« Sovereignty: Hyperreal at hyperspeed | Main | Not so Fast There, Mr. President »

June 28, 2004

Comments

vicarious infringement. Someone sick the RIAA on Sully!

First Instapundit inciting vandalism of NYT boxes, now Sully urging violation of IP. What's up with these guys?

Particularly odd advice from an author.

Well at least Sully has the excuse that he's not a law professor . . .

This movie seems to have brought out the worst in many Bush supporters.

I imagine the upcoming piece on Kerry might have a similar effect on his supporters, but I personally don't have enough invested in his candidacy to suggest people break the law to defend it.

Going to see F911 later today, by the way...but I'm not taking my camcorder.

"First Instapundit inciting vandalism of NYT boxes"

He did nothing of the sort.

Moe, if I gleefully offered to post submitted photos on the world's most-read blog of people beating up Moe Lane, would you consider that incitement?

hmmm...

before this all gets too violent, let's abstract this up a bit.

Sully definitely asked someone to break the law.

Reynolds must be taken at his word that he didn't.

The fact that Reynolds encouraged photos of existing graffiti to be sent in would possibly incite those weaker minds who were more interested in seeing their picture on his site than those who understood why he asked, but that hardly makes him complicit.

Sully has no defense. Reynolds covered himself with:

Don't do that! I'm only interested in found graffiti, not made graffiti.

The fact that I can virtually hear the emoticon he didn't type after that is neither here nor there.

Yes. Hiwever, if you were offering to put up examples of Moe Lanes that had already been beaten up, then explicitly stated twice that you didn't want anybody to beat up Moe Lanes, just show existing examples of same, and then substituted 'newpaper boxes' for 'Moe Lanes', because this entire analogy is false*, well, then you'd have what Reynolds did, which was not incitement.

Just so we're clear. :)

Moe

*Spray painting a newspaper box and beating up a person, while both examples of improper behavior, are not morally equivalent acts - the latter is sufficiently more reprehensible, thus making any ambiguity regarding calling for it less tolerable. Ted Barlow pointed something out: Glenn clarified; story over.

Substitute 'however' for 'hiwever' and 'significantly' for 'sufficiently'; also, note that I'm not defending Sullivan's call for copyright infringement because, well, I don't think that it can be legitimately defended.

Good points, Moe. However, the first thing I thought when I read Reynold's post was that this would probably cause people to go out a spraypaint New York Times newsboxes, and I couldn't believe that he wouldn't have considered that, especially as he was celebrating an illegal act, and he's apparently a law professor.

But of course, we should take him at his word. And vandalizing a newsbox with paint is, of course, far less a crime that what I injudiciously suggested. Thanks you for the humorous reposte, Moe.

This movie seems to have brought out the worst in many Bush supporters.

Indeed. Heh.

I can't believe you people actually have a link to Sullivan and quote him on this site. He is one of the more intellectually dishonest and inconsistent "famous bloggers" out there.

Not only that, he brags about this in his bio:

"TNR also published the first airing of 'The Bell Curve,' the explosive 1995 book on IQ."

Wait. So, just recording the audio of a movie for personal use violates copyright? I'm not being confrontational here, I'm honestly wondering.

And, if not, would it then become infringement if someone distributed it on the internet (either the audio or transcript). Ok, that I'd think would be a clear violation.

Now, what if someone posted a scene by scene deconstruction of the movie, using their personal transcript? How can that not be fair use, and go beyond what any class on film does daily?

Roger Ebert has gone on record as saying he won't review any movie they frisk him for recording devices before hand, because he records *every thing* for later use in his review writing. Surely, he's not a copyright infringer?

Oh, and btw, Von, yeah, I'm from Indy. I'd have responded in the earlier thread, but I've noticed that if a reply is more than 24 hours or so late, it gets thrown into the comment ghetto, never to be seen by the eyes of man. I've done quite a bit of technical work for the Indianapolis Bar Association in the past, so like, I've probably worked with you, at most with two or three degrees of separation. :-)

I caught the same thing. For a "conservative" he has a curious understanding of property rights. Should we assume that He-Who-Pleads-For-Money wouldn't mind if we all went to the library and photocopied his books?

