http://barackobamatest.com/

That's a fairly biased test.

Here's something against Obama that was unfairly taken down from YouTube.

-----
A lesson in the failures of "fair use"

by Lawrence Lessig
October 1, 2008 6:09 PM

I'm in Brazil, just finished with a lecture, about to get on a plane back to the states. When I arrived last night, my inbox was full with a bunch of emails about an anti-Obama remix video that had been taken down from YouTube for copyright-related reasons by an pseudonymous user on YouTube named TheMouthPiece. I tried to follow the links to get to see it, but couldn't. Finally, I was able to locate it, and make it available here for the purpose of demonstrating just what's so wrong with the law of fair use and why it has got to change. (I'm forced to host this myself because of course no video site will not carry it, and I don't want to further complicate the .torrent debates.)

First, and obviously, for anyone who has followed my work, I don't support the substance of the video. It makes some interesting and important points about the problems leading up to this crisis. But I think the suggestion about Obama at the end is incorrect.

But second, and obviously again for anyone who has followed my work, the fact that this video was suppressed is ridiculous. (I don't credit the suggestion it was suppressed for political reasons, though of course, the suppression lawyers don't consult me, so I wouldn't know.)

That it was suppressed, however, is a feature/bug of current copyright law. The video is making a powerful (if wrong, imho) argument about the source of responsibility for this financial mess. It uses text (sparsely placed, as is my own style too, though the author needs a better font), images of newspaper articles, pictures of the candidates, and clips from television, all to the end of making the political argument.

That part's relatively easy from a fair use perspective. What isn't is the music. As is increasingly the style for amateur (in the good sense of the word -- people who do what they do for the love of what they do and not for the money) remix: music is attached to parts of the video to give it a special boost in social meaning, or significance. The cultural reference enhances the political. It becomes part of the story.

So, for example. when describing how Fannie and Freddie gave low interest and no interest loans, the music is Dire Straits "Money for Nothing." And when talking about the speculation, Talking Head's "Burning down the house." When talking about the influence of money inside the campaigns, AcDc "Money Talks." And when talking about how "it ends now" if (as the author but not this author hopes) Obama is defeated, the music is "Survivor - Eye of the Tiger." In each case, the music amplifies the message in powerfully and socially relevant way.

[BUT NOTE: important disclaimer -- I am completely ignorant about the culture stuff, and have struggled to identify the music using lyric search engines. I have created a special page on my wiki which identifies all the songs I could identify, tagged to the seconds on the video. I have not had the time to verify this, or ask others to correct it. Please help by watching the video, and correcting any errors you see, and by filling out the description of the link between the lyrics and the message of the video]

So is this "fair use"? Well most of us would hope it is, but there's no clear authority to support that idea. Music is historically (meaning over the past 20 years) extremely tightly regulated. We have no clear or good "fair use in music cases" except when the music is being used to criticize or comment upon the author whose music was being used. So, the Campbell case in the Supreme Court involved a parody of Roy Orbison's song. That, the Court held, was fair use.

But in these amateur remix cases, the music isn't being used to comment upon the copyright holders -- ACDC isn't being used, for example, to criticize them. And for this category of use, there is, again, no clear authority supporting a claim of fair use -- which the record companies interpret to mean it is clearly not fair use.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But this whole mess demonstrates clearly, in my view, the need for us to get beyond the "fair use" analysis. This is an amateur remix of popular culture. It should be completely exempt from copyright restrictions. When it gets used commercially (by, say, YouTube), then, in my view, YouTube should be responsible for the work it is profiting from -- through a flat, collective license, for example, either created by law, or negotiated by the parties. But only then should there be a "copyright event." Until it is used commercially in that sense, the creator should be free to (re)create without employing a lawyer to muddle through the mess of complexity fair use law is. The law has no useful function in this context. Or put differently, amateur remix needs to be deregulated.

Instead, of course, the law today has it exactly backwards. It is the creator of this work who is the alleged copyright infringer under current law. And YouTube who is immune from liability so long as it removes the work as soon as it can.

