it really is their work and they were not compensated. Should they be allowed to sell it?
Enough. We are asking "shoulds" here so I will just opine. No one can be prevented from hosting a debate just as no one can be compelled to participate. That is entirely up to the candidates. I believe the candidates refused an invitation from Fox News earlier in the cycle. That takes care of that.
As to copyrighting the content I think ABC came up with a slightly too strict "fair use" interpretation, but not egregiously so. I also think that this should have a rather short lifetime. Maybe something on the order of a week before it becomes public domain. Since the essence of news coverage is timeliness, this would allow them exclusive use of it as news until it becomes historical data no longer subject to copyright statutes.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright [Re: Seuss]
#8309130 - 04/20/08 10:41 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > Should private parties be allowed to host debates?
Yes. I don't think the US Constitution would allow otherwise.
> Should the content be able to be copyrighted?
I can argue this both ways, but I am leaning towards yes, assuming that no tax money or campaign donations go into the production of the debate.
Problems that arise from the debates being copyrighted by the person that paid the expense of producing the debate indicate problems in the copyright law itself. Rather than make another exception for politicians, we need to fix the law.
I agree w/ you on question one.
On the second point, its worth noting that some libertarians, which I myself find much in comon and I suspect you do too, argue against copyright all together, I beileive intelectual property rights too. We don't really need to reach that, but it is interesting that any censorship restricts freedom. Recognizing that if we support copyright and thus a restriction on freedom of the person restrained, we must feel that the person who authors the work has rights to control the reproduction of the work inconsistant with and superior to the public. Once we adopt this view, we must decide what the limit of that right is.
I think the logical limit is that when the person hasn't added a creative element to the work, he cannot have a copyrightable interest in it. Of course he may own the work in other ways, such as through tradesecrets if you support them, but that isn't applicable here.
In a debate, it would seem the only creative element added by the author, the news corp, is the questions of the hosts and any graphics/analysis added. I would think you would then have to concede that if the graphics and questions are omitted to the extent they contain protectable content, then the remainder isn't able to be copyrighted by the news corp or whomever. So under this theory, the debate would be free so long as any protectable elements are ommited. Thus the party copying the work might have to simplify any detailed questions to a simple form, i.e. add in their own summary of the question: "tell us about iraq in view of the casualties" and remove graphics. In reality, probably none of the questions asked would be protectable under current law anyways, as not sufficiently creative. You would agree this format would be free of concern, no?
Of course in the above scheme it would seem the candidates would still have rights to their words, but we presume arguendo that they disclaim these. If they don't, I do think it proper to strip them of any rights to their public words given in a debate open/available to the public in the interest of the nation (as a purely legal matter, the constitution authorizes copyright for the purpose of advancement of the science or arts- if the candidates are speaking for the purpose of elections, I don't think this need apply). If the candidates wish to otherwise publish their thoughts, or whatnot, they could be free to with protection, but in the debate for the purpose of a national election, they wouldn't be able to own their comments.
And I don't think that the practical application of this policy would limit the debates available. Tickets could be sold, advertising run, and sponsership obtained.
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
Re: Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright [Re: johnm214]
#8313930 - 04/22/08 10:53 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright
Legally, yes. But morally, no, of course not. Send emails to your local congressman about it.
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
|