from the let-me-explain-how-this-works dept.
The Bernie Sanders Campaign, through attorney Garvey Schubert Barer, has issued a DMCA takedown notice to Wikimedia for hosting Bernie Sanders' Logos. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) applies to copyright violations rather than trademarks. According to Techdirt, even if it did apply to trademarks, Wikimedia's hosting campaign logos is clearly fair use because there's no "use in commerce" on the Wikimedia site and no likelihood of confusion. The matter is clearly "fair-use" if Bernie Sanders is claiming copyright violation.
The logos have been removed from Wikimedia, which seems like a counterproductive move in more ways than one. Is Bernie Sanders really technologically clueless, or is there some political logic here?
Related Stories
El Reg reports
The US Copyright Office is asking the tech industry and members of the public to comment about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and in particular the rules governing copyright infringement.
Section 512 of the DMCA gives ISPs and internet hosts immunity from prosecution if material that infringes copyright, such as music tracks, is taken down promptly if the entity owning the rights to it protests. "Repeat infringers" are penalized.
[...] The DMCA was signed into law in 1998, and since then flaws have been consistently pointed out in the legislation, not least with section 512. So the Copyright Office wants to know how to improve things.
"The Office will consider the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on large- and small-scale copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public", the request reads.
"The Office will also review how successfully section 512 addresses online infringement and protects against improper takedown notices. To aid in this effort, and to provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of key questions."
In the request for responses, the Office posits 28 questions it would like answered, including how the legislation is working in practice, what legal precedents are affecting its operation, and whether takedown notices are effective. It also asks for any academic studies on the matter.
[...] The guidelines for submissions will be posted on February 1 and the open period for comments ends on March 21, so there's plenty of time to get a submission ready. How much good this will do, however, remains to be seen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:05PM
They should have replaced that logo with a big fat "censored" sign.
I wonder if Bernie Sanders would have liked that. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:32PM
Indeed.
Nice to know that one of the supposedly less lunatic candidates is a copyright nazi*
(*) as a person he might even not know what has happened; as an organization, though, behaves as one.
Direct democracy when?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:10PM
That's one of the biggest issues with Democrats. They are joined at the hip to Hollywood, and willingly throw out all their respect for the people and facts and science, whenever the real copyright Nazis of Big Media whistle.
To me, it seems to be pandering. In exchange for campaign contributions, they give Big Media what they want, knowing that Big Media's demands are stupid and useless, and that whatever legislation they pass will be largely unenforceable. Big Media then tries again. It's a never ending stream of campaign contributions.
This move on Sander's part is just plain baffling. Did he do it to impress Big Media, show them he's with them on copyright issues? That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to do it, and all the other effects of this move are akin to shooting himself in the foot. Maybe it _was_ campaign staff, not Sanders himself.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:12PM
How do any of you know Bernie himself even knows about the issue at all?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:38PM
Doesn't matter either way, he wants to be president, then he should at least know what his staff does in his name.
Anyway, I want Trump for your presidency. He might be bad for the USA, but it could make it easier for other nations to cast off US hegemony, if the US is represented by a person like him. Or maybe I just don't care if the world burns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2016, @05:57AM
(*) as a person he might even not know what has happened; as an organization, though, behaves as one.
I'm guessing this was his idiot lawyer (or an intern?). I can't believe Bernie Sanders himself is this stupid.
Maybe as the only person in the race who is not a 1%er, he can't afford to pay his staff as well as his competition does ;) and it was deliberate sabotage of his image...
Other option is that the take down notice is automated, which is still brain dead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AgTiger on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:32PM
Were I Wikimedia, I'd comply with the DMCA request by taking down Bernie's page completely and not accepting any new submissions about the man until after the election was completed.
"Due to an improper DMCA request from this individual, we have decided to carry no information about him at this site."
Politicians don't fear bad press, they fear NO press.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by joekiser on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:15PM
Is Bernie Sanders really technologically clueless
Probably. By the time of this year's national election, he will have been on this earth for three quarters of a century.
Regarding Wikipedia, there is still a lot of FUD about its intentions, reliability, and usefulness. Even people just a little older than myself would never read something "that anybody can edit." How would one expect buy-in from a guy who predates the transistor?
