I love that scene from "Labyrinth," starring David Bowie, where Hoggle and Sarah are on their way to the center of the castle and the very rocks start speaking to them:
"Don't go on. Go back while you still can. This is not the way. Take heed and go no further. Beware. Beware. Soon it will be too late."
And Hoggle answers: "Yeah! Don't pay any attention to them. They're just false alarms. You get a lot of them in the labyrinth. Especially when you're on the right track."
And a rock interrupts: "Oh, no, you're not."
Hoggle tells him to shut up.
The Rock explains: "Sorry. Just doing my job."
And Hoggle says, "You don't have to do it to us. Just forget it."
Rock says, "Oh, please, I haven't said it for such a long time."
Finally, Hoggle gives in: "Oh, all right, but don't expect a big reaction."
Rocks -- grateful -- says: "No, no, no, of course not -- (DUM DA DA DUM!) For the path you will take will lead to certain destruction."
He's so very, very grateful to be able to do his job.
Could you tell me exactly what you think is "fucking nuts"? The 1, 2, 3 of your belief. I would love to start talking about specifics. Or are you just an anonymous bomb thrower? Totally lacking in sincerity?
Charles refreshed my recollection of the facts after I told him about this exchange. He found your lack of faith disturbing. Charles reminded me of following facts, and corrected me on several points. To keep the record straight, I pass them on to you:
Subject:
Closing argument in the Multnomah County Circuit Court case of Ann Robins v. Felix Capo and Linda Kay.
Trial Judge: Hon. Anna Brown (now elevated to the US District Court of Oregon)
Opposing Counsel: Former Oregon State Bar Litigation Section head Denny Rawlinson of Miller Nash appearing for plaintiff Ann Robins.
Nature of the Case: Capo and Kay sued for $800,000 for allegedly absconding with the proceeds of the construction fund for a mobile-home development.
Carreon's Defense: The mobile-home development ran short of cash because Robins underfunded it, and in order to deflect blame for claims by home buyers who didn't get the homes they paid for, she was falsely accusing Carreon's clients of "conversion," i.e., theft.
Closing Argument: Charles delivered his closing in a folksy, cowboy style, beginning with "Miz Robins, she owns most everything 'round here. Now Miz Kay, she's a mighty hard workin' woman, make a profit from most anything she turn her hand to. Now Felix Capo, he's like a long, cool drifter, with a smile that would charm most anyone. Miz Robins she decides to send 'em out on the road with the wagon, sellin' goods for her for a share of what they sell ... etc.
Result: Verdict for Robins, far below damages sought: $20,000 against Kay, $100,000 against Capo.
@STStone's comment that "There's a library exemption to copyright. There's also a fair use exemption to copyright."
I'll just quote the statute and add a comment and explain how it applies in the online context. Of course, you could have googled "copyright + library" and found it yourself, but that is apparently above your grade level.
17 USC § 108 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
Current through Pub. L. 112-128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
" (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section."
At the American Buddha Online Library (ABOL), we have a notice posted that applies this section to the reproduction of transient digital copies on the user's computer, and voila, we have immunity from copyright infringement liability. No court has ever pronounced on the viability of this theory of copyright infringement immunity, and our legal counsel, Charles Carreon, has thusfar carried the day in defense litigation directed at ABOL by Penguin USA. Litigation is the test, and ABOL has passed it. Theorize in a knowledge vacuum if you are so inclined. In space, no one can hear you bloviate.
LISTEN: we're not talking about RELIGION here. We're not talking about right and wrong, heaven and hell, and Christian martyrs (here the Devil Matt Inman is on the cross --that's so Illuminati!). In this country, where our Constitution allows us freedom FROM religion, some of us have taken the opportunity to be REAL atheists, not just fake gnostics like Richard Dawkins. We real atheists see this distinction better than others. With copyright infringement, we're talking about THE LAW, not religion, law made by civil servants in the legislature and in Congress, not in the Vatican.
Now appealing to people's subconscious religious conditioning, subtly transferring that understanding to a non-understanding of the law, is a real good trick for mind controllers in the pay of large corporations, in this case the Publishing Industry. It's obvious that that is what this whole story is about: the Publishing Industry. It can be compared to the Recording Industry's beat-up of mp3 file sharing. Every reporter who has written about this story has been distinctly biased from the beginning in favor of Matt Inman's bogus claim of "copyright infringement." They don't care what the lawyer Charles Carreon has to say about it. Anything he says is just to embellish their premeditated spin. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. Everyone should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the Publishing Industry, led by Penguin Books, Charles and my chief nemesis, after prosecuting them for a giant conspiracy against the People to set e-book prices. We've talked a little about strategy here, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and I would add, in sneering honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about Jewish Nazis?
