She believes Jill Scott is the first person she had the online relationship with. So she says in the first part of her...writing. Er, until later, when she then believes it's Michael Jackson who was her online friend.
The only time she mentions Oprah is when she mentions Michael Jackson.
-did he also sue the people who actually made the records public and searchable (which would make more sense);
-did he also sue bing, yahoo, dogpile and every other search engine?
Because his other suits were easily found on those other search engines too.
Interesting. If I do a "google search" for the phrase "search engine" the first one that comes up in the serps is dogpile, with google second (though they are my default search), the third is bing, then altavista, ask, meta crawler, duckduckgo, and yahoo at the bottom of the page. I didn't bother looking at page 2, so personally there's enough choice for me on the first page of the serps that I probably wouldn't look at anything past the first page.
I use dogpile rarely, but they sometimes have different results than google, so I do use them, but rarely.
If foundem wasn't on the first page I'd never see them...and probably neither would a lot of other people.
Were they ever on the first page of serps? And if not, how far down the serps would most people go to find a search engine?
I rather used to like Miss Dewey, it'd be nice to get her back since it helped surpress the boredom from time-to-time :)
Yes, somewhat similar to what I was thinking. And that being the case, why would she have that particular question on a teleprompter if she hadn't in fact read this guy's booklet?
Although, not every book/booklet/phamphlet is "good", and she might have opted not to say anything if she didn't like his book or found it of little value. After all...the old adage is "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything". On the other hand, she may not have read it, but the producer or whoever puts random questions in the teleprompter read it.
I guess I'd wonder if she actually did "quote the book", since there is a lot of other source material for Taft, and one lawyer indicates that her response was an answer to a question asked on her show that day.
What are the chances? I mean...she reads this guy's "booklet" and then someone asks a question that relates only specifically to something in the book?
But wikipedia also has the information about Taft's obesity...the problem is, you'd have to wonder how she would have known the answer to that without using some sort of research...perhaps because had recently read it in that booklet?
I don't know, but I'd have to agree it isn't copyright infringement...the rest (morale or not?) depends entirely on how she came about that knowledge.
That sucks. I hope very few families hire him in future. As a photographer who also does family portrait work, I have never bothered to claim a copyright against a family who made their photos public.
Canada's copyright law used to be the reverse - the person hiring you to do their portraits kept the copyright unless you're contract states otherwise. I haven't really kept up as well as I should have with the changes, but that's always the way I've worked and continue to do so. Families own their portraits, not me, unless I've obtained the rights to use them.
Anyone doing what this guy has done makes me feel like I need a shower.
Google's DMCA form informs the filer that their notice will be aired publicly, but it's doubtful anyone who doesn't use the online form would get any notification of that, except perhaps in the automated response you get from filing a complaint.
[quote]It is also our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act, including by sending a copy of the notice to one or more third parties or making it available to the public.[/quote]
If someone filed a DMCA on a DMCA notice, would THAT be made public, thereby creating an ongoing circle, or would Chilling Effects or Google simply remove the original complaint?
@Marcus - I can't access any of those pages on mimtid.net either (Firefox & Chrome) - the message I get is the same - it has a redirect loop. I can access it if I search it and use a cached page view though.
And for the kinder eggs, yes, fairly prevalent here and a very nice treat for the kiddies. But then, there was a time when the world thought brownies were safe.
I wonder if the US has banned jujubes too? We couldn't find any on our last trip down - a couple of candy shops we asked at eyed us up and down like we were trying to rob them.
Is there a public list of contraband? The last list we found was a booklet on what you can't bring across the border and I don't recall seeing any "kinder eggs" on the list. I'd hate to have tried to bring a couple of kinder eggs for my friend's grandbabies without knowing I was doing some so drastically wrong. How sad is that?
[quote]If your subscribers are clicking on adverts and not buying, then you are in breach.[/quote]
Well I suggest he read the terms again and understand what adsense is about. Visitors are not required to "BUY" anything. Adsense is PPC, not PPA. That would not have been the reason at all for his account being disabled. He misinterpreted the clause that I think he is referring to.
In the end, YouTube and Adsense are simply not a good match. YouTube doesn't allow their users any way to access their Channel or video HTML in order to place any sort of protective measures. Adsense should basically stop the monetizing of videos on YouTube until they find a way to allow it's users to at least monitor their visitors.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
About the only thing I can do is...gag.
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
Re: Re:
Wrong - she believes Michael Jackson was her online friend.
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
Re:
"I know that my friend was most likely Michael Jackson"
So why sue Oprah if she believes her online friend was Michael Jackson disguising his voice?
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
Re:
The only time she mentions Oprah is when she mentions Michael Jackson.
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
That doesn't even resemble a lawsuit, and...she's suing Oprah because Oprah knew Michael Jackson?
That's about the only thing I infer out of it...and even that makes no sense.
On the post: Guy Sues Google Because His Past Lawsuits Show Up In Google Results
-did he also sue the people who actually made the records public and searchable (which would make more sense);
-did he also sue bing, yahoo, dogpile and every other search engine?