That doesn't mean Mr. Sanders would make a bad leader, that he doesn't have good ideas, or that he wouldn't be better than some of the other Presidential choices still in the mix. People look at the entire body of work, rather than media sound bites and single issues. Else, the tech community would have overwhelmingly supported open-source champion and OLPC advocate Mitt Romney during the last election cycle.
Still, this news probably hurts Sanders more than it would hurt, say, a Trump or Clinton, as it seems Mr. Sanders polls more strongly from a younger cohort [theguardian.com] than anybody not named Rand Paul. But when push comes to shove, will this issue really keep a supporter out of the voting booth? Probably not.
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:24PM
Bernie is the best option out there right now. Or at least the best one that's actually running. He's not perfect, but look at the other options. At least he's got some integrity to damage.
I don't believe he can win the primary, but I'll be voting for him anyways. I detest Hilary and none of the other candidates seem interested in pushing an actual liberal agenda.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Saturday January 16 2016, @07:26PM
No, Rand Paul is the best option right now. He isn't a great option, but he speaks out and legislatively fights against : the NSA programs, warrantless police state, overreaching copyright laws (SOPA), overreaching industrial regulation.
Bernie Sanders just talks about how he wants things to be, not what policies he advocates for. He will say "the gap between the rich and poor is too large" but he will never say what he plans to do about it. Or when he does say something, it is always the same thing: more government taxes, more government programs, more government regulation on the dying US industry.
Bernie Sanders is an extremely skilled public speaker. He can make anyone like him, but he does it by *not* taking sides on issues and just blowing smoke. But there is one thing B.S. definitely believes: the government is the solution to your problems, and personal and economic freedom is not an option.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Saturday January 16 2016, @07:26PM
It'll be Trump VS Clinton and if that is the case? Trump wins. I always knew Trump was appealing to the "I'm pissed off, this sucks!" demographic but the other night I heard his strategy explained and ya know what? Its fucking brilliant. He has basically bet it all on a gambit....that jihadists will do something nasty in the run up to the election. Seeing as how we've seen them flip their shit over fricking cartoons and shoot the place up, not to mention how many whack-a-doodles we have in this country for ISIS to appeal to? That really isn't a bad bet to make. Now if something nasty happens a couple months before the election? All he has to do is run a bunch of "Trump was right all along, the others pandered but Trump was right" and there ya go, he's the POTUS.
What I DO find interesting as hell is we are seeing with the democrats the same thing that played out with the right in 2012, they are doing an "anybody but X" trying to find SOMEBODY that will get some heat compared to Hillary. This is understandable because she has waaaay too many skeletons in the closet, none of Bill's charm, and is even worse than Romney when it comes to looking like a hamfisted panderer. Not to mention she seems to just keep setting herself up for falls, like he speech about "we should always listen to rape victims" while forgetting she called the ones who said her husband raped them liars and whores.
I lean heavily socialist but if the only choice I get is Trump or Hillary? I'll vote Trump, at least he doesn't have a long history of being in bed with the banksters. And if nothing else it'll be interesting, we've already had nearly 20 years of Clinton/Bush and we've seen where that road leads, nowhere.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday January 16 2016, @07:38PM
I think he is a likely win, and would definitely vote for him over HC or BS. But for me, he just seems so much more honest, non-political, and non-ideological. He's no genius, by any means, but he will be a lot less politically and ideologically biased than the other major runners. He will not pick a side based on if that side is teh stereotypical Republican side, of because it fits into some liberal ideology. A lot of us wanted change with Obama and were really disappointed, I think that there are people who are realising that if you want change, then you have to stop voting for the people the political party's pick. No one in charge wants Trump to win, which is exactly why so many people find him strangely irresistible.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday January 16 2016, @09:28PM
Perhaps the world looks different in Trump-supporter land, but from where I sit that sounds borderline insane. Trump is very obviously none of those 3 things:
1. He's extremely [politifact.com] dishonest [factcheck.org]. And that's just in his political speech - in his business affairs he's swindled hundreds of people (e.g. Trump University, now under investigation for fraud), and in his personal life he's cheated on at least 1 of his ex-wives.
