No. I remain entirely correct. Sorry Killercool. In fact, I don't know what point you are trying to make.
I decided, as author, what was adequate in the case of quoting my entire article. The full quotation didn't hurt me. It didn't deprive me of any profit. The graduate student made no profit from my article. Under those circumstances, I consider it to be 'Fair Use' to quote my article for the benefit of others. Just provide full attribution.
Your reference to 'academia' makes no sense at all. The same rules, the same rights of the source author, remain in all circumstances.
You actually missed my point entirely. Please do try harder. Repeating myself: "If Patti O'Shea had clearly designated the source of the quoted material, I doubt this problem would have occurred." But it is entirely up to the author regarding how to respond. IOW: There was no 'Fair Use' in Patti O'Shea's post because there was no attribution. Quoting ANYTHING written by ANYONE ELSE who owns the copyright requires attribution. There is no such thing as a free quotation of another person's work. That is no one's right at any time, in or out of academia. If you are attempting to disagree, I would have to quote you: "Just stupid."
Stamping your feet and insulting the messenger, or writing articles attempting to berate a copyright holder for asserting their rights, changes nothing at all.
Misunderstanding of the Fair Use Doctrine is common and expected. But the fact is that it requires full and adequate attribution of the source of the quotation. It also cannot be lengthy and cannot be used as the basis of profit by the person quoting the source.
I once found an article I had written about computer security quoted in full on a website by a computer science graduate student. I freaked him out when I wrote to him and asked him for attribution. He had pulled the article out of an email I had posted to an enterprise computing interest list that was discussing the subject. If he had attributed what was posted to me, I would not have bothered him. I never had the impression that he was attempting to pass my work off as his. But I do require, as is the right of any copyright holder, to have my name clearly listed as the source of the material I wrote. We sorted it out, I received attribution and all was fine. He was just a kid who was ignorant of the Fair Use Doctrine and was sorry for his error.
If Patti O'Shea had clearly designated the source of the quoted material, I doubt this problem would have occurred as no author wants to be marked as a venomous villain. Free marketing is of benefit to an author (a lesson the RIAA and MPAA can't get into their Neanderthal craniums). But when one is directly quoted at length, an author can't help but feel ripped off and damaged. That's not going to change. Without attribution I see nothing wrong in HS's response. It was their right. Instead I know that next time Patti O'Shea will consider what is required to fulfill one's end of the Fair Use Doctrine.
Why bother to pay anything for Napster? After the RIAA killed them, they became nothing but a lame RIAA puppet shop. And someone wants to pay for that? Really Real? Is this a form of suicide?
Way to go MPAA and RIAA. INSPIRE people to pirate your media if only in revenge for your longstanding and consistent customer abuse. You will never get the clue. You are far too stupid and self-destructive. Thus your biznizz fails. Where were these people when the brains were handed out...
Seriously TechDirt. Choose your rants more carefully. Anyone with a quantum of intelligence notices this particular logo is a blatant ripoff of BOTH LG AND Apple. It has a BITE OUT OF IT for Tesla's sake! Hello? Apple will win this lawsuit.
As for the Woolworth's logo: There I can agree with you. Highly silly of Apple.
Way to go MPAA and RIAA. INSPIRE people to pirate your media if only in revenge for your longstanding and consistent customer abuse. You will never get the clue. You are far too stupid and self-destructive. Thus your biznizz fails. Where were these people when the brains were handed out...
As one of the "Creative Folks" I have to point out that killing off FAIR USE it nothing more than money grubbing Corporate Oligarchy bullshite. We have the same rubbish going on here in the USA where the Corporate Oligarchy are famous for creating such pointless catastrophes as: The Iraq War. Currently they're lobbying the US Congress to destroy real Net Neutrality, create a US Internet Blacklist as well as an Internet Kill Switch. Keep in mind that corporations DON'T VOTE and legally have no citizen rights, despite unconstitutional court decisions to the contrary.
And what on Earth happened to Feargal Sharkey? I saw the guy live way-back-when. I thought he had a brain in his head and creativity in his heart. Apparently they've been removed and replaced with greed and mindless robotic mechanisms. Extremely sick stuff. Shame on Sharkey!
Lord-Of-All Rupert Murdoch dictates bloated pricing for his company's precious news and entertainment programming. So what else will abused customers do but find a work around for his greed and stooopidity. It's the age of the Marketing Moron where money rules and screw the irritating customers! The RIAA do it! The MPAA do it! News Corp do it! To hell with all of you and your psychopathy.
One unfortunate thing to watch for and keep in mind is that the US federal government is over-lorded to a significant extent by The Corporate Oligarchy. These bozos own the 'Lobby'. They write the bills for Congress. They pay for their cooperative candidates to win re-election. They frack everything up. Witness what these clowns did to the economy via their manipulation of The Bush League.
