Obama Complains About iPads And Xboxes As Diversions

from the innovation-not-good-enough-for-you dept

You would think that, in an age when the President is supposed to be encouraging innovation, that new high tech products that are selling in massive numbers and are creating new uses for technology and new ways to communicate and share information would be seen as a good thing. And, as a President often considered to be more "technologically savvy" than his predecessors (and who fought hard not to give up his Blackberry after getting into office) that President Obama would be careful before blatantly slamming some of the most popular technologies around. No such luck. Obama was known, back during his campaign, for occasionally arguing against video games for children, but now he seems to be going further. In a recent Commencement address at Hampton University, President Obama first admitted that he didn't know anything about some modern technologies, but that didn't stop him from lambasting them either:

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."

Huh? Yes, it may be true in some cases, but such a blanket statement across all of those things is blatantly wrong. Ridiculously wrong. Information can be a distraction, but it's also incredibly empowering, and yes, that includes on iPods, iPads, Xboxes and Playstations. In fact, turning information into entertainment is often a very good way of helping to empower people. While he's right to be concerned about false information that can be found online, as he discusses in the speech, the proper response is not a blanket attack on the tools people use to access the information, but on recognizing that you fight misinformation with better information. You fight ignorance with education. And you recognize that these kinds of technological innovations and tools can help with that, in that they can spread good information and education, rather than being seen as part of the problem.

Filed Under: president obama, technology

Is It Legal For A Clothing Company To Show President Obama Wearing Its Jacket?

from the it's-accurate,-right? dept

One of the trickier and more recent "intellectual property" (and I use the term loosely) rights out there is the "right to publicity" which was an odd sort of invention designed as a way for certain famous people to stop companies from putting their pictures in ads and imply endorsement. But there are some fuzzy borders here, especially when it comes to First Amendment free speech rights. Paul Alan Levy has an excellent discussion on two separate cases where publicity rights came up with regards to President and Mrs. Obama. In the first, PETA used Michelle Obama in an advertisement, as an example of someone who doesn't wear fur. In the second, sporting goods company Weatherproof used a photo of Obama wearing one of the company's jackets while he was in China to highlight the sort of customer they have. Levy points out that the White House was upset and complained about both uses, but likely had no legal right to complain:

As in the Michele Obama case, the White House complained, but everybody seems to agree that Obama won't sue, not just because presidents don't trifle with such litigation, but because Obama has no legal leg to stand on. He is a public figure and the ad is truthful -- Obama did, in fact, wear its jacket standing near the Great Wall...

That is not to say that PETA and Weatherproof ran no risk when they started these ad campaigns. When receiving questions from reporters, the White House could have released statements from her denouncing PETA for extremist opposition to the use of animals in medical testing ("she thinks it is better to test on animals first instead of using poor people and prisoners"). Similarly, the White House could have told reporters, oh yes, he did wear the jacket but later decided that it is a cheap and inferior product. But instead, the White House seems to be playing along, at least with PETA, by agreeing that Obama really does share PETA's position on furs.

Where it gets even more interesting, is that Levy notes that a reporter for the Washington Post pointed to the similarities with various media publications writing up some story about the Obamas solely to get an Obama photo on the cover, knowing that it would sell well. However, oddly, the Post reporter seems to think this is just fine for the media, but a problem when it's someone else:

What is interesting here is the assumption that it is (mis)appropriation when a political group does it and when a clothing company does it, but not when the media do it. But isn't is obvious that magazines were putting the Obamas on the cover to sell magazines? Givhan's article admits that -- she says, "no small part of the allure has been the sort of personal magnetism that connects with consumers as they bide their time in checkout lanes," and quotes PETA's preseident explaining, "It's hard not to look at her and feel good."

This, too, is a use of the Obamas' selling power to sell the products of companies' who have never received consent from the Obamas. In fact, political groups and companies as well as the media are constantly trying to associate themselves with a variety of famous personages, no matter what some "right of publicity" cases may say. It is high time to consider how far the right of publicity needs to be cut back, or whether it causes more trouble than it is worth.

Indeed. The deeper you look at the right of publicity, the more ridiculous and less justifiable it seems. It almost always serves to stifle free speech.

Filed Under: first amendment, michelle obama, peta, president obama, privacy rights, publicity rights
Companies: weatherproof

Still Waiting For The First Real Particpatory Presidential Administration

from the this-ain't-it dept

Like many folks, I was certainly intrigued by the way President Obama ran his campaign in 2008, using various online tools to actually empower his supporters to be proactive and play a real role in the campaign. Many suggested that this was a facade, and that it would be politics as usual once he took office. While it's still early, there does appear to be some evidence that this is, in fact, the case. This isn't surprising, but that doesn't mean it's not disappointing. Last year, we saw this with the various stimulus proposals, where the plans were worked on in backrooms with the usual political insiders and then presented to the public afterwards. There was no real participation from the public. And since then, we've see the same pattern repeated over and over again. On healthcare, certainly, and (of course) on the secret negotiations on ACTA. This is not participatory democracy.

