class="archive tag tag-freedom-of-speech tag-35">
Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of Speech’
February 11, 2011 | 
Author Has anyone else out there ever heard of RightHaven, LLC? Well, if its news to you as well – that is very understandable. Check out that link – they’ve only been in business since early 2010. Their primary purpose is to acquire copyrights from newspaper organizations around the country and then actively seek out bloggers to sue them over alleged copyright infringement.
I first came aware of them this past week while I was fixing my blog. On a side note – if you are running Firefox, I highly recommend getting the add-on Firebug. You can watch your page load and see exactly where all the errors are. Anyway – I was fixing my blog and getting rid of dead links as well as checking all of my links. If you look over to the far right there and down a little to see my blog badges – you’ll see a blog from our buddy Brian Hill – U.S.W.G.O. – It is when I followed that link to his blog that I first learned of RightHaven, LLC. Apparently, they sued Brian over a TSA Patdown picture – this one. I didn’t see the actual blog post. Brian had this picture up on his blog – On February 7, 2011 – that’s right – this very past Monday – Brian was served with a court summons. If he doesn’t respond within 21 days he loses by default. If you read the initial link regarding RightHaven, LLC you will see their tactic is to demand a minimum of $75,000 payment and to have the blogger turn over their domain.
If you look to the bottom right of my sidebar – you see I have a “Fair Use Policy” – It essentially states I may use copyrighted material without expressed written permission from the originator and it is in accordance with Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107 which says:
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;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
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.
Like I said, I don’t know what Brian’s original post looked like and what was stated in it – but – if it was commentary regarding the aforementioned picture – it would certainly pass the “Fair Use” muster. Then, I noticed that picture does not have anything anywhere stating that it is a copyrighted image. So, I scrolled all the way down the page and it does have this on the bottom right side
All content © 2011 The Denver Post
So – that got me to thinking even further about copyrighting and notification of copyright – here is what I found
Title 17, U.S.C. Section 401 – Notice of Copyright: Visually Perceptible Copies
a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
(b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.
(c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive.
(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).
Then – I found this – based on what I’m reading here – RightHaven, LLC has no standing:
Title 17, U.S.C. Section 106A(b) – Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. — Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
and
(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
Based on what I’m reading here – only the photographer of that photo that Brian put up can sue for copyright infringement. Neither The Denver Post nor RightHaven, LLC have a standing. I highlighted the section for emphasis. Even if the photographer sold his photo to The Denver Post – the photographer retains the right to state whether his photo was used in a manner that violates attribution or integrity.
This is getting pretty long – so – if you’re interested – the rest is below the fold
Posted in blogs, Civil Rights, Freedom of Speech | 
Tags: blogs, Freedom of Speech, lawsuits, RightHaven | 
18 Comments »
Okay – seriously – for you guys on the left – isn’t this just more proof for you guys that Obama is a Fascist and is following in the footsteps of Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR? Joseph Goebbels stated that when you control the media – you control the message.
Obama has now taken over ABC to push that idiotic healthcare reform plan.
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ETOn the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
This absolutely is 100% proof that the media is so far in bed with government and government has taken control of the message. This shreds The First Amendment of the Freedom of the Press all to hell. But, with this administration…what else is new? This is entirely one-sided since there will be no one there to present the other side of the debate. No Republicans are allowed to be present or to speak on behalf of the opposition. Again – Mr. Obama – where is this so-called “bipartisan debate” that you promised the country?
My country is going to hell in a handbasket and no one really seems to care about it. How can we as Americans just stand by and allow the government to take over our national media like this? This is one of the first steps that Hitler and Mussolini took when the state started taking over the lives of the people of those countries. This also follows in the footsteps of Communist China, Russia, N. Korea, Iraq (Saddam Hussein), and Venezuela (Chavez). Obama is controlling the message and the press is in the bag with him. Seriously, what happened to the press being the watchdog over government as it was originally intended?
Is this what you guys on the left really voted for? Really? What makes you guys think you aren’t next? If your agenda doesn’t fit with Obama’s statist positions – you can bet your voices will be stifled as well.
