It appears that the underlying behavior and perhaps investigation took place before the bill was even introduced.
Yes, the search for smear material against potential opponents usually does occur before you need it or use it which means that the timing is irrelevant to determining whether or not these charges are politically motivated.
There are at least two things that are criminal in what Mr. Swartz did for which some punishment is due:
1. Breaking into a locked network cabinet to install his own hardware.
2. Effectively pursuing a DDoS against JSTOR
If he hadn't done those things his case would be MUCH more sympathetic.
If he had been charged for those actions, his case would be much less sympathetic. As is it, those things don't have any bearing on this case.
Using your logic, someone who is charged with copyright infringement should be looked at differently if they had legally downloaded porn that was illegal to view in their state. Sure, it's bad, but is it relevant to the copyright infringement charge?
second.. she could be punished...up to murdered. So the DA could have her murdered? umm... what??
That depends on your view of culpability.
For instance, if a public official ensures that an accused child molester is placed in a cell with a known violent criminal, that is certainly an extra-legal way to assure that they're beaten. But is the public official culpable for their beating?
Another frequent extra-legal punishment (or reward) is to ensure that a prisoner is sent to a facility that is known to be bad (or good). These types of punishments and rewards are also extra-legal.
Yes, I know you meant something like "she could be *charged* with anything up to and including murder."
I believe that out_of_the_blue meant that the officials involved could ensure that she was punished by extra-legal methods up to and including murder. Rape is more likely, however.
Again... what??
That's what I'd really like to ask you.
Are you really that daft to think that this would go unnoticed and unreported by anyone if something like that were to be considered?
If it's 'considered' by the officials involved, who is going to notice and bring it to the attention of the public? Certainly not any of the officials that use such tactics.
Do you really think the DA is that stupid to pursue something like that?
Do you really think that our public officials are the brightest crayons in the American box? Really?
That DA obviously has SOME smarts because the DA office decided to ditch this case.
Maybe. Or they could just be waiting for the ADD mind of the public to move on to the next spectacle before charging her with something else for the common-yet-extralegal crime of embarrassing them. After all, the DA chose to bring the charges in the first place.
...while fair use isn't about journalism specifically, it is one of the very clear exception cases that allow use.
No, it's not. Commentary is one of the very clear exception cases that allow fair use. You don't have to be a journalist to write a post, a book, or a show with commentary, as Techdirt frequently does.
I think his argument was that the copyright would default to the animal's owner, me.
Except that it wouldn't because non-humans can't have copyrights, so there's nothing to default. If your child took the photos, it would default to you, but not your cat.
Not really, you are playing bizarre absolutes. The camera man brings cameras to a location and prepares them for shooting, makes sure they are loaded, they are charged, have an appropriate lens on them, and they are ready to go (turned on).
It isn't at all the same as a battery maker, is it?
No, that sounds like the equipment guy to me. You know, the one who follows the photographer around with the extra equipment and preps the cameras?
By your logic, the equipment guy would get at least a partial copyright on photos taken by the actual photographer.
If... If... If... Like it or not, he did plenty of things that contributed to the end image.
Yes, that's true. Unfortunately, none of those things are relevant to copyright.
If they were, the equipment guy that carries the photog's things and helps setup sessions would have at least a partial claim toward the copyright on millions of photos.
What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance. It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.
Yes, because by discussing this particular case, he's obviously making a case for the abolishment of all copyright.
Wait, what?
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?
Yes, because the public is the copyright holder and he is part of the public.
Are you sure of the copyright holder?
Yes, as he's repeatedly stated, the law is fairly clear. Non-humans cannot hold a copyright, therefore the photo is in the public domain.
You are not.
Yes, he is.
Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
All images created by a human being, but not images created by non-humans.
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
I would say that his argument, including the bit about fair use which makes any copyright irrelevant, is meritable indeed, making his use of the image entirely correct.
The person who owns the copyright, (if that is the issue you are confused about) would simply be the owner of the camera, or the owner of the photographer who left his camera in a position with by fortune or mistake resulted in the photo's being taken.
That sounds as reasonable as any other line. But where's your proof? Cite your source for that bit of law.
Ie, if the photographer was working for a news paper, and was 'on duty' then like all the rest of the photo's he takes 'for the paper' would be copyrighted to the paper.
The photographer neither worked for the news paper and was not on duty. He's not even human.
That is what the paper pays the photographer for, the right to make copies of his photo's.. get it ??
But... The paper didn't pay the photographer. Not that I saw, anyway. Cam you cite a source for that?
(How would you pay them, anyway?)
The monkeys did not pay for the photographer to be there, or pay for him to accendently leave his camera there, and if that paid photographer (paid to create works to sell the copyright of, or pre-paid to do so) had not been there "on duty", and if the paper had not paid him to buy a camera and go to the zoo then those photo's would not have been created.
That's all irrelevant. I mean, the monkeys didn't pay for the guy who carries the equipment (there's usually more than one guy can carry) to be there and if that paid worker had not been on duty and there carrying the camera and paid to go to the zoo then those photos would not have been created.
Whew, writing like you is alot of work.