This has got to change. We should be regulating in copyright where it makes copyright-sense to regulate. And in my view, it makes no copyright-sense to be regulating this kind of use. Sure, Tom Petty wouldn't be happy with his work being associated with a conservative message. But so what. When your song is famous enough to provide this sort of support in a message like this, you've lost control of its meaning. And no doubt, you've been well compensated for that as well.

Let's hope this bit of copyright over-regulation might begin to wake the Right up to the need for a significant bit of deregulation in the field of federal culture policy (aka, copyright law).

I do not want Obama to be elected, but this "test" is kind of like a push poll. Some of it's implications are honest. Maybe not all.

One question I would like to see Obama asked in a debate is how raising corporate taxes and taxes on some small businesses (those earning more than $250K), which are already higher here than in most competing nations, will help create new jobs or improve our competitiveness. It just doesn't add up. It's backwards.

On energy, Obama has apparently changed his mind on nuclear energy, which is good. Though I'm not sure how much I believe any policy changes on either side at this point, since they will say anything to win.

Our economy runs on energy. It is vital to our health and prosperity. Our country is sitting on an unbelievable wealth of energy, enough to power our economy beyond the forseeable future, if we shift to different sources: nuclear and coal, mainly. Yet, there are many political forces that are trying to stop us from using this energy. It is like a man dying of thirst sitting on top of a water tank, and refusing to drink. It makes no sense at all.

===Stepping on soap box===

All I can say is the Republicans have had the Presidency for 8 years and ran Congress 6 of those 8 years. Before Bush was elected we had a budget surplus and the economic engine was humming.

Our current president has stonewalled investigations, Dick Chaney argued he was part of the legislative branch to get out of providing information required by the executive branch and Wall Street has run wild with deregulation!

How in clear conscious can we elect a man who voted George Bush's way 90% of the time (a figure that McCain doesn't dispute) and says he is here to change things. Come on people, wake up and smell the coffee. Don't let all this right-wing fear-mongering about Obama brainwash you like the Swiftboat ads of 2004. We need someone fresh!

===Gets off soap box===

"Before Bush was elected we had a budget surplus and the economic engine was humming."

Might I remind folks that what is happening in the "global market" is in fact a "global problem" one can hardly lay blame to one man for ALL the worlds financial problems. I'm not really a Bush fan either, but I can hardly give him all the credit for the all the World's ills. No one man is THAT powerful!

Obama still scares me. I got a 94% in this test. What really surprised me was my left over 6%

Mr. Dude, you have been misinformed. When Bush was sworn in, the economy was in recession -- it was not humming, as you suggest. "The U.S. economy shrank in three non-consecutive quarters in the early 2000s (the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, and the third quarter of 2001)." -- wikipedia The recession started in 2000, when Clinton was still in office.

Then we were hit with a terrorist attack. All this, Bush had to cope with. He got the economy going with tax cuts for all classes of taxpayers. where he fell down was not reigning in spending.

Further, Republicans like John McCain called for reform of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, but Democrats said there was nothing wrong with these institutions. The Bush Administration has repeatedly called attention to the need for more regulation of these mortgage giants. Democrats resisted reform.

It was the Clinton Administration who opened the floodgates of risky real estate loans. Read it for yourself in the very liberal New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

They pushed the agencies to make loans to people with bad credit. These are the same folks who are defaulting now. It was affirmative action for minorities who were bad risks for home purchase. Nice social policy but very bad business.

Is Bush free of blame? No. His SEC appointee changed the rules for investment banks a few years ago, allowing them to buy more and more of these risky mortgages. Those investment banks have all gone bankrupt now, causing great turmoil in the financial markets.

Although people in both parties have made mistakes, the Democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis, and if you can put your partisan feelings aside for a moment and look at the top recipients of political contributions from Fannie Maey and Freddie Mac, it is Obama, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank.