Posted in A Nation at Risk, America, Civil Rights, communism, Constitution, Fascism, government, Liberals, Media Bias, Obama, Politics, President, Republicans, Socialism, US Constitution | Tags: Constitution, Fascism, first amendment, Freedom of Speech, freedom of the press, healthcare, Joseph Goebbels, mainstream media, Obama, Politics | 14 Comments »
I first found this story from one of my facebook friends – John Acheson – it links to a story from our good friend Anthony G. Martin who is a contributor at both the Columbia Conservative Examiner and The Liberty Sphere. This story is an outrage and should have everyone up in arms. Not only does this show how the Obama administration hates our Constitution and will do everything it can to shred it – it shows just how complicit the MSM is. Not one freakin’ word mentioned anywhere in the media this past week.
Bill quietly becomes law that bans opposition
While the Obama administration made sure that the country’s attention was sufficiently consumed by charges of ‘torture’ leveled against former Bush administration officials, a bill was quietly signed into law that forbids any opposition to it.
This bill also mandates youth volunteerism in national service, complete with indoctrination sessions in public schools that prepare students for ‘volunteerism.’ The wearing of uniforms is also mandated.
Democrats in Congress, under far-Left sponsors Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and George Miller (D-CA), voted to approve the measure known as G.I.V.E.(Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education). And Barack Obama quietly signed the bill into law on Tuesday of this week, all without fanfare.
On NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, nary a word. In the New York Times, nothing, zilch, nada.
All of the information on this ominous piece of legislation, which is now the law of the land, can be found here, along with the complete text of the bill, which is now known as ‘The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.’
Go read the rest of that article yourself. It will just blow you away. Here is the kicker -there is language in the bill that states
…whereby those opposed to the legislation are prohibited from protesting, lobbying or organizing petitions against it.
Well you know what – Obama and his administration can go fuck themselves. I am constitutionally guaranteed the right to redress and assembly under the First Amendment. I absolutely do protest this damned bill – and – I will be sure that the next Tea Party I attend – I will indeed be protesting this bill as well. What are they gonna do? Lock me up? I’m also going to send a letter to my Congressman and Senators and let them know that I absolutely do oppose this bill. Do you think I’ll have the SS knocking at my door?
Fuck them all! How do you Liberals feel now? Obama has taken your voice away as well. This is a very dangerous precedent. If the Supreme Court allows this to stay – you can bet your ass that all future bills will contain the same language. After all – it was you Liberals that perfected the art of opposition and protest. You too should be just as outraged at this just as we Conservatives are.
UPDATE:
Our friend Anthony has this additional update:
UPDATE! I went to the Thomas website and downloaded a copy of this bill from top to bottom so I could examine it for myself. Indeed, as some of you have indicated, the provision originally presented as an amendment forbidding opposition was included in the final text as a directive for employees of organizations participating in this program, forbidding them from engaging in partisan political activity while on the job. I apologize for the error.
Although Anthony has posted this update – I went out and looked at all the amendments myself as well. According to House Amendment 49 that passed- “Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” This is still some pretty loose language. Anthony is stating this is intended to mean that these “volunteers” and employers who use “volunteers” are not allowed to use their positions for mounting protests, etc. However, that is not the way I read it. This language is very ambiguous and I believe will most definitely be used and interpreted to mean there should be no opposition to this “organization”
Also – you REALLY need to see this Amendment that was offered and failed – Senate Amendment 705 – “To prohibit ACORN, or organizations affiliated or co-located with ACORN, from receiving assistance under this Act.” As you can see – the Obama admin is still continuing to fund this criminal organization and you can bet ACORN will be the number 1 recipient as a result of this Act.
Posted in A Nation at Risk, America, Civil Rights, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Democrats, Freedom of Speech, government, Liberals, Obama, Politics, President, Republicans, Socialism, US Constitution | Tags: blogs, Conservative, Constitution, first amendment, Freedom of Speech, government, liberal, Obama, POTUS, President | 12 Comments »
This is just the beginning – it was bad enough that Obama operatives in Missouri declared they would punish and fine anyone who spoke out against Obama earlier this month – now – Obama has punished a TV station for asking tough questions by cancelling an interview with Joe Biden’s wife after a reporter questioned Biden about Obama’s remarks to Joe the Plumber and Biden’s remarks about Obama being tested.