Therefore, if The Corporate Oligarchy wants to mess with censorship of stuff they don't like, expect them to force it to happen.
The NSA Already Has That Job. Thank You For Applying.
Apparently the people at 'Project Vigilant' are a bit dim and gullible themselves. It is already well known that the NSA (National 'Security' Agency) has several sites around the country where they monitor all phone and Internet conversations and data. It was unconstitutionally set up by the Bush administration in coordination with their bogus war on Iraq. So who needs 'Project Vigilant' with the NSA around?
Re(2): DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
Sorry, but your comment and this tradition in the free culture community deserves a brief lecture:
Obviously I see nothing wrong with satirizing the meaning of 'DRM'. However, it is IMHO required in public discourse to also provide the actual meaning when conversing with those who are not in on the joke. Most people would have no idea from what was written that the stated meaning of the abbreviation DRM was not real, thereby propagating misunderstanding and ignorance. Stating the actual meaning as well as the reinterpreted, satirical meaning takes nothing away from the message, while helping the reader to understand the issue.
Having said that, I entirely agree that DRM is about restrictions, not rights. DRM tramples the rights of the media purchaser/owner. Sadly, this disrespect for the customer is pervasive in the current era. I call it the 'Marketing Moron Movement', not unlike someone taking a dump on your head, treating the customer as an annoying inconvenience apart from their ability to fork over cash. This method of marketing is terrific for destroying a company's reputation, as has been proven in the cases of the recording and film corporations. Any reasonable Marketing 101 class makes clear the relationship between company and customer. And yet these days we have MBA graduates making customer-phobic, self-destructive decisions.
DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
"DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management"
Incorrect. DRM, or Digital RIGHTS Management.
I personally call it Digital Rights Manglement as it interferes with both fair use of owned media as well as the right to make a backup copy of owned media.
The general effect of DRM is to make the customer feel they are being treated as a criminal. I personally believe that this distrustful and disrespectful attitude toward customers has itself catalyzed the illegal downloading of copyrighted media. If DRM had never happened, illegal downloading would IMHO have been far less a problem in the current era. IOW the RIAA and MPAA have helped create the problem they've sought to prevent through the use of DRM. Supreme irony.
The 'Paywall' experiment ended in failure back in the 1990s during the advent of the Worldwide Web. These retrograde attempts at paywalls are amusing testaments to ignorance. The fact is that there will always be free alternatives that will attract larger audiences simply because they are free.
Another FAIL is the attempt to over-price subscriptions to websites. Blatant user gouging has been going on such that paying for extended website access and features is prohibitive. With time there will be price corrections such that users will happily pay a reasonable fee if only to help out their favorite sites. For example, it's great that the New York Times now provides paid electronic versions of their paper. However, the cost is remarkably high considering the lack of required paper printing and shipping fees. Once they adjust their subscription fee to a reasonable price, their subscription rate will increase.
Conclusion: Herr Rupert Murdoch, Führer of News Corp., is a 20th century Luddite. Like all other over-priced paywalls, his will FAIL.
What is it with boisterous proclamations of ignorance from elected officials from Alaska?
"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially." . . .
"They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material." . . .
Anyone who has taken a serious class in statistics knows the worthlessness of correlation figures. They also know that correlation is THE most abused of statistics. If you ever see anyone attempting to state cause and effect based upon correlation data, you know right off the bat that they are deadly desperate to have something to prove. Not gonna happen. Correlation has no statistical significance.
If this is the case, AND they admitted it, Microsoft have a terrific incentive to appeal the decision. Submarine patent lawsuits are illegal in the USA, and this appears to be a clear case of submarining. Of course law versus reality is another matter. Submarining lives on. It is the worst of patent abuse, a plague that doesn't discriminate between types of patents. The perpetrators couldn't care less about the software patent crisis.
Prologue: I entirely agree with supporting artists via BUYING their artwork.
However, where I find the RIAA is most Tardy is in their pursuit of killing off free marketing. There have to be some ridiculously stooopid marketing morons over at the RIAA to treat every form of access to music as evil piracy that threatens to destroy the entire recording industry. When they started pulling this stooopidity on every Internet 'radio' website I was utterly amazed. It's all FREE MARKETING! Hello?!
What I think really goes on behind the scenes at the RIAA is a freakish requirement for CONTROL of everything we are ALLOWED to hear. They want to push Lady Gaga today. How DARE we instead listen to Little Boots instead?! They don't care if we happen to like Little Boots better and are likely to actually BUY her music if we get to hear it first. NO! It's Lady Gaga for us dammit!