2. The act of running for president by definition makes somebody political. For example, Dwight Eisenhower wasn't a politician before he became president, but the moment he started running for president he became one. Also, before he ran for president (for the second time - remember he ran 4 years ago too), Trump was a major donor to the Clintons, so he's far from being uninvolved in politics.
3. Everybody has ideology. You have one too - it's your set of ideas that control what you think is good or bad in the world (e.g. science=good, cults=bad). Trump's fundamental ideology seems to be that there are two kinds of people in the world, good people and bad people, and that the way you "make America great again" is by kicking out or locking up all the bad people. And who is a bad person seems to be at least partially related to race, religion, country of origin, and gender.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Saturday January 16 2016, @09:46PM
Having the facts straight and honesty are different things. I am well aware that the things Trump has said are generally considered factually incorrect, and believe most of the time they probably are factually incorrect (while some of the time they are just inconvenient enough for everyone to call them false). But I think he believes what he says a lot more often then Hilary. Furthermore I respect a man willing to state his mind and make a fool of himself, to a certain degree. And if there is one attribute Trump has down pat is his willingness to put his neck out and make a fool of himself.
He is far less of a politician than Hilary or Bernie, both of which have been inside of politics for decades. If the best you have is that he has donated to a few champaigns in his decades of life, that is not much. And the main thing is that he is basically third party. Trump and the Republicans use eachother, but they do not agree or get along. Trump as pres, would be pretty damn close to having an independent president in office. He is not embroiled in alliances to the Republicans, he will not tow the party line, he will go his own way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday January 16 2016, @10:02PM
Are you suggesting that he's being honestly wrong? That's not what the fact-checkers are reporting at all. In a lot of cases, not only is he wrong, but he's intentionally misleading. That is, he has all the information available to him to make it blindingly obvious that he's wrong, and still says it.
For example, the ad that shows people running to cross what appears to be the US-Mexico border. Except it isn't, because it's actually the Morocco-Spain border. And when the campaign was caught, they first insisted that they weren't lying, and then said "Well, we're trying to explain what would happen if Trump wasn't elected", which is a lame excuse.
I for one don't want a fool for a president. Reality TV? Sure. The Apollo Theater? Great! Comedians are people with the job of making a fool out of themselves, not presidents. We had a fool elected to the Oval Office 16 years ago, and I'd just as soon not have that happen ever again in my lifetime.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday January 16 2016, @10:00PM
Yes, he is far to rabidly anti Muslim for my taste. But that could bring a little balance to the government. A lot of people are far too much in the opposite direction. And he is probably not quite as rabid as theatrical and a good salesman who has used the idiom of "there is no such thing as bad publicity" to propel himself into this position.
Also, not everyone is as blinded by bias as everyone else. He's no Bernie Sanders, whose entire champaign is founded on an ideology. No one cares about Bernie Sanders the Man, they vote for him because he has stated that he will advance the socialist ideology. Which is always a bad idea [imdb.com].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2016, @09:31AM
So let me get this straight, you're saying that having somebody who wants to not only openly violate the first amendment, but codify into law those direct violations to the constitution, would "bring ... balance to the government", and that people who respect the first amendment and people's freedom to follow and be part of whatever religion they want are "far too much in the opposite direction"?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 17 2016, @03:25PM
Also, his statement about "He's far too rabidly anti-Muslim for my taste" suggests that:
1. There's a right (non-zero) level of being rabidly anti-Muslim, and
2. Religious bigotry is a matter of taste, kind of like whether you prefer chocolate or strawberry ice cream.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @11:38PM
> honest
http://www.snopes.com/luck/trump.asp [snopes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2016, @09:24AM
More likely is that some "patriots" will do something nasty to try to scapegoat Muslims for their terrorist actions, like has [rawstory.com] happened before [rawstory.com] and Trump will capitalize on that manufactured fear and hysteria.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday January 16 2016, @07:27PM
and none of the other candidates seem interested in pushing an actual liberal agenda.
If you really thought about it and were honest, do you really think that the best thing a president can do is push an agenda?
