Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope.

Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.

This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.

But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.

Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.

Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...

And Fair Use allows you to use private, copyrighted property without permission, as long as it falls under the covered areas. News is one of them.

If Romney talks about Big Bird, and other people want to talk about Romney talking about Big Bird, then they can use Big Bird as long as they are talking about the news.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope.

Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.

This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.

But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.

Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.

Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...

And Fair Use allows you to use private, copyrighted property without permission, as long as it falls under the covered areas. News is one of them.

If Romney talks about Big Bird, and other people want to talk about Romney talking about Big Bird, then they can use Big Bird as long as they are talking about the news.

Now, I do not hold a law degree or anything, but I do believe that using something to sell your product without the copyright holders permission, is a violation of fair use. It's giving the impression that the people who "own" Big Bird endorse Obama.

It's the same reason the AARP has told Obama to stop using them like they've endorsed him.

None of the Sesame Street characters wear clothes except the Count (Closet Gay) and Bert and Ernie (Openly gay).

Obama is promoting nudism and "alternative life styles".

Talking about Romney wanting to cut Big Bird, and using Big Birds likeness to cover that news, is fair use.

That doesn't imply endorsement. Using a guy in a Big Bird costume saying "I like Obama" would be, and that wouldn't fall under fair use.

Now is it stupid of Obama to use Big Bird if they have asked him not to? Yup. But that doesn't mean he is violating copyright law.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope.

Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.

This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.

But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.

Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.

Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...

And Fair Use allows you to use private, copyrighted property without permission, as long as it falls under the covered areas. News is one of them.

If Romney talks about Big Bird, and other people want to talk about Romney talking about Big Bird, then they can use Big Bird as long as they are talking about the news.

Attack ads are not news....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Talking about Romney wanting to cut Big Bird, and using Big Birds likeness to cover that news, is fair use.

That doesn't imply endorsement. Using a guy in a Big Bird costume saying "I like Obama" would be, and that wouldn't fall under fair use.

Now is it stupid of Obama to use Big Bird if they have asked him not to? Yup. But that doesn't mean he is violating copyright law.

No thats an attack ad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
None of the Sesame Street characters wear clothes except the Count (Closet Gay) and Bert and Ernie (Openly gay).

Obama is promoting nudism and "alternative life styles".

I could care less about Captain Chicken wing, but Ernie and Bert are cool.

Attack Ad or not, it is covering news about a current event.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.

It just makes it stupid of Obama to continue with it.

CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

 sourclams wrote:
CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

Give me ten dollars. Why are you arguing? It's such a small amount. You'll probably lose that much in your car.

djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.

I suppose so, but I think it would make more sense to cut spending on bigger things like military.

The amount of money spend on the presidential elections would fund them for quite a few years.

 d-usa wrote:
The amount of money spend on the presidential elections would fund them for quite a few years.

Yes, but that money is actually being used in the private industry. It's money willingly given by Joe Blow to be used. Not money forcibly taken.

 sourclams wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

Give me ten dollars. Why are you arguing? It's such a small amount. You'll probably lose that much in your car.

It makes up less than 1% of the federal budget hows that not a small amount?

 d-usa wrote:
Attack Ad or not, it is covering news about a current event.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.

It just makes it stupid of Obama to continue with it.

Legally thats not how it works boyo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.

I suppose so, but I think it would make more sense to cut spending on bigger things like military.

Cut them too. However, if you completely eliminated all military spending you would still have a massive deficit.

Legally, it does.

Just like for profit news like CNN and Fox News can use pictures and footage of Big Bird to talk about it, even though they are making a profit by using his picture.

Whats the mission statement of PBS though.

To shill for Democrats so Conservatives can have another "liberal" organization to crusade against inthe name of fairness?

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing.

 Easy E wrote:
To shill for Democrats so Conservatives can have another "liberal" organization to crusade against inthe name of fairness?

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing.

paraphrasing isn't the word I would use.

CPB’s mission is to facilitate the development of, and ensure universal access to, non-commercial high-quality programming and telecommunications services. It does this in conjunction with non-commercial educational telecommunications licensees across America.

The fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten, and enrich the public. CPB has particular responsibility to encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.

 Cheesecat wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

I don't even know why it's a political issue considering it has such a small impact on the budget.

That's the problem though. It's always such a "small impact". A small impact here, another there, eventually they add up. No one wants to go after the small things though, because those are the pet projects.

I suppose so, but I think it would make more sense to cut spending on bigger things like military.