Here’s that story:
Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden
WFTV-Channel 9′s Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it’s some of the best entertainment he’s seen recently. What do you think?
West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama’s comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn’t being a Marxist with the “spreading the wealth” comment.
“Are you joking?” said Biden, who is Obama’s running mate. “No,” West said.
West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America’s days as the world’s leading power were over.
“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” Biden shot back.
Gee – who would have guessed? If this guy gets in to the whitehouse – we can most certainly expect more if anybody criticizes his presidency!
“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”
See – and they readily admit it! They can’t handle being called out on anything. There is a strong push again to get The Fairness Doctrine put back in place. The thought police are going to be strong with this administration. Dare speak one word negative against Obama – and you will face punishment. I have a feeling this will start extending to the blogosphere as well!
Here’s a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.
Make sure you go check out that interview – FINALLY!!! A reporter asking the tough questions! And..they can’t handle it.
WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, “When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes.”
Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.
Of course they do! Most of the MSM have ONLY been tossing out softball questions!
“Mr. Biden didn’t like the questions,” Jordan said. “We choose not to ask softball questions.”
Awesome! Kudos to Channel 9 for standing up for journalistic integrity. I only wished there were more news people out there willing to do the right thing and inform the people.
Jordan added, “I’m crying foul on this one.”
I would too. But – did any of you hear about this on the MSM stations or in the MSM newspapers? Nope – this isn’t making airplay either. Again – proof that the left is for freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t disagree with their own views.
Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.
I sure hope McCain and the Republicans pick up on this and get this out. People need to know what is coming. This is just the beginning people.
Posted in A Nation at Risk, America, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Liberals, marxism, McCain, Media Bias, Obama, Politics, President, Republicans | Tags: blogs, Democrats, first amendment, Freedom of Speech, Jill Biden, Joe Biden, Liberals, McCain, Media Bias, news, Obama, Politics, Republicans, suppression, television station, thought police, WFTV | 14 Comments »
H/T to Misha over at the Rottie for bring this to us. There is a tale that goes with this video – all about the Obama goon squad quashing Freedom of Speech by hacking in and bringing down the original blog that posted this up first – You can read about that here: Obama Goon Squad Shuts Down Macsmind Blog – in the meantime – here’s that video – a bit “disarming.” Obama’s plans to dismantle our military – in his own words!
If you feel so inclined – pass this story and the video on. There are still a number of idiots out there that have been blinded by the Obamessiah and don’t really see him for the socialist he is and his real hatred for our constitutional rights.
Posted in America, Civil Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Freedom of Speech, Idiots, Liberals, marxism, Obama, Politics, President | Tags: anti-gun, blog, Freedom of Speech, goon squad, hacking, Obama, Second Amendment, Socialism | 3 Comments »
Imagine my surprise today when I read a column from my local paper that pretty much puts Obama in his place! What really surprised me is the fact that this particular columnist is not only liberal, but, he’s also black. Bill Maxwell has been a columnist at the very left and liberal leaning St. Petersburg Times for about 30 years now. Here’s his piece: (note, all emphasis in this story is mine)
Don’t dare disagree with Obama
By Bill Maxwell, Times Columnist
In print: Thursday, July 17, 2008You had better mind your manners with regard to Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
You can’t disagree with him. You can’t question the legitimacy of his many platitudes and promises. And you had better watch it when you offer a litany of his flip-flops or point out his crass opportunism.
Be forewarned: If you say, sing, write, draw, paint or sculpt anything unflattering about Obama, expect the Spanish Inquisition. The salvational fervor and unfiltered euphoria surrounding the man have cast a halo around his head. A halo, as you know, suggests something otherworldly.
Seriously, journalists, artists, and comedians better be scared about getting this guy elected!
But I get way ahead of myself.
More than a week ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson mistakenly whispered near a live Fox News microphone that he wanted to castrate Obama for “talking down” to black people about personal responsibility and for giving the government a bye. (I agree with Obama about assuming personal responsibility, but that’s not the issue here.)
