Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
from the nice-one-sherm dept
Former Las Vegas Journal Review publisher and Stephens Media CEO Sherman Frederick was the main champion behind Righthaven. Early on he was the one who explained (in bizarre, nonsensical terms) why the LVRJ was funding and supporting Righthaven, and mocked those who pointed out the ridiculousness of his position. Part of his reasoning was that putting copyright infringing content on your website or blog is absolutely no different than stealing the Corvette out of his driveway. Even if we ignore how this is completely wrong (someone copying content doesn't remove that content from his site, and he still has the content, etc.) and grant him that premise, it seems rather odd that Frederick himself has now been caught posting infringing material to his own blog.Now, it's probably worth mentioning that poor Mr. Frederick lost his job right after the election, but he's still a columnist for the LVRJ. One of our readers, Joseph, pointed out that one of Mr. Frederick's recent blog posts was a short one about how Saturday Night Live had done a skit about the TSA patdowns, and he embedded it in his blog post. Except, he apparently chose an infringing one from YouTube, rather than the legit version from Hulu. Oops. NBC has taken down that video, so now Frederick's blog post simply shows this:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, sherman frederick, snl, youtube
Companies: nbc universal, righthaven, stephens media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's back up...
take down coming in 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's back up...
It's the same video. It's only if you click play that you see the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
And there goes any non-geek creds I hoped to acquire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
/don't panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're helping the LVRJ
Make it a bare (not "a href") link and urge everyone to delink the DPost and LVRJ.
Sign the Twitter petition: act.ly/2t5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Remedial Hypocrisy, folks
Those who can't remember such a basic rule won't even qualify to take Basic Hypocrisy 101 in business school. Forget about advanced courses specializing in Religion and Politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pulling a Daryl, AnitMike, etc ...
Dude learn how the internet works ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pulling a Daryl, AnitMike, etc ...
Heh. I debated linking back to one of our earlier discussions on embedding, but figured it would just distract here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pulling a Daryl, AnitMike, etc ...
http://www.something.com
That is an embedded video which ... is ... on ... his ... blog.
With your definition everything on a web page is just a link.
You are the one who should learn how the internet works ... DUDE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pulling a Daryl, AnitMike, etc ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pulling a Daryl, AnitMike, etc ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: F Sherman - email to him
Now that you have updated your blog to show the correct link, maybe you can explain your actions in such a way as to show how your linking infringing material is not like stealing a corvette as you have previously written? Or is it only stealing when someone else does it? Come on, your such a big supporter of RightHaven filing lawsuits against everyone for exactly the same reason, I really would like you to write a blog post defending your action in posting a link to infringing material. Hypocrite.
maybe a little antagonistic but considering his position on the subject i don't think I went overboard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got a response
"Sorry, I don't respond to the unthinking."
of course not, you wouldn't want to have to try to explain the hypocrisy of your actions. coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got a response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got a response
How... convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a surprise at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The latest response
"You don't demonstrate any understanding about the issue? Links?"
Did I miss something, or get something wrong? or am i just confused (admittedly my co-workers would say yes based on my general absent mindedness)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The latest response
Ask him to explain the moral difference between redistributing the video without permission the way he is doing it as opposed to getting the exact same result using another method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were defending a RightHaven lawsuit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tutorial on blocking all RIGHTHAVEN Clients' Websites
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BzxfXpayzEkBMDNhMzRmYWMtOTMwYy00NDRkLTgwYjctZGJiZmJkZGQ2ZDk4&so rt=name&layout=list&num=50 (PDF file. Under 100Kb)
How do end users of web content protest against this copyright troll outfit? We whip out the big First Amendment stick of Freedom of Association and boycott the RightHaven client media companies.
This tutorial article will focus on Windows operating system and a freeware program called HostsMan. I will give an Apple OS X alternative with instructions, the program is called GasMask but I have not personally used that software.
The next step will be auto-updated HOSTS files blocking/boycotting the websites of all advertisers on all RightHaven clients' websites.
First we try this small effort...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tutorial on blocking all RIGHTHAVEN Clients' Websites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you not read the post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I did. I just don't think it's newsworthy. Embedding a YouTube video is not infringement. Not if you didn't upload the video in the first place. If he embedded a video that someone later flagged as their IP, how was he supposed to know up front that was going to happen? Funny how you defend YouTube's not knowing which clips are uploaded by Viacom, but you don't do the same for the Sherminator. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, we're all glad it's not your blog so it's up to Mike to decide what might be newsworthy or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was simply sharing my opinion. Just like everyone else. You got a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Either you didn't understand the post or you're deliberately trolling.
Obviously Mike doesn't believe that embedding a YouTube video is infringement, but Mr. Frederick is known for his position that using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement.
Mike's post point out the irony of this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either you didn't understand the post or you're deliberately trolling.
Obviously Mike doesn't believe that embedding a YouTube video is infringement, but Mr. Frederick is known for his position that using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement.
Mike's post point out the irony of this situation.
Apparently I'm fooling you, since I'm not being disingenuous. Of course I understand the post, I just think it's silly and reaching. If this was somebody Mike liked and they had embedded a video that someone later flagged, Mike would be defending them tooth and nail. He'd be complaining about takedown notices are used to chill free speech, he'd point out that perhaps the takedown notice was even issued by the rights holder, etc. But when it's someone he doesn't like there's no such defense. It's a double-standard and it's pretty transparent. Maybe you don't see it, but I'm sure others do.
Perhaps you can point me to where the Sherminator claims that "using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement." I'd like to see the basis of your claim. Was he talking about embedding YouTube videos at the time? I seriously doubt it. And I'd love for someone to explain to me how he was supposed to know it was copyrighted? Heck, how do we know that this wasn't a legit upload that someone else wrongfully issued a takedown notice for? How can you prove that it's even infringing in the first place?
