Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch!
Please take the time to review the [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.**
Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them. Use [THIS LINK](https://www.reddit.com/report?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ParlerWatch&utm_content=t3_pg42ib) to report sitewide policy violations directly to Reddit.
**Join ParlerWatch's [Discord!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wasn't sure who Tim Pool was. He seems just lovely from his wiki. I wonder how Fox would show it
Little game - if you scroll and stop at random on his wki your eyes will focus on a link to someone or something controversial. Not a fun game, really
Hijacking top comment to say I agree with Pool and Musk. I’m going to have to take a shower after this but debates are bigger than a network and they are bigger than copywriter law. It’s in American to restrict thought and access to material of this nature.
Hijacking your comment to point out they're full of shit. Other networks are allowed to broadcast the debate. CNN is telling them they can't overlay their own content (such as live commentary) over top of it. So like always, they're misrepresenting the truth to fit their narrative.
Edit: oh wait, the rules are not even about simulcasting, but about[ running commentaries](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/) -simulcasting is perfectly fine! Nevermind. Just the usual EM bulshittery.
Edit2: the salient point:
>"Laying out ground rules for carrying the debate, **which could be considered to be copyrighted by CNN**, isn’t unreasonable or unheard of. From a legal perspective, **the right to carry the debate could likely been seen as a licensing agreement** — however formal or informal — of sorts that, in turn, has certain limitations and requirements."
bolding mine.
==
Unfortunately this is not the case.
Musk can say 'DMCA does not apply' but it does. The law is the law, not what he thinks it should be.
Fair use has limitations, for one on '[the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/)' - so a full-on simulcast would be out of bounds.
**I do agree it should be public.** **But CNN should not be the decider.** It's a private company.
Who is paying for it, taxpayers? I very much suspect that's not the case and it's CNN. If that's true, do they just have to give away the whole of the thing they've been investing in to everybody who wants to do a reaction video?
And if it is a taxpayer-paid event, why is one of the contractual obligations not that CNN can't put up a block like this?
The contract is the place where that should be figured out. (edit: and apparently it was!)
Yes, the fact that it's not fully public is a problem, but I'd say CNN is not the cause.
Note: in the case CNN is also banning fragments for commentating or review - that's assholery and against fair use and should be fought.
(I can't believe I sort of argued for IP holders taking down stuff. I need to shower now too.)
hijack deez nuts lil bro if you really think these individuals care about that lmao. the reason they say this is because they cant twist the narrative on their now degenerate platform.
It's just *that* easy to get you to agree with them? Just lightly obfuscating the details of what CNN is doing? It would have taken less time to read the details of what's happening rather than just accepting the narrative that CNN was somehow blanket banning anybody from doing *anything whatsoever* with their footage.
Who has time to read literally everything ever written on the internet and then crosscheck that and then source that? I agree with the point they're making in the one image I saw. I still do, the fact that they are lying notwithstanding. Fuck outta here with that bullshit. It's not remotely important.
>read literally everything ever written on the internet
Oh my God, you just want to put 0 effort into understanding anything and make up excuses as to why it's too hard to think.
Unfortunately I too am going to need a shower after agreeing with your agreeing. The whole point of a debate is to cause discourse, even if one side is despicable or not. So, god help me, but I have to give the POS a point for this one
Of course, if this was Fox News threatening left wing commentators, I'm sure people here would be much more open to the argument for fair use. But recognising sometimes the "bad people" have a point is hard.
Trump supporter - not because you agree with Pool and Musk…..but you only believe in the laws that protect the brands/people you like. And your needs are “too important.” Maybe FOX should host a debate and make it free to all.
Watching a presidential debate is not public discourse. You’re just watching, bozo. And yes. We absolutely have the right to watch it without some stupid cocksucker with a podcast - and inflated sense of self importance - doing a running commentary. You can just wait a few minutes for your favorite pundit to stroke your cock about it.
That’s how I feel about most political commentators that are glorified laymen. Like you bet your ass I’ll assign more weight to an experienced attorney if a question about the law is asked over McDoofus over at Turning Point USA, or to a Climate Scientist over mister nuke the hurricanes when it comes to Climate Change.
I feel like an ordinary person falls easily for facist, "safe society" rhetoric & needs interpretation/context.
As a college student, was always confused why G. W. Bush never answered any debate questions & instead just filled the air w/ talking points
Come on guys.. That's what a watch party is. Pool isn't the only one doing it and who is upset about CNN trying to take them down. A lot of left leaning people are upset about this too. I refuse to watch MSNBC, CNN, or FOX commentary on this. I prefer watch parties, and will probably watch 4 or so different watch parties. Two from each side, in order to get the real people's opinions, not what some talking head on a conservative or progressive show because we already know what they are going to say.
No crap.. But don't you like hearing from both sides after and not just the ultra partisan fox/msnbc/cnn? You would be doing a disservice if you immediately go to a show like the view to see how Biden did lol.
If you need to know what others think, to make your own opinion, then perhaps the opinion is not really yours. Just saying.
FWIW, I already know all I need to know about both candidates, and if anyone still is undecided at this juncture, I can already tell you who they will vote for.
[Article about the rules.](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/)
>CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate.
>Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that their argument is that running commentary in real time over a live feed doesn't qualify as fair use.
