Slashdot Log In
Lessig Launches Open Transition Principles
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:14 AM
from the change-is-coming-in-the-form-of-nickels-and-dimes dept.
from the change-is-coming-in-the-form-of-nickels-and-dimes dept.
soDean writes "The Principles for an Open Transition and a petition were co-launched by Lawrence Lessig, Mozilla, and the Participatory Culture Foundation today. This was in reaction to the announcement that Obama would be posting his transition videos to YouTube.
The petition encourages Obama to publish his transition videos with open licenses, make them available for download, and preferably use royalty free/open video formats and standards. Unless YouTube makes some radical changes, the videos will need to be hosted elsewhere."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Gnash (Score:2)
Since gnash can play youtube video, this isn't a restriction in practice. Much ado about very little.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I just use the free flash player - I'm just going by what I've seen people claim. For embedded youtube I know people have used greasemonkey scripts, but I thought youtube.com worked fine.
If I get one I want to keep, ffmpeg does a good job converting them. It's even built-in to the downloadhelper extension for firefox. Once you download the FLV, there are a number of options for viewing.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, again, is not a restriction in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that principles aren't important, but talk about scratching at the scab instead of curing the disease...
Obama releasing his videos under this or that yadda, yadda does very little to reform anything at all. A huge portion of the population completely disregards copyright and patent law and instead of offering up any kind of a solution to that, we yell about how Obama needs to conform to something that most Americans will just ignore? Silly and a waste of time.
But hey, go for it. I'm sure some
Stupid... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also fairly certain that copyrightable material produced by the federal government of the United States is automatically public domain and could not be placed under a more restrictive license such as any copyleft. The office of the president elect is under the purview of the General Services Administration, and I imagine would be under similar requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't he also release them to multiple websites? .gov site and the locked down .flv on YouTube. Most of the populous will view them on YouTube because it's easy and the FOSS hard core still get what they wanted.
Ogg (or what ever the completely open format the cool kids are using these days) on some
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know it was rhetorical, but the options are:
Video codecs:
- Dirac -- possibly patent-encumbered, but officially free to use
- Theora -- might be untested, but claims to be patent-free.
Audio codecs:
- Vorbis -- sounds as good as AAC on most listening tests; open/free/pantent-free.
- FLAC -- lossless, and as free as Vorbis.
Container formats:
- Ogg/ogm -- same camp as Vorbis and Theora
- Matroska -- uses some binary-xml format for metadata. Seems to support at least
Don Pratt says... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Don't listen to other people who make these claims. Either they're trying to hook up with you, or THEY'RE LAWYERS!!!"
I'm also fairly certain that material that comes out of that office cannot be copyrighted, and I'm also certain that as long as the videos can be viewed by anyone, the videos have served their purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you get work of the federal government from the government, there's no copyright and you can republish as will, or even make a derivative work.
If you make a derivative work, such as adding a C-SPAN logo, or translating the file into a new format, you own the copyright on it. Don't like it? Go get the work from the government yourself and make your own.
The government can hold copyrights (Score:3, Informative)
A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[2] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright." As an exception to section 105, 15 U.S.C. Â 290e authorizes U.S. Secretary of Commerce to secure copyright for works produced by the Department of Commerce under the Standard Reference Data Act.[3]
In addition, many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others (e.g., patent applications, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, public comments on regulations, etc.), and this rule does not necessarily apply to the creative content of those works.
Also, certain works, particularly logos of government agencies, while not copyrightable, are still protected by other laws similar in effect to trademark laws. Such laws are intended to protect indicators of source or quality. The Central Intelligence Agency logo, for example, cannot be used without permission. This is intended to prevent the appearance of endorsement, under the CIA Act of 1949.[4]
The federal government can hold copyrights that are transferred to it. For example, in 1837, the federal government purchased former U.S. President James Madison's manuscripts from his widow, Dolley Madison, for $30,000;[5] if this is construed as covering copyright as well as the physical papers, it would be an example of such a transfer.[6] More common examples are works of independent contractors, where the contract specifies that the copyright is to be transferred to the government.
This would also apply to works for hire. Government owns the copyright to the contracted work, but it does not become public domain. Further, as noted, the rule only applies to the federal government and not the government as a whole.
:) The wiki page cites good sources.
I mentioned this in part above, but without references. Seems like it was about time to do so
Re:Stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
material produced by the federal government of the United States is automatically public domain
And where I work, YouTube is a blocked website that would prevent me from seeing Obama's messages. Something like transition.whitehouse.gov or speeches.whitehouse.gov would be a more suitable host for these videos.
The new administration should attempt to disassociate itself with corporate giant Google and open standards running on websites that aren't regarded as "a giant waste of time" who's aim is to give every man, woman, and child (no matter how talentless) a platform to "Broadcast Yourself".
