Bernie2016.tv needs our help! These people are trying to stream Bernie events around the country

[DiehardLiberal]

and have repeatedly been shut down by corporate interests. It's a grass-roots effort led by John Ellis who is impressive in his commitment and talent. In some of his words:

The all volunteer, non monetized Bernie2016tv YouTube channel that relies on rebroadcasting Corporate Media feeds of political speech from live events, has been shut down 3 times. Each time a supposed violation of CopyRight ID as determined by Corporate Media. We have no recourse, no power, no pile of cash or legal team to fight them with. So we must adapt.

In order to have a political revolution, we must have access to the entire unfiltered truth. We have to become the media and ENGAGE the people. Through Engagement Broadcasting, we allow the people to hold us accountable by asking questions on the air live. Opening a dialogue between our hosts and all of our viewers. We have become a Network of the 99%.

The Engagement Broadcast technology that Bernie2016tv uses to generate huge views and moderate a massive global conversation has been patented and trademarked in the hopes of protecting it from greedy corporations. I (we) own it all.. It is powerful, it is ours... and I need your help to keep it that way and scale it to empower every citizen. This will provide much needed leverage to Bernie Sanders and any political candidate that supports the 99.

Please go here https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/uncensored-political-speech-for-the-99#/ to learn more and contribute to this critical medium. We will not be silenced!

Thank you!!

[MADem]

1. They get shut down because they violate copyright.

They either

a) Don't ask permission before streaming or

b) Obtain permission, and then think their right to stream ONCE equates to ownership of the material.

That is what has gotten them into trouble in the past--that they don't respect the rights of the people who own the product.

[NurseJackie]

3. That seems to be the most rational explanation.

Would this be why a business can't buy a single copy of Microsoft Whatever 2015 and then install it on every computer in the entire office?

[PowerToThePeople]

2. The deal is this

We do not have candidates for public office any more. We have corporate products marketed to us. See post #1.

DNC sold out democracy to corporate interests.

This election is about restoring democracy.

#Bernie2016

[MADem]

4. "The DNC" has nothing to do with this--stealing intellectual property that an organization

spent millions to produce is what is at issue here.

I don't think 'Bernie' would approve of theft. This organization is not affiliated with Sanders, and I don't think he's cheering on their lawbreaking.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. No, the DNC sold out democracy to corporations

They could have chosen pbs or cspan and had them released as public domain.

This is 100% the DNC selling out democracy to private corporations.

We need a revolution.

#Bernie2016

[MADem]

8. Let's not be absurd--you plainly don't know how this works. Do you think "PBS" works for free?

Why do you think those assholes show those stupid doowop commercials disguised as "retrospective" shows, where they're shilling for donations in exchange for cheap CDs, and interrupt "good" shows and documentaries with incessant pleas for money?

You want them to break into the debate to ask you to contribute sixty bucks and they'll send you a tote bag?

Get real.


These gigs are expensive to produce. The networks pick up the cost and sell a few ads at the bumps and the breaks, they license clips from the events, and they make enough to get their money back, plus--if they do it right--they earn a little cachet.

[PowerToThePeople]

13. We all know you position in this regards MADem.

DNC could have had contracts writen to make them public domain. They chose not to, thus selling the democratic process to private corporations to market.

That is fascism.

[MADem]

16. No, they could not have done that. Who's going to pay for it? SANTA?

Do you seriously think that networks will carry debates without being able to re-sell the product?

You obviously don't know how this works, never mind my "position." My "position" is that no one gets something for nothing. Least of all a crying con man who is NOT supported by the Sanders campaign. Let's make that entirely clear, shall we?

And you don't know what "fascism" is, either, if you think that not allowing a con artist to steal intellectual property describes it.

[PowerToThePeople]

18. Where did I aprove of copyright infringement?

I have only decried the DNC for allowing our democratic process to be privatised.

That is the definition of fascism, government of private corporations.

[MADem]

23. If you endorse what this guy is doing, you are endorsing copyright infringement.

He wants to buy equipment and webspace to SUBVERT copyrights.

He doesn't realize, apparently, that he needs to leave the US to do that kind of thing without consequences.

