Here's the proper understanding. I know, because I'm an Internet librarian, of the only library on the Internet that openly posts copyrighted works. You can write the book yesterday, and I can put it up today. Because there's a library exemption to copyright. There's also a fair use exemption to copyright. But anyway, to DMCA.
You have a site like me, you put up content, or in the case of other sites that allow content to be posted, others put up content. Some copyright owner thinks it infringes his copyright. He sends a DMCA notice. I have to take the content down for 10 days. Then I put it back up.
But if no one sends you a DMCA notice, no law is broken. For me, running a library, it's simply a formality I have to follow, because I always put the content back up. Once a woman wrote to me and said, "Take down my content(generic)on your site." I wrote back to her, and said, "What content? Where?" I'm not going to read my whole damn site! I have over a million files. That was before I had a search engine. But even if I had a search engine, I wouldn't take the trouble of searching her name. It's not my responsibility. Either she points to the specific content, or fuck her. She wrote me back again, with the same bullshit. At that point, I did tell her to go jump off a cliff. And that was the end of it.
Point being, no DMCA notice, no responsibility for content. From what I've heard, Matt Inman never sent ANY DMCA notices. So there was never any violation of his copyright. Violations only occur with a DMCA notice? Capiche.
Will that end this stupid conversation? Obviously no, because you guys are way too attached to your ignorance. Ignorance is just so much fun for the ignorant. It all goes back to the tautological nature of the mind.
You don't give a shit about the facts. You just spin them any way you want, and pretend you're a rational person. Sad. Very, very sad. How can you even like yourself? You're such a fake!
Oh, really! Who can even stand this retardation? You call yourselves "tech" guys? I don't even want to talk to people who don't have the guts to say their names. You beat your breasts anonymously, because you don't want to be responsible for your speech. But you're going to claim it's "free." I know, I know, "Fascist free," free without responsibility. You guys are boring, full of stereotypes and stupid anger. You say the same things over and over and over again. It's like a mutual appreciation society here. You wouldn't know what to do in a world where you stood alone with your own opinions. If your homies weren't nodding along with you, you'd feel utterly lost. And I bet you call yourselves "men."
How about something specific? First a name, then your position on violence, so that the whole world can hear. What do you think are the consequences of imagining bad things happening to other people? The consequences of drawing bad things happening to other people? The consequences of doing bad things to other people? Is there any connection between them? Does one lead to the other? Would you teach your children these thoughts?
What about humor? Is it rational, or does it have a peculiar way of getting under the radar, going straight for the emotional centers, the centers conditioned by a lifetime of hearing canned laughter on TV? Going to a place of automatic acceptance where thoughts are forbidden?
Put yourself on the line here, and state your opinion, so we can all discuss it. Because this ad hominem shit is boring.
The problem is: you aren't us. We're like Thelma and Louise. Charles is Louise -- he doesn't mind taking the persona of a girl -- and I'm Thelma, a little fast on the trigger. Except that I don't believe in suicide under any circumstances. It's all because of my philosophy which I developed after being heavily involved in a Death Cult. It's totally original: "For all practical purposes, we do exist. In fact, we NEED to exist in order to have human rights. Otherwise, forget about it." And then I have a little thing I call "The tautological nature of the mind."
That's me above, posting a little piece of a poem in response to "holy deranged lunatic." You know what my problem is? I just refuse to drink the poisonous water. I don't care if the King drinks it or not!
Charles is a genius. He was reading Tolstoy in Russian when he was just barely four years old. He skipped five grades, but then only four, because everyone in his class was so much bigger than him. To survive, he had to become very witty.
You don't know what "cool" is. When I first met Charles at ASU in 1974 after I came back from a semester at the Hebrew University, it was in a class of -- shit! -- it was a whole auditorium full of people. The teacher was lecturing on Jackson Pollock. Some guy in the middle (I was on the back row) raised his hand and asked a question. A conversation ensued, and then the teacher asked him to come up and take over the lecture. As soon as I heard his voice, I was in love. I couldn't even see what he looked like! I waited at the door, until the very last person came out, because he was so besieged with people wanting to talk to him, and he was the cutest thing I ever saw in his shorts, his Mexican shirt, his green-glass Afghani necklace and shoes with the leather shoelaces perpetually untied. Sometimes a girl just KNOWS when her guy appears.
And walking down the sidewalk was like, "Hey, Charles." "Hey, Charles, how ya doin'." "Hey, Charles." Never stopping. The most famous people at ASU: football stars, big beautiful black guys, all the beautiful people LOVED him.
You know, I really try to refrain from calling people names. I have a saying, "Violence and ad hominem are the last refuge of the incompetent." I think it's a good one, don't you think. Or perhaps, you are an advocate of violence, like all the rest of you here.
If there are any girls reading this, I will say the same thing I said on the Richard Dawkins board, which caused an Internet gang-bang against me which didn't make my statement any less true: "Evolution is in our hands. Don't mate with the violent. It will only turn against you. And it's really hard to get away from an abusive mate. Lots of times they get killed on the courthouse steps right when they're filing for divorce." I mean, look at what happened to the wife of William "Will" Inman: He garroted her and stuck her in a septic tank. I'm sure the other Inman could make a cool picture from that image that you would all love. Why not get into snuff films while you're at it?
Oh, don't worry -- pretty soon there will be no plaintiff lawyers left, and then the corporations won't need them, either. Because NO ONE can fight the leviathan, except for a David.
