SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
takyon
on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.
-- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:10PM
No, "Big Media" gives most of their coverage to who they think are viable candidates, because that is who is on the minds of the electorate. You don't think they should talk about Hillary? As of now she's polling very well with potential Democrat voters, something like 60 to 70% approval for her to be their choice on the Democrat ticket. "Big Media" doesn't give a shit, they want a story. They'd love a big primary fight. They'd love for her to say something stupid and have the story spin from a molehill into a mountain. Barring any stupid gaffes, the race will be between Hillary and Jeb, not because the media want it that way, but because the majority of the people want it that way because they are the status quo candidates.
So why didn't the "big liberal media conspiracy" keep John Kerry from getting Swift Boated? Wouldn't that have been in their interest? No, they spun a BS story into a tempest because it was a STORY. It was a potential juicy, salacious scandal they could run with. When what's-his-face made his comment about the freeloading 33% (or whatever the hell it was), it was a STORY. You got a guy with the pedigree and reputation as an out-of-touch rich elitist, and now you have a video of him making a comment you'd expect to come from that rich guy on the Monopoly board. That's headline news. It might be BS, or out of context, but it makes for great copy.
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Friday April 10 2015, @05:39AM
Rupert Murdoch laughs at the idea of big media giving "most of their coverage to who they think are viable candidates". Rupert Murdoch gives most of the coverage to whoever Rupert Murdoch wants to win.