So, just recording the audio of a movie for personal use violates copyright?

Two issues: (1) it's not for personal use; it's for distribution, which arguably (and probably, in fact) diminishes the value of Fahrenheit 9-11 itself. (You may not go see the movie if you have the complete transcript.)* (2) There's a decent argument that recording just the audio of the movie is a violation of the entire audio-visual presentation -- particularly if, as here, we're talking about a copy of the entire movie.

Might someone avoid liability through clever manipulation of the fair use doctrine (at 17 USC 107)? (E.g., copy the whole thing, but only post selected bits.) Possibly. Is it something I'd like to encourage you to risk? No.

Copy down a part of the movie for comment -- probably fine. Copy the whole thing and type up a transcript for publication (as Sully suggests) -- not so fine.

I've done quite a bit of technical work for the Indianapolis Bar Association in the past, so like, I've probably worked with you, at most with two or three degrees of separation. :-)

Ahh, probably; I'm at one of the larger places in town (it's in the old Merchant's bank building, which is as specific as I'll get on the web).

von

*"Personal use" is not itself a defense to copyright infringement, BTW. You generally have to fit into "fair use."

"Thanks you for the humorous reposte, Moe."

It could and should have been funnier: Mondays are always my grimmest commenting days.

Moe

"I can't believe you people actually have a link to Sullivan and quote him on this site. He is one of the more intellectually dishonest and inconsistent "famous bloggers" out there."

A criticism made by somebody against every famous blogger that happens to be linked to by us*; only the names change.

Moe

*And 90% of the nonfamous ones, as well. The remaining 10% are probably wondering what they're doing wrong...

I agree with Moe on the issue of incitement and certainly assault is worse than vandalism.

As for taking Glenn at his word, unless he believes that these newspaper boxes get spray-painted spontaneously (and if does, he should consider starting his own religion), he was certainly being disingenuous. I doubt if he would be as charitable towards someone on a left-wing site asking for vandalized Wall Street Journal boxes. Neither would I. If you're unhappy with a newspaper's position or coverage of an issue, there's a way to respond: it's called writing.

Yes, Moe, but few of them are stupid enough to be gay, support an party and president who think gay people should go to jail, and throw around words like "traitor" and "Fifth Column" toward those of us who don't support that party.

"Might someone avoid liability through clever manipulation of the fair use doctrine (at 17 USC 107)? (E.g., copy the whole thing, but only post selected bits.) Possibly. Is it something I'd like to encourage you to risk? No."

Or, if one took a different stance on the ethics and overreach of existing copyright law, one could say "Might someone be in trouble anyway due to clever prosecutorial manipulation of the fair use doctrine? (E.g., post selected bits for review or commentary, but record the entire thing to do it). Possibly."

Don't get me started on intellectual 'property' (i.e. a government-enforced exclusive right to duplicate and distribute an idea). Don't, I tell you!

I'm surprised no one has brought up the camcorder bill just passed unanimously by the Senate.

Slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/25/2155212.shtml?tid=103&tid=188&tid=97&tid=99

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5835-2004Jun25.html

A similar bill already passed the House. If Congress thinks someone should go to jail for at least 3 years for taping a movie inside a theater, I wouldn't try recording one on a tape recorder either.

Might I suggest just attending a screening? A radical concept I know, but it is a film with images, music, dialogue and action and a transcript is like eating the parsly and skipping what's on the plate--you'll never know what the meal tasted like and get none of it's nutritional value.

If you can't tell I saw it for the second time this evening and came away more impressed than the first time. What many of you here might be missing via the media is the sheer humanity of the piece. This is what is filling theaters and this is what folks are responding to. Hearing the stories of the soldiers and their families as well as family members of 9/11 victims is emotionally wrenching and important in trying to gain a more full understanding of just how enormous the the effect of the last 3 years has been on us and our nation.

"Yes, Moe, but few of them are stupid enough to be gay, support an party and president who think gay people should go to jail, and throw around words like "traitor" and "Fifth Column" toward those of us who don't support that party."

Gay people supported in the U.S. have often supported the Communist Party.

