Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me

from the where's-my-corvette dept

Mon, Dec 13th 2010 1:02pm — Mike Masnick

On Friday, we pointed out that Sherman Fredericks, the former CEO of Stephens Media and publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal (who lost his job last month), seemed to have a rather hypocritical view on copyright infringement, embedding an infringing Saturday Night Live video on his blog. This was the same guy who famously announced that as CEO, he had Stephens Media "grubstake" (i.e., "fund") Righthaven, the company that has sued bloggers for quoting even snippets of LVRJ articles. He was quoted as saying that it was no different than stealing a Corvette out of his driveway. So, according to Mr. Fredericks, reposting 4 paragraphs out of a 34-paragraph article -- or about 12% (as Righthaven did in at least one case) is just like stealing a Corvette. Ok.

So, it seems rather amusing to me, as pointed out by iamtheky that Federicks seemed to have absolutely no issue whatsoever with copying from my blog in trying to mock our post about Righthaven suing Matt Drudge. He quoted one sentence out of a five sentence post -- or 20%. In other words, he copied more of my post than was copied on some of the sites Righthaven is suing. So, I'm confused, Sherm, is copying stealing or not? And why is it okay for you to do it to me, but not for others to do it? And where's my damn Corvette?

On top of all that, to make it even more silly, Fredericks misrepresents what I said. I questioned why anyone would rely on a Righthaven-connected newspaper as a source ever again, for fear of getting tied up in a bogus legal fight, and he says I really mean "use without permission." No, Sherm, that's not what I meant at all, and you know it. I said as a source. I said nothing about copying anything -- though you seem to have no problem "stealing Corvettes" from me when it suits your needs, huh?

* For those who miss the obvious intent here, no, I'm not actually accusing Sherman Fredericks of "stealing" from me, because that's ridiculous, and copying is not "stealing" in any way shape, or form. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Fredericks by highlighting how he does not live up to his own confused standard.

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: copying, copyright, sherman fredericks
Companies: las vegas review journal, righthaven, stephens media

119 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 12:49pm

Wow...
The comment string on that post of his is absolutely PRICELESS. Too bad it's paywalled; I could really do a Dark Helmet gem on that one....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:12pm

Re: Wow...
...is that a euphemism for something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:14pm

Re: Wow...
Not sure if I got thru his paywall or something, but here's the info as of 12/13/2010 4:10 EST. Sorry for the bulk-pasting, but I'm too lazy to reformat 23 posts. Read at your own risk. By the way, that kickass 'vroom vroom' sound is my new 23-post horsepower Corvette. Like it? I would have preferred a bitchin' camaro myself. ;)

23 Responses to "Update on Internet content stealing"
Is that really full disclosure? No.

More lies right to our face.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 4:57 PM -- Report abuse

"If when he says "use" he means "use without permission...."

You mean like the SNL TSA video YOU used without permission that is now blocked by SNL on your article? Your level of your hypocrisy is stunning.
Written by: Tonik on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM -- Report abuse

I, too, would like to the explanation on that one.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM -- Report abuse

It was my understanding that full disclosure meant FULL disclosure; doesn't that mean the columnist would be disclosing his personal involvement in the Rightwing..ehmm, Righthaven scam?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 6:35 PM -- Report abuse

Your "understanding"? That's giving yourself way too much credit. But enlighten us, big boy. What is my "personal" relationship with Righthaven?
Written by: Sherm on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 7:25 PM -- Report abuse

Gee Sherm, I woulda thought you woulda made a full disclosure, since that's what you said. Maybe you don't understand what that means; look it up. I know you have so much "other" stuff to do, like write the lead ins for stories that other people write, but maybe you could assign...no wait a minute, you lost that authority, well, then maybe YOU could look it up yourself. Try a Google search for Rightwin...Righthaven and attorney and Sherm Frederick relationship. That should get you started.
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:30 PM -- Report abuse

Here's a description for you of a MORE "full disclosure though: "The newspaper is currently involved in a controversy over the licensing of its content to Righthaven LLC, a litigation firm that was "grubstaked" by Stephens Media." Is that enough, or "do you want another?"
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:33 PM -- Report abuse

Don't try to slither out. What is my "personal" relationship with Righthaven?
Written by: Sherm on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM -- Report abuse

Sherm: Tell us all now that you have no such relationship. Stop playing games, you assert you made "full disclosure" are you lying or telling the "truth"?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 9:16 PM -- Report abuse

Or, since you're "apparently" interested, how 'bout explaining this quote: "former Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick's "published threat was unequivocal: 'don't steal our content. Or, I promise you, you will meet my little friend called Righthaven."' Now, I don't know 'bout you Sherm, but when I call someone a "friend" its cause I got a "personal relationship with them. Maybe its me huh?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Friday, Dec. 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM -- Report abuse

How dare newspapers try to protect their unique content.

What unique content?
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 6:50 AM -- Report abuse

@Aformer.... the problem is that you're taking the word "friend" literally and using it in a rational world. Now slip on Sherm's slippers and look at it from his perspective...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVKPzmR1gds

(note -- youtube link does bot go to pirated content, unlike a certain former publishers did recently)
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:25 AM -- Report abuse

It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements. Of course, in this case he can neither put up ... or shut up.
Written by: Sherm on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:54 AM -- Report abuse

It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements.

isn't it though?

take for example the mindless poster who wrote on December 4th, "I'm against higher unemployment and deficit spending no matter who the president is."

HA --- that poster still hasn't backed up HIS statement --- despite his ginormous body of work. Wonder why?

lol.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM -- Report abuse

Anyone believe Sherm made a "full disclosure"? Now, I know, I know, no one with any sense believes much (if anything) that Sherm writes anyway, but seriously "Stephens Media is a CLIENT"...of Rightwinghaven? Thanks for being the same BS artist in your current job, that you were in your former one Sherm! At least for as long as you get to keep this one that is.
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM -- Report abuse

Your boss owns half of Righthaven.

That is full disclosure, you lying twit.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:23 PM -- Report abuse

Sherm, don't leave your peeps hanging ---- you've got loose strings floating all over this thread.

Oh --- I know. this is going to be like every other time you've "slithered out" on your obligations. right?

lol --- so predictable.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM -- Report abuse

Ignorant babble.
Written by: Sherm on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM -- Report abuse

"Ignorant babble."

Does that count as another days "work" Sherm?
Written by: Aformerrepublican on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM -- Report abuse

lol -- "ignorant babble"? why so dismissive, Sherm? Seems you keep prying open Pandora's box then complain that you're to pooped out when the fun's about to start.

or were talking about the guy who babbled, on Dec 4th, "I'm against higher unemployment and deficit spending no matter who the president is."?

lol.
Written by: wilfred.johnson on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 5:44 PM -- Report abuse

Any plans Sherm to discuss your unauthorized use of the SNL/TSA skit and their blocking you from showing anymore because of the copyright violation? Or are you prohibited from discussing it because Righthaven is suing you?
Written by: Tonik on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM -- Report abuse

I love how this man has no hestitation about flat-out lying under the guise of journalism.

What a shameful display. I'm embarrassed for giving you the page views.

Your boss owns half of Righthaven, you lying twit.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM -- Report abuse

It's fun forcing mindless posters, like aform, to back up their statements.

Be when we challenge you; you seem to be 'mindlessly' absent. May we consider an absence of response as acquiescence?
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Sunday, Dec. 12, 2010 at 6:34 AM -- Report
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:14pm

Re: Wow...
The comment string on that post of his is absolutely PRICELESS. Too bad it's paywalled; I could really do a Dark Helmet gem on that one....

Based on his other repsonses, I think he would have ignored you altogether or nitpicked some minor semantic issue in your post. Based on his article and his replies, I believe that Fredericks just doesn't see what he's done as hypocritical.

(On the main page of his post, it says 0 comments. I only saw the comments when I clicked the "leave a response" link. Weird.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:14pm

Re: Wow...
Hm. They can't hold the copyright on the comments, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robin, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:17pm

Re: Wow...
the lvrj blogroll (lower left, first column) includes the drudge report. just wow....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Wow...
Mike's link is a Google Cache link. He must have gotten bombed by some less than supportive comments....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Wow...
No....but it does sound like it should be....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zangetsu (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:23pm

You might want to ...
Have you thought about hiring Righthaven to enforce the copyright on that one single article? It would be poetic to have him sued over using a comment from TechDirt about using Righthaven to sue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:32pm

I also wondered if he realized he linked to a comment view that points out an infringing video. Its like he's new.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:38pm

It is pretty simple. Anyone who reads this site knows that you don't care if your material is used. It is sort of hypocritical to complain when it happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:42pm

Re:
Woooosh!

That's the sound of "the point" going over your head.

It wasn't a near-miss...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re:
See now that isn't nice. Leave the Special Ed kids alone....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re:
If TD material is "use as you like", what is the point? If Mr Masnick chooses not to copyright his material, or chooses to release it into the public domain, or any other form of "use it if you like" license, why complain?

The rest of the post is a play on semantics, meaningless considering TD's stand on copying their material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out the flaw in somebody's argument != Complaint.
(The reverse is also usually true.)

Obviously you have trouble with definitions && logic, so, there ya go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
The point Mr Coward, is, dont do unto others blah blah blah. Dont preach about the evils of copying, when you do so at will. Hypocrite much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:53pm

Uh Oh!
Just saw an article that Stephens Media bought out our local rag and a free local weekly.

And another note Mike...the law applies to you not to the "elite" class. =}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:54pm

Re: Re: Re:
The point is that there is clear and obvious HYPOCRISY in Sherman Fredericks actions.
The fact that you aren't smart enough to understand why that is bad, is your problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wait? Why is your stupidity his problem? That doesn't make any sense!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
"If TD material is "use as you like", what is the point? If Mr Masnick chooses not to copyright his material, or chooses to release it into the public domain, or any other form of "use it if you like" license, why complain?"

I'll try to break this down real simple like for you:

The difference between those that enforce this type of copyright and those that don't is a philisophical one, not one of technicalities. The whole reasoning behind Sherman enforcing his copyright to the extreme should create within him a moral obligation not to do the same to others, regardless of how they feel about copyright.

If quoting snippets of articles is bad, then it's bad. The problem is that Sherman only seems to think it's bad for some and not others. That's an inequitable moral position, and it spotlights the fact that his stated reasons for enforcing copyright aren't truly his reasons at all....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:03pm

And where's my damn Corvette?

That one made me laugh out loud. :)

For those who miss the obvious intent here, no, I'm not actually accusing Sherman Fredericks of "stealing" from me, because that's ridiculous, and copying is not "stealing" in any way shape, or form. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Fredericks by highlighting how he does not live up to his own confused standard.

He clearly did copy you, but we all know that his use of your words very clearly fall within fair use, and as such it is not infringement.

"fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism [or] comment . . . is not an infringement of copyright" 17 U.S.C. 107

He is against infringement, not copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:05pm

Sue, sue, sue!
I say, sue him for the darned Corvette! You deserve it more than he does! :rolleyes:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:05pm

Re:
You might have a point if there was any complaining going on. There isn't, so as usual, you have no point.

Send TAM back, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:05pm

Re: Re: Re:
If TD material is "use as you like", what is the point? If Mr Masnick chooses not to copyright his material, or chooses to release it into the public domain, or any other form of "use it if you like" license, why complain?

The rest of the post is a play on semantics, meaningless considering TD's stand on copying their material.

Oh yeah, I forgot Mike's works are licensed. Thanks. Even if they weren't, Shermy's use is clearly fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:07pm

Re:
Why is this instance any more fair use than the one referenced in the first paragraph of the article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re: DH, 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:11pm

Bravo Mr. Helmet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:14pm

Re:
damn you are dense aj, Sherm doesn't believe in fair use, therefore his hypocrisy is beeing pointeed out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:18pm

Amicus curi�
Seems like this article would make a fine amicus brief on pretty much any case that Righthaven is involved in...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:18pm

Re:
Except Righthaven is suing people for quoting as much as a few words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another giant "Whoosh!" as the point sails to the spot right between your narrow eyes and embeds itself in your even narrower mind!

According to Sherm there is no fair use. Most would expect that viewpoint would apply to everyone, including ones self if you are so inclined to share the point of view. however, in typical Congressional fashion, Sherm has decided (by example no less) that he really means there is no fair use for anyone else except himself.

Hypocrites are ALWAYS wrong at least half the time! ~Rezendes

Thanks for playing our game - there are some lovely parting gifts waiting for you backstage...

Silly rabbit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re:
Why is this instance any more fair use than the one referenced in the first paragraph of the article?

Which case was he referencing exactly? We can take a look. Mike mentioned that in that case they copied "about 12%." That doesn't really tell us anything. Were they copying that 12% for comment or criticism? The percentage copied isn't dispositive of anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re:
damn you are dense aj, Sherm doesn't believe in fair use, therefore his hypocrisy is beeing pointeed out.

No need to call me names. Where does Shermy say he "doesn't believe in fair use"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re:
Except Righthaven is suing people for quoting as much as a few words.

There were a few cases where the defendant copied less than the entire article. In those cases, was the copying done with the purpose of commenting or criticizing the original?

Funny how I'm the one defending fair use in this thread.

Also, tell me this... Does Shermy control who Righthaven sues?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another giant "Whoosh!" as the point sails to the spot right between your narrow eyes and embeds itself in your even narrower mind!

According to Sherm there is no fair use. Most would expect that viewpoint would apply to everyone, including ones self if you are so inclined to share the point of view. however, in typical Congressional fashion, Sherm has decided (by example no less) that he really means there is no fair use for anyone else except himself.

Hypocrites are ALWAYS wrong at least half the time! ~Rezendes

Thanks for playing our game - there are some lovely parting gifts waiting for you backstage...

Silly rabbit!

What's with all the personal attacks around here? Sheesh. Sorry I believe what I believe and it may be something different than what you believe.

Please point me to where Shermy says "there is no fair use."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Also, tell me this... Does Shermy control who Righthaven sues?"

He may or may not have some input, but...does it matter? He fully supports Righthaven (he can't even resist putting some more mindless whining into his less-than-full "full disclosure" statement) and their activities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
......

That's the sound of "the point" going over your head.

It's so far above your head you can't hear shit.

PS. I hope you're actually a troll and not really that dense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
"There were a few cases where the defendant copied less than the entire article. In those cases, was the copying done with the purpose of commenting or criticizing the original?"

Case in point: the suit against the Drudge Report concerned a single photograph, and Drudge certainly did use it for commentary purposes. So yes, Righthaven does not accept Fair Use as it is currently defined.

"Funny how I'm the one defending fair use in this thread."

How are you still missing the point? Nobody is attacking fair use. It's philisophical hypocrisy we're attacking....

"Also, tell me this... Does Shermy control who Righthaven sues?"

Contol? Probably not. But he lauds their services. So he should live by their same principles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Case in point: the suit against the Drudge Report concerned a single photograph, and Drudge certainly did use it for commentary purposes. So yes, Righthaven does not accept Fair Use as it is currently defined.

I haven't read the complaint, but I suspect you're conflating not believing in fair use on the one hand, and not thinking a specific instance of copying is fair use on the other hand. Two different things.

How are you still missing the point? Nobody is attacking fair use. It's philisophical hypocrisy we're attacking....

I thought people were saying Shermy doesn't believe in fair use. I'm waiting for any evidence that he does not.

Contol? Probably not. But he lauds their services. So he should live by their same principles.

I don't think we should be so sloppy as to impute everything Righthaven does onto Shermy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pringerX (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's dodging the question. Why is Sherman's quote of TechDirt "fair use" if those in the Righthaven cases are not "fair use"? Did the Righthaven cases involve substantial copying without attribution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's with all the personal attacks around here?

Dude, don't make me dig through all your old posts and link them. Seriously, is hypocrisy contagious? I agree that personal attacks are stupid, but you are also no stranger to tossing them around, are you?

Please point me to where Shermy says "there is no fair use."

Are you looking for those exact words, or words that mean those words? I doubt he said those 5 words, but if you take the time to read Mike's post above and all the others about this subject, you'll see that this man clearly feels that any use of another's copyrighted works equates to stealing an expensive car. I find it tough to mentally reconcile someone who says reposting a blurb from an article is stealing with someone who believes in Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
Funny how I'm the one defending fair use in this thread.

I'm not fooled, you are defending lawyers, not Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another cup of koolaid, perhaps?

The question isn't fair use. TD has made it clear in repeated posts here (and in philosophy) that posts made here are open to use by anyone, any place, any time. So there is no need for any "fair use" argument, as TD posts have (from what I can tell) been put in the public domain, or at least use by anyone in any way at any time has been granted.

So again, what is the issue, besides playing gotchya?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:19pm

Re: Amicus curi�
Only if the judge is a monkey, easily distracted by shiny objects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An issue could be that Mike's works are automatically copyrighted when he writes them. He *chooses* to not unleash the lawyers when people quote or copy his work here. Unless Mike has specifically noted or declared his writing here to be public domain, consider it copyrighted to him, whether he exercises it or not.

The whole point of this article has been delineated for you several times. Seems any issue left is yours alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when did fair use have ANYTHING to do with Righthaven? Whether they believe in it or not (or, apparently, know what it's about) isn't really relevant -- the fact is, they are suing random people for things that are almost certainly fair use, and they do it as a profiteering scheme and nothing more.

You are asking us to prove that Sherman does NOT believe in fair use. You are asking us to prove a negative. How about you show us some evidence that he does.

As for attributing Righthaven's actions to this guy: he put in capital when he was running LVRJ, and now he evangelises it on his blog all the time, even after he lost his job at LVRJ. Sounds to me like he's one fervent supporter. Whether he personally controls RH or not is irrelevant -- he supports their actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, don't make me dig through all your old posts and link them. Seriously, is hypocrisy contagious? I agree that personal attacks are stupid, but you are also no stranger to tossing them around, are you?

I have gotten personal in the past, and that was wrong. What's that got to do with the attacks on me in this thread?

Are you looking for those exact words, or words that mean those words? I doubt he said those 5 words, but if you take the time to read Mike's post above and all the others about this subject, you'll see that this man clearly feels that any use of another's copyrighted works equates to stealing an expensive car. I find it tough to mentally reconcile someone who says reposting a blurb from an article is stealing with someone who believes in Fair Use.

Is he against all use, including fair? Or is he only against infringing use? I think it's an important distinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's dodging the question. Why is Sherman's quote of TechDirt "fair use" if those in the Righthaven cases are not "fair use"? Did the Righthaven cases involve substantial copying without attribution?

I'm not dodging the question. Fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis. Point me to a case, and I'll talk about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People in these comments stated that Shermy does not believe in fair use. I'm asking them to provide evidence of that assertion. I think it's important to distinguish between copying that is infringing and copying that isn't. Is Shermy against the latter? That's what people are saying. I'd like to see some evidence, that's all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shermy's not a lawyer, not that I know of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn't this article partially about imputing Righthaven's actions to Shermy? I think it's important to make the distinction. I also think it's important to differentiate whether the man is against all copying, or just infringing copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Funny how I'm the one defending fair use in this thread."

You are defending the selective application of fair use. Why should fair use apply to him but not the people being sued by the copyright troll he supports?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anothermike, 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re: Wow...
I think they'd lose section 230 if they claimed the copyright. I don't believe that's ever been argued in court but I wouldn't want to make a copyright claim on comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wayne (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:54pm

Damn it, do you realize what this means?

my girlfriend is right and karma does really exist :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course fair use is important. What he did wasn't infringing, and he was clearly relying on fair use when he posted the video and the passage from Mike's article.