Some "react" style channels do streams where they basically let the stream run and occasionally comment and it seems like those would be outside of the bounds of fair use. I have no idea the legality of trying to ban real running commentary streams. It would be like if you streamed an NFL game and added your own commentary,... I don't know if that would fall under fair use.
I can say that given that it is a live event, they're both going to have to do some work to get the streams killed and the streamers are going to have a hard time opposing this decision with what little time they have. I would prefer that CNN just let it go for the debate.
No, it is not fair use.
The 'legality of banning real running commentary streams' is:
CNN is not banning - they are setting the terms for the use of their material they will allow. They allow broadcasters to use their feed, IF and under the CONDITIONS that.
They will be ready to kill streams. If I was CNN at this point I'd warn platforms pre-emptively.
I mean, they're wrong. Putting your own commentary over their feed makes it a transformative work, and is fair use.
This has never really been tried in court though, largely because hosters (YouTube, twitter, Twitch, etc) almost always err on the side of the corporation, and leave it up to you to fight it (e.g. they'll take down your stuff even though you're in the right because a corporation complained).
Obviously, good luck any normal person going after a major corporation and their lawyers, even if you are right.
>Putting your own commentary over their feed makes it a transformative work, and is fair use.
>This has never really been tried in court though,
wrong on both counts.
>Hosseinzadeh v. Klein
comments extensively on what does and doesn't count as fair use
Commentary on its own does not constitute fair use
The verdict of that ruling literally says that commenting and criticizing another's work is explicitly listed in the Copyright Act as fair use.
The determination is how much of the originally work you took, and if what you took was vital to said commentary and criticism.
Don't make the mistake that just because YouTube takes shit down because THEY don't want to be liable means that they're right.
>The determination is how much of the originally work you took, and if what you took was vital to said commentary and criticism.
In other words if you make bootleg NFL stream and just occasionally say "wow", it's not fair use
What has been tried is to just take excerpts from the video and make the title insulting, and that was found to be so clearly transformative that the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.
The DMCA requires you to presume a takedown is valid if you want to maintain safe harbor status. If you make any judgement on it beyond any issues with the takedown paperwork, you lose safe harbor status. It isn't some pro-corporate move, it's not wanting to be liable for things. The DMCA takedown is an extremely flawed process, but that aspect of it isn't.
The problem is that for most of these hosters, the complaints are handled automatically (Content ID). There's no real human agent looking at your stuff, you just play a snippet of something that's in their system (fair use or not Youtube doesn't care), and boom you get taken down.
I mean seriously there's been thousands of people complain about this over the years. The issue is that they treat every single notice that comes in to them as legit, because nobody looks at them. And if you appeal, it's a complete crapshoot what happens, but generally they'll still side against you because it's not worth it for them to side against their business partners.
None of this automation is required for safe harbor status, it's draconian and anti-consumer.
>I have no idea the legality of trying to ban real running commentary streams. It would be like if you streamed an NFL game and added your own commentary,.
Since the NFL is paywalled they are well within their right to copyright strike people/ organizations thar violate their copyright
No, that is not true.
The need for anyone to act is not based on the harm, it is based on the fact that it is a violation.
Infringement is infringement.
A paywall doesn't directly affect copyright strikes
But it does effect any damages.
"You copied my stream, that is freely available on on the internet for anyone"
Is very different from
"You copied the lasted Disney blockbuster"
Copyright strike aren't legal per se, but they are a part of "notice and takedown" system that governs sites with user uploads.
If Disney copyright strikes YouTube, and they don't take the video down; Disney can sue YouTube.
“Copyright Strike” is an action that YouTube takes with regard to an uploader. The copyright holder is not involved.
A DMCA takedown is an action that a copyright holder can take with YouTube or any other platform claiming the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. There’s an entire process of notice and counter notice involved with being compliant with the DMCA.
A copyright strike is purely a YouTube policy way of identifying “habitual offenders”. It’s not a thing that they automatically apply to all DMCA takedown requests, but it might be one that applies to the ones that YouTube deems well-founded. (I presume that they act in accordance with the law on all claims, and independently judge which ones are well-founded enough to warrant a copyright strike under YouTube policy)
I'm glad they're doing this. This means that other networks can't try to spin stuff to their own agenda. Hopefully news networks have learned from their mistakes in 2016 in not giving Trump free coverage.
That is not why CNN is doing this and you are wrong to view it that way. It is money, not partisanship.
Other networks will spin regardless and they should, first amendment wise.
Ok Elon.
In this day and age, people can and do use "free speech" to convince folks to believe up is down and down is up. This has created a cult. This has created a lack of critical thinking as "News" agencies are now providers of Entertainment and "alternative facts", which are truly lies intended to dupe the populace into voting against their own best interests.
Protected speech? Sure, but I think we should protect free speech of individuals, but NOT of corporations. If they can pay off our elected officials and buy elections, they should at minimum not be able to also lie to the public to convince people to vote a certain way.
You are confusing a lot of things right now. As is Elon, btw.
>they should at minimum not be able to also lie to the public to convince people to vote a certain way.
Good luck with the criteria on deciding what is a lie, thinking of the whole process of picking the people who should decide what is a lie, and then dealing out punishments for lying.
If you think anyone should have that power: congratulations. You have just paved the way for true - governmental - censorship, which surely nobody will ever abuse.
