OpieCunningham

Copyrighting the President

Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha.
By Lawrence Lessig

The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is "free." But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?

Full Article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5

Cynthetiq

We have a whole rights and clearances department.

You want footage of when Clinton was on MTV: Choose or Loose? You'll have to pay for it. And like Mr. Greenwald found, the request may be denied. But that's the same for ANY archival footage for any person. If I own the rights, I can decide if or how I want to release it.

As for it being a vested interest in just protecting President Bush? Hardly, it's about appeasing the current administration, as the same things happened with President Clinton.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

OpieCunningham

That's probably why the article is titled "Copyrighting the President" and not "Copyrighting Bush".

But there is little doubt that the current administration has leveraged this situation more effectively than any in the past. The sheer lack of press conferences means that a larger portion of his comments are copyrighted by some company.

Cynthetiq

While that is true that they could be more copyrighted since Bush has made more private appearances than Clinton did, that doesn't mean that the footage is unaccessible. It's just that it can't be transmitted or reproduced.

Also understand that at a majority of the functions that are attended there are usually press tents available for the press to attend and shoot their own footage from outside. The reporters are usually allowed inside but not always. After that happens then the new footage is property of whatever news agency. Also keep in mind that is one of the reasons that CSPAN exists is to help balance out that role. CSPAN is funded by the cable industry itself.

It's also for the most part been like that since as long as I can remember, unless of course something like the Zapruder family donates the footage to the government.

OpieCunningham

The article is accurately pointing out the escalation of the implications of copyrights + politics.

Yes, we have had copyrights since before you can remember. I'm not sure what that has to do with how the affects of copyrighting political information on the ability for people to access that information. Assuredly you don't believe it would be practical or even possible for political criticism to continue if more and more references to the statements of politicians must be requested by every individual as opposed to disseminated by means of third parties?

President Doe does not really believe what he now claims. We can't show you the video footage that demonstrates this because it is copyrighted. But you can go to NBC and request a copy of the information by filling out paperwork and you should receive a clip of it in the mail in 4 to 8 weeks. If they agree to let you look at it.

Cynthetiq

Do understand that while I do work for one of the largest media congloms on the planet, I do agree that there are some issues when it comes to ownership of large libraries, stations, media outlets etc.

One of the reasons that there is so much material out there for interviews etc, is that most handlers request that in order to grant such interview there are criteria to be met.

I do not think for one moment that they footage of a belief or gaffe of a political figure isn't going to die isolated on the shelf of some media conglom's library. There will always be leaks, there will be copies. The internet has proved that time and time again. Even with the technology of the broadcast flag to help minimize digital piracy, there will be workarounds and it will see the light of day.

As far as it being able to be composed into some sort of docudrama ala Moore, I'm all for it because it's heavily edited out of context to the point of screenplay as opposed to documentary.

Bodyhammer86

more crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit courtesy of the tinfoil hat brigade.

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Cynthetiq

unless you meant this to be in a different thread, I think that you'll have to back that up with some more information.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

OpieCunningham

There is a large jump in faith to presume that an important piece of information owned by a media conglomerate is going to reach the full audience that would be interested in viewing it simply because of a leak via the Internet (or something similar).

Even if you throw out the issue of trust - do you have relatively more trust in NBC or some random link on the Internet? - the simple fact is that any one piece of information on the Internet is not going to reach the audience of a documentary or the audience of a media outlet not owned by the owners of the copyrighted information.

We could get into a discussion over the ability for any documentary (Moore's or anyone's) to have an objective truth which seperates it from a screenplay, but that would be a very different discussion.

The issue is essentially that the media and the government are effectively (if not actually) collaborating to dispense with bothersome issues created by Democracy - in the case of the media, they want perpetual ownership of material they were involved in creating. In the case of the government, if they screw something up, they would prefer as few people as possible to know about it.

There is no back-room secret society which gets together and decides that certain regulations are going to be enacted to kill Democracy - rather, it is self-preservation of both parties.

