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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: still there.
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re:
No need to insult me.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>