Its not to lead his country or represent its citizens? Its to push an ideology?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 17 2016, @02:03AM
Hillary is so bad I might consider voting Republican, though I'd probably vote Green.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2016, @06:04AM
Bernie is the best option out there right now.
Your guys best option right now are the oath keepers. Your best option is civil war. Anybody who continues to participate in any part of the corrupt institutions that govern the actions of the powerful nation state known as the United States of America is complicit in the atrocities performed in your names by that government in every country of the world every day of the week. You mother fuckers cannot continue to sit on your fucking couches zoned out on Oxycontin and heroin debating and intellectualising the shit out of everything while the world is torn to shit on your behalf.
WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICAN LOSERS
(Score: 3, Insightful) by srobert on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:04PM
I don't know to what degree Sanders is knowledgeable about technology. But your assumption that he probably isn't is predicated entirely on prejudice surrounding his age. The internet was invented by guys who predated the transistor. The ones who are still around probably know more about it than you do.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:22PM
Yeah, the people who confuse the internet with the web are quite often considerably younger than the transistor.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by joekiser on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:33PM
But your assumption that he probably isn't is predicated entirely on prejudice surrounding his age.
Actually, it is based on the fact that he threatened Wikipedia with the DMCA over the fair use of his logo.
The internet was invented by guys who predated the transistor.
So was the DMCA.
The ones who are still around probably know more about it than you do.
Probably. Probably not.
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:55PM
Actually, it is based on the fact that he threatened Wikipedia with the DMCA over the fair use of his logo.
Well that's more of a legal issue than a technology issue.
Sorry, it must have been your words that confused me into thinking that you were displaying an age based prejudice:
Probably. By the time of this year's national election, he will have been on this earth for three quarters of a century.
or
How would one expect buy-in from a guy who predates the transistor?
(Score: 2) by joekiser on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:41PM
Well that's more of a legal issue than a technology issue.
You made it a technology issue. I posted the anecdote about the transistor to illustrate how much has changed over Mr. Sanders lifetime. I believe this, like anything that involves the DMCA, is a generational issue.
Sorry, it must have been your words that confused me into thinking that you were displaying an age based prejudice:
Absolutely. I believe this is a generational issue in how different cohorts view intellectual property, online collaboration (and by extension, meritocracy), and the effectiveness of the DMCA.
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:23PM
It is, but it's hardly without precedence. Fact is that most of the people his age and in politics need to be beaten with a clue-by-four when it comes to technology issues.
There certainly are knowledgeable people in their 70s and older, but it's definitely not the norm and it's veering dangerously close to SJW territory to suggest that it isn't a well-founded concern..
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:47PM
Indeed. I've had a computer since 1982, but I have an uncle in his late nineties who certainly knows more about computers than me, because he was working on them when I was a child.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:07PM
Their are loads of technically savvy old people, people his age are the generation that designed the modern processor and OS from the ground up. Some of our biggest repositories of technical knowledge are in the 70 year olds*. He is completely technologically clueless because he is a career politician who has not had to work a single day in his entire life.
*Not that they are all like this. I remember a CS professor, somewhere around the senior citizen age, who proudly claimed he had never even tried Windows and who had no idea how to read analogue clocks. Some people just exult in ignorance.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:59PM
That's not necessarily a sign of lack of knowledge.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:31PM
This would be pretty difficult to accomplish passively.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:45PM
Do you really think he sent that takedown notice himself? He needs to fire someone. Or at least give then a good ass chewing.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @06:51PM
Bernie Sanders is a lousy choice for president, and the the only things that can make him look good are all the alternatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @11:44PM
Your comment reminds me of what someone (quoted by Churchill) said about how "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday January 16 2016, @07:16PM
Definitely a bit of a luddite: His speech prep typically consists of him (not a speechwriter) jotting down a few pages of notes in longhand on paper. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that he uses a teleprompter or a computer or even a typewriter in his day-to-day existence. I know a fair number of Vermonters, and there's no question he takes a decidedly low-tech approach to campaigning there as well. None of this is surprising, since he spent most of the 1970's hanging around with back-to-the-land hippie types even though he wasn't really one himself.