The only irony I see here is that Mike felt this was newsworthy. I think this whole "story" says more about Mike than it does about Shermy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As I've told you in the past, until you're my boss, your opinion on what is and what is not newsworthy means nothing to me. That you don't like Righthaven's corporate masters (who you've publicly endorsed) being shown up as hypocrites explain why you'd rather bury such a story.
Embedding a YouTube video is not infringement.
Agreed. But, I'm sorry if this is so difficult for someone like yourself to comprehend, but we're talking about what *his* stance is. And his stance seems pretty clear. Putting infringing content on your own blog is like stealing a corvette. That's what he said, and we're pointing out the hypocrisy.
If he embedded a video that someone later flagged as their IP, how was he supposed to know up front that was going to happen?
Ok, so then you have no problem with people reposting content on their website that the LVRJ says "share!", right? Oh wait, you claim it's infringement.
Funny how you defend YouTube's not knowing which clips are uploaded by Viacom, but you don't do the same for the Sherminator.
Ugh. Are you serious? Do they not teach logic in law school? Again, we're talking about Sherm's view on things based on his statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They actually do have a formal logic class at my school. I don't need to take it since I learned a logic when I got my degree in theoretical mathematics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you're really emotional about this. I don't care if my opinion means nothing to you. I'm just stating my opinion, just like everyone else. I don't agree that they're being hypocrites. Not even close.
Agreed. But, I'm sorry if this is so difficult for someone like yourself to comprehend, but we're talking about what *his* stance is. And his stance seems pretty clear. Putting infringing content on your own blog is like stealing a corvette. That's what he said, and we're pointing out the hypocrisy.
Really, Mike? Are you going to insult me and pretend like this is "so difficult for" me to "comprehend"? Give me a break. Let's leave aside the personal attacks and stick to the merits. Can you do that? I comprehend just fine. Please prove that the video he embedded was infringing. If you've no proof, then you're guessing.
Ok, so then you have no problem with people reposting content on their website that the LVRJ says "share!", right? Oh wait, you claim it's infringement.
They are inviting you to share a LINK, not to share the text of the article. I've never seen you acknowledge this distinction, which honestly, is quite remarkable. I've often wondered if you just don't see it, if you see it and are blocking it out, or if you're intentionally glossing over that fact. Do you really not understand the difference? I've brought this up several times, and you've never once addressed it.
Ugh. Are you serious? Do they not teach logic in law school? Again, we're talking about Sherm's view on things based on his statements.
And here you go right back into the "do they not teach logic in law school." Such a lame attempt to bring me down. Why don't you just drop that, Mike. It's gotten really old at this point. Try to stick to the merits. Show me where Sherm says embedding a YouTube video that you have no knowledge of its authenticity is infringement. You simply cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you go to YouTube, they encourage you to share videos by using the supplied link or embed code to the original video on YouTube. They do not invite you to share the material by downloading the video locally and then uploading the video on your own. They want you to use their link or code. This is exactly what Shermy did.
When you go to the LVRJ, they encourage you to share stories by using the supplied link to the original story on LVRJ's website. They do not invite you to share the material by downloading the story locally and then uploading the story on your own. They want you to use their link. This is exactly what Shermy wants people to do.
Shermy is no more culpable for embedding a YouTube video that may be infringing than you would be if you linked to a LVRJ story that may be infringing. I would never fault you for linking to a YouTube video or an LVRJ story that happened to be infringing since that wouldn't be fair. Do you really not get it?
And please, Mike, drop the personal attacks. Stop pretending like I'm stupid and I don't understand logic just because I don't agree with you. Do you really think that people who disagree with you are stupid? I hope not. I know I've gotten personal in the past, but I'm making a concerted effort not to do that again. I hope you can appreciate that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you like me to list out and link to the long series of personal attacks you made on me, using various cursewords -- calling me a "fucking idiot," a "fuckwad" etc.? I may challenge your mental capabilities, but I've never gone down that road. Don't get all sanctimonious now.
I agree with you that embedding a YouTube video is not infringing, but I also think that reposting content is not like stealing a Corvette. But Sherman Fredericks made that claim, and his use of infringing content suggests he doesn't seem to recognize his own hypocrisy. Your entire argument is based on the belief that *I'm* saying embedding is infringing. I am not. I'm basing my comments on Fredericks' position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not think you are saying that "embedding is infringing," nor have I indicated that is your position. You have jumped to the conclusion that the video he embedded was in fact infringing, and you have not offered any evidence to back up that assertion. But that is really a side issue.
The main issue is this: Shermy did not repost content, hence your analogy fails and there is no hypocrisy. Had he reposted something, then you would have a point. But he did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would be pretty worried if they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is pretty logical. If it is on YouTube, it must be legal. This guy just followed that to it's logical conclusion.
The story does nothing but prove that YouTube makes at least some of it's money by violating copyright wholesale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, someone goes to a news website, which has a large "copyright to this news organization" and "this photo copyright to this news organization" and uses it anyway, that is sort of different. There is nothing that they can say that would convince me that there were no aware that they were violating copyright.
So you get a choice: Are you saying that everything on Youtube is suspect and should never be used? That would suggest that YouTube was in fact guilty in the Viacom case, right? We can't have it both ways, can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I doubt you'll get an honest to that, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it would not make youtube guilty. The judges in the ruling said youtube can't be guilty because something somewhere might be infringing. It wasn't enough to be fairly certain that some videos were infringing. It would take specific instances of infringing material be known AND for youtube to take no action for youtube to be guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sherman Frederick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sherman Frederick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]