So when you suffer a big defeat, it's time to marshal your forces and wage another campaign. And the Matthew Inman/Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fight provided just the ammunition and fresh soldiers the Publishing Industry needed. They got all their compromised reporters lodged in various news agencies' "Internet departments," which is to say, young people who don't know anything, who aren't making REAL news, just gossiping about the Internet, to jump on this issue and make a martyr of -- who is the real martyr here? -- Charles Carreon. Matt Inman is only the COVER martyr, the mask. Every intelligence operation has to have it's covers.
Not one real reporter has considered this fracas as a story for the real world. No, this is "Internet" news. The Internet can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world to our conscious mind. Excuse me, but I've been reading a lot of the fascist Carl Jung lately. In the "Internet" things can happen that can't happen in the real world. Like transferring religious understanding to the law. What an opportunity for those who know how to use it. In this realm, you can wage a Crusade, a bloody, racist, irrational, fascist campaign, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said in a post above, people are not educated in philosophy. Not being educated in philosophy, various ideas, pro and con, positive and negative, up and down, in and out, and everything inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK, aka known as "reconciling the opposites."
And that's what you're doing when you decide that some entity is simply "WRONG" if someone's copyrighted works end up on their site. You don't care about DMCA, you don't care about THE LAW, you care about your campaign to transfer subconscious religious understandings to THE LAW. To the end that the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control end up fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.
You get to lash back at the Department of Justice, and you attack the Carreons, one of your main enemies, who keep advocating for copyright exemptions.
Sorry, but the previous comments I refer to having made here, are on the other thread, "Carreon continues to lash out!" I made a mistake posting this comment on this thread.
LISTEN: we're not talking about RELIGION here. We're not talking about right and wrong, heaven and hell, and Christian martyrs (here the Devil Matt Inman is on the cross --it's so Illuminati!). In this country, where our Constitution allows us freedom FROM religion, some of us have taken the opportunity to be REAL atheists, not just fake gnostics like Richard Dawkins. With copyright infringement, we're talking about THE LAW, not religion, law made by civil servants in the legislature and in Congress, not in the Vatican.
Now appealing to people's subconscious religious conditioning, subtly transferring that understanding to a non-understanding of the law, is a real good trick for mind controllers in the pay of large corporations, in this case the publishing industry. It's obvious that that is what this whole story is about: the publishing industry. It can be compared to the recording industry's beat-up of mp3 file sharing. Every reporter who has written about this story has been distinctly biased from the get-go in favor of Matt Inman's bogus claim of "copyright infringement." They don't care what Charles has to say. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. You should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the publishing industry after prosecuting them for a giant conspiracy against the People to set e-book prices. We've talked a little about strategy here, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and I would add, in honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about the Jewish Nazis?
So when you suffer a big defeat, it's time to marshal your forces and wage another campaign. And the Matthew Inman/Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fight provided just the ammunition and fresh soldiers they needed. They got all their compromised reporters lodged in various news agencies' "Internet departments," which is to say, young people who don't know anything, who aren't making REAL news, just gossiping about the Internet, to jump on this issue and make a martyr of -- who is the real martyr here? -- Charles Carreon. Matt Inman is only the COVER martyr, the mask.
Not one reporter has considered this fracas as a real story in the real world. No, this is "Internet" news. Which can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world being our conscious mind. In the "Internet" things can happen that can't happen in the real world. Like transferring religious understanding to the law. What an opportunity for those who know how to use it. In this realm, you can wage a Crusade, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said, people are not educated in philosophy. Not being educated in philosophy, various ideas, pro and con, positive and negative, up and down, in and out, and all that is inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK.
And that's what you're doing when you decide that some entity is simply "WRONG" if someone's copyrighted works end up on their site. You don't care about DMCA, you don't care about THE LAW, you care about your religious campaign, cynically disguised as THE LAW, to marshal people's unconscious forces for your own purposes. That end up with the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.
Now, THAT'S strategy. And a marvelous response to a big defeat.
There's a big surprise waiting for you on this "free speech" issue. I can't give it away right now. It's a matter of strategy. Which is what my next post is about.
Wrong. The copyright holder's response to my counternotification is irrelevant. If they want to sue me, then sue me. But nobody has yet, except for Penguin. And as I said, they've just been losing all along the way. Ralph Nader's group Public Citizen represented us at one crucial point. I just love Ralph Nader.