Cynthetiq

I don't think it too large a jump of faith, bit torrent is a good example of that, there's plenty of stuff that has aired over broadcast that people archive themselves albeit for the moment it's Friends, Alias, et. al. It's not such a far leap to think that people if denied access will archive news footage. I don't doubt there to be a gap or hole until that happens.

IIRC there's footage in CSPAN libraries of several politicians that have gaffed in some capacity forgetting that the ever present eye is there. Jerry Brown picking his nose comes to mind.

I also do think that in the future there will be a dedicated ENG crew (laymans terms: camera man, sound guy, interviewer) that will be following the president ala the Military Video pool, because there has to be some sort of independent source for the people. IMHO that stuff being censored via top secret or classified will be the most damaging.

OpieCunningham

I guess I do not have as much faith in you in regards to the Internet being the great balance to media conglomerates - or the general populace is just not smart enough (the impact of the Swift Boat Vets vs. the impact of the AWOL charges comes to mind - the former took off due to the media, the latter was primarily disseminated via the Internet).

There will never be an ENG crew following the President around indiscriminantly. Nor should there be. If the President talls an ENG crew to leave while he conducts an interview with NBC, the ENG crew will leave.

Mephisto2

Very interesting article.

Have you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky? A fascinating account on how the US uses, both directly and indirectly, the media to shape public opinion. Maybe not so groundbreaking a concept in today's world but very topical at its time and still eye opening.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

I have not read Manufacturing Consent. It's on my list, but I expect I'll probably just jump straight to the cliff notes version.

roachboy

no no no--cliff notes suck--dont do it....

btw i am a bit confused about the focus on this thread...is the point here that there is something anti-democratic about copyright law in general, about the notion of intellectual property in general (i might agree, but i'd like to see what is really goin on here first) or are you talking about the specific convergence of copyright issues and the coverage or noncoverage of political issues, in the way the wired article discusses? in which case, this is a thread about copyright being used as a wedge for privatizing censorship?

i am a bit dullwitted tonight...a firealarm malfunction at 2:30 am is to blame. maybe.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

I don't think that it's a balance, it's more of a chink in the armor, a hole in the dam. I don't think it will be balanced because if Viacom spent the money to produce the show, then Viacom should have all rights to the show. Unless congress acts and makes it like the Olympics thing (which yes, I understand was violated as stated in the other thread) where all footage of the president is "owned by the people."

I don't think the ENG crew would follow the POTUS indiscriminantly, more like the Official Military Video Pool where there are strict guidelines as to where and when it can shoot video. We already own all his emails and phone converstations, (which getting to access to read those has it's nuances as well.) I don't see it too far a stretch to encompass video.

OpieCunningham

But as long as the President (or any politician, no need to focus on any one) moves away from what is considered public material and towards private interviews, the more damage is done to the dissemination of information.

And as long as the government official manipulates the media to potentially withhold access if the media does something the official doesn't or won't like (like releasing information that is unfavorable - even information that is unfavorable which does not contain the likeness of the official) the more likely the media will not provide access to that information.

Media is becoming more and more in a position of subservience to the Gov't.

At this point, there is little pressure on the media to push back on the Gov't. As long as media continues to get bigger and more powerful, there will be no reason for them to push back. Gov't helps create a bigger and more powerful media by allowing such degrees of consolidation and ownership of information.

Assuredly there is no simple solution, but accepting the situation as it is will only eat away more at the principles of freedom of speech and democracy. As you said, the Internet is a marginal fix - I don't see it as a hole in the dam, I see it more as a force that slows down but ultimately fails to stop the current progression.

Mephisto2

Hah! I didn't know there was a documentary of the same name. Many thanks for the link. Something to add to my wishlist.

Mr Mephisto

hammer4all

Indeed, the cliff notes version is extremely thought provoking and well done. I highly recommend it.

http://search.suprnova.org//search.p...derDir%5D=desc

After first "borrowing" a copy, I even bought my own.