When fraudulent accounting was discovered at Fanny, these Democratic folks resisted regulation. They covered their Fanny!!! They defended the indefensible and risky schemes going on at those lenders.

I'm sorry sir, but blaming this mess on Republicans is at odds with the facts. Don't believe me. Do your own research. Yes, it is easy to throw out "talking points" of the Democrat party. It is hard to dig out the truth of which people in both parties are culpable.

Obama does not have the training or experience to deal with these problems. Unfortunately, neither does McCain. We have very poor choices. But Palin has executive experience in ferreting out corruption and waste in government, even in her own party, and McCain has been tried and tested in crisis like few have been. He is not ideal, but he is the best hope we've got now.

Energy sources: nuclear brings unsolvable radioactive waste disposable problems (Hanover site in Washington State continues a slow but dreadful leakage from those underground waste canisters), and coal burns dirty with carbon and sufur emissions.

Credit crisis: Yes, both parties certainly are to blame (Republicans mainly because of Bush's appointment of the SEC leader whose rule changes led indirectly to the crisis; and numerous Democrats for various reasons listed).

McCain tried & tested: Giving out pilot maneuvering data to his captors while POW ought to detract considerably from an experience that otherwise propels him to an advantage. But as long as few people know or dare to bring this issue up, he can continue to skate along.

Obama not ready to lead: No argument there; he's basically untested in foreign and domestic affairs.

Unfortunately, it is quite true that neither candidate has what it takes to do a really good job leading our nation. And so, we can expect things to continue plodding along rather incompetently.

It's not that I exult in pessimism; it's just that there doesn't seem to be enough good reasons to be euphoric.

For an example, Wall Street got its butt saved, but at what cost? Most likely, the final tab is yet to come. Combine that along with the eventual trillion-dollar bill for the wars of terror in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . well, ultimately, the value of the dollar is bound to go into a significant slide (eroding our assets along with it).
But, in the meantime, the stock market and the biggest banks (Rothschild's Bank of America; Rockefeller's J.P. Morgan/Chase) are sitting pretty.
Whoop-de-doo.

And I've said this before: I've given up on our pathetic two-party system.
Most of the time, there's very little difference between the two (sort of like Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, with not much more cranium assets either)!

"but I can hardly give him all the credit for the all the World's ills. No one man is THAT powerful!"

I tend to disagree. Let's see... someone disagreed with Bush's idea that Sadaam Hussein had 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction'. Upon doing so, somehow his wife gets outed as an FBI spy. Does anyone go to prison for this obvious violation of our country's laws? No.

Our prez seems that powerful to me....

"Then we were hit with a terrorist attack."

Yes the only attack on our soil. And it happened while the Republicans were in power. Coincidence... I think not.

"But Palin has executive experience in ferreting out corruption and waste in government, even in her own party,"

While she gets people fired for being the ex of a relative.

Autodidact:

Are you actually self taught? This may explain why you mistake Bush or Palin for a thoughtful person.

If you went to college and beyond, you were surrounded by thousands of educated people, and you recognize the opportunity of having an editor of the Harvard Law review as president. You don't have to guess anymore whether our president has a brain. It will then have been a proven, vetted fact.

Faith and intelligence aren't mutual exclusive, although you wouldn't know it by watching the Fox Network.

disclaimer - I am not a democrat, I own 5 guns and am against abortion. However, I would never be a republican, even if an interesting thoughtful person like Dr. Ron Paul were running, who I supported. They are just too twisted and anti-intellectual. They don't even know the difference between elite and elitist. Richard Nixon - that explains about everything. Twisted - a war hawk and a Quaker! And Prescott Bush was convicted under the trading with the enemy act in 1942 for floating Nazi railway bonds.

If you want a Palin (McCain's life span is too short) over a certified smart person like Obama, you have some explaining to do. Unless you are a hockey mom.

Seriously. aren't you sick of DUMB people being president. At least Clinton was a Rhoads scholar.

ps:

Thanks for taking The Obama Test!