Hundreds of articles and columns have been written lambasting Jackson, the old civil rights lion, for his crudeness and his apparent malevolence toward Obama. Although the good reverend has apologized over and over, many important people, along with some foul-mouth, N-word-spewing rappers and black comedians, have called for Jackson to exit public life forevermore. Even Jackson’s son, Little Jesse, got into the attack.
Following is my take on Jackson and that whisper. Under the circumstances, which I will explain, he had no choice but to whisper. His dilemma is the same as that of thousands of other blacks: You have problems with Obama the man and perhaps problems with his campaign. If, however, and for whatever reason, you need to be in the good graces of your fellow blacks, you had better not dis Obama in public or in private around the wrong people, especially if a mike is on.
Even though Jackson is essentially irrelevant these days anyway, the point he’s making is there are enough black people out there so in love with the Obamessiah that if you speak ill of him, your vocation is over – regardless of that vocation.
Jackson truly has problems with Obama. But because of his public way of earning a living, his sense of self-worth and his need to preserve his civil rights legacy, Jackson sorely needs to be in the good graces of black people. To publicly criticize Obama, the Haloed One, would annul Jackson’s membership in The Tribe and bring ostracism. Jackson knew that; therefore the whisper.
I’m not approving of Jackson’s choice of words, mind you. But don’t kid yourself. Thousands of other blacks dislike or even despise Obama, but they dare not let on
Even though this columnist is speaking out, he doesn’t fear what could happen to him. My thoughts is that he’s trying to reach those ones who fear speaking out in hopes that if they see him doing so, that perhaps they will be more willing to finally come out against Obama as well. There seems to be a groundswell bubbling up right now!
Like it or not, what we saw in Jackson’s whisper was raw frustration — the inability to speak freely about one of the most important developments in black history. When Jackson’s comment was made public, the Spanish Inquisition came knocking.
The inquisitors showed up again after the New Yorker’s July 21 cover came to light. The cartoon, Barry Blitt’s creation, depicts Obama, wearing a turban, and his wife, Michelle, sporting an Afro hairdo, as terrorists bumping fists in the Oval Office. A U.S. flag burns in the fireplace, and the image of Osama bin Laden peers over the fireplace at his handiwork.
In an e-mail message to the media, the New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, explained the meaning of the cover: “The cover takes a lot of distortions, lies, and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are. It’s a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does — by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about.”
That’s what satire used to be about. In the Obama era, however, satire may be satire only if it pokes fun at anyone except the Haloed One. If it pokes fun at Obama or subjects related to the Obamas, it’s described as being “crude,” “tasteless and offensive,” “insensitive,” “racist” and so on.
This last paragraph is extremely important to take note of. Not only is Bill Maxwell pointing this out – but Maureen Dowd posted a very similar column yesterday: May We Mock Obama?. If Obama is elected, the communist doctrine of Political Correctness could become American policy. Dare anyone mock Obama, his wife, his family, his presidency, you could find yourself in a “Re-education camp” to learn politically correct speech as was seen during the days of Lenin.
The hypersensitivity coming from Obama and his minions is dangerous. Does anyone who’s half literate not know that the New Yorker, in its singularly liberal way, lampoons everything and everyone? Nothing, especially a flawed individual, is sacred. That’s a good thing.
If Obama’s swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.
Indeed!
These people need to know that some of us cherish free expression. They also need to know that if Obama needs to be protected from the satirist’s rapier, he doesn’t deserve to be the president of the United States of America.
AMEN BROTHER!
Posted in A Nation at Risk, African-Americans, America, Civil Rights, Democrats, Elections, Freedom of Speech, Humor, Obama, Politics, President, Socialism | Tags: art, Bill Maxwell, blacks, columnist, comedians, comedy, crude, election, Entertainment, Freedom of Speech, history, Humor, Jackson, jokes, Maureen Dowd, Obama, offensive, political correctness, President, Racist, satire, Spanish Inquisition, the Haloed One | 9 Comments »
