Well now, this certainly adds some retroactive entertainment value to this past weekend:
I have always felt that good prank should be measured by the following yardstick: Continue reading “Punk'd!”
Well now, this certainly adds some retroactive entertainment value to this past weekend:
I have always felt that good prank should be measured by the following yardstick: Continue reading “Punk'd!”
It was just one of those things. I was working on leaving something big in my briefs in response to the summons that I’m expecting, and I wanted to find out the date when a certain pinhead wrote a certain pinheaded blog entry. I couldn’t remember because of the dementia. So I was searching my Ombudsman Patriot website to find when I wrote it, and my brain pinged. The mind control module had activated. I set aside what I was doing and went on my roundabout tour of all the blogs that the mind control module forces me to read a hundred times a day, and I found that Patrick Grady had been fired.
He’s the guy that sent me a picture of an old toy named Bill that caused an avalanche of bigs that even my wife still talks about today. I mean, we had neighbors from three lots away standing in our yard waving lit matches like it was an REO Speedwagon concert. And this was in the depths of winter, which really should tell you something about the stench, right? Even the dogs wouldn’t come in the house until the next day.
And he wrote a comment once supposing what a “hypothetical” bi-polar person in his position might think of doing to a “hypothetical” person in my position who “hypothetically” contacted his “hypothetical” employer and “hypothetically” tried to get him fired.
Well, since Grady was using his work computer to harass me by attempting to view my blog (eek!), I felt it was only right to contact him and ask for the records that every pornographer is supposed to keep on file as proof that his models are of age and have consented, and which he is supposed to produce ON DEMAND!! (not to broke-down, fat, old fake internet investigative journalists like me, but to sworn law officers, but why should that matter to the great Parkinson Williams?) And I also know he has a disabled son, so I called the DCFS on him to make sure the boy wasn’t getting butt-raped if I wasn’t being included, because you know how I loves the BUTT STUFF.
Oh, wait…I think I’m getting my harassment victims mixed up…I don’t know. Whatever.
Anyway, that was in March. Today, I hear he’s been fired. And he’s not taking it well. Not at all. He’s so upset he wrote a tweet. A TWEET!! ZOMG!!!!!!ELEVENTY!!
He’s in Illinois. The federal government is just down the road here in Washington, D.C. The NSA is in Fort Meade. Lots of IT jobs to be had if you don’t mind getting paid 120% of your value for working at 30% of your capacity. How do you think I wound up in this swell trailer? And I’m living proof that it is practically impossible to get fired from a government job. So why would he be wondering about jobs in… in… in…
The axis of the world running through the top of my head just wiggled a little! Or maybe it was the mind control device telling me to get on with it and move on to the next website that makes fun of me and is killing me by shaving years – YEARS!! – off my life! I don’t know. Whatever.
Why did a pterodactyl just fly past my window? This room doesn’t even HAVE a window.
Now, I really do not want to see the head of any vintage toy for disabled boys who like the underage pornographic butt stuff to get man-raped unless I get to watch. So?
Patrick Grady is NOT Allowed to Kill Me! (He was before. I even invited him to come and do it several times, but he dragged his feet and that window has closed. Which is odd, because this room doesn’t even HAVE a window.)
I threatened my wife with a full day of diaper changes, so she drove me to the County Detention Center. Because it was Saturday, that is where the Court Commissioner can be found. She recognized me right away and said to my wife, “Are you sure you’re in the right place? I can call Sugar Grove, and lock him up until those big boys get here with the jacket and mask. But if he hasn’t done anything, I can’t just leave him back there.”
Gina snickered, but I kept my temper. Barely. I growled at the female lady type commissioner (obviously an idiot), “Shut up. I’m here to swear out a peace order. Some guy 900 miles away that I doxed in February tweeted about the job market here. I’m in DANGER and FEAR FOR MY LIFE!”
After she stopped laughing (and boy was she lucky there was a desk between us, and I was in a walker, or I’d have taught her a lesson in manners, boy), she got the forms. I filled them out, raised my right hand, after being reminded which one it was, and received the interim peace order.