PS: Same director who made Manufacturing Consent also made The Corporation (see sig).

onetime2

The media is interested in ratings. Basically, the more controversial the President the more the press *should* want him/her to remain in the spotlight.

Look at Clinton and George W. Bush for example. Each of them have been controversial in their own ways. Lots of stories about their beliefs and actions.

Now look at Bush's father. In comparison relatively little scandal or public interest (in spite of a war!). While this situation will likely always be true I don't believe the "Big Media" controls the destiny of the President. Obviously there are plenty on this board who seem to think otherwise.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Cynthetiq

This is in today's USATODAY.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Bookman

Within the frame of this thread I am curious to know if there was INDEED more coverage of the RNC on local news channels than the DNC??

It seemed so to me.

Cynthetiq

I'm trying to find that information out as well, but I'd caution that I'd have to also look at the local side from Boston to see the balance there since obviously local news coverage is more pervasive since it directly impacts the viewers.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

onetime2

I didn't get that impression in my area. You can split hairs about the coverage of each but, in general, I believe they were about equal.

I did see a number quoted in today's USA Today about the number of viewers on Fox that watched the DNC (I think 1.4 million) versus those who watched the RNC (something like 5.2 million). But obviously that speaks more to the political bent of Fox News Channel viewers.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

in general new programming is tilted toward grovelling at the feet of the administration that is in power. whomever is in power becomes part of what is normal, and "news" is perturbations of what is normal.

i.p. law is in general a means of privatization and too often of exploitation at a level that runs well beyond the question of "democracy" in america. think about what it means for american-based agricorporations to be able to patent entire strains of seeds, including not just g.m. material but the originals that the g.m. work has "improved"--put that in the context of local-level farming in a poorer country and add it up. among the many delights this creates is that people who might be engaged in subsistance farming can be sued if they do not buy the same seeds they had been using from time immemorial from america-based agriccorporations, who now "own" the seed based on i.p. law. great stuff, eh? does this mean that i.p. law is in itself an instrument of exploitation?

as a musician, i am kind of caught on the horns of this dilemma---on one hand, i think that existing copyright law is fucked when it applies to music, because it sits on the assumption that what is "real" about music is what is scored--so if you do improvisational music, say, you end up with very little claim to your own work. and i can see that if i were to oppose copyright as such, it would be a position that assumed a situation like my own obtained everywhere--that my source of livlihood did not require that i claim ownership on my work. what would this position mean for people who took the leap and went full time as creative musicians?

as for the privatization of censorship, this fits directly into the general logic of neoliberal privatization moves in general---it is not about efficiency, not about "choice"--it is about removing political responsibility, public accountability from political actions/functions. this is what you get. copyright enforcement then becomes one instrument for the private implementation of public/political acts. but does that mean that the problem is copyright law in itself? or is the problem the uses to which they are being put?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ubertuber

It seems clear that Cythetiq has nailed the issue on the head. If Viacom or whoever spends the money to produce a show, then they (under current law) should and do own that material. I can see their point in refusing to release an unflattering clip. After all, if the administration begins to see a particular network as a sort of middleman clearinghouse for unflattering material, it could be that the president will appear on that network's programs less often in the future. It might be a good idea to amend the law to say that footage of the POTUS is owned by the people, but I would support a provision that requires compensation for the producing agent (who today would be the owner).

As to what roachboy has said about the implications of intellectual property... I was actually at a party last night where Jack Valenti mentioned that he believed that intellectual property was one of America's most important exports. I think there is some truth to that. Unfortunately, the premises of copyright law have a lot to do with printed mediums. The recent additions and expansions to cover digital and more abstract property are clearly just bandaids over gaping wounds. Much new ground will be broken in this area over the next decade - both through court cases and law making.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

hammer4all

I don't know about local, but here are some interesting cable statistics on convention coverage:

Here's the FOX News Channel: