> Purpose and character of use: The purpose and character of the use is that information about a religious organization is being disclosed in the public interest.
The question I have here is: how do you define "public interest"? Obviously, MormonLeaks thinks this is something that "people should know". From my armchair, this doesn't seem sufficient to allow copying and distributing an internal document. What is it that makes this document (according to the Random House dictionary) "relevant to the general populace", when it applies to maybe 2% of the US population?
> Nature of the copyrighted work: The nature of the copyrighted work is that it is official documents from a religious organization.
This is factually correct, but I don't understand how this answer means it passes the test in that it points to defensible under fair use. Are documents used by religious organizations automatically subject to weaker copyright protections?
I apologize for mischaracterizing the result as "ignoring copyright". It would have been more appropriate if I had said "we get an exception to copyright".
> If the answer is "they're leaking documents that the church hasn't given them permission to leak and doesn't want people to see," then that's an argument *for* this disclosure being a work of journalism in the public interest, not against.
This sounds dangerously close to the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument. If the LDS Church doesn't want their copyright works published, then it's an admission that there's something noteworthy in there, therefore it should be published? The fact that they're (attempting to) exercising their legal right under copyright shouldn't count towards an exemption to their copyright.
They seem like pretty weak arguments to me. "Well, they're not selling the information, and it's a church, and we want to know, and they don't want us to know, therefore we can ignore the copyright."
But I'm not a lawyer either. It could be interesting to see this go to court just to see if the argument stands up to legal trial.
It looks to me like they just posted the material, with no journalism or commentary around it. (Except for the page with links that basically say "this is our response to their suit, and here's the file again".)
I wouldn't expect a "fair use" defense to fly if I created a site called "MovieLeaks", and then proceeded to post full Hollywood movies -- even if I had a discussion board, commentary, mini-review, whatever next to it. So, how does MormonLeaks' actions qualify as "fair use"?
If you can't fight the message, fight the messenger
It's a classic example of misdirection. If you can put the focus on discrediting the messenger, then people will assume the message itself is meaningless. It's why people dismiss right-wing arguments by accusing the speaker of getting his information from "Faux News" and left-wing arguments by claiming they're from the "liberal-controlled MSM", for example.
President Putin ordered the Federal Security Service to produce encryption keys to decrypt all data on the Internet. According to the executive order, the FSB has two weeks to do it.
Decrypt all data on the Internet? The whole Internet?
Might as well order them to solve global warming and world peace while he's at it.
Your third link, with the text "prevent DIYers and non-Apple-approved repair shops", doesn't really support your point. It links to an article about an image of an alleged Apple-designed screw of a proprietary design; but the article states (in an update) that the image was fabricated by a Swedish design company that was experimenting with how Apple rumors spread across the internet.
Isn't that essentially what recording, compressing, and sending a file over a computer does? I mean, the way you just described it sounds like what would happen if I typed the bible into a word processor, saved it, and emailed it to someone in China.
Considering how badly tech issues seem to get handled in courts (though maybe that's just bias considering this is a website that tends to report the bad issues), I think she's lucky the judge didn't overreact, assume the evidence was deleted, and give her a hefty fine or prison term.
What gets me is that the page they throw up if they detect an ad blocker says to turn it off "to continue into Forbes' ad-light experience." When I use adblock, it tells me how many things it blocked, and just to show that page, the number is in the double digits.
When I click on a Forbes link, I get that fun page telling me to turn off my ad blocker to enjoy their "ad-light" experience. Meanwhile, AdBlock tells me how many items it blocked in loading that page, and the number is always in the double-digits.
I'm not sure if they just don't know how many ads they're trying to serve me, they think I'm stupid to not realize they're showing me a dozen ads per page, or if they honestly think that many ads is really "light". But the end result is the same; I haven't seen an article on their site in a long time.
It has an amazing ability to coordinate a contest between a team of wild horses from the Rocky Mountain region against a team of cougars from the southeastern US.
On the post: Mormon Church Tries To Censor MormonLeaks Using Copyright, Streisand Effect Takes Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it fair use?
The question I have here is: how do you define "public interest"? Obviously, MormonLeaks thinks this is something that "people should know". From my armchair, this doesn't seem sufficient to allow copying and distributing an internal document. What is it that makes this document (according to the Random House dictionary) "relevant to the general populace", when it applies to maybe 2% of the US population?