Right now it’s an interim order not to kill me. On Monday, Judge willing, it becomes a temporary order not to kill me. Then, probably on June 9, I’ll ask the judge to turn it into a six-month order not to kill me. I doubt that I’ll win that, because almost everyone in the Howard County Legal community knows there’s no one in the county more deserving of a good killing than me. I think I even saw a bag on somebody’s desk with the makings for S’Mores inside, and a Post-It note that said “Park W.” on it, like they were all waiting to have a big celebratory bonfire or something.
I don’t know. Whatever.
On the way inside, I started to take those little, tiny, tippytoe, rapid steps that I take whenever I’m about to post an epic online faildox like the one of @embryriddlealum a couple of posts up. I was so excited about screwing with Grady again that I got carried away. I hit a downward slope that they put there just to trip me up, the bastards. I tried to stop, but 280 balloons in a rolly chair don’t stop on a dime, let me tell you. A brick pillar jumped out at me and knocked me down on my side. When it was moving back into place to hold up the roof, I swear to cheeses kreist I heard it whisper “John Hoge says hello…”
Hoge. All his fault. As usual. HE told Grady to write that tweet. HE told Grady to come to Maryland looking for work.
Where was I?
My wife and two perfect strangers rushed to my aid. Well, “rushed” is sort of a relative term…anything faster than my top waddling speed is rushing to me , so… Even though I am lighter than I have been since I weighed 1980 in 1980, I was not able to see my feet. Gina and another female lady type person tried to lift me by my arms, but I sweat so much they couldn’t get a grip. If I hadn’t been in pain it would have been funny. Or if it had happened to somebody else, that would have been REALLY funny.
Then the lady’s husband got into the act. It took him a bit to get the right grip, but when he did, he gave me a wedgie that was better than anything my twin brother Stevenson ever managed – and trust me, that’s saying something. It’s a good thing I had taken care of business before we left the trailer, because that guy would have squeezed a load right down the legs of my pants, and I’d have been surrounded by flames again like Mick Jagger singing “Sympathy For the Devil” during an encore.
Most people would be trying to work that underwear outta there, but you know what? It feels pretty good!
And now, the very same people who BRAGGED about getting me fired from the Examiner (and they’re out there, you know…I screen cap everything bad anyone’s ever written about me. Just don’t ask me to show you anything. Only I need proof that Krendler sold anything to Hoge, I don’t have to prove anything because my WORD IS MY BOND, LICKSPITTLES!!), are rending their garments in HORROR that Patrick G. Grady lost his job… and I don’t even know if I had anything to do with it (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more). Cheeses Kreist. I reported him more than two months ago! I was expecting this to happen weeks ago!
Oh, well. Gotta manufacture death threats or I just can’t sleep at night.
Evening came, and then the morning…Sunday
Speaking of which, I had trouble sleeping last night. Even though making up the idea that Patrick G. Grady is coming to kill me, and running off to tell lies to the County Court Commissioner to get an interim peace order was supposed to make my black heart feel better, it didn’t.
It just dawns on me that if a bi-polar, self-confessed sociopath was going to come kill me, what was a stupid piece of paper going to do to stop him? I already know he has a firearms training permit (or was that a lie, too? I don’t know. Whatever.), so he surely owns multiple firearms.
I don’t want anybody to think he lost his job because of me (even though I know he did, because I’m an internet badass with mad skillz). I reported him to his employer on March 15. They fired him on May 30. That’s more than two months, if my wife’s math is correct.
It’s gonna be hard enough – which reminds me, we got a fresh jar of peanut butter and I, um, “forgot” to feed the dogs this morning…good times coming! – for this poor psychotic bastard to get a job, without having a Peace Order on his record. And he has a teenage son…I wonder if he likes peanut butter…
Oh, Patrick Grady is an asshole and a Grade A one at that. But he also seems to be much smarter than me, and I did dox him in February for some reason… wish I could remember what it was…
But his kid doesn’t deserve to suffer because his dad is a jerk. The way my kids have.
Besides, I just made a big stinky and I need to go change my Depends.