I'm hoping the marketing moron domination of the recording biznizz ends in a hurry so we can get back to sanity. Let us all listen to what we LIKE. How can I know what I like if I can't HEAR IT FIRST?! How can I know Little Boots is ultra-Radi-Kewl to my ears if the RIAA manages to destroy every outlet that allows me to hear her work? I don't want frickin' Lady Gaga! You're wasting my time playing her on the approved industrial radio sites and frequencies!
I'm not going to buy what I don't like. So GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY RIAA!!! Let me buy stuff!
There are a lot of programs I would love to be able to watch of the net that are provided by the BBC on their website. But I'm in the USA! I can't watch! USA IPs are filtered out. Why? Copyright concerns.
I too have tried the proxy route, with poor success. The BBC either filter out the proxies or they are so incredibly slow as to make the attempt a waste of time.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: References, Footnotes, Attribution
I decided, as author, what was adequate in the case of quoting my entire article. The full quotation didn't hurt me. It didn't deprive me of any profit. The graduate student made no profit from my article. Under those circumstances, I consider it to be 'Fair Use' to quote my article for the benefit of others. Just provide full attribution.
Your reference to 'academia' makes no sense at all. The same rules, the same rights of the source author, remain in all circumstances.
You actually missed my point entirely. Please do try harder. Repeating myself: "If Patti O'Shea had clearly designated the source of the quoted material, I doubt this problem would have occurred." But it is entirely up to the author regarding how to respond. IOW: There was no 'Fair Use' in Patti O'Shea's post because there was no attribution. Quoting ANYTHING written by ANYONE ELSE who owns the copyright requires attribution. There is no such thing as a free quotation of another person's work. That is no one's right at any time, in or out of academia. If you are attempting to disagree, I would have to quote you: "Just stupid."
Stamping your feet and insulting the messenger, or writing articles attempting to berate a copyright holder for asserting their rights, changes nothing at all.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
References, Footnotes, Attribution
I once found an article I had written about computer security quoted in full on a website by a computer science graduate student. I freaked him out when I wrote to him and asked him for attribution. He had pulled the article out of an email I had posted to an enterprise computing interest list that was discussing the subject. If he had attributed what was posted to me, I would not have bothered him. I never had the impression that he was attempting to pass my work off as his. But I do require, as is the right of any copyright holder, to have my name clearly listed as the source of the material I wrote. We sorted it out, I received attribution and all was fine. He was just a kid who was ignorant of the Fair Use Doctrine and was sorry for his error.
If Patti O'Shea had clearly designated the source of the quoted material, I doubt this problem would have occurred as no author wants to be marked as a venomous villain. Free marketing is of benefit to an author (a lesson the RIAA and MPAA can't get into their Neanderthal craniums). But when one is directly quoted at length, an author can't help but feel ripped off and damaged. That's not going to change. Without attribution I see nothing wrong in HS's response. It was their right. Instead I know that next time Patti O'Shea will consider what is required to fulfill one's end of the Fair Use Doctrine.
On the post: Actress Who Wished To Remain Anonymous And Under 40 Is Now Officially Neither
The Streisand Effect
On the post: Merger Of The Also Rans: Rhapsody Buys Napster
Zero + Zero = Zero
On the post: RIAA Sending DMCA Takedowns On *FREE* Music Being Distributed Directly Off Universal Music Website & Promoted By The Artist
The Never Ending Story Of RIAA Customer Abuse
On the post: Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo
This time it's BLATANT plagiarism
As for the Woolworth's logo: There I can agree with you. Highly silly of Apple.
On the post: MPAA Mocks Entrepreneurs For Being Concerned About MPAA's Efforts To Stifle Innovation
Customer Abuse, Pure And Simple and Stupid
On the post: UK Music Lobbyist Says Rethinking Fair Use Is 'Intellectual Masturbation'
Corporate Oligarchy Bullshite
And what on Earth happened to Feargal Sharkey? I saw the guy live way-back-when. I thought he had a brain in his head and creativity in his heart. Apparently they've been removed and replaced with greed and mindless robotic mechanisms. Extremely sick stuff. Shame on Sharkey!
On the post: Fox Accuses Cablevision Of Telling People To Go To 'Illegal' Sites To Watch Games Fox Is Blocking
Frack Fux
On the post: Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?
And then The Corporate Oligarchy vetoed the bill
Therefore, if The Corporate Oligarchy wants to mess with censorship of stuff they don't like, expect them to force it to happen.
Remember representative government in the USA?
On the post: Is Project Vigilant A Hoax?