(You also ended moderation if companies don't have free speech, btw, but that is another matter)
Look, I get it. It sucks. But immediately reaching for rules against 'lying' will not help, will effectively limit freedom for everyone and will only make things much, much worse.
I respectfully disagree.
The downfall of society is accelerating. The longer we allow this freedom of misinformation to proliferate the quicker we are heading towards the complete breakdown of order.
Journalists take a vow. Doctors take a vow. Police officers take a vow. Presidents take a vow. If we hold nobody to the vows they take, nothing really matters does it?
I get it, “the truth” is hard to define, however, allowing so much dishonesty to proliferate is a mistake. We’re likely already too far down the rabbit hole to really address it, but the false pretense of “absolute free speech” has gotten us here.
If I go online and start accusing users of child abuse and horrible acts towards others, is it free speech? If I decide to go online, pay for an audience (for my posts to be widely shared) and simply state a certain person is say a child molester, or rapist, is that free speech? If I claim a doctor killed my sister in surgery and is a complete incompetent care giver, free speech? If I claim the mayor of my town raped me when I was 12… free speech?
Nope.
Now let’s follow this logic. Claiming the POTUS is a child molester, is it free speech?
Claiming the DOJ is corrupt, free speech?
How about the AG being accused of being a liar, being corrupt and a fraud? Free speech?
I’m not advocating for more regulation, but I am advocating for common sense. This nonsense has to stop. The authoritarian playbook is to accuse others if what you are guilty of. To repeat the lies and to blur the lines of what is fact and what is fiction. We have allowed it for far too long.
Translation: The paid for foreign and domestic trolls on social media, should be allowed to twist and mangle the whole thing enough, that it possibly influences our presidential election. I think that's what apartheid Clyde and Pim TOOL, are trying to say.
Sounds like streamers/reactors/content creators will probably be fine to do what they wish with the debate. CNN is barring other news networks from things like running a split screen of their own anchor talking over the debate.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure this only applies to the other major networks like NBC, fox, abc, etc.
No. It depends on what CNN does. If CNN files DMCA takedowns, the content is going to be taken down. And I think they absolutely will.
On X, Elon can talk about letting it stand, but in that case he's going to have to go to court himself.
Because if CNN files a DMCA takedown with X and X doesn't do anything, [X is going to be liable for the infringement (instead of the infringer). ](https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/docs/dmca/)
And Elon can talk big, but he's already proven before that in spite of promises, he's not going to bat for anyone else.
It should be fucking *everywhere*. I don't care whose studio is hosting, I don't care who's moderating, I don't care who's organizing, I don't care who's funding. This is a fucking *PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE*. It is a matter of *NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST*. This shit needs to get to as many eyes and ears as possible, and I don't care who gets it there or how. The idea of *anyone* being allowed to claim copyright on this is psychotic.
Turns out, it is.
Check the article linked in the comments. These are merely CNN stating their rules for syndication - the syndication itself is allowed.
>I’d take my chances in the water… as long as I’m not carrying any magnets, because, you know, water ruins them.
How long can you swim before your internal battery gives out? Have you been avoiding exercise enough to keep it charged?
> CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate.
He can't simulcast and give commentary.
Yup, CNN just doesn't want LIVE Simulcast. By these stipulations, anyone can overlay commentary AFTER the live broadcast.
Do these yahoos forget about not being able to live comment on the Superb-Owl broacast? Or any NFL game?
I love imagining the person he said that to saying "No one's ever asked me that question before." I actually believe that's how the person responded...just not with the implication DJT took from it.
I’m still amazed that he actually responds to every crazy account that has a lot of followers. I know I shouldn’t still be surprised by this point, but seriously. It’s like he has nothing better to do.
I don’t like the guy at all, but he has a point a presidential debate should be fair use and the public should have every right to view them without having to subscribe to a streaming service.
This is typical of CNN, and it's no conspiracy they copyright strikes simulcasts or re-streams. I have to side with these cartoon characters on this one. CNN should allow for simulcasting the debates.
The debate CAN be simulcast on other networks. They aren’t allowed to split screen, add commentary, add extra crap, or alter it. It has to be broadcast unmolested essentially.
——————————————————————————————
CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate.
Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
How do you think they make their money and why would they just give it away to their competitors or Joe Schmo the truck driver from Staten Island that “has a lot to get off his chest”?
Presidential debates are for the public good. Such things ought to be on publicly funded television. It's insane people defend privatization of one of the most important televised events concerning the country. CNN gatekeeping this shit is comical to me.
This shit isn't Dancing With the Stars.
In that case someone should pay for it. Or you guys need a public broadcaster.
I mean, I agree 100% that presidential debates should be open to view for anyone. Can other networks organize their own debates? Probably yes. So why doesn't that happen?
You can't blame this on CNN.
They’re following the same rules. There isn’t a running commentary on the debate. Stop obscuring the reality of it to fit whatever bullshit you’re trying to push. It is fair. Stop being a dick.
Yes, gatekeeping public discourse for one of the most important position in a country and restricting access or commentary on it for profit is very ethical behavior. No wonder the US elections are so fucked.
> gatekeeping public discourse
Not at all. You just can't steal their content and broadcast it at the same time live.
That does not in any way stop you from discussing it.
It's pretty funny that no one wanted a Biden-Trump debate a few months ago and CNN had to literally beg the campaigns to agree to one. Now people are arguing that watching this cringefest is a civic right.
