Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System

posted by takyon on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.

tt2800038 writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:58PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:58PM (#167884) Journal

    Hillary vs. Rand

    who do you vote for?

    Neither; I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats anymore. I consider anyone who does to be complicit in supporting a regime of illegal spies.* Fuck your false dichotomies.

    *Especially complicit, I guess. Being a coward, I still pay taxes.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:39PM (#167894)

    Go ahead, throw your vote away [youtube.com] </sarcasm>

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:04PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:04PM (#167919) Journal

      Go ahead, throw your vote away </sarcasm>
       
      Keep in mind that unless you live in a swing state a presidential vote is already thrown away. Might as well throw it away to someone you like...

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 08 2015, @08:02PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @08:02PM (#167969) Journal

        So, voting for a third party is considered throwing a vote away.
         
        But, voting in a state that has elected the same party for the last 50 years with a statistical impossiblity of affecting any change, isn't?

        • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:31AM

          by JNCF (4317) on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:31AM (#168145) Journal

          Exactly. Casting an individual vote is already an idealistic gesture that doesn't do anything to affect change. Why should we be naively idealistic when deciding whether or not to vote, but then pragmatic and pessimistic when deciding how to vote? I'm not asking for strict rationality, only some semblance of consistency. Are we or are we not being idealists on election day?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:13PM (#169128)

        > Keep in mind that unless you live in a swing state a presidential vote is already thrown away.

        Or do like my republican acquaintance living in California did - register to vote in Ohio at an inlaw's residence and then vote by mail.

        And democrats say voter fraud doesn't exist! He sure proved them wrong. Dummy didn't realize voter registration rolls are public information though...