Thanks for visiting my blog! So glad you could make it...Really... because who knows how long it will be available...
The entire internet could shut down at any given moment should we wake the sleeping giant...
Or that giant could simply take me down a peg or two... in your search results.
It doesn't surprise me at all when I see "unavailable" or "terminated" YouTube videos with "third-party" copyright claim notices like the one above... but it does sadden me. A capitalist "free market" and corporate, advertising-based media are practicing their secret handshake while consumers and voters are asleep at the wheel.
Here's how you notice it and why it should bother you as much as it bothers me:
I was busy promoting the Obama Campaign's Website En Español (just put /es after the .com) on my facebook page when I remembered to tell everyone that Republicans frequently tell lies in their spanish-version advertisements and to keep an eye out for that this year - especially in Florida. When they're not lying, they omit certain facts or give some irrelevant aspects of their campaign undue importance for spanish-speaking Americans.
Of course, I'm always called upon to prove these accusations when I make them, so I went to a few sites that I remembered having discussed the problem with Meg Whitman's English/Spanish propaganda and falsehoods campaign.
The Meg Whitman (picture a woman whose face just has "gringo" written all over it) Spanish Language Ads were probably the most egregious example from 2010... She might as well have said "I love you" in Spanish and "I hate those hispanics" in English. It was almost that stark in contrast between messages.
This kind of racist translation-exploitation and audacious hypocrisy, while standard fare for Republicans these days, is the kind of thing that will ensure Republicans take Florida... even if the Goldman Sachs-funded Marco Rubio isn't "coincidentally chosen" as Goldman Sachs-funded Mitt Romney's VP running mate. (That deal has already been sealed, by the way... you heard it here first.)
Not so much to my surprise, the videos associated with the "naughty meg's video" scandal have all been removed.
This is certainly NOT the first time this has happened, either.
The problem with this is two-fold:
1) YouTube is soooo popular that people don't even think to host their videos anywhere else. YouTube is able to censor videos en masse and delete anything it wants out of existence permanently... Their technology only takes mere seconds to scan their entire network of uploads and find every instance of a clip, image, scene, song, movie, or commercial... It's totally arbitrary whether or not YouTube and the mainstream media choose to delete or keep so-called "infringements of copyright" that appear on the video site. This has a propagandizing effect on the United States and other countries because people don't really think about what they're NOT seeing... They will simply scroll over to the next video by Lady Gaga and forget about the video that would have told them that their milk is poisoned.
2) It's actually ILLEGAL for YouTube to do this, but nobody is calling them on it... Our legislators are paid shills, so who is going to call them on it if not me? ... If not you?
The reason it's illegal (I see you rolling your eyes like you don't believe me), is that these types of videos (political campaign ads and controversial or "newsworthy renderings") fall under a category of materials called "fair use". All media events, whether copyrighted or not that can be deemed newsworthy or relevant enough to warrant illustration and dissemination are good candidates for "fair use" reproduction... This is so reporters, bloggers, artists, satirists, pundits, writers, researchers, teachers, students and pretty much everyone else can go about their daily business without having to ask permission from some corporation before every little move they make.
The reason it's illegal (I see you rolling your eyes like you don't believe me), is that these types of videos (political campaign ads and controversial or "newsworthy renderings") fall under a category of materials called "fair use". All media events, whether copyrighted or not that can be deemed newsworthy or relevant enough to warrant illustration and dissemination are good candidates for "fair use" reproduction... This is so reporters, bloggers, artists, satirists, pundits, writers, researchers, teachers, students and pretty much everyone else can go about their daily business without having to ask permission from some corporation before every little move they make.
This is how they get away with it:
1) Most people don't notice because they don't do it on things that they know everyone is looking for at that moment. They do it incrementally. The Meg Whitman scandal has been out of the drive-by media's loop now... Therefore if you're one of the very few Americans who intends on remembering such details, you won't be able to prove anything and your facts suddenly become "assertations".
1) Most people don't notice because they don't do it on things that they know everyone is looking for at that moment. They do it incrementally. The Meg Whitman scandal has been out of the drive-by media's loop now... Therefore if you're one of the very few Americans who intends on remembering such details, you won't be able to prove anything and your facts suddenly become "assertations".
2) It's us versus them and "them" has all the power. Just try to stick up for your shoddy little YouTube video... but you better have the support of the ACLU or you're going to have to take out a 2nd mortgage for the legal fees.
3) YouTube will just "blame the government" since 70 percent of their takedown "requests" come from Government agencies anyway... Here's the thing to consider: Those "government agencies" are Republicans and Police. But by simply saying "the government told us to take them down", who do you think that benefits? Of course, only one party capitalizes on scary stories, half-truths and innuendo regarding a horrifically huge, all-powerful American Federal Government that won't allow them their "free speech".
My blog is mostly about politics - therefore, if I get a copy of the Meg Whitman campaign ads with translations in "mashup" format, it's FAIR USE and I will be posting them here on Google/Blogger/YouTube and if they dare try to take them down, I'll sue Google... and move my blog elsewhere, and stop using Chrome (even though I am starting to like it). These corporations want you to believe that they are "too big to fail" (and therefore we're supposed to let them write their own laws and them give million dollar bonuses just for screwing us)... But if Democrats win this next round, we'll be ready to remind them otherwise.
My blog is mostly about politics - therefore, if I get a copy of the Meg Whitman campaign ads with translations in "mashup" format, it's FAIR USE and I will be posting them here on Google/Blogger/YouTube and if they dare try to take them down, I'll sue Google... and move my blog elsewhere, and stop using Chrome (even though I am starting to like it). These corporations want you to believe that they are "too big to fail" (and therefore we're supposed to let them write their own laws and them give million dollar bonuses just for screwing us)... But if Democrats win this next round, we'll be ready to remind them otherwise.
Unless Google has already taken over our nation's government websites and starts selling them on Ebay by November...
Ok, that last line was a bit of sarcastic hyperbole... It sounds as obtuse and imaginary as a Republican billionaire robber baron becoming Governor of a swing state and then being allowed to hand-pick only true believers of "Tea Party Economic Dominionism" to teach Economics classes at State Universities and Colleges.
Ok, that last line was a bit of sarcastic hyperbole... It sounds as obtuse and imaginary as a Republican billionaire robber baron becoming Governor of a swing state and then being allowed to hand-pick only true believers of "Tea Party Economic Dominionism" to teach Economics classes at State Universities and Colleges.
Peace!
P.S. - After looking at the translated Obama site, the only element of possible pandering or clash of messaging that I noticed is that the campaign chooses to focus on the Dream Act instead of the fact that ICE deportations have dramatically increased under the Obama Administration... While that's not exactly an isolated fact that would score Obama the Hispanic vote, it is indeed something that might make moderates and libertarians consider his merit. Still, I think Obama should address the increase in deportations directly with Hispanic voters just to be clear and upfront.
