- A new Washington Post poll shows Mitt Romney trailing by eight points among likely voters in must-win Ohio as he arrives to kick off a two-day tour.
- RealClearPolitics takes a dive into the bellwether Buckeye State.
- Another disconcerting sign for Romney: voters’ views on the state of the economy are beginning to brighten.
- A conservative polling site adjusts the numbers to reveal a reality where the Republican is way ahead.
- Fewer voters are satisfied with their choices in the presidential race than in any year since 1992.
- Native American tribes give Obama a modest fundraising boost.
- The Arab Spring poses a dangerous test.
- The Senate candidates in Massachusetts say so long to the high road.
- Joe Biden, waiter extraordinaire.
- And last night’s NFL debacle, as told through GIFs.
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.
and help raise the awareness of this problem.
Good article on how Obama is creating more violence by feeding it with criticism of a stupid youtube video.
hotair.com, a great site for you to be sure.
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?
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..
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’
Are you talking about the billions of dollars that was also earmarked for the region during Bush as well? Is this your new outrage?
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.
Taliban marriage counseling:
"Offending the English and the Polish,"
It wasn't Romney insulting the British by returning the bust of Winston Churchill or leaving the Poles out to dry on missile defense, CRB.
"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."
So, if we split the difference that would amount to just about 220 million Muslim radicals in the world, Ob.
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?
Most? Would that be the "most" who believe that Islam is actually the "Religion of Peace?"
"I don't see 100's of millions of men. Why is that?"
Who said anything about 100's of millions of men?
How a liberal responds to facts:
These comments are for educational purposes, if you think it is criticism, that's all you.
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.
Liberals loose on another attempt at censorship.
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.
Who says liberals aren't predictable:
Don't be ingenious Mr O. MM and you were foaming at the mouths decrying our "stealing" from others, blah, blah, blah.
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.
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.
Pointing out that you are a thief is not foaming at the mouth.
On the other hand, your reply fits the description perfectly.
"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.
That's just sad, Mori. You have been reduced to counting alleged "endthreads." Sad really.