Micah Sifry has a great article at TechPresident exploring this "disconnect," and suggesting that while it was true that the campaign really did enable thousands upon thousands of volunteers to step up and contribute, it may have been more of an accident of the techies who were involved, rather than an explicit plan by the Obama team. And, as a result, after the election, the team really didn't know what to do with the mass of supporters it had built up, and they did (of course) the same old political thing: believing that it was a broadcast list, rather than a group of committed folks who wanted to actually participate. It's hard to argue with this. The campaign still sends out emails, but they're never about asking for input or participating in a larger discussion. They're almost always about supporting the President.

I know that there are still many folks involved with the administration who are trying to build up the tools that can enable the public to be more involved, but it really looks like the administration totally dropped the ball on using the giant community it had already built up.

Filed Under: participation, president obama, social media, transparency

Obama Open To Helping Newspapers, To Avoid Reporting Becoming 'All Blogosphere'

from the oh-really? dept

Mathew Ingram points us to the news that President Obama has indicated that he's at least open to hearing bills that would help bailout the newspaper industry because he's afraid of reporting becoming "all blogosphere":

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."

That seems like an odd way to characterize things. First, it seems odd to lump the medium in with a certain type of reporting. There are plenty of "real reporters" who do plenty of "serious fact-checking" within the blog world too. Blogs are just a publishing medium. Yes, because there's a lower barrier to entry, you do end up with a much larger absolute number of bloggers, many of whom are just giving opinion. But the idea that there aren't blogging reporters is pure folly. In fact, I'd argue that the serious blogs on certain subjects to a lot more to "put stories in context" than your average newspaper reporter, who writes up a quick take and moves on to the next big thing. Topic-specific blogs are often much more accurate, much more detailed, and much more willing to focus on context than newspaper reporting. So why rescue one bunch of reporters, just because they happen to print on paper?

Filed Under: blogs, newspapers, president obama, reporting

How Difficult Is It To Post A Bill On The White House Website For Five Days?

from the come-on... dept

It seemed like a pretty straightforward campaign promise by President Obama: all non-critical bills that were passed by Congress would be placed on the White House website for five days for people to review before the President would sign or veto. It was a mostly symbolic gesture, since, once passed, there's not much that would likely happen to change the bill, but it could allow some to make the case, one way or another, for how President Obama should respond to the legislation. We were disappointed when, at the first opportunity, Obama totally ignored this promise and signed a bill just a day after Congress passed it.

Since then? It hasn't gotten any better. The NY Times is reporting that Obama has ignored this rather simple promise on nearly every bill put before him. That's not the "transparency" we were told to expect. Even worse, the White House has now "changed the terms" of the promise (which sure sounds like "breaking the promise"), saying they'll put draft bills on the website earlier and start the "five day" clock ticking then -- even though legislation may change before Congress votes on it.

And then... there's the bizarre claim that the White House couldn't fulfill the promise due to "unexpected technical hurdles." Really? Putting up the details of a law? And waiting five days? What kind of technical hurdles are we talking about. I recognize that there are campaign promises that get broken, but there are usually at least decent reasons why. In this case, it seems to be because no one in the administration actually cares. And that's disappointing.

Filed Under: president obama, promises, transparency, white house

New Presidential Science And Tech Advisory Council Includes Patent Reformer

from the it's-a-start dept

While plenty of us have been quite concerned about President Obama's decision to appoint a bunch of copyright maximalists to the Justice Department (and the likely appointment of a maximalist to the IP Czar position), there's still the question of where the administration might come down on patent reform. While most of the press reports about President Obama's new Science And Tech Advisory Council have focused on names like Google's Eric Schmidt or Microsoft's Craig Mundie, one interesting appointment is Richard Levin, the President of Yale, and an economist with a long-term interest in patents.

While Levin is in the camp of folks who seem to believe the system can be fixed with some tweaks, he definitely recognizes many of the problems with the system, and his earlier research has noted (like similar research) that for new technology markets, patents can often get in the way -- especially in situations (like high tech) where innovation is "cumulative." Levin has pushed hard for increasing the obviousness bar, and making sure that patents actually are new and non-obvious -- something that would significantly help. He also was among the team that wrote A Patent System for the 21st Century. While there's plenty that I disagree with in both the assumptions and conclusions of the book, on the whole, it does show a rather thoughtful analysis. It's nice to see at least someone talking to the President recognizes that "more" isn't always "better" when it comes to intellectual monopolies. Separately, as others have noted, the really big deal here isn't necessarily who's on the board, but how much the new administration is willing to invest in funding for science and tech initiatives...

Filed Under: patent reform, patents, president obama, richard levin, science and tech advisory council