Morning Must Reads: Buckeye

  • Share
  • Read Later
278 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
JohnParish
JohnParish

Help support the change in the way election campaign funds

are raised.  Stop the Super Pacs from

steering the candidates and ruling the government. 

Come march on Congress and show them that the American

Population do not want candidates to be persuaded by these Super Pacs any more.

Visit www.indiegogo.com/SuperPac

and help raise the awareness of this problem.

ahandout
ahandout

Obama needs a lies Czar to keep track of his stories.

Barry goes on the View and says, “The best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it."  Kinda hard to do Barry since you and Hillary have been shouting from the rooftops for two weeks about the video.

Then two faced Barry goes  to the  UN and says, "Crude and Disgusting Video Sparked Outrage."

Meanwhile the Libyan President says Barry is full of BS.  Can we get this guy over here to tell the American people the truth?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_...

Terry Clifton
Terry Clifton

Ralph Nader called Barack Obama a war criminal..I totally agree!!!

He needs to be arrested and tried at the Hague for his reckless drone strikes that have killed scores of innocent woman and children, including Americans.

Apology not accepted, Mr. President..

ahandout
ahandout

NP042:

That is one of the worst "interpretations" of the First Ammendment

that I have ever seen. Taking a photograph, (poorly) photoshopping in a

poster or slapping on some extra words, is not commenting.  It is not

parody, it is not critiquing, it is not creating something wholly new.

For that matter, whether or not you profit monetarily is irrelevant as well. Otherwise various artists and bands would have no power to tell politicians they disagree with to not use their music. Otherwise minor file sharers online would not be getting sued (or getting threatened with suits) for thousands of dollars for sharing a handful of songs on the internet.

You don't know the First Amendment and you don't know copyright law. You certainly can use a photograph for political comment. The subject was not someone taking a song and using it for personal gain. We don't play music here, now do we.

Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not

copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section

106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for

criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,

or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The

Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a

particular use is a fair use:

the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);

the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);

the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and

the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.[4]

NP042
NP042

Again, no, you cannot take someone else's photograph, photoshop in an Obama poster, and call it fair use.  That would fail the third factor for fair use as the original is pretty much unchanged.  If the owner of the photo pursued a Camp;D or further, you would be forced to remove the infringing content.  Furthermore, it would fail the first factor as well, since you are just essentially reproducing the photograph and adding a political slant to it.  

You are not using it for teaching, (spare us) scholarship, news reporting, or research purposes.  Criticism refers to criticism of the work in question, so that doesn't apply there either.Music was brought up because of your claim that you were in the clear because you are not profiting from it.  The counter to this is the numerous suits (and threats of suits) against people who shared less than a cd for no monetary gain either.  

Please stop, you are making a fool of yourself.

ahandout
ahandout

“Fair Use” is a legislative provision included in the U.S. Copyright Act

that allows for use exceptions to a copyright holder’s exclusive

rights. The predominant exceptions of fair use include non-commercial speech, social and political commentary, news reporting and teaching

purposes.

Parody

Parody is also considered one of the “fair use” defenses. Parody,

in the eyes of the law, is applicable when the new work calls to mind

the original work (the original author’s design or trademark) and

criticizes or ridicules the message of that original work or trademark.

There is a common misperception in the blogs that Parody and Satire are

the same thing. Satire is different in that a satire piece (new work)

uses the original work as a mere vehicle to criticize something else.

The fine line distinction here is that the parody creates more of a new

original work that could stand alone whereas the satire is reusing the

original without any substantial change and thus not falling under the

aforementioned fair use factors.

http://www.threadless.com/info

NP042
NP042

So are you calling the photo of the person in a room with an Obama poster photoshopped onto the wall parody?  In what way is it criticizing or ridiculing the original author's, a person from the middle east, message or intent?  How does adding an American political message do that?

Or are you calling it satire, since it uses the original as a "vehicle to criticize something else"?  Did you miss the next part where it says that satire does not fall under fair use factors?

As I said, you just keeping digging yourself deeper and deeper, making it clear that you really don't know what you're talking about and are desperately trying to google search for an argument that might support you, all the while being ignorant of the original complaint about the photos in question.

ahandout
ahandout

 No, you are a stubborn, ignorant liberal.   We are not discussing music.

Posting a link to a photo does not constitute theft or even borrowing.  It is simply a link for educational, news reporting, and political comment. 

And the beauty of it all is it that your opinion doesn't matter.

NP042
NP042

You're right, we're discussing copywrite and fair use.  And one of the biggest issues of the day regarding that is piracy and file sharing of music and other media.  Hence it was brought up as an example.  Apparently that went right on over your head (or it struck right at home) because you are completely unable to articulate any kind of argument against it.

The issue was not that you were linking to a photo.  (Although linking can be looped into copywrite infringement - link - which I do disagree with)  The issue is that the photo in question was doctored to create a political message that the original owner did not intend and without any credit or accreditation to the original owner.

And apparently my opinion matters to you, since you keep coming back here.

NP042
NP042

No sh!t we're not discussing music, we're discussing copywrite and fair use.  And one of the biggest issues of copywrite currently is piracy and file sharing of music and other media.  Hence why it was brought up as an example.  It's hilarious that you call me ignorant when you apparently can't even grasp the point I am trying to make.

Yes, you are linking to a photo.  That is not the issue.  The issue is that the photo was taken from another location, doctored, and passed off as original work without credit to the original owner.

And apparently my opinion matters enough to you that you keep coming back to it.

