Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Copyright Move Cheers Advocacy Groups
A broad coalition of digital advocacy groups and individuals, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, MoveOn.org's Eli Pariser and Stanford University law professor Lawrence Lessig, are applauding Barack Obama's stated commitment to open government and suggesting ways he can show that commitment further.
In a new Web site that went up Tuesday, the groups lay out three principles they hope the incoming administration will follow. Obama's transition team pre-emptively agreed to the first one by announcing Monday that its Web site, change.gov, will implement a new copyright policy -- the Creative Commons License -- that allows for more widespread use of its content.
Lessig applauded the move Monday on his blog. The Stanford professor, representing the group Change Congress, is spearheading the coalition's effort along with Mozilla and the Participatory Culture Foundation. The groups have had a "back channel back-and-forth" with the new administration, and the new Web site could serve as a way to allow more public input, he said.
"Nobody knows exactly the best way to do this right now," he said. "So that calls for this kind of ongoing discussion, both inside and outside of the administration."
Lessig and company hope the incoming administration will agree to post videos onto sites other than just YouTube, such as blip.TV, so users can more easily download them. YouTube currently doesn't actively promote downloading. The administration got rid of the legal barrier by switching to the new copyright policy, and now it needs to get rid of the technological barrier, Lessig said. The group's letter also called upon the president-elect to make sure that all information, such as video of a press conference, for example, is made available to all media (whether it's broadcast TV or the Internet) equally. This ensures fair competition, Lessig said.
10 Comments so far
Show AllThere is a difference between the "APPEARANCE OF PARTICIPATION" and "Real Participation." One, possibly insurmountable, problem is obvious: Volume, too many views, drown all views.
No matter how long is spend trying and manipulating data, NOBODY can read the views of 100 Million people. Perhaps, it would be best if each writer was allowed to read all comments but be allowed to self-define their views for special categories. by title or by Number:
By Title: something like:
Extreme Conservative
The Ownership Society You are on your own -
Moderate Conservative -
Indifferent -
The Government Failed in the Katrina and Ike rescues in New Orleans and Galveston.
=================
By Number: something like:
Pick a number from 0 to 30 where 20 means Moderate and 10 Ultra Conservative and 30 Ultra Liberal
The most important benefit: All may read everything suggested.
The division by issue: Economy, Health, etc., is perfect
But, a subcategory would allow learning the answer to:
"I wonder how a Liberal and an Ultra Liberal differ on this issue?
Or, how the view of a Conservative differs from that of a Liberal on this issue
To sort ideas by the approval of others is great but, I would suggest a pay back. For example, if a 100 word suggestion gets 2,000 Approval votes,
the 200 word version is posted.and the 100 word version removed.
If the 200 word suggestion gets 5,000 Approval votes, post the 300 word version (if there is one) or notify the writer to submit one.
.
Allow Authors to submit up to 100 word on any issue and notify them if, and when 2,000 approve. Of course, if you think 80 or 50 is better than 100, that would be OK by me.
The important thing is to have the objections of one side answered by the words from "The other", or another, side, Without reading a Trillion words.
The issue is not who speaks but what is said in a way that is not drowned by the words of most others.
Posted by: Michael F. Sarabia | December 31, 2008 1:00 AM
No other site is comparable in concern, topics and, oh yes, the wise comments, except mine, of course. Thanks you all! MikeSar
The American people should know that George W. Bush is not only a war criminal: he is also a hate-crime criminal.
George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes.
“What did you think of that NAACP anti-Bush race-baiting ad in 2000? You know, the one that practically said Bush was responsible for the dragging-to-death-behind-a-truck murder of a black man just because he didn’t sign a hate crimes bill several years after the man’s death” (Posted by Aaron. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from metafilter.com).
ON THE TOPIC OF HATE CRIME(S):
“Sean Penn accuses Bush of ‘criminal negligence’” (Retrieved December 11, 2008, from deadlykatrina.com). Thus, Sean Penn believes that George W. Bush was at fault, criminally, relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina.
“Had the residents of New Orleans been white Republicans in a state that mattered politically, instead of poor blacks in city that didn’t, Bush’s response surely would have been different. Compare what happened when hurricanes Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004. Though the damage from those storms was negligible in relation to Katrina’s, the reaction from the White House was instinctive, rapid, and generous to the point of profligacy. Bush visited hurricane victims four times in six weeks and delivered relief checks personally. Michael Brown of FEMA, now widely regarded as an incompetent political hack, was so responsive that local officials praised the agency’s performance.”
Jacob Weisberg. (2005, September 7). An Imperfect Storm . . . How race shaped Bush’s response to Katrina. Slate. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from slate.com
Assuming that George W. Bush had in fact been criminally negligent relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina, would Bush be responsible for hate crime?
“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger[,] [an African-American woman,] in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of [then] president-elect George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from leolaforussenate.blogspot.com).
Does George W. Bush’s murder of Margie Schoedinger constitute a hate crime?