> Nature of the copyrighted work: The nature of the copyrighted work is that it is official documents from a religious organization.
This is factually correct, but I don't understand how this answer means it passes the test in that it points to defensible under fair use. Are documents used by religious organizations automatically subject to weaker copyright protections?
I apologize for mischaracterizing the result as "ignoring copyright". It would have been more appropriate if I had said "we get an exception to copyright".
> If the answer is "they're leaking documents that the church hasn't given them permission to leak and doesn't want people to see," then that's an argument *for* this disclosure being a work of journalism in the public interest, not against.
This sounds dangerously close to the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument. If the LDS Church doesn't want their copyright works published, then it's an admission that there's something noteworthy in there, therefore it should be published? The fact that they're (attempting to) exercising their legal right under copyright shouldn't count towards an exemption to their copyright.
On the post: Mormon Church Tries To Censor MormonLeaks Using Copyright, Streisand Effect Takes Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do Mormons practice "Fair Game"?
On the post: Mormon Church Tries To Censor MormonLeaks Using Copyright, Streisand Effect Takes Over
Re: Re: Re: Do Mormons practice "Fair Game"?
On the post: Mormon Church Tries To Censor MormonLeaks Using Copyright, Streisand Effect Takes Over
Re: Re: How is it fair use?
But I'm not a lawyer either. It could be interesting to see this go to court just to see if the argument stands up to legal trial.
On the post: Mormon Church Tries To Censor MormonLeaks Using Copyright, Streisand Effect Takes Over
Re: Do Mormons practice "Fair Game"?
On the post: Mormon Church Tries To Censor MormonLeaks Using Copyright, Streisand Effect Takes Over
How is it fair use?
I wouldn't expect a "fair use" defense to fly if I created a site called "MovieLeaks", and then proceeded to post full Hollywood movies -- even if I had a discussion board, commentary, mini-review, whatever next to it. So, how does MormonLeaks' actions qualify as "fair use"?
On the post: DirecTV Faces RICO Class Action For Bungling Business Installs, Then Demanding $15,000 For Theft Of Service
Re:
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
Re:
On the post: Verizon Buys Yahoo In $4.8 Billion Attempt To Bore The Internet To Death
Re:
On the post: Whether Or Not Russians Hacked DNC Means Nothing Concerning How Newsworthy The Details Are
If you can't fight the message, fight the messenger
On the post: Putin Says All Encryption Must Be Backdoored In Two Weeks
Talk about a no-win scenario
Decrypt all data on the Internet? The whole Internet?
Might as well order them to solve global warming and world peace while he's at it.
On the post: Putin Says All Encryption Must Be Backdoored In Two Weeks
Re: Re: Re: As the old adage goes...
On the post: Apple's IP Lawyers May Force YouTube MacBook Repair Videos Offline Over Schematic
That third link is a hoax
On the post: Warner Bros. DMCAs Insanely Awesome Recreation Of Blade Runner By Artificial Intelligence
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge: Taking Your Facebook Account Private During Litigation Isn't Exactly 'Preserving Evidence'
I consider her lucky.
On the post: Russia Provides Glimpse Of A Future Where Powerful Facial Recognition Technology Has Abolished Public Anonymity
These might become very popular
On the post: Forbes Is Confused: You Can View Content Using An Adblocker By Promising Not To Use An Adblocker
But it's an "ad-light" experience!
On the post: Copyright Holders Try To Stop Ravel's 'Bolero' From Entering Public Domain Using Co-Author Trick
Re:
"SACEM Hates Copyright Holders for Using This One Weird Trick to Stop 'Bolero' from Entering Public Domain"
On the post: Why Are People Using Ad Blockers? Ads Can Eat Up To 79% Of Mobile Data Allotments
Haven't read Forbes in a long time
I'm not sure if they just don't know how many ads they're trying to serve me, they think I'm stupid to not realize they're showing me a dozen ads per page, or if they honestly think that many ads is really "light". But the end result is the same; I haven't seen an article on their site in a long time.
On the post: Key And Peele To Livestream 'Sports Commentary' During An 'Upcoming Sports Game' That They Can't Name
Re: Re:
Next >>