Because his other suits were easily found on those other search engines too.
On the post: UK Politicians Want To Regulate Google... Because It's Good At What It Does
I use dogpile rarely, but they sometimes have different results than google, so I do use them, but rarely.
If foundem wasn't on the first page I'd never see them...and probably neither would a lot of other people.
Were they ever on the first page of serps? And if not, how far down the serps would most people go to find a search engine?
I rather used to like Miss Dewey, it'd be nice to get her back since it helped surpress the boredom from time-to-time :)
On the post: Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data
...feeling creeped out
Thankfully, I don't use a smartphone, and I don't use apps. Basic mobile that lets me call someone when I need to.
Trying to keep track of where my computer is sending stuff is bad enough, never mind having to worry about a mobile device.
All of this is making me feel very old, but at least I know enough to stay away from my son-in-law while he's got his iphone on :)
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Re: The eejit (TSA-Totally Sexually Assaulted)
On the post: Oprah Winfrey Not Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Discussing America's Chubbiest President
Re: Re:
Although, not every book/booklet/phamphlet is "good", and she might have opted not to say anything if she didn't like his book or found it of little value. After all...the old adage is "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything". On the other hand, she may not have read it, but the producer or whoever puts random questions in the teleprompter read it.
On the post: Oprah Winfrey Not Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Discussing America's Chubbiest President
Re: How many lawsuits are just to get attention
On the post: Oprah Winfrey Not Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Discussing America's Chubbiest President
http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2011/03/oprah-winfrey-wins-copyright-battle.html
What are the chances? I mean...she reads this guy's "booklet" and then someone asks a question that relates only specifically to something in the book?
But wikipedia also has the information about Taft's obesity...the problem is, you'd have to wonder how she would have known the answer to that without using some sort of research...perhaps because had recently read it in that booklet?
I don't know, but I'd have to agree it isn't copyright infringement...the rest (morale or not?) depends entirely on how she came about that knowledge.
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
Canada's copyright law used to be the reverse - the person hiring you to do their portraits kept the copyright unless you're contract states otherwise. I haven't really kept up as well as I should have with the changes, but that's always the way I've worked and continue to do so. Families own their portraits, not me, unless I've obtained the rights to use them.
Anyone doing what this guy has done makes me feel like I need a shower.
On the post: Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?
[quote]It is also our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act, including by sending a copy of the notice to one or more third parties or making it available to the public.[/quote]
If someone filed a DMCA on a DMCA notice, would THAT be made public, thereby creating an ongoing circle, or would Chilling Effects or Google simply remove the original complaint?
@Marcus - I can't access any of those pages on mimtid.net either (Firefox & Chrome) - the message I get is the same - it has a redirect loop. I can access it if I search it and use a cached page view though.
On the post: Just What No One Needs Or Wants: Web Images With DRM And An Expiration Date
If you are so embarrassed by an image you might want to auto-delete it at some point...why would you post the thing in the first place?
Either I've lost a few million brain cells more than usual in the last few days or this is just a totally dumb idea.
On the post: Dating Site's Plans To Create Profiles By Scraping Social Networks: Publicity Stunt Or Just Dumb?
Re:
Besides, not everyone even completes the "single/married/whatever" part and I'd bet they'd forget to stipulate "ignore profiles with no designations".
Just a bad idea all around I think.
On the post: Dating Site's Plans To Create Profiles By Scraping Social Networks: Publicity Stunt Or Just Dumb?
Just imagine all the lawsuits from that one. Particularly if the couple already has trust issues.
Beyond that, many social networks contain profiles of kids in age range of 12 to 16. Even more lawsuits from putting those into dating sites.
I can't imagine any developer actually thinking this would be a good idea.
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
laughing at that one.
And for the kinder eggs, yes, fairly prevalent here and a very nice treat for the kiddies. But then, there was a time when the world thought brownies were safe.
I wonder if the US has banned jujubes too? We couldn't find any on our last trip down - a couple of candy shops we asked at eyed us up and down like we were trying to rob them.
Is there a public list of contraband? The last list we found was a booklet on what you can't bring across the border and I don't recall seeing any "kinder eggs" on the list. I'd hate to have tried to bring a couple of kinder eggs for my friend's grandbabies without knowing I was doing some so drastically wrong. How sad is that?
Polkaroo...big green thing with polkadots :)
On the post: Does Google Design AdSense Contract So You're Almost Forced To Break Its Terms?
Well I suggest he read the terms again and understand what adsense is about. Visitors are not required to "BUY" anything. Adsense is PPC, not PPA. That would not have been the reason at all for his account being disabled. He misinterpreted the clause that I think he is referring to.
In the end, YouTube and Adsense are simply not a good match. YouTube doesn't allow their users any way to access their Channel or video HTML in order to place any sort of protective measures. Adsense should basically stop the monetizing of videos on YouTube until they find a way to allow it's users to at least monitor their visitors.
On the post: Avast Claims Single Pro License Installed 774,651 Times Around The Globe
Re:
And I'd say they've handled it in a rather reasonable way too. At least if the reports are true.
Next >>