You AGREED with the Barack Obama position on 30 of the 48 test questions. This means you agree with the Obama position 63% of the time.

Pope criticises pursuit of wealth
Pope Benedict XVI
The Pope says God's word is the only veritable reality to build on

The global financial crisis is proof that the pursuit of money and success is pointless, Pope Benedict XVI has told a meeting of bishops in Rome.

The head of the Roman Catholic Church said that the disappearance of money as banks collapsed showed that wealth meant "nothing".

The Pope said that people should instead base their lives on God's word.

Those who think that "concrete things we can touch are the surest reality" are deceiving themselves, he said.

'Building on sand'

The crisis in the financial industry has seen billions of dollars wiped off the value of shares, and a number of seemingly untouchable banking institutions have been taken over, nationalised, or have collapsed.

Speaking to the bishops assembled at the Vatican, Pope Benedict said those who seek "success, career or money are building on sand".

When he opened the Synod on Sunday, the Pope attacked modern culture, saying that "nations once rich in faith and vocations are losing their own identity under the harmful and destructive influence of a certain modern culture".

Yes, though there may sometimes be reasons to differ with the pope's positions, he nailed this one.
We SHOULD be basing our lives on God's Word and His will.

Like they say, "you can't take it with you". What counts is intangible (spiritual values - faith, love, and charity).

A Brinks truck never follows a hearse.
Tell that to all republicans, especially the evangelical millionaires. Didn't Jesus throw them out of the temple?

" We SHOULD be basing our lives on God's Word and His will. "

Who's God ?
Your's ?
Theirs ?
Mine ?

What do we do with those that believe
in a different 'God' ?

There is no Room for any 'God' in
government.
That belongs in the home, with parents,
with the churches and methods of their
choosing.

Choice.

So what do we do with the 'unbelievers' ?

You can never enforce faith.
It always ends badly if you try.

Reeducation ?
Re 'training' ?

Perhaps someone has a more Final Solution in mind ?

We never learn from history, do we ?

"Yes, it is easy to throw out "talking points" of the Democrat party." It's Democratic, not Democrat. And I do believe you came straight from the Republican talking points -- Drudge Report maybe? Little green footballs? Michelle Malkin, and Faux Noise? Wow, both sides play that game, and it's silly.

When the McCain campaign says 'elite' they really mean educated and intelligent. Darn! We've had 8 years of stoopid, why ruin a good thing?

And one more point-- while I think Palin would be great for comedic relief for the next 4 years, the last governor we elected really bombed-- literally, didn't he?

"We should be basing our lives on God's Word and His will."

"Whose God?"

Strong suggestion: How about the God of our founding fathers? That God was good enough for them. They seemed to do okay enough.
But, if not, you have the freedom to choose a different god and live a different path. Free will.

"So, what do we do with the 'unbelievers'?
You can never enforce faith."

Unbelievers have a choice, too. This concept is called free will, btw.
(What's the problem? I didn't say we MUST.)

"You can never enforce faith."
I wasn't saying any such thing, neither intended nor implied.

Wow.

"should" as in should make good decisions; should live a decent life; should be a good citizen; should be willing to help others; etc.

NOT enforceable by law (as otherwise would be the case in "must")

"We never learn from history, do we?"

One important thing I did learn is that the inception of our nation through our founding fathers was accompanied by faith and by living that was based significantly on spiritual values.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=273884

http://www.mafo2008.com/

hummm....maybe more to worry about than just policy.

" One important thing I did learn is that the inception of our nation through our founding fathers was accompanied by faith and by living that was based significantly on spiritual values. "

They also realized the dangers of mixing
religion and government, hence one of
the principals of the first amendment.
Some of the actions of the Puritans that
founded are country are as atrocious as
any crime in the name of 'God'.

Mixing religion with our government
leads only one way. Oppresion.

Leflaw, I would prefer Ron Paul, too. And I am not a Republican. I have read Obama's biography -- his first book. And it is clear to me that he loves more government. This is the opposite of Ron Paul.