I'm really good at broken tile mosaic, too. I love Antonio Gaudi. When we went to Barcelona, we spent like an hour filming the mosaic-curving-bench in the main square. I don't know why that reminded me of Buckminster Fuller. Another great guy, what can I say?
If I could post pictures on this thread, I'd show you this really cool sign I made which is the first thing you see when you walk into our house: "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." It's about 15 feet long. Yeah, and incorporates this cool Frida Kahlo white-gloved hand pointing to the saying. I used to be a Tibetan Buddhist, and when I got out after 22 years in a cult, I drew this really cool picture of the Statue of Liberty standing on a lotus, with Rudi Gernreich dakinis pointing in her direction.
My feet are my own, thank you. And nobody tells me what to say. Charles is a great writer and lawyer, poet, musician, actor, stand-up comedian, but he can't compete with me in the political and philosophical field. And it's time for women to stand up and start talking, absolutely everywhere. Have you ever noticed how they are always hiding away in their houses? They hardly ever come out in public, except to go to the mall and the grocery store. I saw a beautiful young girl at SkyBar the other night, and boy could she sing. She was so soft and lovely, she looked like you could pinch her and she'd hurt. And I thought about what kind of sick, hard, male world we live in, and I feared for her safety.
Ha ha ha. You think the law accords with your "common sense"? What do you think about this idea? That in order to protect the donors to a cause, the fundraiser must be an authorized representative of the charity? Do you think it's against "common sense" to want to protect investors? I bet you never thought of that before! That's the problem with ignorance: the true thing is what you don't know. Only one answer for this problem: Study! Instead of this stupid blogging that you do.
You know, DMCA notices are not that bad. I get them all the time. You take down the content for 10 days, and if the claim of copyright infringement is in error, you put the content back up! So you lost 10 days, big deal. Now it'll be up forever.
That's because you're an idiot. Don't you actually want to know something true in your life? I mean, why spout shit you have no idea of? (My husband would chide me and say: "of which you have no idea." Sometimes it sounds better to put the preposition at the end of the sentence, I say.)
This nonsense has gone on long enough. I posted this statement at Forbes, but I'll say it again here: "The law is like math; it has an exactitude about it that is not friendly to irrational, mindless, stabbing in the dark." You're deluding yourself that anyone thinks you're cool. You're just stupid.
I like the "drama" part, but I'm FIRMLY OPPOSED to monarchy. Did you know we share all of our "intelligence" with Britain? They were the first to get the news of 9/11. Though I'm sure the Mossad had it before it even happened, LOL!
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re:
You have a site like me, you put up content, or in the case of other sites that allow content to be posted, others put up content. Some copyright owner thinks it infringes his copyright. He sends a DMCA notice. I have to take the content down for 10 days. Then I put it back up.
But if no one sends you a DMCA notice, no law is broken. For me, running a library, it's simply a formality I have to follow, because I always put the content back up. Once a woman wrote to me and said, "Take down my content(generic)on your site." I wrote back to her, and said, "What content? Where?" I'm not going to read my whole damn site! I have over a million files. That was before I had a search engine. But even if I had a search engine, I wouldn't take the trouble of searching her name. It's not my responsibility. Either she points to the specific content, or fuck her. She wrote me back again, with the same bullshit. At that point, I did tell her to go jump off a cliff. And that was the end of it.
Point being, no DMCA notice, no responsibility for content. From what I've heard, Matt Inman never sent ANY DMCA notices. So there was never any violation of his copyright. Violations only occur with a DMCA notice? Capiche.
Will that end this stupid conversation? Obviously no, because you guys are way too attached to your ignorance. Ignorance is just so much fun for the ignorant. It all goes back to the tautological nature of the mind.
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: Re:
How about something specific? First a name, then your position on violence, so that the whole world can hear. What do you think are the consequences of imagining bad things happening to other people? The consequences of drawing bad things happening to other people? The consequences of doing bad things to other people? Is there any connection between them? Does one lead to the other? Would you teach your children these thoughts?
What about humor? Is it rational, or does it have a peculiar way of getting under the radar, going straight for the emotional centers, the centers conditioned by a lifetime of hearing canned laughter on TV? Going to a place of automatic acceptance where thoughts are forbidden?
Put yourself on the line here, and state your opinion, so we can all discuss it. Because this ad hominem shit is boring.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: deranged lunatic
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: deranged lunatic
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: deranged lunatic
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: The internets... he is doing it wrong...
And walking down the sidewalk was like, "Hey, Charles." "Hey, Charles, how ya doin'." "Hey, Charles." Never stopping. The most famous people at ASU: football stars, big beautiful black guys, all the beautiful people LOVED him.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re:
If there are any girls reading this, I will say the same thing I said on the Richard Dawkins board, which caused an Internet gang-bang against me which didn't make my statement any less true: "Evolution is in our hands. Don't mate with the violent. It will only turn against you. And it's really hard to get away from an abusive mate. Lots of times they get killed on the courthouse steps right when they're filing for divorce." I mean, look at what happened to the wife of William "Will" Inman: He garroted her and stuck her in a septic tank. I'm sure the other Inman could make a cool picture from that image that you would all love. Why not get into snuff films while you're at it?
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'
Re:
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:
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'
Re: How?!
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'
Re:
This nonsense has gone on long enough. I posted this statement at Forbes, but I'll say it again here: "The law is like math; it has an exactitude about it that is not friendly to irrational, mindless, stabbing in the dark." You're deluding yourself that anyone thinks you're cool. You're just stupid.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re:
Next >>