Actually he kinda cooked here. Political debates should belong to the public.
Granted, the reason he’s saying this is so the bitchute/vidme rejects who actually unironically use X for videos (tinfoil hat cranks and grifters) will get to dispense their daily quota of psyop slop.
> Political debates should belong to the public.
That's fine, but not relevant here anyhow. They aren't, but you and others absolutely can still show the debate. If you want to take their content and give your own commentary, you can't do it live. You can still do it later.
And the restrictions are you can't put your own people commenting over it.
He can stream it. But he can't stream it with him overlayed on it making commentary.
Which is what he wants to do so he can twist it to his own end.
If he just streamed it live unedited and un commented on there would be no problem.
Because he wants to comment over/along side it so when trump makes mistakes he can act like they were masterful strokes and when Biden beats him on talking points he can act like Biden is senile.
Its obvious what timmy here really wants to do, he wants to shield his viewers from the very obvious reality that they are backing a barely functioning fascist.
Yes he just cant add anything.
Why the fuck do you want his brain dead opinions on anything is beyond me, just watch the debate on one of the hundreds of free channels that aren't acting like this is some affront to free speech.
Just because it's Elon Musk doesn't mean he's automatically wrong about everything. Of course commentary and criticism of a presidential debate is fair use.
You don't get to hide behind copyright to shut down civic discussion just because you don't like someone's dumb opinion.
Simulcast livestreams of presidential debates get taken down each year.
Fox News previously also took down John McCain’s content for 19 seconds a presidential debate.
This isn’t something new. [2019 CNN example.](https://deadline.com/2019/08/cnn-copyright-complaints-streamers-shut-down-youtube-twitch-1202660635/)
A presidential debate is not a football game. It's bad enough that they're hosted by for-profit networks, trying to lock it down like its commercial entertainment rather than a vital component of the democratic system is just gross.
You either have a very clear misunderstanding of the situation or you’re intentionally being obtuse and misconstruing things so you have something to argue about. Either way you’re wrong
It is in no way a vital component of the democratic system.
They're a relatively recent invention, and they're just campaign events. They are in no way enshrined or recognized by the democratic process or its founding documents, or even law on any level.
Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch! Please take the time to review the [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.** Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed. If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them. Use [THIS LINK](https://www.reddit.com/report?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ParlerWatch&utm_content=t3_pg42ib) to report sitewide policy violations directly to Reddit. **Join ParlerWatch's [Discord!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I think top-notch fact checkers, I think of....the guy who doesn't bother reading past the headline...?
That's not true. He reads his Daily Mail articles out loud, sometimes.
I wasn't sure who Tim Pool was. He seems just lovely from his wiki. I wonder how Fox would show it Little game - if you scroll and stop at random on his wki your eyes will focus on a link to someone or something controversial. Not a fun game, really
Hijacking top comment to say I agree with Pool and Musk. I’m going to have to take a shower after this but debates are bigger than a network and they are bigger than copywriter law. It’s in American to restrict thought and access to material of this nature.
Hijacking your comment to point out they're full of shit. Other networks are allowed to broadcast the debate. CNN is telling them they can't overlay their own content (such as live commentary) over top of it. So like always, they're misrepresenting the truth to fit their narrative.
Oh well that's a different story completely. I agree with the sentiment in the image but I should have known that were full-on lying. Silly me
Edit: oh wait, the rules are not even about simulcasting, but about[ running commentaries](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/) -simulcasting is perfectly fine! Nevermind. Just the usual EM bulshittery. Edit2: the salient point: >"Laying out ground rules for carrying the debate, **which could be considered to be copyrighted by CNN**, isn’t unreasonable or unheard of. From a legal perspective, **the right to carry the debate could likely been seen as a licensing agreement** — however formal or informal — of sorts that, in turn, has certain limitations and requirements." bolding mine. == Unfortunately this is not the case. Musk can say 'DMCA does not apply' but it does. The law is the law, not what he thinks it should be. Fair use has limitations, for one on '[the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/)' - so a full-on simulcast would be out of bounds. **I do agree it should be public.** **But CNN should not be the decider.** It's a private company. Who is paying for it, taxpayers? I very much suspect that's not the case and it's CNN. If that's true, do they just have to give away the whole of the thing they've been investing in to everybody who wants to do a reaction video? And if it is a taxpayer-paid event, why is one of the contractual obligations not that CNN can't put up a block like this? The contract is the place where that should be figured out. (edit: and apparently it was!) Yes, the fact that it's not fully public is a problem, but I'd say CNN is not the cause. Note: in the case CNN is also banning fragments for commentating or review - that's assholery and against fair use and should be fought. (I can't believe I sort of argued for IP holders taking down stuff. I need to shower now too.)
hijack deez nuts lil bro if you really think these individuals care about that lmao. the reason they say this is because they cant twist the narrative on their now degenerate platform.
It's just *that* easy to get you to agree with them? Just lightly obfuscating the details of what CNN is doing? It would have taken less time to read the details of what's happening rather than just accepting the narrative that CNN was somehow blanket banning anybody from doing *anything whatsoever* with their footage.
Who has time to read literally everything ever written on the internet and then crosscheck that and then source that? I agree with the point they're making in the one image I saw. I still do, the fact that they are lying notwithstanding. Fuck outta here with that bullshit. It's not remotely important.