A professional photographer for a paper or magazing does not expect to retain the copyright of the picture he SELLS to the paper. That is the process, the magazing sees the value and purchases the right to copy the image.
Yes, but the professional photographer isn't really involved. He's no more responsible for those photos than the guy who carries his equipment out for him.
They purchase it of the person who was responsible for the creation of the image.
In this case, there is no single person who is responsible for the creation of the image. Also, you haven't proved that this is the law.
In this case, that is the photographer, not the monkeys.
And not the news service, or the guy who carried the equipment, or the owner of the primate?
Mike they are correct, it is not an issue (for you) who does own the copyright, what is the issue (for you) is who DOES NOT OWN IT, and they rightly stated that regardless of who owns the copyright, Mike.... YOU DO NOT...
This isn't true at all. First and foremost, they have no legal standing to speak on behalf of the owners of the photo, if any. Second, there is no way for Party C to know what has transpired between Party A and Party B. If you are not the copyright holder, then you have no idea whether or not the image is being used with permission. Last, which is the same as the first but such an important point that I'm going to state it again, if you are not the copyright holder, then you have no right to give orders on the matter.
Dr. Evil: "Okay, here's the plan. We get the warhead and we hold the world ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!"
Number Two: "Don't you think we should ask for more than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Oh, so you can't see the letters? Really?
No, only you can see the magical letters.
"What, exactly, is your point" is immediate followed by the answer of "I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position"?
You originally said this: "So, some attorney in this case presented false evidence purporting to show that WiFi isn't radio based and that is what the judge based his ruling on? Citation, please."
You're now saying that the point of accusing me of speculating about people presenting false evidence was to provoke me into providing an example of something that I didn't say?
That's really, really hilarious. Also, I think you're just writing whatever comes to mind now.
Really?
Yes, you really aren't making any actual sense. Maybe you should try typing your point in real text this time. Or at least quit flailing about making yourself look worse.
Wow.
Yes, exactly. I mean, would it really be so hard to admit that you're in the wrong here? You could just say 'Hey, I misunderstood what you wrote and thought you were saying something about presenting false evidence, which would be a pretty serious accusation. However, I now see that you were actually writing about presenting factual evidence in an unclear way. Sorry!' and then move on.
Or maybe you're being more than just a little dishonest.
Dishonest about what, exactly? You can easily see what I've actually written so it would be impossible for me to be dishonest about those comments now.
A bunch of ignorant fcukwits, like you, should stick to playing Nintendo and live politics to those with IQ of above 99. Iran has fcuked you Americans and dog shiitt Jews in every conflict.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: If I was paranoid ...
Yes, the search for smear material against potential opponents usually does occur before you need it or use it which means that the timing is irrelevant to determining whether or not these charges are politically motivated.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If I was paranoid ...
Just so you're up to speed.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re:
1. Breaking into a locked network cabinet to install his own hardware.
2. Effectively pursuing a DDoS against JSTOR
If he hadn't done those things his case would be MUCH more sympathetic.
If he had been charged for those actions, his case would be much less sympathetic. As is it, those things don't have any bearing on this case.
Using your logic, someone who is charged with copyright infringement should be looked at differently if they had legally downloaded porn that was illegal to view in their state. Sure, it's bad, but is it relevant to the copyright infringement charge?
On the post: Phoenix DA Decides Not To File Charges Against Woman Accused Of Groping TSA Agent
Re: Re: It's a waffle because of publicity.
Extra-legal: Not permitted and governed by law.
second.. she could be punished...up to murdered. So the DA could have her murdered? umm... what??
That depends on your view of culpability.
For instance, if a public official ensures that an accused child molester is placed in a cell with a known violent criminal, that is certainly an extra-legal way to assure that they're beaten. But is the public official culpable for their beating?
Another frequent extra-legal punishment (or reward) is to ensure that a prisoner is sent to a facility that is known to be bad (or good). These types of punishments and rewards are also extra-legal.
Yes, I know you meant something like "she could be *charged* with anything up to and including murder."
I believe that out_of_the_blue meant that the officials involved could ensure that she was punished by extra-legal methods up to and including murder. Rape is more likely, however.
Again... what??
That's what I'd really like to ask you.
Are you really that daft to think that this would go unnoticed and unreported by anyone if something like that were to be considered?
If it's 'considered' by the officials involved, who is going to notice and bring it to the attention of the public? Certainly not any of the officials that use such tactics.
Do you really think the DA is that stupid to pursue something like that?
Do you really think that our public officials are the brightest crayons in the American box? Really?
That DA obviously has SOME smarts because the DA office decided to ditch this case.
Maybe. Or they could just be waiting for the ADD mind of the public to move on to the next spectacle before charging her with something else for the common-yet-extralegal crime of embarrassing them. After all, the DA chose to bring the charges in the first place.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not. Commentary is one of the very clear exception cases that allow fair use. You don't have to be a journalist to write a post, a book, or a show with commentary, as Techdirt frequently does.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's the other way 'round. They would have to prove that they a copyright exists and that they own it.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re:
Fair use doesn't have anything to do with journalism, specifically.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification
Except that it wouldn't because non-humans can't have copyrights, so there's nothing to default. If your child took the photos, it would default to you, but not your cat.