Does he believe in fair use? Is that relevant? It appears you are the one who brought up the question of "believing" in it -- others are only pointing out his hypocrisy.

Righthaven disregards fair use, and he supports their actions. Fair use applies to him, but not to the people Righthaven is trolling. Can you not see the double standards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow - really?

Just wow - since reading comprehension seems to be difficult for you I'll isolate the sentence from the paragraph that would indicate Shermy is obviously against fair use - for others, that is:

"This was the same guy who famously announced that as CEO, he had Stephens Media "grubstake" (i.e., "fund") Righthaven, the company that has sued bloggers for quoting even snippets of LVRJ articles."

The point where he is a hypocrite and Mike points it out occurs here:
that Federicks seemed to have absolutely no issue whatsoever with copying from my blog in trying to mock our post about Righthaven suing Matt Drudge. He quoted one sentence out of a five sentence post -- or 20%. In other words, he copied more of my post than was copied on some of the sites Righthaven is suing. So, I'm confused, Sherm, is copying stealing or not? And why is it okay for you to do it to me, but not for others to do it?

Tomorrow we'll discuss hypocrisy, inference and insincerity in depth as well as how to fill out unemployment forms if you decide incorrectly using these three traits are good for business and/or a wise career move.

Class dismissed, thank you for your attendance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:07pm

Re:
So if I were to quote 12% from your comment, it wouldn't be fair use, but if you were to quote 20% from my comment, it would be...
Wow, double standards much?

Where did you go to school again? Remind me to never send my kids there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re: Amicus curi�
true entirely on the basis that anyone else would realise the whole thing was silly and toss it before it even got to that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anothermike, 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sherm doesn't let anyone else copy his newspaper but has no issues with copying others in his own writing. He is a hypocrite who wants to use different rule sets coming and going.
That doesn't even get into his support of infringing content, as demonstrated by embedding an infringing video in his blog.
Sherm has discredited himself this much, there's no need to examine the different authors' arguments on fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not the point.

It is immaterial to the question proposed if the content use is fair use or not since the question made was "Why he considers clearly fair use use of his content to be infringing when he does the same thing with others content?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What evidence?
Direct evidence of him suing someone?

That is not going to happen and you know it, he uses proxies for that and he does support that proxy very clearly so we can all agree that he condones the actions of that proxy, otherwise why would he be part/associated with it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't really understand your argument.

If I went around saying I support an organization, at every opportunity (so much so that I help fund or have my company help fund it), and never once publicly disagree with any of that organization's actions, I would fully expect to be linked to the actions of the organization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 4:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ron, it's all fine, I understand all that. There is one problem though:

TD encourages people to use their material any way possible. LVRJ does not. The only hypocritical move here seems to be putting material into open use, and then mocking people for doing it.

It is the information age version of entrapment, I think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 5:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he opposes fair use, why is he stealing other people's corvettes?

If he is for fair use, why is he suing what clearly is fair use of someone else quoting his articles?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 5:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if some guy freaks out every time someone walks over his lawn, and goes to the police and tries to lobby for greater lawn protection, and sues people who walk on his lawn... and his neighbor doesn't mind or yell at people walking on his lawn, is it not hypocritical for the first guy to go to the second guy's house and walk all over his lawn?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 6:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know there's hyperlinks in the article.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/12281112215/righthaven-takes-drudge-report.sht ml?cid=146

Internets not hard!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he opposes fair use, why is he stealing other people's corvettes?

If he is for fair use, why is he suing what clearly is fair use of someone else quoting his articles?

I doubt very much he is against fair use. And as far as Righthaven goes, I don't think it's fair to say they are suing those using "what is clearly fair use" of LVRJ articles. Obviously whether or not it's fair use in those cases is debatable, and in the few cases I read the complaint in I didn't see anything that was "clearly" fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you quote "snippets" doesn't make it fair use. The 20% figure is misleading. You can quote 20% of one article and have it be fair use, and you can quote 20% of another article and it's infringement. There is no magic percentage that converts the use into fair use, and you have to look at the whole picture. Sherm was quoting Mike for the purpose of commenting and criticizing on what Mike said. This is classic fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We weren't talking about the Drudge Report case, we were talking about the case where 12% was copied. But thanks anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt Sherm would mind if someone quoted his paper with the purpose of commenting and criticizing it. I think he only minds when it's wholesale copying without any transformative use. There is a difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand the argument, I just don't know if I agree that the facts support it. Where is evidence that Sherm is against people copying when it is for comment or criticism? The fact that Sherm quoted Mike for those purposes only shows his belief in fair use, not his opposition to it. Is Righthaven off suing those who make transformative use of other people's articles, or are they going after those who just copy without adding anything? I think by and large it's the latter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the people being sued for the most part are just copying articles and not adding anything to them. Fair use applies to all. If his business model was that he goes after people who are clearly using the articles fairly, then that's a pretty bad business model. There's enough people just copying for the sake of copying to name as defendants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:21pm

Re: Re:
The percentage is mostly irrelevant. What are you doing with the text you copied? Are you commenting and criticizing it? Is your use transformative? That's what matters.