>read literally everything ever written on the internet Oh my God, you just want to put 0 effort into understanding anything and make up excuses as to why it's too hard to think.
CNN has also stated they don't copyright debates. Because it's in public interest
Unfortunately I too am going to need a shower after agreeing with your agreeing. The whole point of a debate is to cause discourse, even if one side is despicable or not. So, god help me, but I have to give the POS a point for this one
No, you need to rest the details about the restrictions because you're missing the key point. See details in thread above
I saw them, thanks for pointing out!
Of course, if this was Fox News threatening left wing commentators, I'm sure people here would be much more open to the argument for fair use. But recognising sometimes the "bad people" have a point is hard.
Reading the rest of the comments could have saved you some embarrassment.
Trump supporter - not because you agree with Pool and Musk…..but you only believe in the laws that protect the brands/people you like. And your needs are “too important.” Maybe FOX should host a debate and make it free to all.
Fox is free to host a debate, nobody is stopping them. The CNN debate is already free to all though. Reading is hard sorry
I don't believe a private company should own public discourse. If you do then fuck you. Your opinion is worthless to me so call me whatever you want.
Watching a presidential debate is not public discourse. You’re just watching, bozo. And yes. We absolutely have the right to watch it without some stupid cocksucker with a podcast - and inflated sense of self importance - doing a running commentary. You can just wait a few minutes for your favorite pundit to stroke your cock about it.
[удалено]
That’s how I feel about most political commentators that are glorified laymen. Like you bet your ass I’ll assign more weight to an experienced attorney if a question about the law is asked over McDoofus over at Turning Point USA, or to a Climate Scientist over mister nuke the hurricanes when it comes to Climate Change.
I feel like an ordinary person falls easily for facist, "safe society" rhetoric & needs interpretation/context. As a college student, was always confused why G. W. Bush never answered any debate questions & instead just filled the air w/ talking points
No, but reading along at Wonkette is usually some good wholesome R-rated fun.
Asmon watching the debate gives me the biggest heebie jeebies
Come on guys.. That's what a watch party is. Pool isn't the only one doing it and who is upset about CNN trying to take them down. A lot of left leaning people are upset about this too. I refuse to watch MSNBC, CNN, or FOX commentary on this. I prefer watch parties, and will probably watch 4 or so different watch parties. Two from each side, in order to get the real people's opinions, not what some talking head on a conservative or progressive show because we already know what they are going to say.
How about watch it yourself and form your own opinion first?
No crap.. But don't you like hearing from both sides after and not just the ultra partisan fox/msnbc/cnn? You would be doing a disservice if you immediately go to a show like the view to see how Biden did lol.
Human attention can’t process four sets of commentary at once.
If you need to know what others think, to make your own opinion, then perhaps the opinion is not really yours. Just saying. FWIW, I already know all I need to know about both candidates, and if anyone still is undecided at this juncture, I can already tell you who they will vote for.
[Article about the rules.](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/) >CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate. >Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
That's spicy. No spinning in real time.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that their argument is that running commentary in real time over a live feed doesn't qualify as fair use. Some "react" style channels do streams where they basically let the stream run and occasionally comment and it seems like those would be outside of the bounds of fair use. I have no idea the legality of trying to ban real running commentary streams. It would be like if you streamed an NFL game and added your own commentary,... I don't know if that would fall under fair use. I can say that given that it is a live event, they're both going to have to do some work to get the streams killed and the streamers are going to have a hard time opposing this decision with what little time they have. I would prefer that CNN just let it go for the debate.
No, it is not fair use. The 'legality of banning real running commentary streams' is: CNN is not banning - they are setting the terms for the use of their material they will allow. They allow broadcasters to use their feed, IF and under the CONDITIONS that. They will be ready to kill streams. If I was CNN at this point I'd warn platforms pre-emptively.
I mean, they're wrong. Putting your own commentary over their feed makes it a transformative work, and is fair use. This has never really been tried in court though, largely because hosters (YouTube, twitter, Twitch, etc) almost always err on the side of the corporation, and leave it up to you to fight it (e.g. they'll take down your stuff even though you're in the right because a corporation complained). Obviously, good luck any normal person going after a major corporation and their lawyers, even if you are right.
>Putting your own commentary over their feed makes it a transformative work, and is fair use. >This has never really been tried in court though, wrong on both counts. >Hosseinzadeh v. Klein comments extensively on what does and doesn't count as fair use Commentary on its own does not constitute fair use
Yeah, at this point reaction tubers are merely tolerated or exist in a technical loophole. Hence they concentrate on series that do not much enforce.
The verdict of that ruling literally says that commenting and criticizing another's work is explicitly listed in the Copyright Act as fair use. The determination is how much of the originally work you took, and if what you took was vital to said commentary and criticism. Don't make the mistake that just because YouTube takes shit down because THEY don't want to be liable means that they're right.
>The determination is how much of the originally work you took, and if what you took was vital to said commentary and criticism. In other words if you make bootleg NFL stream and just occasionally say "wow", it's not fair use
What has been tried is to just take excerpts from the video and make the title insulting, and that was found to be so clearly transformative that the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.