Also, these stories and threads are awesome. :D
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re:
It isn't at all the same as a battery maker, is it?
No, that sounds like the equipment guy to me. You know, the one who follows the photographer around with the extra equipment and preps the cameras?
By your logic, the equipment guy would get at least a partial copyright on photos taken by the actual photographer.
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re:
Yes, that's true. Unfortunately, none of those things are relevant to copyright.
If they were, the equipment guy that carries the photog's things and helps setup sessions would have at least a partial claim toward the copyright on millions of photos.
What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance. It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.
Yes, because by discussing this particular case, he's obviously making a case for the abolishment of all copyright.
Wait, what?
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?
Yes, because the public is the copyright holder and he is part of the public.
Are you sure of the copyright holder?
Yes, as he's repeatedly stated, the law is fairly clear. Non-humans cannot hold a copyright, therefore the photo is in the public domain.
You are not.
Yes, he is.
Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
All images created by a human being, but not images created by non-humans.
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
I would say that his argument, including the bit about fair use which makes any copyright irrelevant, is meritable indeed, making his use of the image entirely correct.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Oh, Darryl.
That sounds as reasonable as any other line. But where's your proof? Cite your source for that bit of law.
Ie, if the photographer was working for a news paper, and was 'on duty' then like all the rest of the photo's he takes 'for the paper' would be copyrighted to the paper.
The photographer neither worked for the news paper and was not on duty. He's not even human.
That is what the paper pays the photographer for, the right to make copies of his photo's.. get it ??
But... The paper didn't pay the photographer. Not that I saw, anyway. Cam you cite a source for that?
(How would you pay them, anyway?)
The monkeys did not pay for the photographer to be there, or pay for him to accendently leave his camera there, and if that paid photographer (paid to create works to sell the copyright of, or pre-paid to do so) had not been there "on duty", and if the paper had not paid him to buy a camera and go to the zoo then those photo's would not have been created.
That's all irrelevant. I mean, the monkeys didn't pay for the guy who carries the equipment (there's usually more than one guy can carry) to be there and if that paid worker had not been on duty and there carrying the camera and paid to go to the zoo then those photos would not have been created.
Whew, writing like you is alot of work.
A professional photographer for a paper or magazing does not expect to retain the copyright of the picture he SELLS to the paper. That is the process, the magazing sees the value and purchases the right to copy the image.
Yes, but the professional photographer isn't really involved. He's no more responsible for those photos than the guy who carries his equipment out for him.
They purchase it of the person who was responsible for the creation of the image.
In this case, there is no single person who is responsible for the creation of the image. Also, you haven't proved that this is the law.
In this case, that is the photographer, not the monkeys.
And not the news service, or the guy who carried the equipment, or the owner of the primate?
Mike they are correct, it is not an issue (for you) who does own the copyright, what is the issue (for you) is who DOES NOT OWN IT, and they rightly stated that regardless of who owns the copyright, Mike.... YOU DO NOT...
This isn't true at all. First and foremost, they have no legal standing to speak on behalf of the owners of the photo, if any. Second, there is no way for Party C to know what has transpired between Party A and Party B. If you are not the copyright holder, then you have no idea whether or not the image is being used with permission. Last, which is the same as the first but such an important point that I'm going to state it again, if you are not the copyright holder, then you have no right to give orders on the matter.
On the post: Definition Of Irony: Deus Ex Leak Spawns Conspiracy Theories
Reminds me of...
Number Two: "Don't you think we should ask for more than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!
Dr. Evil: "Really? That's a lot of money."
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Re:
On the post: Iran Declares Victory Over Internet-In-A-Suitcase
Re: Re: Re: "product in question isn't even completely out of R&D yet"
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
More actual points, using facts and logic. Wow, I am absolutely right!
/not sarcasm
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
No, only you can see the magical letters.
"What, exactly, is your point" is immediate followed by the answer of "I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position"?
You originally said this: "So, some attorney in this case presented false evidence purporting to show that WiFi isn't radio based and that is what the judge based his ruling on? Citation, please."
You're now saying that the point of accusing me of speculating about people presenting false evidence was to provoke me into providing an example of something that I didn't say?
That's really, really hilarious. Also, I think you're just writing whatever comes to mind now.
Really?
Yes, you really aren't making any actual sense. Maybe you should try typing your point in real text this time. Or at least quit flailing about making yourself look worse.
Wow.
Yes, exactly. I mean, would it really be so hard to admit that you're in the wrong here? You could just say 'Hey, I misunderstood what you wrote and thought you were saying something about presenting false evidence, which would be a pretty serious accusation. However, I now see that you were actually writing about presenting factual evidence in an unclear way. Sorry!' and then move on.
Or maybe you're being more than just a little dishonest.
Dishonest about what, exactly? You can easily see what I've actually written so it would be impossible for me to be dishonest about those comments now.
On the post: Iran Declares Victory Over Internet-In-A-Suitcase
Re: Idiots
I'm relatively sure that you're the ignorant fuckwit here. :)
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Wait, did you write it in magical letters than only you can see?
Next >>