Mixing religion with our government
leads only one way. Oppresion.

Pro-Obama, Muslim-led voter registration in mosques...what's with this???

Awww, I expected better, pepe. They learned from the experts!

Christian Coalition of America: Hold a Citizenship Sunday voter registration drive at your church!

Church voter registration targets amendment

Mt Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church Voter Registration Drive

"They also realized the dangers of mixing
religion and government." (i.e., oppression)

True, but their personal lives and many if not most of the citizens of the 13 colonies reflected moral/spiritual values.
Their notion that all men are created equal in God-given rights is basic.
The time of the inception of our nation was when our republic was formed. For the sake of the time frame, we can start with the Declaration and proceed to the development of government after the war for independence ended.

Yes, they sensed that legislating morality would be inappropriate, and they didn't do it.
Perhaps they were inclined to take their cue from the Good Book in its aspect of God allowing free will.


Re: "Puritans that founded our country"

This phrase is imprecise.
True, the infamous blot on the Puritans' record is well known. But, then, those incidents occurred 90 years PRIOR to formulating our nation's government under the development of a constitution. And, by then, the Puritans had reformed. Even beyond that, most of the founding fathers were not Puritans per se.

Additional perspective:
Incidentally, the witchcraft trials, though dramatic and enduringly notorious, did not appropriately define the Puritans' methods of living for the 100-plus years that they formed relatively successful communities. What it did show was the danger that their self-imposed isolation had put them in during the early 1690's.

After the ill smoke of the repression within their close-knit community cleared, the Puritans changed for the better in many ways. Just a sampling of some notable examples within the 1700's:
Jonathan Edwards -- Leader of the Puritans in 18th century America; John Newton -- author of "Amazing Grace" and other hymns; Isaac Watts -- another famous author; etc.

ShadowMom

Yeah, you got me there, BUT, Obama is a professing Christian! Why would the Muslim community be pushing a Christian candidate???

INeedALover: "Yes the only attack on our soil. And it happened while the Republicans were in power. Coincidence... I think not."

Have you forgotten the World Trade Center attack in 1993? That was the Clinton years. It was organized by a criminal family from Baluchistan, who also had part in organizing the 2001 attack. Clinton had eight years to clean that up. He did capture and imprison some of them. Others involved in the 1993 attack found refuge... in Iraq!

Now, let's talk about Osama. He bombed our embassies, and Bill Clinton was unable to bring him to justice. Prior to those bombings, according to reports, and even according to Bill Clinton himself, Sudan offered to deliver Bin Laden to us, but Clinton did not follow through. There is even an audio tape of Clinton himself admitting he had a chance to take Bin Laden and did not do so. It is at the link below if you do not believe me.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic

In addition, during the Clinton Administration, there were barriers to communication between various agencies that had intelligence on suspicious activities that led to the 9/11 disaster. These barriers were in place when Bush took office. Since these agencies could not share info and coordinate it, the plots were not detected and dealt with.

Bush has his flaws. But there was a certain laxness in the approach to terrorism during the Clinton years that created a vulnerability allowing extremists to kill 3000 Americans on 9/11.

To blame this on Bush is absurd.

" Yeah, you got me there, BUT, Obama is a professing Christian! Why would the Muslim community be pushing a Christian candidate??? "

Because, since they live in THIS country,
they believe he is the right man for the job,
regardless of his faith .. the right way
to look at things, in my opinion anyway.

To clarify, I don't care if the guy is mormon,
atheist, jewish, .. whatever, if he seems
right for the job, then thats what i'll vote
on.

Maybe those muslims are more open
minded than some christians.

I agree... they believe he is the best person for the job. Being Christian doesn't automatically make you a better person, or even a good person. And being a Muslim doesn't make you worse. That's sheer ego. Besides, doggone it! This country is strong BECAUSE of our differences. The fact that we can usually work things out and still maintain our individual differences is our foundation. We're not all Christian, we're not all white, we're not all hockey moms! And ain't that just great! And before I go off on my Palin routine, I'll stop.