The military is already eating a drastic 10% budget cut. One that our leaders across the board are saying will be damaging to our ability to defend our nation. At the same time, I still challenge anyone to show how the money spent on the DoD doesn't have massive resounding impacts on our entire economy. More so then any other dollar our government spends. Several million direct employees, untold millions of indirect employees. How many jobs does each base create in the local communities they're located in?

The US Military gives back to the economy in huge ways. Yet that is always the first thing that people scream at when it's time to make cuts.

Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.

Why do we now have troops in Jordan? Seriously?

Because Katie Price is a threat that must be dealt with on the inside?

 Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.

Why do we now have troops in Jordan? Seriously?

To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.

 Hordini wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.

Why do we now have troops in Jordan? Seriously?

To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.

I saw that too. But Why ?

Those sites are in Syria, guarded by Syrians.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.

Why do we now have troops in Jordan? Seriously?

To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.

I saw that too. But Why ?

Those sites are in Syria, guarded by Syrians.

Because the country is extremely unstable right now and those weapons could potentially fall into the hands of a variety of groups, and we would prefer that those groups not gain access to those kinds of weapons. Plus it's only 150 soldiers (at least officially), which isn't really that huge of a deployment in the grand scheme of things.

djones520 wrote:

The military is already eating a drastic 10% budget cut. One that our leaders across the board are saying will be damaging to our ability to defend our nation.

Of course it will, that's what happens when you cut the military budget. That doesn't mean it isn't a sound decision given that you also have to question to what degree superfluous military capability is necessary given the extant threat to US security.

djones520 wrote:

At the same time, I still challenge anyone to show how the money spent on the DoD doesn't have massive resounding impacts on our entire economy. More so then any other dollar our government spends. Several million direct employees, untold millions of indirect employees.

By "several million" you mean ~4 million, including the National Guard the members of which are not full time employees. If you exclude them the number falls to about 3.2 million. I would further argue that many of the remaining 3.2 million DoD employees aren't providing a useful service to the country, because they are not necessary for effective national defense. Of course, one could also argue that the military is a really effective make-work program, but I suspect lots of soldiers and conservatives would be put off by that sentiment.

With indirect employees the effect is more difficult to assess. For example, the only reason the US has anything approaching a textiles industry is the demand for military uniforms (at least if they're still made in the US). The manufacturing sector also gets a boost because of the arms industry, but outside the local business you mention below I can't think of any other major way in which the military increases demand. Maybe bulk foodstuffs?

djones520 wrote:

How many jobs does each base create in the local communities they're located in?

Many, sadly those communities will likely see what happens when you base your economy around a single source of income. Maybe not now, but most certainly eventually.

djones520 wrote:

Yet that is always the first thing that people scream at when it's time to make cuts.

You know that isn't true, its one of three things. The other two being Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. This is likely because those are the three largest segments of the budget.

Either way, if you want to balance the budget without raising taxes (or at least minimizing the amount they are raised by) then the military will need to incur budget cuts, that's simply the political reality of the situation.

 Hordini wrote:

To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.

They also train PLA and Iraqi security forces in Jordan.

 Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.

Unless you also intend to significantly downsize the number of active duty personnel, place a good deal of existing hardware into storage, and reduce procurement you're talking about the construction of several new bases in the US; and a massive decrease in defense readiness.

Of course, if you do intend to do those things you're talking about incurring the job losses many conservatives seem to be adamantly against.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.


Unless you also intend to significantly downsize the number of active duty personnel, place a good deal of existing hardware into storage, and reduce procurement you're talking about the construction of several new bases in the US; and a massive decrease in defense readiness.

Nope
1. We have plenty of US bases. We can recoppy abandoned ones if need be.
2. Defense readiness, no. Offense readiness yes.
3. I'm ok with reducing the active duty personnel.

Its not like this is not going to happen. Either we can manage it properly or just have it collapse.
To quote the immortal bard: the center cannot hold.

 Hordini wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Close all the foreign except 2-3 strategic ones. Save that money.

Why do we now have troops in Jordan? Seriously?

To help monitor Syrian chemical weapons sites, it sounds like. I don't think that's a bad reason to be there.

Don't you mean Iraqi chemical weapons??

djones520 wrote:
The military is already eating a drastic 10% budget cut.

I didn't think that took effect until January 1st 2013. I have a feeling we will NEVER see those cuts come to pass.

 Easy E wrote:
I didn't think that took effect until January 1st 2013. I have a feeling we will NEVER see those cuts come to pass.

The fiscal cliff issue is very real and spending is going to be cut while taxation will be increased. This is going to happen.