Yeah. He does crazy things that blow people's minds. Because he has a LARGE view of the situation. Just try to laugh at him, and he will put you right in your place. He has a photographic memory. He picks up books he read when he was 9 years old to find a passage he wants to read to me, flips through a few pages, and almost always finds the passage within about one minute.
1. No, you're not at all in the ballpark! You're as far from it as you can get.
2. Do you know how far fair use goes? Why don't you discuss that issue, and tell us all you know.
3. With a library, the DMCA process IS notice, counternotice, and putting the content back up. I've been doing it for 12 years. If it was bad, don't you think I would have been taken down by now. Penguin just keeps losing and losing and losing, and eventually they are going to lose for good. Knock on wood.
4. Your gunshot analogy does not apply. The law is made. It is what it is.
5. There's something called "notice" that's very important in the law. People can't be called into court unless they are "served." That's what the DMCA notice is all about. No blame until service. That's the rule, despite you apparently wanting it to be different.
So you're arguing a lot of analogies that don't apply. Again, sad to think that your pride demands that you be right and me be wrong, when the fact is, I'm right and you're wrong. You think because you're a man, I should stand down? Not a chance, honey.
Sorry, it is YOU have a large gap in YOUR understanding of the DMCA. I didn't talk about counternotification because it was irrelevant to the case at hand. Since Matt Inman never sent a DMCA notice, there was no need for counternotification, if counternotification had been deemed necessary.
Spare me your ignorant warnings. I'm advised by the best DMCA lawyer on the Net.
Neereerneer doesn't come into it, Mr. Neerneerneer. That's a great example of the tautological nature of the mind. You imagine it in me, and suddenly it's in you!!! LOL!
Petulant doesn't come into it. How I sound doesn't come into it. It's simply a matter of conforming to the DMCA guidelines. Who or what I am is irrelevant. Keep your eye on the ball, or get hit in the head.
You know, I'm in litigation with Penguin Books for years and years and years now. Charles gets a lot of emails from lawyers representing themselves as "friends" -- you know, with friends like these, who needs enemies? -- who say, "Tara Carreon must be stopped!" It's all about the big shut up. Why? Because these corporations WANT you to be confused about copyright, so we'll continue to beat up on each other, and the people's fair use of copyrighted works will be slowed, obviously in THEIR favor. Think about it. If we were all clear on the subject, there'd be a lot more exercise of our rights. They don't want that. They want to own EVERYTHING! You think publishers are fair to the artists? Think again. Most artists don't even hold the copyrights on their own creative works. They have to hand it over to the publishers if they want to get their thing published. And then the publishers can pretty much do whatever they want to your work: devalue it to nothing and burn it in a pile with everyone else's books. Nobody makes money on writing books, except the very, very big guys. So by getting all anal about your copyright, basically, you are simply hiding it in the dark. I got this lesson full in the face when I was in India, and a guy had some lemons I wanted to buy. But I couldn't afford the price he wanted. He must have thought I was a rich American, but Charles and I left America to go overland to India with only $300. Nobody else could afford his proud prices, either, and as the days went by, I saw that pile of lemons shrivel, not decrease. Eventually, he was going to have to throw the whole lot away. He would have been better off giving it to us for whatever we could give. When I put up books and nobody complains, I REALLY admire those people. I only put up books I feel are important to our study. If someone complains, it just affects my whole feeling about them. I don't even like them anymore. What -- you don't believe in libraries?! Who can have respect for these kind of people? "My friends are of a finer breed," said Cyrano de Bergerac. Charles isn't the only one in the family who loves Cyrano.
Oh, and one more thing about DMCA notices. It has to be in the proper format. Sometimes people just send letters to me asking me to take down their stuff. Guess what? No banana! We either ignore them, or tell them to send a proper DMCA notice. The law doesn't judge you unless you don't take the content down for 10 days AFTTER a PROPER DMCA notice has been sent. None of these things exist for Matt Inman. Now you want to grant him victim status? That's nothing but madness, bias, prejudice, and stupidity.
He likes to do accents. He's really good at Indian accents. We went to India in 1975 and 1976, and had a good old time, chasing kids around the Red Fort for throwing rocks at us, and experiencing the world of "maximum" on trains that were so crowded that people were standing on top of each other. He also likes to do cowboy accents. Once, in a closing argument in Portland, he broke out into a cowboy movie that had everyone with their mouths hanging open. He won the case.