No need to insult me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:54pm

Re: Re: Wow...
Thanks for the copy/paste of the comments. All comments are now gone from that article, and you can't leave new ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:56pm

What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
But you still scream like a banchee when it happens to you..

Would that not go under the fair use, of commentry ?

is that not what you use ALL THE FREAKING TIME?

Ahh, but when used AGAINST YOU,, you whine and cry and scratch and bite, and go crying whah whah whah all the way home....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:00pm

Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
I feel so bad for the 1st grade teacher that had to fail you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is wrong, actually. LVRJ had multiple links on their articles for people to share or copy them to make use of them, and then SUED PEOPLE for using the links. So, how does LVRJ not encourage people to use the material?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what the people Righthaven is suing were doing: commenting on the articles. How is it NOT fair use for them to do it, but it is for Mr Fredericks to do it? That is the essence of hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
stop making sense Joe, you will only confuse them with your rock solid logic..

why try to bring reality crashing down on their heads, do you think they could handle it, all at once ??

If they dont understand 'fair comment' commentry, education or anything else relating to the 4 factors of fair use..

Then you trying to explain it to them, is just going to be too much too quickly..

The brain cannot absorb such exotic concepts in a short period of time.. (like 5 or 10 years).. :)

Just sometimes I would be nice to come here, and see unbiased, logical, accurate, and reasoned 'reporting' happening here.. then you would not nothing to do, no more calling 'bullshit' when you see bullhit.. hopefully there would be none..

But I dream..

Instead, at least some people are willing to call him out, and actually state facts, and not rubbish to support your bias..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:08pm

Re: Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
at least I had a 1st grade teacher :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re:
Remind me where you went to school ? whatever school you went too they did not teach you what fair use is, or means..

Your statement shows you do not have a clue, and as joe rightly pointed out, it has nothing to do with the percentage used, it's got to do with HOW and WHY it was used..

In this case, it is clear that is is fair use, and it would still be fair use, if he used 100% or mikes article, but did so in a way that provided comment on that. And did not use the 'value' of his article to enhance his own value.

That is not what he did, he quoted from an article, and commented on those quotes.. fair use..

To talk about double standards, because of 12% or 20% shows me your level of real world education is lacking, regardless of your schooling..

Everyone can continue to learn, or did you stop learning the day you left school ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:23pm

Re: Re: Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
For twelve years?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is wrong, actually. LVRJ had multiple links on their articles for people to share or copy them to make use of them, and then SUED PEOPLE for using the links. So, how does LVRJ not encourage people to use the material?

Those share links only allow you to share a link to the original article on the LVRJ site. They do not allow you to share the text of the article. Go to http://www.lvrj.com/ and see for yourself. Of course they aren't suing people for using the links they provide for sharing. That wouldn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what the people Righthaven is suing were doing: commenting on the articles. How is it NOT fair use for them to do it, but it is for Mr Fredericks to do it? That is the essence of hypocrisy.

That's a huge generalization, and I don't think the facts support it. Pick a case and we'll look at it, and keep in mind that every case is unique.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not the point.

It is immaterial to the question proposed if the content use is fair use or not since the question made was "Why he considers clearly fair use use of his content to be infringing when he does the same thing with others content?"

I understand the question, I just think it presupposes something that is not true. I think Sherm is simply against infringement. He's OK with copying when it's fair use, as indicated by his not hesitating to copy Mike, and he's not OK when it's infringing, as indicated by his support of Righthaven.

I'm sure he considers his use of Mike's words to be fair use. And it stands to reason that Righthaven does not consider the use of those they sue to be fair use, hence the lawsuits. For all we know, the Righthaven looks at lots of instances of people copying articles, determines that they might be fair use, and then decides not to sue. We have no way of knowing that since Righthaven doesn't sue those people. Perhaps they think the vast majority of people using their content is fair. Who could say? Not me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't really understand your argument.

If I went around saying I support an organization, at every opportunity (so much so that I help fund or have my company help fund it), and never once publicly disagree with any of that organization's actions, I would fully expect to be linked to the actions of the organization.

The point is that if Sherm does not decide which people to sue, e.g., suing someone who used 12% of an article in a way that was arguably fair, then perhaps he shouldn't be blamed for making that decision. He can support Righthaven in general but still not agree with specific choices they've made. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. The point is we just don't know. It's a minor point, for sure, but I think some people are jumping to conclusions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously? Open your pea brain for one second and let some critical thought slip in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 10:13pm

Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
You realize he said he didn't care, right? Right.

Go sit in the corner, troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 11:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt very much he is against fair use

Curious. How do you square that with his claim that copying his content is the equivalent of stealing his Corvette? If he believes in fair use, then explain how you fair use a Corvette?