And I think Bush has had 8 years, and from certain reports even had HIS shot at Osama-- but he needed a war in Iraq. And we know that Clinton and others warned the Bush administration about Al-Qaeda before 9-11. And we also know this is history, and the election has nothing to do with it. Right? Except there's that pesky problem of McPalin wanting to be just like Bush.

"Maybe those muslims are more open-minded than some Christians."

Maybe.

As an aside: In regard to some Christians not being open-minded ....
That reminds me: Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were referred to by John McCain as "agents of intolerance" some years back.

ShadowMom, Dreddsnik.....

You know what guys, I really, sincerely, hope you are right, because if not, America is in for a really rough ride! Worse than even I could imagine.

To Pepe and anyone else interested:

As you know, some people consider the Bible as an intolerant, overly exclusive religious document:
1) It's known as the Word of God, originally spoken to those saints whom the Lord chose to write certain things down in their own style of writing.
2) It calls sin an offense to God, and sinners as offenders to God. (Sin can be forgiven if a person is sorry and trusts in Christ as his/her Savior.)
3) It tells how Jesus is the only way to avoid being eternally "lost" (sent to perdition).

Understandably, the Bible has not been the most popular book with some folks.

PerilousTimes

Religion or Politics. Pick your poison. I consider myself a strong Christian, and I understand where you are coming from.

In this race, there are two politicians who both claim to know the Lord. One I trust, the other, not so much. One I know for sure has a heart for America.

America is in trouble, and at this particular crossroads, I'm fairly sure the mistake of choosing the wrong man will be very detrimental for Americans.

All I can say is choose wisely, for the right reasons...forget the fancy speeches, and rehetoric. Search these mens hearts..really listen to what they are saying..Dig deep,and understand that what they are saying, is what they truly believe.

If nothing else, believe in yourselves, and do some serious "soul" searching.

Changing lanes, just for the sake of changing lanes, is not always the best way to travel, but you have to go with your gut feeling nevertheless and you'll likely never regret your choice, no matter what the outcome.

Folks, if McCain wins, he will have gone against the odds.
No candidate from the same party who attempts to follow a failed two-term presidency has EVER won the election when the economy is one of the key issues!

So, will McSame prevail? Or will he, as history would expect, simply return to the ashes of the proverbial phoenix from whence he arose?

I'd say, barring a dramatic development within the next several weeks: brace yourselves for Obama to maintain his lead. Having him as our leader won't all be pretty, but that's to be expected anyway, given the quality of candidates the powers-that-be so graciously tends to provide for us. [said in bitter sarcasm]

I too, was in favor of Ron Paul's independent gumption, despite some reservations. BTW, it's interesting to note that he did not attract significant financial backing of the kind that supported "the little general" (back in '92).

Our nation's two-party system is part of the reason for the shape we see our country in, and that's been the case for a long time. An independent candidate has little chance, and both major parties are, to a certain extent, corrupt (with well-heeled movers and shakers behind the scenes pretty much seeing that those who get the best chance to be successful candidates in the primaries are in favor of globalist agendas intended to propel us to world government).

" Having him as our leader won't all be pretty, but that's to be expected anyway, given the quality of candidates the powers-that-be so graciously tends to provide for us. [said in bitter sarcasm] "

Lets not forget the current administrations
continuing delberate actions to make things
so much worse before they are forced to
leave, that a haloed saint couldn't fix
in one term.

Why else would a candidate do so much
stupid shit that he almost seems to
WANT to lose ?

Self serving greedy ambitious bastards
that do this with no though to the people
they harm, just so they can get rid of
the scary negro in four years.

They better be careful , McSame might
win, and the repubs will step into their
own disaster machine.

Yeah, I kind of agree.

And, looking back at my previous post, I ought to clarify by saying I meant the RESULTS of having Obama lead us for the next four years won't be all pretty. . . but it won't be all bad either.