ABC NEWS v. SWIFTBOAT VETS

DRUDGE REPORT, ABC News ^ | 9/17/04 | tucker39

[Tucker39]

Swift Boat Controversy ABC News Objects to Group’s Use of Good Morning America Footage in New Swift Boat Ad.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Looks like Salon is making no attempt to hide whose side they are taking

http://www.swiftboatvets.com

[xzins]

You make a good point about fair use.

I wonder, however, if the "obligation" to provide political information as part of their "use of airwaves" privilege doesn't mean that their political coverage DURING elections shouldn't be the property of the people.

[Raven281]

No, copyright lasts a lot longer. 70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. That's why it takes so long for something to become public domain. When a song is used in a commercial, it's because the copyright holder granted permission.

[AirBorn]

For all those who have posted the links and info and the great comments about the SwiftVets: THANKS!!

You are like....PATRIOTS!!! to me!!

ABC News??--I don't know WHAT GAME they PLAY!!

Ever hear Rush or Sean?? talk about something??--then the ABC " news break" comes on?? and it sounds SO LIBERAL you want to call up Rush and say, ' You should have heard what your OWN STATION just said!!!"???

But here..maybe they are "pulling an O'Reilly"--trying to SOUND " fair " by objecting!

The SWIFTIES!! I would trade my whole NY GAINTS collection for just ONE of THEIR autographs!! ( bought the book too!!)
My dad was a sarge in WW2--167th Field Artillary that landed on the beaches and broke thru the line in Germany and almost first ones thru. I miss him, he was a real American like these guys.

I do not conside myself a " freeper ", just a freshman kid, kind of new here too, who had a good home..but if I may, I say " FREEP " ABC!!!
and ALL of them!!! like someone else had suggested!

Tom

p.s.--what happened to AP!!!?? filing a federal court to ONLY RELEASE GEORGE BUSHES RECORDS!!!!--B U T
N O T ANY FROM KERRY!!!??

YUP!! Press out there is the new " 527's" of the by-passing campaign advertising laws again!!
Any " therads" here on THIS subject??

[BIGLOOK]

Since when is reporting news taken from the public forum, transmitted over public airwaves to the public, copyright material? Editorials and opinion pieces withstanding, general news is not intellectual property.

In the Swiftvet ad, there was no vocalization by a reporter, no intro or windup.

In response to the news orgs claim, the FCC should require them to recite an on air prohibition to use, rebroadcast or reference after each report they make on news gleaned from the public.

ABC/CBS/NBC news have wasted so much of our time, we should demand they waste their on air time with these disclaimers.

[stand watie]

i'm NOT FONDA-HANOI-john!

free dixie,sw

[rwfromkansas]

When I first saw it, I had the same concern.

But, it is clearly editied to flip back and forth between his use of "ribbons" and "medals" in each appearance. Therefore, I think it is clear enough about the intent that it makes a strong impact.

[rwfromkansas]

This organization would be worthy of study as a way to get a small organization the best impact.

[OhMike]

I've seen comments on this thread about how the latest Swiftvets ad isn't as effective as ______________ (fill in the blank). I think maybe that misses the point. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A commercial is just one attack, but the Swiftees are waging a campaign.

If you look at all the commercials together, they tell a coherent story. John Kerry is not someone you can rely on. In fact, when America and Kerry's fellow veterans needed him, he betrayed them. The last two ads especially go well together. One talks about the symbols. The other shows Kerry himself saying that the medals/ribbons he threw away were a symbol. So the ads together effectively make the point that it doesn't matter if Kerry tries to rewrite his life by lying about whether they were medals or ribbons, in any case he symbolically turned his back on his country.

I don't think there is one magic bullet that's going to defeat Kerry. I think that's the way the Swiftees are fighting this. They're going to "keep putting fire on" Kerry till attrition causes his defenses to collapse.

I hope and expect that there are "reserves" at the ready, waiting to be brought into the battle, and eventually Kerry will be routed.

[Gucho]

"I don't think there is one magic bullet that's going to defeat Kerry. I think that's the way the Swiftees are fighting this. They're going to "keep putting fire on" Kerry till attrition causes his defenses to collapse.

I hope and expect that there are "reserves" at the ready, waiting to be brought into the battle, and eventually Kerry will be routed."

I agree, this guy has a high energy level and will try every angle in the books to achieve his personal agenda.

[fortheDeclaration]

"Specifically, the very last line by Kerry - "and I'm proud of that.." or something to that effect, looks like it could have been chopped from anywhere during that interview, which means it could have been in reference to something unrelated to his medal chucking. The careful viewer, though, can see the movement of his arm coming down to make the coming point at the very end of his second-to-last video cut. And in the last cut - his arm continues down to make the point that he's proud of chucking his medals."

Actually I also noticed that also and felt a bit uncomfortable with it.
I believer it is much more effective if nothing even appears contrived
Now, the beginning of the tape is excellent, with Kerry contradicting himself on wheather he threw ribbons or medals over the fence.
As for being proud of what he did, that probably does represent his feelings on the matter.
On Imus he was still maintaining that he had seen the war crimes he testified about.

[grey_whiskers]

NY GAINTS??

But they're HUGH! I'm series!

[JLO]

"They are copyrighted. Just like something that appears in a newspaper. However there is the same exemption for quoting copyrighted material that applies right on FR. For purposes of public discussion you can quote excerpts, even if the source objects. You cannot post entire works, if the copyright owner objects."

===

This is something that has always bugged me. I thought once something hit the internet, it was fair game. No one owns the internet. (First use on the internet for me was via a university professor many years ago; unlike Gore who claimed he invented it - LOL) Universities got the ball rolling.

And I STILL believe that it's ALL fair game once posted. That's just me though.

[302damnfast]

IMHO, this ad is the lamest ad the swifties could have put out. Watch it from the point of view of someone who doesn't know anything about Unfit For Command or the swifties. It doesn't make it's point clearly from the start. I think it's an absolutely awful ad.

They should be doing ads hammering home the form 180 idea. If they were going to do this, they should have made it change minds instead of appealing only to people who know the story.

I'm a huge fan and donator to the swiftvets, but I HATE this ad. I hope they pull it because of ABCNEWS and get the hell on with making something worth showing.

[chudogg]

Two words. Fair Use.

Now suck it up ABC.

[Grampa Dave]

This reminds me of the 2000 election when the subliminal Rat appeared in one of our commercials.

GW's people immediately pulled the ad, and the lunatics in charge of ABCNNBC BS kept running the ad for free trying to hurt GW. All they did was show that ad for free for weeks.

[patriciamary]

I THINK THE AD IS AVERAGE. I WAS HOPING FOR SOMETHING WITH HIS PICTURE HANGING IN THE N. VIETNAM MUSEUM CALLING HIM A HERO TO THE ENEMY!

[nathanbedford]

These are anointed men on a mission from God. Heaven knows, Karl Rove himself even if disguised as George Bush had not a clue what to do in this campaign until these stalwarts entered the fray.

[js1138]

Six more weeks. Save the best for last.

[dr_who_2]

More to the point, what can ABC do? I doubt the law is on their side here. If it is, members of Congress should think twice before they pass any more strict copyright laws for their rich friends in the media.