Glen Fiddich
Glen Fiddich

  FUN FACT: Bain Capital, Romney's former company, is under investigation for tax evasion

ahandout
ahandout

 So, Obama says we don't we never, influence other democracy's.  Well maybe he is right.  We aren't influencing democracy's, we are supporting regimes that hate us under the cover of democracy.

"The billions of dollars that the Obama administration earmarked to

support Middle Eastern countries in the wake of the perceived Arab

Spring should be directed elsewhere, McCarthy said.

“Having a democratic election or having an election, whether you want to

call it democratic or not, is not a democracy,” he said. “Democracy is a

culture. It's a way of living. It's a way of looking at the world. The

American people, for example, were a democratic people, a free-liberty

culture long before we had a government or a Constitution. What they've

tried to do in this region is substitute the procedures that you find in

democracy, namely voting, for example, for real democratic culture.”Read more on Newsmax.com: McCarthy: Obama Team’s Account of Benghazi Is ‘Flat-Out Fantasy’

MrObvious
MrObvious

Are you talking about the billions of dollars that was also earmarked for the region during Bush as well? Is this your new outrage?

Paul Dirks
Paul Dirks

No, he's just slagging on the idea of brown people voting. If you haven't figured it out yet, Republicans simply don't understand what "self-determination" means. 

La_Randy
La_Randy

Yep, it is only a democracy if you vote the way certain people think you should.

If you disagree with them, you are their enemies.

Kind of reminds me of a 200+ year journey and a civil war that apparently has not solved a country's problems yet.

Democracy can be a long hard struggle.

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"Or to put it in regular terms - we're talking about sub 100k radicals ready to do harm, most likely less then 50k."

===================================

"The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.” The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”

7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar... 

So, if we split the difference that would amount to just about 220 million Muslim radicals in the world, Ob.

MrObvious
MrObvious

How about we go with what most estimate as sub 100k and probably no more then 50k instead of making up imaginary numbers based of what makes you wet your pants?

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

Most? Would that be the "most" who believe that Islam is actually the "Religion of Peace?"

La_Randy
La_Randy

Considering your diatribe do you think that your religion is the "Religion of Peace?"

After all, how many muslims are here denigrating your religion?

MrObvious
MrObvious

That would be CIA, Mossad etc - you know people that analyse this kind of stuff.

paulejb
paulejb

MomentoMori,

 "I don't see 100's of millions of men. Why is that?"

===================================

Who said anything about 100's of millions of men?

MrObvious
MrObvious

So hair splitting times, men, women, elderly, children? Is that it? Hundred of millions is still a moronic fantasy.

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

With Muslims women are chattel.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Your hundred of millions is still a fantasy.

ahandout
ahandout

 MM and hive:

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine

that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring

permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include

commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research,

teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal,

unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another

author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Liberals loose on another attempt at censorship.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Liberals loose on another attempt at censorship.

I'm not one to want to stop you from being hysterical - but pointing out that you're using someone elses material isn't 'censoring' you.

MM or anyone else does not have the power to 'censor' you. So maybe you should calm down before you blow something.

ahandout
ahandout

 Who says liberals aren't predictable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 He's really lowered the bar.

But he's a coward too; notice he didn't start posting until Paulie came on first.

Rusty was rabid; handy is just a loser.

MrObvious
MrObvious

So in your reply you add some kind of youtube video that somehow articulates the counterargument that we indeed can censor you?

Jesus ahandout.

ahandout
ahandout

 Don't be ingenious Mr O.  MM and you were foaming at the mouths decrying our "stealing" from others, blah, blah, blah.

ahandout:

The

First Amendment gives us the right to comment. Free speech, ever hear

of it? Political speech is one of the most protected forms. It allows

for comment on photos, articles, even Islam.Mr Obvious:

You are wrong. The first amendment does not allow you to steal

someone elses work. You have the most wonky understanding of your first

amendment rights I've ever read.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012...

You need your pencil sharpened there skippy.  You don't have a clue.  See my post on political speech.  You DO have the right to use photos, etc as outlined in the fair use doctrine.

MrObvious
MrObvious

ahandout

It's one thing to copy and paste from a online article; it's an entirely different thing to use images, songs - someone elses work and then change it to a political message without the explicit agreement of the creator.

We're not talking about me writing something and you copying and pasting it.

So no - you can't just go and steal whatever you want in your wonky understanding of 'free speech'. You're allowed the fair use of some content as you outline but you can't go and take someones songs, images etc for your own purposes.

Example - I suggest you right now make one of your posters with say Fords logo in it. Say 'liberals are a murderous pack driving Fords'.

Lets see how long you can keep your home before Ford cleans out your savings when they drag you to court.

La_Randy
La_Randy

Pointing out that you are a thief is not foaming at the mouth.

On the other hand, your reply fits the description perfectly.

paulejb
paulejb

DonQuixotic,

"So much for "the buck stops here", huh Paul?"

================================

The buck has never stopped anywhere near Obama for four years. Barack Obama is a genius for avoiding blame for anything. He blames everything from the weather to powerless critics for his many failures.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

"The Buck stops here only for Obama" is all I get from you.

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

paulie's endthreading a "So much for "the buck stops here"" complaint.

Oh, the irony.

ahandout
ahandout

 What's the matter MM, couldn't get the censorship police on your side?

paulejb
paulejb

MomentoMori,

That's just sad, Mori. You have been reduced to counting alleged "endthreads." Sad really.

MrObvious
MrObvious

What's sad is you've been reduced to endthread and add different context to a comment because you don't have a basic argument.