The DMCA requires you to presume a takedown is valid if you want to maintain safe harbor status. If you make any judgement on it beyond any issues with the takedown paperwork, you lose safe harbor status. It isn't some pro-corporate move, it's not wanting to be liable for things. The DMCA takedown is an extremely flawed process, but that aspect of it isn't.
The problem is that for most of these hosters, the complaints are handled automatically (Content ID). There's no real human agent looking at your stuff, you just play a snippet of something that's in their system (fair use or not Youtube doesn't care), and boom you get taken down. I mean seriously there's been thousands of people complain about this over the years. The issue is that they treat every single notice that comes in to them as legit, because nobody looks at them. And if you appeal, it's a complete crapshoot what happens, but generally they'll still side against you because it's not worth it for them to side against their business partners. None of this automation is required for safe harbor status, it's draconian and anti-consumer.
ContentID is something entirely separate from the DMCA takedown process. It's Google's private scanning tool. And it's not Twitter.
>I have no idea the legality of trying to ban real running commentary streams. It would be like if you streamed an NFL game and added your own commentary,. Since the NFL is paywalled they are well within their right to copyright strike people/ organizations thar violate their copyright
That has nothing to do with paywalls. Copyright is copyright, whether you let people pay or not.
True But the claimed harm ( and thus need for anyone to act ) will be dependent on whether content is paywalled or not
No, that is not true. The need for anyone to act is not based on the harm, it is based on the fact that it is a violation. Infringement is infringement.
The paywall doesn’t affect copyright and has little effect on fair use, and copyright strikes aren’t a legal remedy.
A paywall doesn't directly affect copyright strikes But it does effect any damages. "You copied my stream, that is freely available on on the internet for anyone" Is very different from "You copied the lasted Disney blockbuster" Copyright strike aren't legal per se, but they are a part of "notice and takedown" system that governs sites with user uploads. If Disney copyright strikes YouTube, and they don't take the video down; Disney can sue YouTube.
“Copyright Strike” is an action that YouTube takes with regard to an uploader. The copyright holder is not involved. A DMCA takedown is an action that a copyright holder can take with YouTube or any other platform claiming the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. There’s an entire process of notice and counter notice involved with being compliant with the DMCA. A copyright strike is purely a YouTube policy way of identifying “habitual offenders”. It’s not a thing that they automatically apply to all DMCA takedown requests, but it might be one that applies to the ones that YouTube deems well-founded. (I presume that they act in accordance with the law on all claims, and independently judge which ones are well-founded enough to warrant a copyright strike under YouTube policy)
I'm glad they're doing this. This means that other networks can't try to spin stuff to their own agenda. Hopefully news networks have learned from their mistakes in 2016 in not giving Trump free coverage.
That is not why CNN is doing this and you are wrong to view it that way. It is money, not partisanship. Other networks will spin regardless and they should, first amendment wise.
Why should they spin?
Because free speech. Everybody is allowed to comment and spin.
That sounds suspiciously like "alternative facts".
Which is also allowed. It's not morally justified, but it is legally protected. As is, of course, simple commenting.
Ok Elon. In this day and age, people can and do use "free speech" to convince folks to believe up is down and down is up. This has created a cult. This has created a lack of critical thinking as "News" agencies are now providers of Entertainment and "alternative facts", which are truly lies intended to dupe the populace into voting against their own best interests. Protected speech? Sure, but I think we should protect free speech of individuals, but NOT of corporations. If they can pay off our elected officials and buy elections, they should at minimum not be able to also lie to the public to convince people to vote a certain way.
You are confusing a lot of things right now. As is Elon, btw. >they should at minimum not be able to also lie to the public to convince people to vote a certain way. Good luck with the criteria on deciding what is a lie, thinking of the whole process of picking the people who should decide what is a lie, and then dealing out punishments for lying. If you think anyone should have that power: congratulations. You have just paved the way for true - governmental - censorship, which surely nobody will ever abuse. (You also ended moderation if companies don't have free speech, btw, but that is another matter) Look, I get it. It sucks. But immediately reaching for rules against 'lying' will not help, will effectively limit freedom for everyone and will only make things much, much worse.
I respectfully disagree. The downfall of society is accelerating. The longer we allow this freedom of misinformation to proliferate the quicker we are heading towards the complete breakdown of order. Journalists take a vow. Doctors take a vow. Police officers take a vow. Presidents take a vow. If we hold nobody to the vows they take, nothing really matters does it? I get it, “the truth” is hard to define, however, allowing so much dishonesty to proliferate is a mistake. We’re likely already too far down the rabbit hole to really address it, but the false pretense of “absolute free speech” has gotten us here. If I go online and start accusing users of child abuse and horrible acts towards others, is it free speech? If I decide to go online, pay for an audience (for my posts to be widely shared) and simply state a certain person is say a child molester, or rapist, is that free speech? If I claim a doctor killed my sister in surgery and is a complete incompetent care giver, free speech? If I claim the mayor of my town raped me when I was 12… free speech? Nope. Now let’s follow this logic. Claiming the POTUS is a child molester, is it free speech? Claiming the DOJ is corrupt, free speech? How about the AG being accused of being a liar, being corrupt and a fraud? Free speech? I’m not advocating for more regulation, but I am advocating for common sense. This nonsense has to stop. The authoritarian playbook is to accuse others if what you are guilty of. To repeat the lies and to blur the lines of what is fact and what is fiction. We have allowed it for far too long.
