http://www.techpresident.com/taxonomy/term/231 Comments for "Lee Atwater" en http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/185/the_next_lee_atwater_us#comment-307 <p>What about the piracy aspect of the 1984 attack ad? This is not some kid posting a copyrighted music video on YouTube--in those millions of cases, the recording artist still gets the exposure and the poster has no financial gain.</p> <p>The 1984 ad is like a record company stealing clips from Star Wars, putting it into a music video and posting it on Youtube to promote a new CD. It's the outright theft of Apple's intellectual property for profitable self-promotion. I don't see how 1984 is any different than bootlegging DVD copies.</p> <p>Viacom is headed for a showdown with Youtube over kids innocently uploading TV shows. MoveOn just countersued Viacom claiming fair use of their copyrighted property. But there is no way the 1984 ad falls into the 'innocent kid', 'grass roots' or 'fair use' category. It's outright piracy.</p> <p>Will Viacom cite the impact of the 1984 attack ad in its lawsuit against Youtube? I know I would. Unless we can assume that Apple's intellectual property is now in the Public Domain. Has Apple waived their copyright?</p> Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:20:10 -0400 Canaan comment 307 at http://www.techpresident.com http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/185/the_next_lee_atwater_us#comment-306 <p>I disagree. There's a big difference between a paid 30-second attack ad on TV and a voter-generated video about the campaign on YouTube. You can buy up enough airtime to basically force people to see the former; but unless the video is compelling, it's not going to spread on YouTube or other video-sharing platforms. Sure, that still means that a skilled propagandist (professional or amateur) could post something that is inflammatory enough that it will spread. But that doesn't mean you know it's going to work.</p> <p>Obviously the jury is still out on this one, but before we rush to demand that any political video that is posted online identify its maker (an argument that NY consultant Hank Sheinkopf apparently argued in a radio appearance with my colleague Andrew Rasiej), think about the value of anonymous video. I can think of any number of reasons why we would want to protect the ability of a possible whistleblower to stay anonymous while revealing some valuable piece of information about a politician or government action. </p> <p>Sure, we may see some ugly tactics play out online, but in general the cure for bad speech is more speech not less. And I haven't noticed anyone calling for bans on the use of phones or photocopying machines even though they are used for sleazy push polls or the printing of anonymous smears on flyers.</p> <p>Micah</p> Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:25:54 -0400 Micah L. Sifry comment 306 at http://www.techpresident.com