Progress Illinois reported on Kirk's recent copyright infringement of some footage from the Chicago NBC affiliate. I added my comment:
That's funny because Kirk is always very worried about intellectual property laws when he talks to the Chinese. Back in April 2006, Kirk told Chinese President Hu that the only issue on the table was IP infringement. Human rights were off the table despite China's extremely poor human rights record including sending Chinese slave laborers to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands under some Jack Abramoff/Tom Delay related deal to keep a reform bill from reaching the House floor. Thankfully, a federal court and Abramoff's incarceration ultimately changed that situation.
I've written extensively about Kirk's free pass to China on human rights hiding behind his fake tough stance on IP infringement. See here and here and here and here and here and here. If some poor Chinese family wants to watch Wall-E, Kirk wants them to get in trouble, but Kirk himself can lift whole ads from WMAQ News and that's OK.
12 comments:
I just read that "Kirk...is expected to be given a senior position in the Department of Defense if McCain is elected President." So, why is he spending $3 million and doing attack ads on Seals to get re-elected?
It's 5 million, and for Republican s these are spitballs, not real attack ads. Word around d.c. is that Mark could rise as high as number 3 in the house republican caucus when he beats dan, and potentially be set up to lead a key committee when we retake congress in 2010.
Anon, I think Mark would be a great SecDef, and there certainly is precedent with former 10th Navy Ivy Leaguer Don Rumsfeld taking the reigns over there, in the past.
As for China, PorterKirk are the leaders on human rights in congress. In fact when Dan was studying at SAIS, he probably read in his books about a lot of the stuff Porter and Kirk did together in the late 80's.
Attack ads used to be beneath Kirk's sense of dignity. Call them spitballs...they're still slime.
But at least we know what Kirk was doing the last two years...raising money for his own re-election and not representing the District. $5 million -- that's more money than he's brought in to the District to improve services for the community.
Kirk could rise as high as #3 in the House Republican Caucus because everyone else would have been replaced by a Democrat. "Word around d.c..."? What does that mean? How about "a little bird told me"? Kirk will continue to be a backbencher, as he was even when the Republicans ruled the House.
Don't worry, even McCain is not senile enough to name Kirk as Secretary of Defense.
Who's PorterKirk? Can't Kirk stand on his own by now?
Anon, stop sounding so bitter.
You expected Kirk to do nothing with his campaign so you can beat him this time around? While the national Democrats helped Seals the last time around (and Seals still lies about it by claiming that he had "no" help even today) Kirk got no help last time and so far, no help this time.
Louis G. Atsaves
Kirk isn't going to be number 3 of anything. Even if he does win, he'll be in the minority party again and this time probably a minority by an even larger margin. Kirk belongs in the margin because his ideas are marginal.
Louis, I expected Congressman Kirk to represent his District (who hired him) and the American people (who pay him). Instead, he spent his time raising money for his campaign. Why is my asking for some accountability from my employee -- as honorable and esteemed as he might be -- being "bitter"?
What else has he accomplished since the last election beyond being the highest Congressional fundraiser in either party? Is that even in his job description?
What has Kirk accomplished? NO bills passed- in eight years. NO representation for the district, and NO real meetings with constituents. Secrecy, lies and distortions. And the anonymous republican brags by comparing his rise to Rumsfeld's? Has he been in a coma for the last eight years? Delusional staffer. Kirk has to raise a lot of money or he'd be totally shunned by his peers as 'the word' in DC is that he is not well liked by any. If the republican party, (in the words of one of their own), were dog food, it would be taken off the shelf.
Kirk can't depend on 'his good pal' McCain to be elected, so he has to fight for the job he hates. And funny, how before the last election, his staff bragged about how Kirk would run for senate- even up until the last days of the election when he was almost beaten by a newcomer. In the eyes of many, that was a defeat and put paid to the idea that Kirk was a popular candidate.
You know, Ellen, for someone who is constantly reminding her readers that she is an attorney, you don't seem a know a whole lot about the law. Kirk was well within his rights to use that footage. Ever heard of fair use? He took it down as a show of good faith and respect to NBC.
Anonymous @ 8:22+
Check the facts.
Kirk forced to take down campaign ad
NBC’s legal department asked Kirk’s campaign to take down the ad soon after it began airing in the district.
Kirk did not take it down in good faith. He took it down because he was breaking the law.
It wasn't me who originally said Kirk couldn't use the footage, I just reported what was said by WMAQ radio and what I imagine to be their team of well paid lawyers. In any event, if you believe they are wrong, please give citations for the law you claim supports Kirk's use of the footage and we'll look at them. In any event, Kirk certainly violated the spirit of what he's been arguing is the only issue with the Chinese government. I really don't care about IP protection in China until they take care of their human rights issues.
I have to laugh about the PorterKirk thing. Kirk is so feeble he now has to merge himself with another human being?
Kirk's quick replacement of his ad without the NBC footage proves that he knew it might be a problem and if he was going to get caught he had another one (without the assumed endorsement of NBC) in the can, just in case.
I'm busy today, but took a quick look at the fair use statute. I don't think use as a political campaign ad fits any of these from the statute (17 USC section 107):
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"
Highly paid WMAQ lawyers 1
Mark Kirk's trolls on my blog 0
Post a Comment