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You dismissed the evidence presented by DH and now you want more? How about the lawsuit against Democratic Underground? Righthaven lost the lawsuit, which was "frivolous and in bad faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is what you lawyers type tell each other to keep in business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:40am

Re: Re: Re:
That's so rich coming from you. I marked you as funny, again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sherman was suing (through proxy) a bunch of non-commercial bloggers, who had posted articles in part or in full, with and without commentary. He is a COPYRIGHT TROLL, whether you like it or not.

The slightest quotation of an article he could find the copyright for, he would sue and ask to settle. Judges are dismissing the lawsuits left and right on fair use grounds.

And since can an entire article not be fair use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 5:39am

Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
1) HYPOCRASY means something totally different from the word you think you need - that would be hypocisy.

2) Mike is pointing out the huge flaw in a person's monochromatic argument. He's not whining or crying (well, he might be wining, but not whining).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re:
"Remind me where you went to school ? whatever school you went too they did not teach you what fair use is, or means.."

Right, assbag. Because I guess "amount and substantiality of the portion used" isn't specifically outlined in one of the four factors of Fair Use? It'd help your insults if you at least knew what the fuck you were talking about....

The other factors are regularly met in the cases in which Righthaven has sued (hence several being thrown out).

And I worked my ass off to put myself through 2 years of community college followed up by a state school. Are we going to get into some bullshit Ivy League pissing match where you tell me (with incorrect grammar and punctuation, of course) how your education was so much better than mine?

Or do you maybe want to ask yourself: who you crappin'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 6:16am

Re: Re: Re:
"The percentage is mostly irrelevant."

By mostly irrelevant, I assume you mean one of the key factors in determining Fair Use. Which means you need, apparently, to look up the definition of irrelevant....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 6:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Robotic logic much ? ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 6:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"whole reasoning behind Sherman enforcing his copyright to the extreme should create within him a moral obligation not to do the same to others, regardless of how they feel about copyright."

Most people don't see things as black and white, they see shades of grey. These people can hypocrate as much as they do for two reason, they are dishonest with themselves, and they see shades of grey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2010 @ 7:01am

Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Gabriel Tane: Archivist!

Merci, monsieur!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wilfred.johnson, 14 Dec 2010 @ 7:53am

still there.
two things....

1) you certainly have my permission to use my comment from the RJ story you've referenced. I'm sure guys like afromer and Sturdy wouldn't care either.

2) The comments are still there....

http://tinyurl.com/2ach7te

Looks like your "average_joe" is roughly the same as our SargentRock, who defends Righthaven / Sherm on the on the LV Sun site.

The LV Sun has followed this story from its inception.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Wow... that say's volumes when someone silences dissent, huh?

And you're welcome everyone :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 10:43am

Re: still there.
Ah, you're right... Looks like no one silenced anyone, so mea culpa.

Although, I do want to point out that the last comment by the author was "ignorant babble". In fact, reading back through them... it looks like the only comments are personal attacks on others. The one legitimate 'question' he posed was the challenge to demonstrate his personal relationship in the Right haven issue... which was shown, I believe. What does it mean when the author of a blog is the troll and the readers are the ones making legitimate conversational points? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2010 @ 11:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Beyond choosing not to unleash the lawyers, TD has made posts over the years pretty much saying "steal my stuff". There isn't just an absence of lawyers, there is an outright encouragement. At some point, it makes complaining about a guy quoting your stuff seem like sour grapes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, for the... damn, I lost count... time, the point is that Sherman Fredericks does have a problem with borrowing and quoting. So when Mr. Don't Steal My Stuff starts 'stealing' other peoples stuff, it bears pointing out since it speaks to Sherm's credibility and conviction-to-ideals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
No one in the US can choose not to copyright their work, FYI. It's copyrighted the moment it's created, whether the creators like it or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
at least I had a 1st grade teacher :)

And judgeing by your spelling of "hypocrisy" and grammar, I'd say that was about the last teacher you had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: What that word... oh yea.... HYPOCRACY..... thats the one.. LOL
Doh!
*judging

At least I spelled hypocrisy right...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: still there.
It means people should stop reading his blog (aka: feeding the troll).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2010 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re:
As AJ has also pointed out numerous times it is for the courts to decide if a use is fair or not, and yet he is saying this is 'clearly fair use.' So again, more double standards. Please, pick a side and stick with it or at least admit when you are wrong. We aren't questioning if what Sherm did was fair use, we are questioning why he believes such double standards are just.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 7:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
As AJ has also pointed out numerous times it is for the courts to decide if a use is fair or not, and yet he is saying this is 'clearly fair use.' So again, more double standards. Please, pick a side and stick with it or at least admit when you are wrong. We aren't questioning if what Sherm did was fair use, we are questioning why he believes such double standards are just.

You're right. I have contradicted myself. Thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering if anyone would notice. I'm flattered that you did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 7:46pm

Re: still there.
Looks like your "average_joe" is roughly the same as our SargentRock, who defends Righthaven / Sherm on the on the LV Sun site.