I don't think it's that he doesn't understand technology issues (his two big technology policy positions are opposing mass online surveillance and supporting net neutrality), he just prefers not to use technology all that much.
That said, what has also been mentioned:
1. The chance that Sanders himself ordered this is approximately zero.
2. They withdrew it a few hours later.
My guess is that some junior staffer did this, and somebody further up in the campaign hierarchy found out about it, chewed out and possibly fired the junior staffer, and did their best to undo the damage.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday January 16 2016, @10:41PM
Would it not be more accurate to say that debt is the currency of slave owners? The Feds have no problem selling student loans to private pseudo-banks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:28PM
Both angry, radical, dictatorial personalities - dangerous sort.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:11PM
Sanders only panders, and Cruz is gonna lose!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:35PM
I actually kinda, sorta like Sanders. At least a little bit. Yeah, sure, he's half commie pinko, but he's far less virulent a commie pinko that most of the other options from the left. The man is kinda reasonable.
Now, he does something this freaking stupid? Well, Bernie, you're a bit less likeable now. STFU, and get on with your campaign. You've got to keep that murderous bitch off the ticket!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:51PM
Which one of the two bitches, Hillary or Trump?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:52PM
IMO, Trump isn't such a terrible choice. It's been hard for me to take him seriously, but, he's got the numbers going for him. So, let's consider - WTF has he ever done? Close to nothing, really. Yeah, some consider him a success, because he has a lot of money. But, who and what is Trump? Real estate broker? That can't be any worse than a community organizer, or the weekend warrior before him who only went to drill if and when he felt like it. I've heard no stories about Trump killing anyone. If you've got any, please share them. I'm not aware that Trump eats dead babies, or that he associates with baby eaters, like a Dick Cheney.
I can't think of any good reason to vote Trump, but I can't think of any good reasons to vote against Trump. If it comes down to Clinton vs Trump, he's got my vote. If it comes down to Sanders vs Trump, I'll have to think hard.
In the primaries, I'd like to vote for Carson, but it looks like that ain't happening. The only real contender appears to be Trump vs Bush. To hell with Bush, I'll take Trump.
Now, ain't this the shits? The guy I consider to be a joke may very well be the best choice we are offered.
Is anyone aware of Trump's intentions to invade any more countries? What's his position on ending the "War on Terra"? Is there any chance he's going to try to rein in DHS, NSA, TSA, or any of the other alphabet anti-intelligence agencies?
The man's a joke, but maybe joking is our best option.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:42PM
IMO, Trump isn't such a terrible choice. It's been hard for me to take him seriously, but, he's got the numbers going for him.
Actually, right wing is mostly nuts when it comes to this election and a few moderates are completely out of the light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Declared_candidates_2 [wikipedia.org]
I listened to their debates, it's all "we hate on anything Obama did" and "we need to expand the industrial military complex" and "expand NSA and record everything anyone says". That's basically the position of Christie the NSA lover, Cruz the smoothtalker, Rubio the warmonger, and even the more moderate Bush.
There appears to be only 2 candidates that will not win anything that seem to stand for something. Rand Paul (the anti-NSA, and anti-imperialistic and probably only conservative in that election) and Kasich (the "experienced" politician).
And now to Trump. You know who Trump reminds me of? Young Hitler. And I don't want to mean it in "bad way" (if that's possible). Aside from his huge rallies, he blames any failings of America on anything but Americans. It's all the fault of the Mexican rapists and the Chinese. And don't forget the evil Muslims. Hitler did exactly the same thing, except that he blamed the Jews instead. Trump is not a conservative - he's a *nationalist*. And this is why he likes Putin, because Putin is also a nationalist.
Is anyone aware of Trump's intentions to invade any more countries? What's his position on ending the "War on Terra"? Is there any chance he's going to try to rein in DHS, NSA, TSA, or any of the other alphabet anti-intelligence agencies?
Well, he certainly is for the "War on Terror" considering his stance towards Muslims in general. And he's for those 3 letter agencies too. Bush is the same. Trump would leave Syria to Russians (IMHO, not a bad idea, considering the options), but he'd definitely stir something with the Chinese. Trump's stand on 3-letter agencies is to spy more on the "bad people", whatever that means.
