Should we be surprised if we start getting subpoenas in the mail? It seems some enterprising little maggot has found a way to perhaps get very rich without doing any real work. This guy's buying-up all the old copyrighted news stories he can find, (which then makes them his property) then going after bloggers who may have used "any" of that content on the Internet! (is that just about all of us?) He then sends his legal attack dogs after you, and figuring you won't want a court battle, pushes for a quick settlement. ($$) Cute. According to the article, his first target is, (ta da) a Conservative web site, which should give you a hint as to his political leanings.
Unless some judge puts this nitwit in a padded cell, this could turn out to be a very serious problem for tens-of-millions of people on the internet. It could also mean this clown will have to open his own bank just to hold some of the money that could be coming his way. You've been warned...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/
12 comments:
The way to avoid those hassles, just as we typically do, is to just use a link rather than cut and paste an entire article
BTW, you will notice that I don't cut and paste photos or other copywrited material either.
I don't think that would matter Bill. Using or linking to copyrighted material may be the same thing, legally speaking. But this may be starting a trend. Here are two of CNN's irrelevant liberals making their point for internet controls.
(BTW, these morons are married to each other and are on two different CNN shows, but they're "desperately" trying to get their own show together. Motive?)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/07/23/cnn-host-calls-crackdown-bloggers-wake-sherrod-incident-something-s-g
Bill is right. Mom taught us this stuff from get go. PLUS, there's a way this has to be done. Asa the article said,
"Righthaven, he says, should have sent him a take down notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act..."
They've GOT to notify you, BEFORE they can sue you.
Spider,
it's POSTING the entire article that is against the law. They want the links, they make money from the hits.
Besides, AFTER the revolt, he'll be headless.
The Pope and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are on a huge stage at Candlestick Park in front of a massive crowd.
The Pope leaned towards Speaker Pelosi and said, "Do you know that with just one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"
Pelosi replied, "I seriously doubt that. With only one little wave of your hand? Show me!"
So the Pope backhanded the bitch.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa oh , ow ow ow, it hurts, oh it hurts...now that is funny.
That's my kinda Pope joke!!
Using or linking to copyrighted material may be the same thing
Are you kidding me? So if I say, "there was a great article in the blah blah issue of blah", blah can sue me for referring to their publication? Are you kidding me?
OK, lemme repeat this...it's POSTING the entire article that is against the law.
They want the links, they make money from the hits.
"EAT ME"
Or I'll sue.
Hoishey Squiot Time be hea""""""""""""""
E, E!
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use;
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
QUOTABLE QUOTES
"What if the owners of the "Phonix Suns" discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers were, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if "Suns'" ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the "Suns" had to provide "free" medical care and shelter?"
– Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on FaceBook
Post a Comment