My local gay groups like Castro, who last I checked actually puts gays in jail.

but few of them are stupid enough to be gay, support an party and president who think gay people should go to jail

To be fair to Sullivan:

1. Any American who has an income in the bottom 95% and who supports Bush & Co may fairly be asked why they're supporting an administration who wants to make them financially worse off than they were under Clinton or (most likely) would be under Kerry. That's an awful lot of Republicans: it's not just Sullivan who supports an administration who doesn't give a damn about his welfare.

2. Sullivan did retract his support for Bush when Bush declared his support for the Bigot's Amendment (making same-sex marriage unconstitutional) - which was a definitive point at which no gay Republican could have claimed that "really" Bush was on their side.

3. I believe (though I admit I wasn't paying very close attention) that Bush & Cheney were trying very cautiously (so as not to offend their religious base) to make themselves look more gay-friendly in the 2000 election: using Mary Cheney for the purpose, I think. (If so, her father's certainly not supporting his daughter's right to equality these days.)

This movie seems to have brought out the worst in many Bush supporters.

I guess I would have to say that this movie has been indicative of what is worst about Michael Moore and people like him.

1. Any American who has an income in the bottom 95% and who supports Bush & Co may fairly be asked why they're supporting an administration who wants to make them financially worse off than they were under Clinton or (most likely) would be under Kerry.

I've rarely seen such unsupported crap on a blog. It is a fact that all people have gotten more of their tax dollars back under the Bush plan. Unless you are a socialist and want the government to have your money, then this post just doesn't make sense. Please, Jes donate more of YOUR tax money to the gov't and leave the rest of us alone

gothiclife: I've rarely seen such unsupported crap on a blog. It is a fact that all people have gotten more of their tax dollars back under the Bush plan.

Federal income tax/inheritance tax cuts = Bush plan = benefit the top 5%.

State taxes and payroll taxes... no. They'd disproportionately benefit the bottom 95%, and why should Bush care about them?

Cutting taxes for the very rich - the Bush plan - benefits very few people, but costs everyone else - people who are losing out by cuts in services, by sales taxes that have to be raised, by the erosion of the surplus that was meant to pay for the Baby Boomer social security.

It's basic economics, goth. Educate yourself.


Jes, while I agree with the way you're framing the issue--pointing out that the Bush tax cuts have serious economic side effects which hurt low- and middle-income Americans--you really should stop claiming, without explanation, that the Bush tax cuts give nothing to the bottom 95% (or cost them more). It's not true.

A married couple with two children making 50,000 will get a break of around $1100--and that's after being adjusted for the changes to the so-called Marriage Penalty (which provision expires next year). However, that same couple, without children, saves only $300--and any single or married couples without children, making under $10 an hour, will see about $50 apiece.

It is true that the vast majority of the money from the Bush tax cuts benefit that top-income percentage of Americans of whom you speak. But while the benefits for childless singles and couples are negligible, those with children benefit from changes to the child tax credit.

The /side effects/ of Bush's economic policy--including some of the things you pointed out--are worth debating, and there is plenty to criticize about Bush's economic policies without undermining your position with unsubstantiated claims.

Fair point, Catsy.

(Also, trying to get rid of the blockquote.)

I'd argue that even those who are marginally benefiting with the child tax credit are, considered as a whole, losing out from other Bush policies (the No Child Left Behind policy is a killer for public schools, for example).

My original point was that Sullivan is by far from being the only Republican to support Bush & Co against his own interests, and he shouldn't be targetted merely because he happens to be gay. I stand by that.

I'd argue that even those who are marginally benefiting with the child tax credit are, considered as a whole, losing out from other Bush policies (the No Child Left Behind policy is a killer for public schools, for example).

No argument there. Bush's economic policies are a net loss for most people--even those being bribed with an extra $1000 in their tax refund.

My original point was that Sullivan is by far from being the only Republican to support Bush & Co against his own interests, and he shouldn't be targetted merely because he happens to be gay. I stand by that.