I'm actually ambivalent about what Righthaven is doing. I think there are pros and cons. Really I wish that there was some way for copyright holders to go after infringers that didn't involve a federal lawsuit. Surely there's a reasonable alternative that could be implemented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 5:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the creator, unless he or she signs the copyrights to another party, can choose not to enforce it. Hence Trent Reznor distributing his music via USB drives placed in concert bathrooms.

Which, of course, is part of the problem. When the copyright is given to a third party who has interest only in the money to be made instead of the art's value as art or its contribution to society... we get our current situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 9:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Curious. How do you square that with his claim that copying his content is the equivalent of stealing his Corvette? If he believes in fair use, then explain how you fair use a Corvette?

Thanks.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I'm just now seeing this... I think the difference is pretty simple. I doubt very much that he thinks *all* copying is "stealing." Evidence of this is the fact that he copied your words. This implies that he thinks copying is alright as long as it's not infringement, i.e., it's for a legitimate purpose and it's fair use. He's only equating copying with "stealing" when it's infringement. The distinction seems pretty obvious to me. My criticism of your criticism of him is that you're not drawing a distinction between illegal and legal copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously? Open your pea brain for one second and let some critical thought slip in.

Do you not have any substantive to add to the conversation? I guess not. That would explain why you simply throw out insults without any analysis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sherman was suing (through proxy) a bunch of non-commercial bloggers, who had posted articles in part or in full, with and without commentary. He is a COPYRIGHT TROLL, whether you like it or not.

The slightest quotation of an article he could find the copyright for, he would sue and ask to settle. Judges are dismissing the lawsuits left and right on fair use grounds.

And since can an entire article not be fair use?

He is a "copyright troll" as that term is used. So what? The people being sued started it, and they are reacting to having their rights infringed upon. I don't lose sight of who's the perpetrator and who's the victim in these cases.

Show me one case where Righthaven has sued someone that posted an article, in full or in part, for the purpose of commenting or criticizing the article itself. Posting the article to comment on the subject of the article is not the same thing. I think maybe you aren't seeing the distinction.

I think there's only been one case where a motion to dismiss was granted on the affirmative defense of fair use. As myself and others have explained, the judge in that case probably committed a reversible error. Other than that case, can you point to any others?

Quoting an entire article can be fair use, but the fact that whole article is posted without any commentary on the *article itself* strongly cuts against a finding of fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 9:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
By mostly irrelevant, I assume you mean one of the key factors in determining Fair Use. Which means you need, apparently, to look up the definition of irrelevant....

It's irrelevant to the syllogism Mike set up in his post. He said that since Righthaven sued somebody for infringement for posting 12% of an article, it must follow that Shermy's posting 20% of Mike's article must be infringement. It's premised on the false assertion that the percentage copied, without more, is determinative of infringement. It is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hard for the creator, but I'll leave it at that. My comment was solely intended to correct a previous poster, who seems like a real dumbass, anyway. :P

Oh, and I think the whole 'artist entitlement' crap that's been groomed into aspiring artists by the industries' 'lottery system' of the past is a part of the copyright problem as well. When you see rock stars partying as rock stars, anything less than that looks like crap, and you start looking for someone to blame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This implies that he thinks copying is alright as long as it's not infringement

That's rather tautological, don't you think?

The real problem is that he thinks it's not infringement when *he* does it, but it is when someone else does it. That's what we're pointing out.

My criticism of your criticism of him is that you're not drawing a distinction between illegal and legal copying.

No, we are. Very much. What we're doing is saying that Fredericks' standard for what is legal and what is illegal very much seems to depend on whether or not it's him doing the copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 10:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real problem is that he thinks it's not infringement when *he* does it, but it is when someone else does it. That's what we're pointing out.

No, we are. Very much. What we're doing is saying that Fredericks' standard for what is legal and what is illegal very much seems to depend on whether or not it's him doing the copying.

I'll grant you that he's probably a lot less likely to call it infringement when he's the one doing the copying. That's only natural. But I don't think that propensity changes the analysis of whether or not there is infringement.

In all fairness, he was copying your words for the express purpose of commenting on your words. I'm not aware of any Righthaven cases where the defendant was actually commenting on the words themselves. They might have been commenting on the subject of the words, but that's different and that's not what fair use is about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'll grant you that he's probably a lot less likely to call it infringement when he's the one doing the copying. That's only natural. But I don't think that propensity changes the analysis of whether or not there is infringement."

Joe, you're missing the point still. We're not arguing whether or not the act of copying text from an article is legal or not... we're pointing out the obvious double-standard that Sherman adheres to.

And if hypocrisy is 'natural', that does not excuse it in civilized society. Especially by people who demonstrate through their writings that they believe themselves to be... how to say it... 'higher up the ladder'. After all, it's natural to relieve one's self in the bushes outside (heck, look at all the natural creatures doing it), but that doesn't make it acceptable. And giving 'it's natural' as an excuse is pretty poor in itself, in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]