COMMENTS:
Yup. I made a ballot about this, Copyrighting the President.
by aya on Tue Jan 11, 05 4:45pm
[+]
Here is what I read in a magazine article "Robert Greenwald, is the director of a documentary called Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, supposedly this was released this past August. In his movie, he added a clip from NBC’s Tim Russert’s Meet The Press, whereby a less than flattering image of the prez was presented on the screen as he defended his decision to go to war, albeit, very unconvincingly. Asking for permission to use the clip, one-minute long, Greenwald, as he had often done, asked to pay for the copyright. NBC said no, under the claim that the clip is “not very flattering to the president,” Greenwald, however, included the clip anyway, despite the fact that he was not allowed to buy the copyright."
by aya on Tue Jan 11, 05 4:47pm
[+]
Here's more:
"Copyright law allows NBC the right to deny anyone the use of it’s content, and if you want to broadcast that particular episode of Meet The Press on the internet, or sell copies, one must obtain the permission of NBC. The law, however, permits ‘fair uses’ of copyrighted material from the control of its owner. Ergo, if the clip is short enough; it’s content critical, the law allows for it’s use, despite whether permission is granted or not. Without delving further into copyright law, let’s just say that this isn’t easy in practice, b/c copyright law is uncertain, and insurance companies that cover films don’t much like risk. Defending fair use of copyrighted material by a filmmaker, can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and losing this type of claim can cost a filmmaker up to $150, 000 in damages for each copyright infringed. How much do you want to bet that Michael Moore is possibly embroiled in legal battles right now? The point is as the media becomes more and more concentrated, the competition to get favour with the politicians increases, especially during election time. Networks that say they will be more ‘friendly’ by insuring that certain embarrassing moments from interviews won’t be made available to others, are more likely to attract politicians for interviews then the networks that don’t. If you ever see Barbra Walters, and how soft she is, you know what I mean. BTW, does anyone find Larry King a bit creepy? Anyhoo, concentration tied to copyright law gives networks the resources and the motives to protect favoured guests such as prez bush.
NBC claims it’s remaining ‘neutral’ by denying other ppl use of the interview. Greenwald has decided to defend the use of his fair right, and apparently nothing bad happened, that I’ve heard of, but at the same time, this documentary The Whole Truth About the Iraq War was supposed to have been released in August, and was an updated version of his previously awarded film."
by aya on Tue Jan 11, 05 4:48pm
[+]
Ok, so I digress a bit, but it ties into what you were saying about big media & the prez. Of course, media concentration is nothing new, wasn't under Clinton, & Rupert Murdoch's not dead yet.
by aya on Tue Jan 11, 05 4:52pm
[+]
What ABC News did is completely legal. That said, it was quite unethical. Large corporations and the media do go hand-in-hand -- first due to advertising, though perhaps in a limited respect, and also because the media is all owned by large corporations. The days of the mom-and-pop media outlet are all but forgotten. EXCELLENT ballot -- +5 for you.
Of course it does. This shouldn't be necessary as a ballot but I'm glad you made it because there are some idiots out there who believe the news. They tend to be those idiot arsehole Republicans who are voting to kill the world.
its why we have sites like disinfo.com
This site is given recommendations by many public figures.Its some not some "conspiracy " site as the coincidence theorist nuts would claim.One of the best sources for smashing BushCo on Iraq too
"D&C: You’ve suggested that serious investigative journalism in America has been almost impossible since Watergate. How does the situation compare here?
GP: It’s simple to say, ‘Well, Britain has nasty little libel laws and America doesn’t – First Amendment Freedom of Speech and all that.’ Libel law is the Great Restrictor in Britain. But the problem of libel law is really an issue of the tortured dullness of middle management: third-level managers barfing their guts out on fourth level managers as soon as they get a threatening letter from Carter Ruck Solicitors, moaning ‘Who can we blame this on?’
And the answer is, ‘that reporter’.
Never mind if the story was correct and important and true and uncovered some murder or mayhem or crime against the public weal. Even if Shyster & Shyster withdraw their complaint, that reporter is forever Trouble, Costly and a Threat to a desk-warmer’s moving up that slithery colon of the network/newspaper bureaucracy.
In America, it’s more simple: real investigative reporters are frog-marched out of newsrooms, or never hired. And they are branded by hot iron with the letter ‘M’ for Muckraker, i.e. someone who serves up big dollops of stinky brown goo. That’s not acceptable on US television, which must sell Diet Coke seconds later."
---Greg Palast
The news media has broken into two segments: the corporate whores and the right-wing propagandists with their Republichimp agenda. The truth is history.
Voted : Yes
I'm sure somewhere on the internet someone has a list of all news organizations parent companys.
|