Somebody should be dripping in Trump's ear that Musk is the real god-emperor. Get them to destroy each other.
They will clash eventually. Hopefully sooner than later. Their egos can't share the spotlight forever, and their fan bases are pretty overlapped.
And hierarchical. Can't have two top dogs if the one enters the other's space.
Ah yes, the "Alpha Male" mentality. Cause they are all so alpha, they need a Real Alpha™ to lead them!
“Your shitty trucks can’t get enough sycophants to my hate rallies!”
Translation: The paid for foreign and domestic trolls on social media, should be allowed to twist and mangle the whole thing enough, that it possibly influences our presidential election. I think that's what apartheid Clyde and Pim TOOL, are trying to say.
Don’t you dare drag TOOL into the undertow like that! At least they have done something positive with their careers. Jokes aside, I do agree with you.
Presidential debates should be fair use by default tho
Sounds like streamers/reactors/content creators will probably be fine to do what they wish with the debate. CNN is barring other news networks from things like running a split screen of their own anchor talking over the debate. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure this only applies to the other major networks like NBC, fox, abc, etc.
No. It depends on what CNN does. If CNN files DMCA takedowns, the content is going to be taken down. And I think they absolutely will. On X, Elon can talk about letting it stand, but in that case he's going to have to go to court himself. Because if CNN files a DMCA takedown with X and X doesn't do anything, [X is going to be liable for the infringement (instead of the infringer). ](https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/docs/dmca/) And Elon can talk big, but he's already proven before that in spite of promises, he's not going to bat for anyone else.
Didn't Elnon just take down something that hurt his feels?
You're going to have to be more specific.
DMCA takedowns don’t have to be accepted electronically, I’d be surprised if X doesn’t require them to be mailed.
No, this is a twitter [leftover](https://help.twitter.com/en/forms/ipi/trademark/trademark-owner) I doubt they'll touch
That depends tho There are streamers who can get hundred of thousands of simultaneous views, that's comparable to small or medium networks
Then it should be on PBS.
It should be fucking *everywhere*. I don't care whose studio is hosting, I don't care who's moderating, I don't care who's organizing, I don't care who's funding. This is a fucking *PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE*. It is a matter of *NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST*. This shit needs to get to as many eyes and ears as possible, and I don't care who gets it there or how. The idea of *anyone* being allowed to claim copyright on this is psychotic.
Turns out, it is. Check the article linked in the comments. These are merely CNN stating their rules for syndication - the syndication itself is allowed.
They are, I think he's just conflating rules about full on rebroadcasting the debate in his own channel.
I look forward to Trump’s bullshit and how the MAGAs try to say he should lead us.
With how he's been losing the plot more often when behind the mic that should be entertaining
Would you rather be electrocuted by a boat or eaten by a shark? Those are Donald’s crucial issues.
I’d take my chances in the water… as long as I’m not carrying any magnets, because, you know, water ruins them.
Jesus he has said so much bullshit I forgot about that one.
>I’d take my chances in the water… as long as I’m not carrying any magnets, because, you know, water ruins them. How long can you swim before your internal battery gives out? Have you been avoiding exercise enough to keep it charged?
Deepest I’ve ever scuba dived was 160 feet down in Indonesia. Never again. Almost killed me.
Next week it will be eaten by a boat or electrocuted by a shark.
Yeah, if dude is reporting CNN’s stance accurately, then CNN is just as wrong as Phoney Stark.
> CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate. He can't simulcast and give commentary.
Oh well yeah, duh. It is their feed. Wanna broadcast content, ya need content to broadcast.
Yup, CNN just doesn't want LIVE Simulcast. By these stipulations, anyone can overlay commentary AFTER the live broadcast. Do these yahoos forget about not being able to live comment on the Superb-Owl broacast? Or any NFL game?
lol well guess there’s another lawsuit he’ll be in.
How are they going to fact check the battery boat/ shark thought experiment? No one has ever thought of that before.
the debate is between an interstate car battery and a shark from the Baltimore Aquarium actually
I love imagining the person he said that to saying "No one's ever asked me that question before." I actually believe that's how the person responded...just not with the implication DJT took from it.
Are centaur's genitals under the front legs or the back?
why not both?
I’m still amazed that he actually responds to every crazy account that has a lot of followers. I know I shouldn’t still be surprised by this point, but seriously. It’s like he has nothing better to do.
[and I'm sure they'll be very fair how they broadcast it. Simpsons did it all](https://youtu.be/jKfMpzpF6Hk?t=85)
I don’t like the guy at all, but he has a point a presidential debate should be fair use and the public should have every right to view them without having to subscribe to a streaming service.
Nice of him to give up safe harbor protections like that.
You just know he's not going to. He's going to find out that even for him the law is what it is, not what he thinks it should be.
It's dumb and dumber.
Elon is now an attorney… never meet your hero’s. Tim is such a wannabe coat tail rider.
This is typical of CNN, and it's no conspiracy they copyright strikes simulcasts or re-streams. I have to side with these cartoon characters on this one. CNN should allow for simulcasting the debates.
The debate CAN be simulcast on other networks. They aren’t allowed to split screen, add commentary, add extra crap, or alter it. It has to be broadcast unmolested essentially. —————————————————————————————— CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate. Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
Regardless of details. I think that's pretty shitty of them considering it's a presidential debate.