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And where I work, YouTube is a blocked website that would prevent me from seeing Obama's messages.
Wouldn't your work be just as opposed to your wasting your time and their bandwidth on Obama messages as on typical boring YouTube stuff?
If you work for the DNC, I obviously retract :)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't your work be just as opposed to your wasting your time and their bandwidth on Obama messages as on typical boring YouTube stuff?
Oddly, there aren't filters stopping me from hitting Slashdot every couple of hours. I figure this is because it related to the type of technological work that I am involved with on the job. Believe it or not, this site is actually educational.
Now, I'm sure the YouTube has some diamonds in the rough that are educational, too. But keeping up with a small amount of national politics shouldn't be something that employers tell their employees is off limits at work. Especially if their code is compiling [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I was just giving you a rough time. I used to run a proxy server at home for my work internet browsing through the comfort of an SSH tunnel. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? From my perspective as an employer, it doesn't matter whether they watch stupid teenagers on youtube or equally stupid politicians on whitehouse.gov - every minute they spend on it is a minute where work is not getting done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Federal Government or contractors ran the cameras, edited, and digitized the footage, then it's a product of the Government and is subject to the public domain criteria you setup.
However, if all the above were done by independent news-reporting corporations, then the copyright to that footage lies firmly in the hands of those corporations with the power to use or licenses them as they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the president is not a contractor, but in the employment of the government, he is granted no such protection. The most relevant statute on this was the argument over wheth
You do the work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the Office of the President Elect (web address: Change.gov) is a federal government office, anything it produces is automatically in the public domain.
But here's the problem with Lessig and company... it costs money to mount a video service, especially something that would be as popular as this is. If The Mozilla Foundation (main funder: Google) is willing to convert and host the videos, then the most likely could get the source from the governement. If they're complaining to YouTube (owner: Google) to change their ways, then they're just biting the hand that feeds them.
This just irks me (Score:5, Informative)
Since when is there an "Office of the President Elect" let alone a seal. Whose ego is driving this anyway?
First, he isn't even the President elect until the 15th (or whenever the electors cast their vote) though the vote is not in doubt, it just is factual to declare the title is not applicable yet.
Second, there is no office of the President Elect, there is no authority other than what the current President grants; I doubt it is even legal for the sitting President to do so.
I don't want to sound like part of the tinfoil hat crowd but all this wrapping oneself in an air of authority/royalty really is marketing gone amok or an ego gone amok. I hope its the marketing side because if its the later we are not in for a good four years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it makes sense to have a transition website. Calling it an "Office" is simply semantics, and I don't think he means to imply any sort of authority (note that he's repeatedly said that he respects the current administration's control until the inauguration).
Posting his communications on the campaign website wouldn't make much sense because it's no longer a campaign.
Not having a website at all would be completely at odds with the need to communicate with the people.
What would you suggest he do?
Re:This just irks me (Score:5, Informative)
I imagine his office is acting under the aegis of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 which allows the General Services Administration to provide offices, funding, training etc. to the person who 'apparently' won the election.
It is not necessary for the electors to have voted, and the Presidential Transition Act is a congressional statute.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has been very clear that he's not the President yet. As most commentators have pointed out, the only thing he can do right now is talk to people, and that's the only thing he's trying to do. His press conferences seem to be pretty much "here's who I'm planning on hiring, here's what I'm going to want them to do."
As I see it, the "Office of the President-Elect" is simply a formal name for all the people that are either on his transition team or are expected to become part of his staff or cabinet. It ha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe not necessarily [kansascity.com], and I can't find the links now, but, I thought I'd read weeks ago, that Justice Souter had requested a copy of the real Birth Certificate for Obama, and not just a certificate of live birth (apparently there is a difference).
Man...talk about interesting if somehow Obama was ruled to not be natural born in the US. What would happen? New electio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*Is* the Office of the President Elect a part of the federal government, though? AFAIK it's being run by the Obama-Biden Transition Project, which certainly isn't a federal office, regardless of it being hosted on a .gov domain.
That said, Obama et al have responded to Lessig just a little while ago in making Change.gov licensed under CC-BY, rather than just a straight copyright [lessig.org]. (You can also view the Change.gov copyright policy page [change.gov].) Once again, I'm surprised and kinda shocked by how quickly they will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You were right until you said "and publish it". Copyright protects the right to republish something. Creating a copy in a new media type is usually protected by fair use exemptions, but you don't have the right to republish it unless explicitly granted.
I can post to, and watch, YouTube for "free" (Score:4, Funny)
Flash movie on the homepage (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice. Something ever so slightly silly about that.