There is only 1 candidate that actually spoke against the 3-letter agencies and their privacy invasions and that was Rand Paul. And the rest of the field then almost literally clobbered him on that, especially the NSA-lover Christie.
In the debates, Kasich spoke more in moderation and he seemed quite upset when others were talking about taking radical changes. So I think Kasich is the only "honest" (as far as politicians) and moderate on that stage in last debate.
Anyway, good luck. It's truly a fucked up choice you have..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:11PM
IMO, Trump isn't such a terrible choice.
Have you been to Illinois lately? We have a billionaire Governor who, like Trump, campaigned on the promice that he would run the government like a business. Guess what? You can no more run a government like a business than you can run a business like a government. They're two different tasks with two different goals.
Illinois was supposed to have a budget last June. It still doesn't have one, and lots of programs that help the poor, sick, and elderly are closing their doors. Illinois has the worst credit rating of any state. Meanwhile, Rauner's only discernable goal is to rid the state of collective bargaining.
Before you vote for Trump, have a look at Illinois.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:32PM
Yes, but, Illinois has had the most corrupt government one can imagine for as long as I've been alive. The US, on the other hand - uhhhh - hmmmmm . . . .
Maybe I should change the subject.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:34PM
In illinois they actually stopped paying the state lottery winners but kept selling tickets.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 16 2016, @06:00PM
My perspective as a liberal who will vote for Jill Stein if Sanders doesn't make the ticket, is that a Sanders v. Trump race would be the most awesome thing of the century -- I'd be happy if either won. Not because I like Trump or his policy positions -- I would be happy because he represents as much of a *FUCK YOU* to the GOP establishment, as Sanders does to the DNC. I want to see those parties just burn, and a Sanders/Trump battle would be gasoline and matches.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:22PM
I'd say Bernie is about as far left as anybody in American politics today, apart from the Park Slope Food Coop Board [wikipedia.org]. There are none who are communists or socialists, who define what it means to be Leftist in the rest of the world.
I like him better than Trump, and I'd take him or Trump over Hillary. I am dissatisfied, however, with his positions on copyright and police state surveillance. Trump and Hillary love them some copyright and police state surveillance, too, so it's not like there's a choice on those issues. But it prevents me from working for Bernie or giving him money.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Popeidol on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:56PM
Last I checked (about 12 hours ago) the takedown notice had been retracted, pretty much as soon as it started making news.
While far from an ideal situation, my guess is Bernie himself didn't have much to do with this and it was a staffer following general instructions. Mistakes happen and a quick retraction with no blustering political defence is still pretty good as far as these things go.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:20PM
But the point is that the retraction is a reaction to bad press. Not a reaction to "Hey, we are idiots, sorry, we'll cover your costs for the inconvenience and problems we've caused and never ever will be dicks again.".
The DMCA is used as a tool to quell dissent and impose unequal rules to different parties by using assumption of guilt instead of assumption of innocence. It is not a balanced law, it is a means for suppression, to which we have ample examples.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:29PM
Personally, I'd like to see an apology.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday January 17 2016, @05:13AM
We don't actually know what form the retraction was in, if there was an apology, or if it happened before or after seeing bad press. We know only that there is a report from Wikimedia that a retraction was issued.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Antler on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:03PM
I think it's a respectable move because as much as they like to pretend they are a site for accurate info, Wikipedia is actually notorious for keeping inaccurate info on issues and people they do not like, and maintaining that inaccurate info, even sometimes despite the request of families and estates. I have not seen the page, and I would not know if there is anything inaccurate or not.. but I think the truth about Wikipedia feigning objectivity should be more widespread. Sometimes people correct pages and show sources and back up the data, but WP will go in with their admins or whatever and change it to something that fits their opinions.
If there is bad info on the wikipedia page, and someone's logo is on it, the bad info might get attributed to the bad info. People assume things are true that they read, and watch on TV. So maybe the guy just wants to be sure people understand "hey, this is not an official page and I am not associated with the people editing it at Wikipedia." I applaud him. I hope it helps people learn about wikipedia.