“A woman in Texas who filed a lawsuit against the president for rape and torture[,] [Margie Schoedinger,] was found shot to death. It was ruled a suicide. No one is investigating. Bush reportedly dated the woman in high school and speculation is that he was using the woman as his sex slave because he is above the law” (John Kaminski (author of “America’s Autopsy Report,” a collection of his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world). (No date listed). Why We Need Martial Law . . . Criminal government is destroying America; military must step in to restore Constitution. serendipity.li. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from serendipity.li).
Do George W. Bush’s rape and torture of Margie Schoedinger constitute hate crimes?
“I believe that George W. Bush hates black people. Through secret government machinations, he caused Hurricane Katrina to form and aimed it at New Orleans on purpose, just so he could wipe out lots of poor blacks. I also believe that before the hurricane hit, he snuck into New Orleans and stole the keys to every school bus in the city to make evacuation of poor people impossible” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. military.com. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from military.com).
If George W. Bush intentionally did what Janet M. Stroble indicated, would Bush have committed hate crimes against countless black people?
“I believe that George W. Bush hates Moslems. All that garbage about freedom, democracy, and the right to vote is a pollution of their culture. I believe that George W. Bush hates immigrants. There were a lot of immigrants working in the World Trade Center and George W. Bush didn’t warn them ahead of time” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. military.com. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from military.com).
In that George W. Bush hates immigrants and deliberately failed to warn them ahead of time as indicated by Janet M. Stroble: would Bush accordingly be responsible for hate crimes relative to racial minorities who were harmed?
“Did Kanye West[’]s [comment], [‘]George Bush Hates Black People[’][,] get his mother killed?” (Retrieved October 18, 2008, from abovetopsecret.com).
There is a discussion at abovetopsecret.com relating to whether President George W. Bush murdered Kanye West’s mother—Ms. Donda West.
Did President George W. Bush, who hates black people, murder Kanye West’s mother in the heat of raging racism? Somebody indicated that although the president of the United States is monitored by the Secret Service, he certainly can meet with one or more persons where his conversations are not intercepted and secretly “order a hit” on someone or order the murder of someone.
If George W. Bush did murder Kanye West’s mother, would it constitute a hate crime?
GEORGE W. BUSH MURDERED A JEW!
“George W. Bush murdered the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com). This Internet site has a lot of information indicating that George W. Bush murdered Wellstone.
“Bush’s visit to Israel is under the guise of Middle East peace. You gotta be kidding me! Bush is THE MASTER ARCHITECT of Middle East war, not peace. . . . Bush didn’t go to Israel because he likes Israelis or like Jews, nope, he went there because he hates them. He went there to spread his message of doom, war, pain and death” (Storm Bear. (2008, January 10). PROOF: George W Bush Is An Anti-Semite! bitsofnews.com. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from bitsofnews.com).
Assuming that George W. Bush did in fact murder the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone, would Bush have committed a hate crime? Bush would have “purposefully” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone. Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also died in the plane crash. Bush would have “knowingly” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone’s wife and daughter. However, would Bush’s murders of Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also have constituted hate crimes?
Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-did-you-think-of-that-naacp-anti.html
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Videos? Like the recent Daschle video? Canned propaganda?
No.
Let's start with something simple: disclosure.
Of everything.
On government agency websites.
With redacted versions for anything with possible proprietary value.
For example, all research reports, papers, monographs and publications in journals for any government subsidized research,
starting with all research paid for by the National Institutes of Health.
Why should the government pay for research that goes into academic journals
available only to people who can afford the expensive subscriptions?
Get the idea?
And I would like to add why don't you disclose your real birth certificate? If you are so hip on being committed to open government. Try that on for size first. Then remember the sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers to put this Nation together by putting together a solid Constitution that if followed assures equality for all peoples.
Somewhere in Kenya
a village is missing their idiot.
ejlawyer--dude--put your tinfoil hat back on and retreat to your bunker.
Personally, I'm rather happy to know that government officials won't release MY birth certificate, either. Identity theft, you know. (But of course you know "they're out to get us"... you're wearing a tinfoil hat!)
:-D
How quickly radical conservatives forget. John McCain was born in Panama and technically not allowed to run for President. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton authored legislation that would make him an exception to this constitutional requirement.
I suspect when the time is right (regarding the Obama birth certificate lawsuit) the radical conservatives will be shamed on a grand public scale, not the a little blogger scale.
Knowledge is power and facilitating knowledge's wider dissemination means sharing more power with more people. The devil is always in the details though.
The suggestion about making it technologicaly easier to download such information is smart advocacy and a logical next step--especially for those without Internet access just yet.
Come to think about it, universal Internet access would also be another "next logical step" to take in this policy's facilitation.
Poet
I would hope that if they're keen on sharing power with the people via the means of the Internet, any software developed is under some kind of open source agreement. I'd hate to imagine government funded private contractors providing the software or the means.
Please have transcripts with videos for deaf readers online.
This is quite welcome, though writing as the owner of intellectual property on a budget, I am most curious as to Obama's position on the pending Orphan Works legislation (which is nothing better than corporate theft).
www.wunderman-comics.com