Principle of the thing (Score:2, Interesting)
The weekly videos are a step in the right direction. But I was hoping to see more frequent communications from a variety of different faces on the transition team, talking about their progress and the work they're doing.
I just want to see open and honest government, and a three minute communique every week doesn't really do that for me. I liked the press conference Monday, but I feel like I want to be able to see more. I want my government to finally be accountable!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just want to see open and honest government
I hate to disillusion you, young fellow, but I've been voting since Nixon was in office and I think you'll see unicorns before you see an open and honest US Federal Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I accept that government is different. What we call corruption in government is accepted practice in the private sector. I'd rather leave the government slow and open than corrupt and efficient. It's artificial and annoying to those that work in government, but oh well.
Am I missing somthing? (Score:2)
Anything made by the government should already be available with an open license, and I'm pretty sure that YouTube will be willing to bend a few policies for the President of the United States if they are asked.
I also don't think that it would be difficult for someone working with Obama to just convert the videos to various open formats and put them up on the official White House website, as well as YouTube so Joe the Plumber can watch them easily. (Most people wouldn't watch t
YouTube making a pretty penny (Score:2, Insightful)
If Obama wants to be fair to commerce he shouldn't align his content solely with YouTube.
Blip.tv (Score:2)
According to this version of blip.tv's wikipedia article, [wikipedia.org] Lessig has praised blip.tv [www.blip.tv] for already meeting some of these standards.
i fully support this if only for the fact (Score:2)
The comments so far are missing it (Score:2)
No Legal Barrier to Sharing
Both Senator McCain and President-elect Obama endorsed this principle in the context of presidential debate video rights. The same principle should apply to the transition. Change.gov now respects this principle
Seems to be no problem there
No Technological Barrier to Sharing
For example, while content may be posted on a particular site such as YouTube, because YouTube does not authorize videos on its site to be downloaded, transition-created content should also be made available on
Re: (Score:2)
As a lawyer rather than a technologist, perhaps Professor Lessig doesn't realise that a YouTube video must be downloaded to be viewed, at least in a manner that would have the RIAA sue you if it was one of their copyrighted works.
Perhaps as a technologist rather than a lawyer, you don't realize that this claim is untrue. Even the RIAA is not so stupid as to attempt to reopen the cached copy issue. Streaming media, regardless of browser caching, is not a reproduction until and unless it is copied from the cache to a normal, persistent directory. In the case of YouTube, neither are you distributing if you're simply a viewer. A torrent is a different story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't understand #3 at all. If it's free, and in the public domain as other commenters have pointed out, what's the problem?
The issue with #3 is fair competition. For example, they might release a video press release to the major network, and then a day later post a lower-quality version on their website for download. In this case, the major networks were receiving preferential treatment (both because they were given earlier access and access to a higher-quality version).
The point is that in addition to openness, there should be fairness: the content should be made available to everyone (citizens, news outlets, corporations,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
perhaps Professor Lessig doesn't realize that a YouTube video must be downloaded to be viewed, at least in a manner that would have the RIAA sue you if it was one of their copyrighted works.
Not only does Lessig understand this, he wrote a book addressing the issue, aside from it being a note in most everything he does; Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. He mentions in a number of speeches and such that copyright is a law that comes into effect when a 'copy' is made. "Reading a book, sharing a book, selling a book, and sleeping on a book don't make copies, so there no 'trigger' for copyright law". What has thrown the whole system into chaos is that in the digital world "every act creates a copy
MPEG4 available beginning this week (Score:3, Informative)
This week the videos are available in MPEG4 format. Is that open enough?
http://change.gov/newsroom/blog/ [change.gov]
Re:MPEG4 available beginning this week (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4#Licensing [wikipedia.org]
No.
Parent
Ummmm..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there are a lot more people surfing Youtube rather than, say, any of the government's sites
That's not a convincing argument. You don't "surf youtube", you go there because there's a link from somewhere else. And you're not going to view the videos unless you're actively looking for them, or have them pointed out.
But I agree, ideology is trumping practicality here, but I think Lessig's trying to make a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen Change.gov, the official transition website? I doubt converting and linking a few more video files is "impractical" or "too much work" given the obvious technical ability behind that site.
Openness is not "getting the word out", it is making sure information sought by the public is available. YouTube has no contract with the government to provide hosting service, other than a lopsided EULA. You have no assurance of transparency which is the root of the request in question.
Back to the point-
Re: (Score:2)
PDF is an open standard, and there are numerous legal free viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
it also says to download the article in "pdf" format.
where is the "standard, universal format" ?
I RTFA and it was HTML, not PDF. Where's your PDF link? I see no PDF links from either the article or the summary.
Re: (Score:2)