You can imagine what you think the world should be like -- I advocate creative, positive visualization that can lead us to a better place in the future, a better place in your mind right now for that matter -- but there's no sense in imagining it to be real. You may want the law to be one way, but that doesn't make it so. Certainly there are plenty of judges who have this same problem, and refuse to follow the law. But mostly, they get overturned on appeal.
When we lived in Oregon, lawyers would come to listen to Charles' arguments in the courtroom, and you could see them gradually slinking down into their chairs and covering their faces with horror at what they heard him saying. They would NEVER have the guts to say that to a judge.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
"Don't go on. Go back while you still can. This is not the way. Take heed and go no further. Beware. Beware. Soon it will be too late."
And Hoggle answers: "Yeah! Don't pay any attention to them. They're just false alarms. You get a lot of them in the labyrinth. Especially when you're on the right track."
And a rock interrupts: "Oh, no, you're not."
Hoggle tells him to shut up.
The Rock explains: "Sorry. Just doing my job."
And Hoggle says, "You don't have to do it to us. Just forget it."
Rock says, "Oh, please, I haven't said it for such a long time."
Finally, Hoggle gives in: "Oh, all right, but don't expect a big reaction."
Rocks -- grateful -- says: "No, no, no, of course not -- (DUM DA DA DUM!) For the path you will take will lead to certain destruction."
He's so very, very grateful to be able to do his job.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/labyrinth.screen.toc.htm
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Subject:
Closing argument in the Multnomah County Circuit Court case of Ann Robins v. Felix Capo and Linda Kay.
Trial Judge: Hon. Anna Brown (now elevated to the US District Court of Oregon)
Opposing Counsel: Former Oregon State Bar Litigation Section head Denny Rawlinson of Miller Nash appearing for plaintiff Ann Robins.
Nature of the Case: Capo and Kay sued for $800,000 for allegedly absconding with the proceeds of the construction fund for a mobile-home development.
Carreon's Defense: The mobile-home development ran short of cash because Robins underfunded it, and in order to deflect blame for claims by home buyers who didn't get the homes they paid for, she was falsely accusing Carreon's clients of "conversion," i.e., theft.
Closing Argument: Charles delivered his closing in a folksy, cowboy style, beginning with "Miz Robins, she owns most everything 'round here. Now Miz Kay, she's a mighty hard workin' woman, make a profit from most anything she turn her hand to. Now Felix Capo, he's like a long, cool drifter, with a smile that would charm most anyone. Miz Robins she decides to send 'em out on the road with the wagon, sellin' goods for her for a share of what they sell ... etc.
Result: Verdict for Robins, far below damages sought: $20,000 against Kay, $100,000 against Capo.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
I'll just quote the statute and add a comment and explain how it applies in the online context. Of course, you could have googled "copyright + library" and found it yourself, but that is apparently above your grade level.
17 USC § 108 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
Current through Pub. L. 112-128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
" (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section."
At the American Buddha Online Library (ABOL), we have a notice posted that applies this section to the reproduction of transient digital copies on the user's computer, and voila, we have immunity from copyright infringement liability. No court has ever pronounced on the viability of this theory of copyright infringement immunity, and our legal counsel, Charles Carreon, has thusfar carried the day in defense litigation directed at ABOL by Penguin USA. Litigation is the test, and ABOL has passed it. Theorize in a knowledge vacuum if you are so inclined. In space, no one can hear you bloviate.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Now appealing to people's subconscious religious conditioning, subtly transferring that understanding to a non-understanding of the law, is a real good trick for mind controllers in the pay of large corporations, in this case the Publishing Industry. It's obvious that that is what this whole story is about: the Publishing Industry. It can be compared to the Recording Industry's beat-up of mp3 file sharing. Every reporter who has written about this story has been distinctly biased from the beginning in favor of Matt Inman's bogus claim of "copyright infringement." They don't care what the lawyer Charles Carreon has to say about it. Anything he says is just to embellish their premeditated spin. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. Everyone should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the Publishing Industry, led by Penguin Books, Charles and my chief nemesis, after prosecuting them for a giant conspiracy against the People to set e-book prices. We've talked a little about strategy here, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and I would add, in sneering honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about Jewish Nazis?
So when you suffer a big defeat, it's time to marshal your forces and wage another campaign. And the Matthew Inman/Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fight provided just the ammunition and fresh soldiers the Publishing Industry needed. They got all their compromised reporters lodged in various news agencies' "Internet departments," which is to say, young people who don't know anything, who aren't making REAL news, just gossiping about the Internet, to jump on this issue and make a martyr of -- who is the real martyr here? -- Charles Carreon. Matt Inman is only the COVER martyr, the mask. Every intelligence operation has to have it's covers.
