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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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
I agree with you that embedding a YouTube video is not infringing, but I also think that reposting content is not like stealing a Corvette. But Sherman Fredericks made that claim, and his use of infringing content suggests he doesn't seem to recognize his own hypocrisy. Your entire argument is based on the belief that *I'm* saying embedding is infringing. I am not. I'm basing my comments on Fredericks' position.
I do not think you are saying that "embedding is infringing," nor have I indicated that is your position. You have jumped to the conclusion that the video he embedded was in fact infringing, and you have not offered any evidence to back up that assertion. But that is really a side issue.
The main issue is this: Shermy did not repost content, hence your analogy fails and there is no hypocrisy. Had he reposted something, then you would have a point. But he did not.
When you go to YouTube, they encourage you to share videos by using the supplied link or embed code to the original video on YouTube. They do not invite you to share the material by downloading the video locally and then uploading the video on your own. They want you to use their link or code. This is exactly what Shermy did.
When you go to the LVRJ, they encourage you to share stories by using the supplied link to the original story on LVRJ's website. They do not invite you to share the material by downloading the story locally and then uploading the story on your own. They want you to use their link. This is exactly what Shermy wants people to do.
Shermy is no more culpable for embedding a YouTube video that may be infringing than you would be if you linked to a LVRJ story that may be infringing. I would never fault you for linking to a YouTube video or an LVRJ story that happened to be infringing since that wouldn't be fair. Do you really not get it?
And please, Mike, drop the personal attacks. Stop pretending like I'm stupid and I don't understand logic just because I don't agree with you. Do you really think that people who disagree with you are stupid? I hope not. I know I've gotten personal in the past, but I'm making a concerted effort not to do that again. I hope you can appreciate that.
If they taught logic in law school, it could decimate the legal industry.
They actually do have a formal logic class at my school. I don't need to take it since I learned a logic when I got my degree in theoretical mathematics.
As I've told you in the past, until you're my boss, your opinion on what is and what is not newsworthy means nothing to me. That you don't like Righthaven's corporate masters (who you've publicly endorsed) being shown up as hypocrites explain why you'd rather bury such a story.
Wow, you're really emotional about this. I don't care if my opinion means nothing to you. I'm just stating my opinion, just like everyone else. I don't agree that they're being hypocrites. Not even close.
Agreed. But, I'm sorry if this is so difficult for someone like yourself to comprehend, but we're talking about what *his* stance is. And his stance seems pretty clear. Putting infringing content on your own blog is like stealing a corvette. That's what he said, and we're pointing out the hypocrisy.
Really, Mike? Are you going to insult me and pretend like this is "so difficult for" me to "comprehend"? Give me a break. Let's leave aside the personal attacks and stick to the merits. Can you do that? I comprehend just fine. Please prove that the video he embedded was infringing. If you've no proof, then you're guessing.
Ok, so then you have no problem with people reposting content on their website that the LVRJ says "share!", right? Oh wait, you claim it's infringement.
They are inviting you to share a LINK, not to share the text of the article. I've never seen you acknowledge this distinction, which honestly, is quite remarkable. I've often wondered if you just don't see it, if you see it and are blocking it out, or if you're intentionally glossing over that fact. Do you really not understand the difference? I've brought this up several times, and you've never once addressed it.
Ugh. Are you serious? Do they not teach logic in law school? Again, we're talking about Sherm's view on things based on his statements.
And here you go right back into the "do they not teach logic in law school." Such a lame attempt to bring me down. Why don't you just drop that, Mike. It's gotten really old at this point. Try to stick to the merits. Show me where Sherm says embedding a YouTube video that you have no knowledge of its authenticity is infringement. You simply cannot.
You're not fooling anyone here with your disingenuity.
Either you didn't understand the post or you're deliberately trolling.
Obviously Mike doesn't believe that embedding a YouTube video is infringement, but Mr. Frederick is known for his position that using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement.
Mike's post point out the irony of this situation.
Apparently I'm fooling you, since I'm not being disingenuous. Of course I understand the post, I just think it's silly and reaching. If this was somebody Mike liked and they had embedded a video that someone later flagged, Mike would be defending them tooth and nail. He'd be complaining about takedown notices are used to chill free speech, he'd point out that perhaps the takedown notice was even issued by the rights holder, etc. But when it's someone he doesn't like there's no such defense. It's a double-standard and it's pretty transparent. Maybe you don't see it, but I'm sure others do.
Perhaps you can point me to where the Sherminator claims that "using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement." I'd like to see the basis of your claim. Was he talking about embedding YouTube videos at the time? I seriously doubt it. And I'd love for someone to explain to me how he was supposed to know it was copyrighted? Heck, how do we know that this wasn't a legit upload that someone else wrongfully issued a takedown notice for? How can you prove that it's even infringing in the first place?
The only irony I see here is that Mike felt this was newsworthy. I think this whole "story" says more about Mike than it does about Shermy.
It is simply wrong to state that "no one else agrees with" me, and my case is not nearly as weak as you think. Thanks for laying in with the put downs again today. I will not waste any more time on you.