While Sully comes in for a fair amount of (well-deserved and legitimate) criticism for his inconsistencies and double-standards, I think far too many people mischaracterize as hypocrisy and inconsistency his tendency to think "out loud" in public over the inner conflicts he himself has as a gay conservative. I certainly have yet to muster the courage to agonize on my blog about the conflicts /I/ have over contemporary issues--look at the treatment that folks like Tacitus and Sullivan get (from both sides) when they have a public come-to-Jesus talk with themselves about their own side's sacred cows.

En retard.

While in no way casting aspersions on Constant Reader James Casey for giving us the link, I must ask our friendly neighborhood IP lawyer*: I can leave said link up without implicitly endorsing the copyright violation on the other side of it, right?

Moe

*One more day, True Believers! :)

Interesting point, Moe - and I'm curious to see what von advises. You might want to change it to "En retard - Andrew Sullivan has now linked to a transcript of part of the film; the scribe in question seems to have acted following the 'challenge' Sullivan originally posted." That also reads more clearly than just the two words used.

By the way, I'm not a constant reader. Sometimes I sleep.

P.S. Looking forward to S-M2 too.

I don't consider voting against one's economic interests the equivalent of voting for someone who thinks one is evil and should go to jail.

Sullivan is so gung-ho on war and the military, while the 2000 national platform explicitly states "We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

George Bush is from Texas, no? The Texas GOP is monstrous on gays:

Homosexuality- The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes- The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy.

Bush and Cheney want to have it both ways. Tone it down nationally, but encourage anti-gay hatred when it's useful. Bush supported the Texas sodomy law as governor, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values."

I am not a copyright lawyer (although I'd like to play one on tv), but I think that if you view posting the transcript as a copyright violation, then posting a link to where the transcript is posted probably qualifies as contributory copyright infringement. Even telling people how to find the transcript (w/o a link) might well be contributory infringement.

And, for what it's worth, ideas are still free (it's "just" that how you write them down, make use of them, or put them into practice that can be protected as "intellectual property").

While in no way casting aspersions on Constant Reader James Casey for giving us the link, I must ask our friendly neighborhood IP lawyer*: I can leave said link up without implicitly endorsing the copyright violation on the other side of it, right?

Yes -- so long as we're not charging folks for the access or otherwise aiding in the possible infringement (which we aren't). Which is not to say that an aggressive lawyer would not see the other side of it.

"Bush supported the Texas sodomy law as governor, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values.""

Actually, he said that in 1994 as a gubernatorial candidate. Please also note that this administration did not file an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas; if we're to consider statements made before one takes a position of power it seems only fair to note any silences that arise afterwards.

I won't pretend that the GOP in general and the Bush administration in particular is on the correct side of many gay issues, including marriage: it's my biggest dispute that I have with my party, in fact. But let us avoid devil theories until such time as we have evidence of an actual demonic presence.

And yes, I write this in full awareness of allegations that Bush lobbied to defeat a TX hate crimes bill - and that he did openly oppose allowing gay couples to adopt/foster children. As I said, this is the area where I am most at odds with my party.

von said:

Which is not to say that an aggressive lawyer would not see the other side of it.

Moe, if you want to change it, don't let any misguided sense of politeness or playing the good host stand in your way. I've provided alternate text for the post above.

Lithmus tests on candidates are generally foolish, but any gay American who votes for Bush really needs to get to therapy and figure out why they loathe themselves so much. Nothing could be a clearer indication that the man sees gay Americans as disposable second-class citizens than his support of the FMA. Any convoluted rationale for getting past this and voting for him anyway is the worst kind of self-delusion.

I don't know what standard operating procedure is for amicus briefs, but it seems like the federal government had no real stake in Lawrence--other than wanting the court to affirm that gays are bad, which doesn't really count. There are no federal sodomy laws, and I don't believe the federal government has the affirmative Constitutional authority to pass a sodomy law. I wouldn't read any support, or even benign neglect, of gay rights into it.

Moe, if you want to change it, don't let any misguided sense of politeness or playing the good host stand in your way. I've provided alternate text for the post above.

Moe's got a couple free lawyers and a law student on retainer. We'll consider any request to change it, of course, but I don't see the need to do so now.

The comments to this entry are closed.