Does your face hurt? Because it's killing me.
(Score: 1) by Antler on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:11PM
Alright.. i could not figure out how to edit the post.. I realize this is about wikimedia and not wikipedia. I am assuming the same sort of thing is in play.. they do not want any innaccurate info to be associated with their official logo.
Does your face hurt? Because it's killing me.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 16 2016, @06:04PM
There is no edit, only preview.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @03:52PM
You applaud censorship? Congratulations, authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:12PM
Ok, I agree, but DMCA takedown notices are not some legal method to take down bad reviews and unflattering biased, arguably completely false information. That is not a legitimate or legal use of a DMCA notice.
You do not have to be an official endorsed page to use "fair use".
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Saturday January 16 2016, @05:04PM
It just has thumbnails of the logo, a link to the Bernie Sanders website, and now (probably because of the DMCA) licensing and copyright advisories on using the logo. It has no political commentary at all.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2016, @11:25PM
Wikimedia Commons always has a "Licensing" section like that. They had it for this logo before the DMCA notice was sent. The Licensing section isn't new; the page about the file has merely been made visible again.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday January 17 2016, @01:23AM
Since when has wikipedia tried to pretend that they are accurate? Wikipedia is a site for references. The references are summarized in encyclopedia format, but the article is supposed to be the less important part. Wikipedia has always, as per design, had a "truth is less important than popularity" standard. And popularity determines weight and which references are considered acceptable.
The majority of the world can't understand this design choice and whines with "OMG but my opinion is true why are the moderators reverting my edits". Too bad. Even some admins don't seem to understand this policy. Yes there are problems with it. But wikipedia never pretended to be a source for accurate information, it was a source for referenced information.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:49PM
I checked the site and the logos have restored. Why they tried to get it taken down in the first place makes no sense. All the site has is thumbnails of the image in various resolutions, a link to the official campaign website, and the following licensing info:
Licensing:
This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.
This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not infringe any trademark rights. See our general disclaimer.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
This takedown notice would be the equivalent of stopping someone from displaying his sign in their front year or putting signs up in the neighborhood.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Gertlex on Saturday January 16 2016, @06:32PM
> Is Bernie Sanders really technologically clueless
It's fairly obvious that the odds of Bernie Sanders himself directly causing this to happen are negligible. I think we all recognize that the ranks of campaign staffers and lawyers have some fraction of morons who do stupid shit like misuse the DMCA, or abuse software vulnerabilities to yoink the data of other campaigns. So I for one consider this headline to be rather clickbait-y, and the news item itself rather minor.
It's a bigger deal when the campaigner says stupid shit themselves. (a la Trump)
But now that I recall the campaign data was also by the Bernie Sanders crew, that in conjunction with this DMCA misuse does give me some pause towards his campaign. (This makes me a bit sad.)
(Score: 2) by Ellis D. Tripp on Sunday January 17 2016, @02:43AM
and the DNC. The very 2 entities who protested the loudest when the breach took place.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sanders-adviser-suggests-staffer-that-breached-voter-data-may-have-been-dnc-plant/ [mediaite.com]
http://reverbpress.com/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-dnc-plant-fix/ [reverbpress.com]
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Saturday January 16 2016, @08:13PM
Hey DMCA notice was withdrawn.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday January 16 2016, @09:45PM
I have to wonder if Sanders actually knew about this happening or if it is all on his campaign managers. This sounds like the trivial crap that Sanders would not have been bothered about but someone else in the campaign might have become fiber deficient about.
I'm reminded of what happened to Gary Larson when he did a cartoon about Jane Goodall. Larson and his publisher got some very nasty letters from the Jane Goodall Institute threatening them will lawsuits and the like over the cartoon.
Turned out Goodall had not seen the cartoon and knew nothing about the threats, she was in the field at the time. It was all instigated by the then director of the Institute, When Jane Goodall herself actually saw the cartoon she thought it was fantastic. After a change in directorship the Institute licensed the cartoon for some fund raising items and Larson actually visited Goodall at her research site while he was on vacation.
If you haven't seen it : https://bonvito.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/jane-goodall-is-a-good-sport/ [wordpress.com]
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."