I've read the decision, trust me. Considering how complicated this case was, it's amazing how terse the district court's opinion was. How many pages was him just quoting congressional reports rather than giving analysis? It's alarming.
It appears to me that the district court simply made a choice to maintain the status quo and punt it to the appeals court. That sort of thing happens all the time. I think the district court made several reversible errors and I will be stunned if this is simply affirmed above. We'll see.
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:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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."
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
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?
Funny how I'm the one defending fair use in this thread.
Also, tell me this... Does Shermy control who Righthaven sues?
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re:
No need to call me names. Where does Shermy say he "doesn't believe in fair use"?
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
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.
On the post: Supreme Court Ruling: You May Not Be Able To Legally Sell A Product First Made Outside The US
On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not think you are saying that "embedding is infringing," nor have I indicated that is your position. You have jumped to the conclusion that the video he embedded was in fact infringing, and you have not offered any evidence to back up that assertion. But that is really a side issue.
The main issue is this: Shermy did not repost content, hence your analogy fails and there is no hypocrisy. Had he reposted something, then you would have a point. But he did not.
On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you go to YouTube, they encourage you to share videos by using the supplied link or embed code to the original video on YouTube. They do not invite you to share the material by downloading the video locally and then uploading the video on your own. They want you to use their link or code. This is exactly what Shermy did.
When you go to the LVRJ, they encourage you to share stories by using the supplied link to the original story on LVRJ's website. They do not invite you to share the material by downloading the story locally and then uploading the story on your own. They want you to use their link. This is exactly what Shermy wants people to do.
Shermy is no more culpable for embedding a YouTube video that may be infringing than you would be if you linked to a LVRJ story that may be infringing. I would never fault you for linking to a YouTube video or an LVRJ story that happened to be infringing since that wouldn't be fair. Do you really not get it?
And please, Mike, drop the personal attacks. Stop pretending like I'm stupid and I don't understand logic just because I don't agree with you. Do you really think that people who disagree with you are stupid? I hope not. I know I've gotten personal in the past, but I'm making a concerted effort not to do that again. I hope you can appreciate that.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re:
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They actually do have a formal logic class at my school. I don't need to take it since I learned a logic when I got my degree in theoretical mathematics.
On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you're really emotional about this. I don't care if my opinion means nothing to you. I'm just stating my opinion, just like everyone else. I don't agree that they're being hypocrites. Not even close.
Agreed. But, I'm sorry if this is so difficult for someone like yourself to comprehend, but we're talking about what *his* stance is. And his stance seems pretty clear. Putting infringing content on your own blog is like stealing a corvette. That's what he said, and we're pointing out the hypocrisy.
Really, Mike? Are you going to insult me and pretend like this is "so difficult for" me to "comprehend"? Give me a break. Let's leave aside the personal attacks and stick to the merits. Can you do that? I comprehend just fine. Please prove that the video he embedded was infringing. If you've no proof, then you're guessing.
Ok, so then you have no problem with people reposting content on their website that the LVRJ says "share!", right? Oh wait, you claim it's infringement.
They are inviting you to share a LINK, not to share the text of the article. I've never seen you acknowledge this distinction, which honestly, is quite remarkable. I've often wondered if you just don't see it, if you see it and are blocking it out, or if you're intentionally glossing over that fact. Do you really not understand the difference? I've brought this up several times, and you've never once addressed it.
Ugh. Are you serious? Do they not teach logic in law school? Again, we're talking about Sherm's view on things based on his statements.
And here you go right back into the "do they not teach logic in law school." Such a lame attempt to bring me down. Why don't you just drop that, Mike. It's gotten really old at this point. Try to stick to the merits. Show me where Sherm says embedding a YouTube video that you have no knowledge of its authenticity is infringement. You simply cannot.
On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either you didn't understand the post or you're deliberately trolling.
Obviously Mike doesn't believe that embedding a YouTube video is infringement, but Mr. Frederick is known for his position that using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement.
Mike's post point out the irony of this situation.
Apparently I'm fooling you, since I'm not being disingenuous. Of course I understand the post, I just think it's silly and reaching. If this was somebody Mike liked and they had embedded a video that someone later flagged, Mike would be defending them tooth and nail. He'd be complaining about takedown notices are used to chill free speech, he'd point out that perhaps the takedown notice was even issued by the rights holder, etc. But when it's someone he doesn't like there's no such defense. It's a double-standard and it's pretty transparent. Maybe you don't see it, but I'm sure others do.
Perhaps you can point me to where the Sherminator claims that "using a copyrighted video is indeed infringement." I'd like to see the basis of your claim. Was he talking about embedding YouTube videos at the time? I seriously doubt it. And I'd love for someone to explain to me how he was supposed to know it was copyrighted? Heck, how do we know that this wasn't a legit upload that someone else wrongfully issued a takedown notice for? How can you prove that it's even infringing in the first place?
The only irony I see here is that Mike felt this was newsworthy. I think this whole "story" says more about Mike than it does about Shermy.
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It appears to me that the district court simply made a choice to maintain the status quo and punt it to the appeals court. That sort of thing happens all the time. I think the district court made several reversible errors and I will be stunned if this is simply affirmed above. We'll see.
Next >>