[Gman]

25. And it was marketed to people who wanted to know about the candidates.

And those who wanted tuned in and got to hear all three and all the candidates got great exposure from these corporations.

Ummm.... That's not fascism. In fact even what you call fascism is not accurately called fascism.

[PowerToThePeople]

26. Not true

I do not pay for tv service, so I was unable to watch the debate.

Probably the same for millions of other low income voters.

DNC did wrong in my opinion chosing the network it did with the lack of allowing the public access to it. They did democracy a disservice.

[Gman]

31. Considering the DNC wants to get

The greatest coverage possible for all the candidates, the DNC did a damn good job.

[Gman]

24. The DNC has zero control over the actions of any campaign

providing they stay within the rules of the party. They have no control over any newscasts of any candidate. Debates are coordinated through the Party who negotiates with the networks to get the widest exposure possible.

And to assert otherwise shows a disturbing lack of knowledge about the Democratic Party to be making statements line that.

[sabrina 1]

5. Very important, thank you. The Corp media has been trying to shut them down from the

beginnig. Maybe it's time to file a lawsuit to bring attention to the theft of the airwaves by Corporate interests. They are now people with 'status' for such a suit to go all the way to the SC.

Civil Liberties Union might be interested in such a suit.

[DiehardLiberal]

9. Thanks for your response, Sabrina. I was hoping you would see this as I've noticed your support and

respect your take on issues. You should contact John Ellis and see if you can put your heads together.

I can't believe that political events have become something that corporations can "own". This is not the America I grew up in and it is unacceptable. This used to be considered a public service.

[cosmicone]

7. That whole operations smells of a scam

to part Bernie supporters and their money.

[MADem]

10. And not a DIME of it goes to the Sanders campaign. That effort is NOT ENDORSED BY SANDERS.

He's not a fan of "theft of intellectual property."

[DiehardLiberal]

11. it is soooo not a scam. This summer when I was learning about Bernie, Bernie2016.tv was the only

source for educating myself on his issues. They have never asked for any money before and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be now if the corporate media wasn't blocking them! You are wrong.

[cosmicone]

12. That is what Madoff's investors kept saying..

[DiehardLiberal]

14. As a former Hillary supporter, I am shocked by the response to this. I had been prepared to support

Hillary if she is the nominee but I'm now questioning that from these responses. Most of the streams were from individual's twitter phone streams - no intellectual property issues. Your cynicism is really telling.

[MADem]

17. This guy was "shut down" for retaining a network recording of a live stream and rebroadcasting it

without permission.

He wasn't shut down for "phone footage."

Facts are important things.

[think]

15. Did you do as much research in coming up with that opinion as you did vetting your candidate?

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Awe. You're looking out for us. How nice.

[brooklynite]

19. I thought the idea of Bernie2016 TV was that it was "our own TV station"...

...free from the clutches of corporate media.

Why do they keep attempting to stream corporate media?

[DiehardLiberal]

21. If you follow the link you will see that they are now trying to buy equipment/set up infrastructure

to do just that. Without that ability they have been dependent on other sources.

[NuclearDem]

22. John Ellis clearly doesn't know how copyright works.

Or what constitutes fair use.

[Gman]

28. This doesn't smell right. What is this guy up to

That he's selling this by having to appeal to Sanders supporters to fund him to the tune of $50K. He talks way too much about owning the technology to do what he's doing to not smell.

So if he's successful in whatever he's going to do with the $50K, what's next? If he wins and can stream newscasts of Sanders, why not stream other news content? Why not have a news site that streams news content from around the country? There are all kinds of possibilities. Want to catch up on the news back home? What's the local media saying about local event? It's all right there. Proprietary server software and all. How much would Google pay for that?

And who invested in it and gets nothing because they just donated to an Indiegogo campaign

Actually this is a brilliant business plan, if that's what he's doing. Actually pretty common. But brilliant in appealing to very passionate supporters of Sanders who will donate.

[cantbeserious]

29. Just Contributed - I Wish Them Well

eom

[DiehardLiberal]

30. Thanks! I have no relationship with them aside from believing in what they are doing is important.

[cantbeserious]

32. Small Contributions Add Up To Big Things

eom

[DiehardLiberal]

33. Indeed!