Evening came, and then the morning…
So now, I’ve been banned from commenting on two blogs created specifically to discuss the fact that I am a horrid person. I attempted to participate in the open comment sections of these blogs to explain myself and why I wear blue contact lenses to hide the fact that I’m completely full of shit. There’s a third blog out there that I apparently sent a mental directive to, of the kind Hoge uses on me to force me to visit his blog, telling the owner to delete all my comments and ban me or my wife and doctor would take my computer away. I guess my mind control Kung Fu is weak, because he only edited my comments (after screen capping all of them) and set up his filters to kick me into his moderation queue. At least that’s what he said. I haven’t tried to comment since, because I’m and internet badass with mad skillz, remember?
They don’t want me on their blog, because I fill their comments with shit even faster than I do a pair of Depends, but of a much lower quality. The want to sit and natter about what a naughty boy I am, that is their right. Just like I do with John Hoge. But they are not allowed to libel me. Only I am allowed to do that.
This is libel.
As the subject of the entry to which Mr. Hoge was commenting was yours truly, he has stated for the world that I am stealing intellectual property. You can tell by the fact that I’m not mentioned by name in the entry that it’s all about me – oh! The axis of the world that runs through the top of my head just shifted back into place! That’s better! – and because Hoge’s comment has peppered my name, “someone,” throughout the entire comment! And as we all know, anything that is not explicitly NOT about ME must therefore IMPLICITLY BE ABOUT ME!!!!!
And because I have proven, using science and pure geometric logic, that it must have been the officers who stole the strawberries and commented about me, it must be a lie. It is defamatory. It is libelous.
And now, the defamation stops. It stops. Now. The defamation.
I am willing to use material without the writer’s permission because when it comes to US Copyright Law, I am the world’s foremost expert among the functionally illiterate. Although I must say that the “functional” half of that description may be fading lately. But I am dead certain about the “illiterate” part.
I know Fair Use. Fair Use was a good friend of mine. And you sir, are no Fair Use.
What the hell was I talking about? I can’t remember… oh, well. It was probably Hoge and LICKSPITTLES.
Whatever. My feet itch. And something is dripping into my ears…
Hoge has initiated a lawsuit against me ALLEGING that I have stolen his “intellectual” property. I put intellectual in “quotes” for two reasons: first, I have no idea what that word means, and second, Gina threatened to take away the peanut butter and lock up the dogs if I didn’t.
Copyright law is so simple my dogs can understand it better than Hoge.
1. If someone photoshops a picture of me, that’s infringement and defamation.
2. If I photoshop a picture of someone else, like Ali Akbar or MaryFrances Causey, that’s Fair Use.
3. If someone uses a picture of me without my permission, that’s infringement and defamation.
4. If I use a picture of someone else without their permission, like Nancy Gilly or Patrick Grady, that’s Fair Use.
5. If someone photoshops a picture of someone related to me, that’s infringement and defamation.
6. If I photoshop a picture of someone else, who might or might not be related to you, that’s Fair Use.
7. If someone uses a picture of someone related to me without my permission, that’s infringement and defamation.
8. If I use a picture of someone related to you without permission that’s Fair Use.
How much more simple could it be? Fair Use isn’t stealing, and anything I do is Fair Use, so it can’t be stealing! Ergo (whatever that means), Hoge is guilty of libel. QED (whatever that means).
So shut up, hater.
So Patrick Grady is not coming to kill me, I made up the threats I used to get the interim Peace Order against him, which I then felt guilty about because I realized there’s an outside chance he could come to Maryland and defend himself in court, which would make me look like the fool I am and earn me a trip to the Safe Ward for an evaluation. Then Hoge didn’t mention me in a comment on a blog post that also didn’t mention me, which means he must be stalking me. But right now I have dogs, peanut butter, and drawers full of bigs and fear urine, and all is right with the world.
How was your weekend?
I had thought before now that only John Hoge possessed the power to manipulate men’s minds. Then I thought that perhaps I had a small degree of talent at dragging certain people to my blog to be offended. This may be true; surely more scientific study is required. Does anyone know how to contact Drs. Stantz, Venkman & Krendler?
