Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular "fair use" loss

page: 2
161
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


Your sentiment and it's context is duly noted.

I resist, however, the idea of this being a combative confrontation. Paraphrasing the words of a wise man, I do not wish to punish these people for weakness we all share. In some manner or another, we all seek endless gratification in all we do. We may not succeed in our goals, but few people I know of choose the hard road over the comfortable one without some objective that they desire.

People work hard and sometimes struggle deeply to produce 'pure communications' such as music, poetry, and novels; scholars labor intensely to develop ideas into reality, some simply draw from themselves a piece of their life to share with others. A small portion of these people are gifted, or extremely relevant, and have important messages to share. It is not wrong that they assign a value to their labor. It is a choice they make. Simple honor of human dignity demands that we offer the requested price for their work; if it is too high, we don't get it; ;if the importance of the message outweighs other considerations, it is up to the creator of the work to decide.

There is a reasonable compromise of the two principles. It's just that those burdened with traditional law, protocol, and government considerations make that compromise a laborious affair to define.

In effect, the judiciary is charged with facilitating that compromise. Let's hope they don't do it in a vacuum of special interests which are committed only to profit. We can only hope - for now.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If they are doing that,that means alot that is going around in this world is true,and the more people that are aware the more harder it is to keep it a secret,so now they are trying to control the information from spreading,......'.....Long Live ATS



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
It will come the day when you are not allowed to say anything because somebody else has it copyrighted. It disgusts me.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I know max, I was being sarcastic there. Its hard to tell with text and what-not.

I am sorry for the confusion.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Again...Couldn't have happened to better group of individuals..fascists



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
While this is undoubtedly a stroke in the right direction, the maze of copyright laws now being enforced against us all make this decision a small consolation.

Be assured the deep pockets of those who intend to own everything and make us all pay them forever, will not let this judges decision stop them.

Unlike you and I who are considered paid in full for our labors, our creations, there are people like Bill Gates and of course all the Elites of what some referred to as Intellectual and Creative Properties, who are amongst the enemies of a free internet.

This is a small battle won in a huge war that far from over.
edit on 23-3-2011 by MajorKarma because: Typos



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
If you sell me your words in a book and I give it away, does that make the recipient a thief for because he didn't pay you? Of course not.


Going from this, your statement could be upped a notch to, say, that if I wrote a book and you bought it, then you think it's ok to then make copies of my book to give to your friends. Am I reading something that isn't there? Because I don't think I could agree with that. Of course once you've bought it it's up to you to give to whoever you want, but making copies would be another thing.

What if I were only able to self-publish, and put my book in a single book shop. You came along and bought it - I get £4 from it. I think "yay, my three years hard-work is beginning to pay off!" Then, liking the book, you make a few copies for your friends and family. They then make copies for their friends, and so on and so on. What if within a few weeks, half the world had copies of my book. I'm now sitting at home with my £4, depressed and thinking that only one person will ever read my book, and that all my time and effort was for nothing.

Apart from the fact that that would be one hell of a book I just wrote, do you think that is fair or in any way right? I'm aware that the topic is about a company that preys on unsuspecting bloggers and the like, but the conversation does seem to have become a tad more general.

As others have said; copyright is entirely needed. But along with some common-sense and morals.

EDIT: Reading your last post in full answers my question
However, I'll leave my example for those who think everything shou;d be free.
edit on 23-3-2011 by ShadowArcher because: ...coz?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


The way I've always understood this movement is for the msm and tptb to be able to fling hand grenades at us, in the form of mainstream propaganda, while being assured no one dare to pick up the grenade and throw it back at them, if they get their way. Certainly there are other, more profound implications, such as this piece of work being integral to their seizing control of the internet. Every moment is a threshold moment. Good find, OP.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


That includes the notion of a patent, intellectual property is a problem with our society. We give way too much control to the inventors who often sell out to corporate conglomerates and we end up with a stifling of technology because we are constantly having to do things backwards and reinvent the wheel to do something that is already done, and the results are that an invention never really sees the limelight until the patent is dead, which is long enough to slow our explosive growth as a society. The system can't keep up with change so they have this beast of an apparatus to slow it down so they can better control and manage it.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
So, with this ruling, does this change ATS TOS at all? or do they still stand.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


This is great news.

Starred and flagged. I will be watching this one all the way through now.



