Bush appointee Christie rips off Monty Python in NJ gov race

[GePap]

Well, at least one website discusses campaign ads under the rubric of commercial speech:

http://www.mediainstitute.org/com_speech.html

[Ben Kenobi]

Go steal something, Ben. Get caught. Then apologize and give it back. See what the judge says regarding the technical fact of your guilt.

Why would it even go to a judge? The matter is resolved.

I didn't say ANYTHING about "the Republicans" and the commercial's existence is self-evident proof that wrong was done. Doesn't matter who did it. When you conceptualize and write a pointed commercial, find broadcast-quality video footage, edit it, add Chyron and voiceover, then buy airtime for the commercial and post it on Youtube and your website -- yes, it's "deliberate."

It's deliberate, yes. But is it theft? That is the question. Are they claiming that the ad is their own work? No. It's obviously a Python video. Are they earning an income off the use of the python video? No. Are they using a copy of the video that has been altered? No. None of these things are present.

The only argument that the Pythons have is that the film is being used in a manner contrary to the express wishes of the Pythons. This is not something that would have been obvious until the Pythons made their feelings known, in which case the Republicans pulled it down. It would be nice if they had asked permission, but for this purpose they are not legally required to do so.

Even the campaign (to my knowledge) has made no such claim. No one who puts together real commercials in the real world is unaware of copyright infringement. And you can bet that this is not the candidate's Uncle Joe, but more likely a well-paid media consultant. This is a major-market governor's race. There are no "oopsies" involved.

So what tangible benefit did the Christie campaign derive from the use of the ad? What damage has been done to the Pythons?

Do I owe the Pythons ad revenue should I use one of the sketches as an avatar?

Ben -- HuffPo was the only place left with the video. Are you saying the video is inaccurate?

I'm saying that the article is a partisan piece that detracts from the fair-use argument. You would be better off with a different source for the article than HuffPo.

As I've already said, I could care less about the politics of New Jersey. But the fact that the candidate involved is a mob-connected, Bush-appointed attorney general certainly makes it juicier -- even if it constantly distracts you away from the actual point.

You know, I'm glad we had this conversation. At least I'm honest when I'm doing a hack job on someone that I don't like. You hate republicans. You hate Bush. We get that. Why can't you admit this to yourself?

[-Jrabbit]

Being free to express a political opinion is patently different from appropriating the property of others in a paid commercial. The fact that an ad contains a protected opinion does not free the candidate to loot any outside IP they deem effective in making their point. In point of fact, the candidate did not speak in the commercial. So what speec of his is being protected?

I don't believe the inclusion of "political speech" in a commercial message -- which, with its obvious scripting and editing, this clearly was -- is a green light to run roughshod over everyone else's rights.

Or perhaps you believe the framers anticipated television and the Interwebs?

[-Jrabbit]

Tell me, Ben, do you have a documented case of obsessive compulsive disorder, perhaps complicated by a touch of attention deficit disorder?

Observe the others -- See how they stay on topic? Most of us are discussing IP rights and free/protected speech.

This commercial could have been done by Reps, Dems, Perot, Greenies, whoever. My opinion of the usage would be the same.

[Drake Tungsten]

but why should anyone give a ****?

I was wondering the same thing.

[Berzerker]

Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for Governor of New Jersey in Tuesday's knife-edge gubernatorial election, has been called out as a copyright thief. The 47-year-old lawyer, who was controversially appointed by George W. Bush as a U.S. Attorney in 2001 on Karl Rove's recommendation after being a top Bush fund-raiser in the 2000 election, has created an election commercial that steals copyright-protected material from British comedy troupe Monty Python -- without permission or credit.

**** Monty Python, this guy bought a job as US atty?

[Dinner]

I thought the responses from the Monty Python people was great. They basically clowned the guy for being a complete ******.

[Kuciwalker]

Being free to express a political opinion is patently different from appropriating the property of others in a paid commercial. The fact that an ad contains a protected opinion does not free the candidate to loot any outside IP they deem effective in making their point. In point of fact, the candidate did not speak in the commercial. So what speec of his is being protected?

Are you seriously claiming that it's not speech because he didn't actually say any words out loud in it?

Are you aware of how utterly ridiculous you sound?

You sound ridiculous even before we throw at you the massive weight of precedent interpreting "speech" as "any kind of expression of ideas".

I don't believe the inclusion of "political speech" in a commercial message -- which, with its obvious scripting and editing, this clearly was -- is a green light to run roughshod over everyone else's rights.

Sorry, but your "rights" in this case are privileges extended by Congress to provide incentives for specific behavior. They don't have anywhere near the weight of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Or perhaps you believe the framers anticipated television and the Interwebs?

Explain precisely how this is relevant?

[Wezil]

Why would it even go to a judge? The matter is resolved.

Were you born this stupid or do you have to work at?

[-Jrabbit]

I believe there is a huge and obvious difference between abridging a person's right to express their political beliefs and limiting a candidate's palette of expression to things that are legal.

There are a million ways to say "he wants to raise taxes, don't elect this idiot" without appropriating the property of others.

[Kuciwalker]

The anti-flag burning people tried that logic.

[rah]

Were you born this stupid or do you have to work at?

He works very hard at it.

[Wezil]

How do you even respond to something so stupid?

If a thief gets caught they will get a free pass if they just give the property back?

Stunningly stupid.

[rah]

and apologize. don't forget about that part.

[DinoDoc]

Well, at least one website discusses campaign ads under the rubric of commercial speech:

http://www.mediainstitute.org/com_speech.html

I saw it on the internet, so it must be true!