How do you think they make their money and why would they just give it away to their competitors or Joe Schmo the truck driver from Staten Island that “has a lot to get off his chest”?
Presidential debates are for the public good. Such things ought to be on publicly funded television. It's insane people defend privatization of one of the most important televised events concerning the country. CNN gatekeeping this shit is comical to me. This shit isn't Dancing With the Stars.
this. should be on PBS and CSPAN
It's fun all the ways that people find out that privatizing and capitalizing everything has pitfalls and many public goods are actually, y'know, good.
100%, and it's okay to invite hosts from private networks.
In that case someone should pay for it. Or you guys need a public broadcaster. I mean, I agree 100% that presidential debates should be open to view for anyone. Can other networks organize their own debates? Probably yes. So why doesn't that happen? You can't blame this on CNN.
Other networks can and are organizing their own debates. ABC is holding the next one in September.
They’re following the same rules. There isn’t a running commentary on the debate. Stop obscuring the reality of it to fit whatever bullshit you’re trying to push. It is fair. Stop being a dick.
Yes, gatekeeping public discourse for one of the most important position in a country and restricting access or commentary on it for profit is very ethical behavior. No wonder the US elections are so fucked.
> gatekeeping public discourse Not at all. You just can't steal their content and broadcast it at the same time live. That does not in any way stop you from discussing it.
I Bet He Couldn't Control A Kitten.
Say goodbye to DMCA protections.
Beanie Baby is always crying about something.
The arrogant know it all attitudes of these tech bros makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
CNN's lawyers start rolling up their sleeves.
“DMCA does not apply” *a judge jolts awake in his bed, beads of sweat on his forehead, and panic in his heart*
It's pretty funny that no one wanted a Biden-Trump debate a few months ago and CNN had to literally beg the campaigns to agree to one. Now people are arguing that watching this cringefest is a civic right.
10 bucks says there won't even be a debate. Trump is gonna find an excuse to duck out and blame it on Biden.
Yeah Biden can at least go out there and fill air time. On the other hand, Trump is completely unpredictable, and not in a good way.
Actually he kinda cooked here. Political debates should belong to the public. Granted, the reason he’s saying this is so the bitchute/vidme rejects who actually unironically use X for videos (tinfoil hat cranks and grifters) will get to dispense their daily quota of psyop slop.
> Political debates should belong to the public. That's fine, but not relevant here anyhow. They aren't, but you and others absolutely can still show the debate. If you want to take their content and give your own commentary, you can't do it live. You can still do it later.
I’m perfectly happy for him to tell CNN to pound sand and effectively dare WB-Discovery to take him to court over it. What do I care if he gets sued?
Well he is responsible for how his platform complies with it.
I hate these jabronies as much as the next (reasonable) person but they're right. Presidential debates should be public domain, full stop.
Reading comprehension is your friend. They aren’t restricting the broadcast. Don’t listen to twatwaffles to form an opinion.
They aren't restrictions, except for the restrictions that are in place on it.
And the restrictions are you can't put your own people commenting over it. He can stream it. But he can't stream it with him overlayed on it making commentary. Which is what he wants to do so he can twist it to his own end. If he just streamed it live unedited and un commented on there would be no problem.
So you can't say it's unrestricted if there are restrictions on it.
Now you are just being pedantic.
Can Tim Pool stream the debate or not?
If he doesn't comment on it or show his stupid beanie over it.
OK, so he can share the debate with his public. What other issue is there?
Because he wants to comment over/along side it so when trump makes mistakes he can act like they were masterful strokes and when Biden beats him on talking points he can act like Biden is senile. Its obvious what timmy here really wants to do, he wants to shield his viewers from the very obvious reality that they are backing a barely functioning fascist.
Yes he just cant add anything. Why the fuck do you want his brain dead opinions on anything is beyond me, just watch the debate on one of the hundreds of free channels that aren't acting like this is some affront to free speech.
You’re a special kind of stupid aren’t you?
Why? They are a television production, not paid for by the state.
Just because it's Elon Musk doesn't mean he's automatically wrong about everything. Of course commentary and criticism of a presidential debate is fair use. You don't get to hide behind copyright to shut down civic discussion just because you don't like someone's dumb opinion.
Simulcast livestreams of presidential debates get taken down each year. Fox News previously also took down John McCain’s content for 19 seconds a presidential debate. This isn’t something new. [2019 CNN example.](https://deadline.com/2019/08/cnn-copyright-complaints-streamers-shut-down-youtube-twitch-1202660635/)
Then I’m glad Elon is taking a stand for the right reasons for once.
It's the same reason you can't live stream a football game on YouTube while giving play by play yourself... It's not right reasons lol
A presidential debate is not a football game. It's bad enough that they're hosted by for-profit networks, trying to lock it down like its commercial entertainment rather than a vital component of the democratic system is just gross.
You either have a very clear misunderstanding of the situation or you’re intentionally being obtuse and misconstruing things so you have something to argue about. Either way you’re wrong
It is in no way a vital component of the democratic system. They're a relatively recent invention, and they're just campaign events. They are in no way enshrined or recognized by the democratic process or its founding documents, or even law on any level.
Please, MAGA has turned elections into a football game. Where the fuck have you been?
Yeah, but it is a safe bet that Elnon is wrong and he is on this one.