Edit: I just realized this is federal judge James Mahan Las Vegas so this precedent will hold allot of clout, but if appealed and brought to United State court of Appeals it will be upheld without a doubt in my mind.

I would bet this one is going to Florida 11th Circuit court of appeals.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


ALL RIGHT!!!



S&F&



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Awesome catch Max!


Now, if more judges and more courts would start using some common sense like this, maybe the whole legal system could take a turn for the better!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Excellent. Truly excellent.

I just love to see these things blow up in the right person's face.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Every website owner that has user-generated content, such as a user forum, should seriously consider registering with the copyright office and placing a DMCA Agent link on their web pages. It will save you a ton of money and legal headaches.

The $105 Fix That Could Protect You From Copyright-Troll Lawsuits

ATS has a sample link in the footer below



edit on 23-3-2011 by Chronon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiju
These guys are lower than ambulance chasers.
I'll bet they were high fiving themselves when they came up with the idea for their business model.
Now if I only knew some good lawyer jokes.


What do you call a busload of lawyers going over a cliff? A good start...

What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a bottom-dwelling scumsucker and the other is a fish!

These guys need to be exposed for the charlatans that they are and shunned from society. Make them go live in a cave somewhere. Why do we, as a society, put up with this? These people (lawyers in general) do more harm to society than virtually any drug dealer.

I am seriously so angry after reading some of that website that I would hurt one of those people if I were to meet one.

People hurting other people for profit is what is at the core of the downfall of this once-great nation. Yet, we just watch it happen and nobody does anything. Even me, I'm a great keyboard warrior, but you don't see me trying to get a revolution going, now do you? I rant about stuff all the time and my wife tells me that I should run for office and make a difference, but I sit here and do nothing. Frustrating.
edit on 23-3-2011 by DragonTattooz because: Thought of another lawyer joke



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Chronon
 


Sounds a lot like extortion to me.... Then again, that seems to be one of the things our screwed up world is good at.....



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
So this 'suing company', Righthaven Lawsuits, is a mutual holding in the form of Net Sortie Systems, LLC in partnership with another company called Stevens Media, LLC, the former owned by an attorney, and the latter owned by family members of the person who owns The Las Vegas Review Journal. The LVRJ being one of the publications that is exclusively protected by the suing company.

Yeah that's a good paper, the Las Vegas Review Journal... World class, in fact.


The scary thing is, they are pursuing partnership with one WEHCO Media. who happens to own similarly stellar daily and weekly publications such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Chattanooga Times Free Press?!!! Oh, and some unnamed other Northern Arkansas publications.

Yeah, these guys are just trying to secure their retirement with some quick cash. It sounds like legal loophole extortion to me, but I don't think they're going to get very far if they want to try to sue people who quote old sub Mason-Dixon line rags. Uhhhh......



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Anyone here own any copyrights? Ok, I do. I own well over 100 and several books as well. I will not debate this issue because I will never win it here. But this time, Im actually in favor of the common-themed intention of what were speaking about: Fair usage, and the free flow of information.

I will just make several points not open to interpretation because they stand as law.

Those movies we rent and dvd's we buy? That page or two at the beginning of each that we zip past informs us that it is a crime to take any part of it and (sampling-youtube creations-etc, etc) and mis-represent it as "new" and make any money off what one creates. Thats all. But, can we use it? Sure. Can we pass that around? Of course. But what the meaning is we cannot take it or any part or parts of it, create something new, and represent it as ours. Thats it with that.

Im in agreement here. I dont mind having my stuff in discussion or even publication if the public wants. But if you SELL it and claim it as a whole with no credit as your own creation alone? Then that violates the copyright of the creator. Period.

The world is changing and its ok to discuss stuff and pass info and links around. Just give credit where its due...and if you sell it or make $$$ of of it? Credit it, contact the copyright owner and Im sure they'll be glad their works are getting out there farther than it could otherwise.

We need to change things so its less restrictive for the average bloggers to use. All info should be free...just not to change, modify or sell it....and claim it as a new"original" work.

So, let the info-flow!
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: because



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Does this mean ATS can now change it's policy and allow more than just a small news snippet?

Seems to me if it did, it would be following The Law. After all, ATS ain't that big as to really hurt many of the big news companies it's members get their stories from.





top topics
 
161
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join