Not one real reporter has considered this fracas as a story for the real world. No, this is "Internet" news. The Internet can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world to our conscious mind. Excuse me, but I've been reading a lot of the fascist Carl Jung lately. In the "Internet" things can happen that can't happen in the real world. Like transferring religious understanding to the law. What an opportunity for those who know how to use it. In this realm, you can wage a Crusade, a bloody, racist, irrational, fascist campaign, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said in a post above, people are not educated in philosophy. Not being educated in philosophy, various ideas, pro and con, positive and negative, up and down, in and out, and everything inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK, aka known as "reconciling the opposites."
And that's what you're doing when you decide that some entity is simply "WRONG" if someone's copyrighted works end up on their site. You don't care about DMCA, you don't care about THE LAW, you care about your campaign to transfer subconscious religious understandings to THE LAW. To the end that the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control end up fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.
You get to lash back at the Department of Justice, and you attack the Carreons, one of your main enemies, who keep advocating for copyright exemptions.
Now, THAT'S strategy.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
Re: Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
Now appealing to people's subconscious religious conditioning, subtly transferring that understanding to a non-understanding of the law, is a real good trick for mind controllers in the pay of large corporations, in this case the publishing industry. It's obvious that that is what this whole story is about: the publishing industry. It can be compared to the recording industry's beat-up of mp3 file sharing. Every reporter who has written about this story has been distinctly biased from the get-go in favor of Matt Inman's bogus claim of "copyright infringement." They don't care what Charles has to say. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. You should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the publishing industry after prosecuting them for a giant conspiracy against the People to set e-book prices. We've talked a little about strategy here, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and I would add, in honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about the Jewish Nazis?
So when you suffer a big defeat, it's time to marshal your forces and wage another campaign. And the Matthew Inman/Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fight provided just the ammunition and fresh soldiers they needed. They got all their compromised reporters lodged in various news agencies' "Internet departments," which is to say, young people who don't know anything, who aren't making REAL news, just gossiping about the Internet, to jump on this issue and make a martyr of -- who is the real martyr here? -- Charles Carreon. Matt Inman is only the COVER martyr, the mask.
Not one reporter has considered this fracas as a real story in the real world. No, this is "Internet" news. Which can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world being our conscious mind. In the "Internet" things can happen that can't happen in the real world. Like transferring religious understanding to the law. What an opportunity for those who know how to use it. In this realm, you can wage a Crusade, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said, people are not educated in philosophy. Not being educated in philosophy, various ideas, pro and con, positive and negative, up and down, in and out, and all that is inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK.
And that's what you're doing when you decide that some entity is simply "WRONG" if someone's copyrighted works end up on their site. You don't care about DMCA, you don't care about THE LAW, you care about your religious campaign, cynically disguised as THE LAW, to marshal people's unconscious forces for your own purposes. That end up with the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.
Now, THAT'S strategy. And a marvelous response to a big defeat.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
Re: Re: First Amendment
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. Do you know how far fair use goes? Why don't you discuss that issue, and tell us all you know.
3. With a library, the DMCA process IS notice, counternotice, and putting the content back up. I've been doing it for 12 years. If it was bad, don't you think I would have been taken down by now. Penguin just keeps losing and losing and losing, and eventually they are going to lose for good. Knock on wood.
4. Your gunshot analogy does not apply. The law is made. It is what it is.
5. There's something called "notice" that's very important in the law. People can't be called into court unless they are "served." That's what the DMCA notice is all about. No blame until service. That's the rule, despite you apparently wanting it to be different.
So you're arguing a lot of analogies that don't apply. Again, sad to think that your pride demands that you be right and me be wrong, when the fact is, I'm right and you're wrong. You think because you're a man, I should stand down? Not a chance, honey.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spare me your ignorant warnings. I'm advised by the best DMCA lawyer on the Net.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Petulant doesn't come into it. How I sound doesn't come into it. It's simply a matter of conforming to the DMCA guidelines. Who or what I am is irrelevant. Keep your eye on the ball, or get hit in the head.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re:
When we lived in Oregon, lawyers would come to listen to Charles' arguments in the courtroom, and you could see them gradually slinking down into their chairs and covering their faces with horror at what they heard him saying. They would NEVER have the guts to say that to a judge.
Next >>