The NSA Already Has That Job. Thank You For Applying.
http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.shtml
http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/07/n sas-internet-surveillance-program.html
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re(2): DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
Obviously I see nothing wrong with satirizing the meaning of 'DRM'. However, it is IMHO required in public discourse to also provide the actual meaning when conversing with those who are not in on the joke. Most people would have no idea from what was written that the stated meaning of the abbreviation DRM was not real, thereby propagating misunderstanding and ignorance. Stating the actual meaning as well as the reinterpreted, satirical meaning takes nothing away from the message, while helping the reader to understand the issue.
Having said that, I entirely agree that DRM is about restrictions, not rights. DRM tramples the rights of the media purchaser/owner. Sadly, this disrespect for the customer is pervasive in the current era. I call it the 'Marketing Moron Movement', not unlike someone taking a dump on your head, treating the customer as an annoying inconvenience apart from their ability to fork over cash. This method of marketing is terrific for destroying a company's reputation, as has been proven in the cases of the recording and film corporations. Any reasonable Marketing 101 class makes clear the relationship between company and customer. And yet these days we have MBA graduates making customer-phobic, self-destructive decisions.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it
Incorrect. DRM, or Digital RIGHTS Management.
I personally call it Digital Rights Manglement as it interferes with both fair use of owned media as well as the right to make a backup copy of owned media.
The general effect of DRM is to make the customer feel they are being treated as a criminal. I personally believe that this distrustful and disrespectful attitude toward customers has itself catalyzed the illegal downloading of copyrighted media. If DRM had never happened, illegal downloading would IMHO have been far less a problem in the current era. IOW the RIAA and MPAA have helped create the problem they've sought to prevent through the use of DRM. Supreme irony.
On the post: Yet Another Paywall Experiment Fails
Paywall FAIL, Subscription Over-pricing
Another FAIL is the attempt to over-price subscriptions to websites. Blatant user gouging has been going on such that paying for extended website access and features is prohibitive. With time there will be price corrections such that users will happily pay a reasonable fee if only to help out their favorite sites. For example, it's great that the New York Times now provides paid electronic versions of their paper. However, the cost is remarkably high considering the lack of required paper printing and shipping fees. Once they adjust their subscription fee to a reasonable price, their subscription rate will increase.
Conclusion: Herr Rupert Murdoch, Führer of News Corp., is a 20th century Luddite. Like all other over-priced paywalls, his will FAIL.
On the post: Bad Things Happen When Politicians Think They Understand Technology
Nostalgia: Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens
"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially." . . .
"They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material." . . .
On the post: Syphilis (Or Was It Facebook?) Blamed For People Not Understanding That Correlation Does Not Mean Causation
Correlation: The most abused statistic
On the post: Microsoft Loses Yet Another Patent Lawsuit
Submarining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
If this is the case, AND they admitted it, Microsoft have a terrific incentive to appeal the decision. Submarine patent lawsuits are illegal in the USA, and this appears to be a clear case of submarining. Of course law versus reality is another matter. Submarining lives on. It is the worst of patent abuse, a plague that doesn't discriminate between types of patents. The perpetrators couldn't care less about the software patent crisis.
On the post: RIAA Takes The Cake: Equates File Sharing To Children's Fairy Tale
Tardation: Killing off free marketing
However, where I find the RIAA is most Tardy is in their pursuit of killing off free marketing. There have to be some ridiculously stooopid marketing morons over at the RIAA to treat every form of access to music as evil piracy that threatens to destroy the entire recording industry. When they started pulling this stooopidity on every Internet 'radio' website I was utterly amazed. It's all FREE MARKETING! Hello?!
What I think really goes on behind the scenes at the RIAA is a freakish requirement for CONTROL of everything we are ALLOWED to hear. They want to push Lady Gaga today. How DARE we instead listen to Little Boots instead?! They don't care if we happen to like Little Boots better and are likely to actually BUY her music if we get to hear it first. NO! It's Lady Gaga for us dammit!
I'm hoping the marketing moron domination of the recording biznizz ends in a hurry so we can get back to sanity. Let us all listen to what we LIKE. How can I know what I like if I can't HEAR IT FIRST?! How can I know Little Boots is ultra-Radi-Kewl to my ears if the RIAA manages to destroy every outlet that allows me to hear her work? I don't want frickin' Lady Gaga! You're wasting my time playing her on the approved industrial radio sites and frequencies!
I'm not going to buy what I don't like. So GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY RIAA!!! Let me buy stuff!
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Monsanto
Sell a man the seeds. Make it illegal for him to grow his own.
Evil like this is why the world has difficulty loving the USA.
On the post: Hulu Continues Its War On Users
Same Deal Watching The BBC On The Net
I too have tried the proxy route, with poor success. The BBC either filter out the proxies or they are so incredibly slow as to make the attempt a waste of time.
(;_;)
Next >>