Anyway, that’s what I thought until earlier today when I received what was an unmistakable psychic message:
Gail and Dr. Grill have both threatened to take my computer away if I continue blogging and tweeting. Would you please replace all my fucked-up comments with this message, and ban me because I have dementia, a full pair of Depends, and no impulse control whatsoever?
A clear request for a voluntary ban. I was powerless to resist!
All comments have been replaced by the above message, as requested. However, I am loathe to outright ban anyone, so instead, I have done my best to force this person’s comments into moderation, where I will try to divine and reproduce their TRUE intention before releasing them. Failing that, I will delete them before risking a complete misinterpretation.
Should any comment somehow pass through the filter, I’ll deal with them as they come.
It saddens me to do this, to risk losing a reader and prolific commenter this way, but as I said, I’m powerless against the mind control.
How to win enemies and influence people into kicking the snot out of you…
The trouble with most comedians who try to do satire is that they are essentially brash, noisy and indelicate people who have to use a sledge hammer to smash a butterfly.
– Imogene Coca
I see @PalatinePundit lost his gig today.
I wonder why?
Looking for work in MD could be a double-edged sword, though. I like teeing off on Cabin Boy as much as, and probably more than, the next guy (except for Howard), but putting myself in proximity to that quaking tub of crazy seems like it could go south in one damn hurry.
Family and safety first, PP. Be strong, stay ready. Good things will come your way.
We’re not going to mention any names here. What we will do is take a good close look at the “Fair Use Doctrine” as it exists in the real world under United States Copyright Laws, and not in the wish-fantasy castle-in-the-sky of some not-so-hypothetical “investigative journalist.” We will also examine the penalties for copyright infringement, and further, the penalties for filing false DMCA counterclaims against someone who has filed a correct DMCA takedown notice against someone who uses material in violation of the “Fair Use Doctrine” (FUD). Mmm…FUD…footlongs with mayonnaise…
Let’s start the hypothetical examination by creating a character. Let’s call him Parkinson Williams. He writes a book – well, to say he “writes a book” is somewhat generous to Mr. Williams. What he does is collect tweets, blog posts and comments, some of which he has authored, but most of which he has copied from other websites without permission. He edits these posts to create a false narrative about how he has been harassed – for no reason! – by a vicious and hateful cabal of rightwing thugs – YES! THUGS!! To illustrate this alleged harassment, he steals either a portion of (from which he has excised all context which does not paint him as a completely helpless victim), or in some cases an entire blog post, including the 100 or more comments which this post generated.
Now, in our hypothetical, the person responsible for the largest portion of this alleged decontextualized harassment against Mr. Williams – we’ll call him Mr. Carroll, has a long and detailed copyright and usage agreement policy in the Fine Print section of his website. Any objective reading of this policy leads a reasonable person to the conclusion that Mr. Williams has violated this notice and usage policy, because he is a subnormal human with extensive brain damage, poor bowel control and even worse manners.
Hypothetically, of course.
Mr. Carroll acquires a copy of this book that Mr. Williams has “written” in his peculiar way, and finds not only that the arguments put forth by the author are materially false (or “BULLSHIT,” to use the vernacular), and represent a theft of copyrighted material from his website. So, he does what any author with any regard for his intellectual property would do: he contacts the self-publishing platform where the book is being sold, and issues a proper DMCA takedown notice, which includes a citation of the infringing material in Mr. Williams’ book, and a link to the original material as published on Mr. Carroll’s blog.
The self-publishing platform has no choice but to remove the infringing material. This is a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They have no choice but to remove the infringing material after comparing the original author’s work to the material in the book they have contracted to sell and finding the complaint to be valid. The self-publishing platform does this because they are not in the business of defending the copyright integrity of the authors who seek to sell their wares on a below-the-horizon, no-market-for-this-pig-slop-anywhere-on-earth website that no publishable author has ever heard of, where only the most desperate, ego-driven narcissist would go to say they were a “published author” because any reputable literary agent would laugh them out of the office before taking their copy/paste/repeat swill to a legitimate publishing house.
Hypothetically, of course.
No, these scrape-past-the-scum-at the bottom-of-the barrel-and-dive-into-the-rushing-pre-treatment-plant-sewer-pipe self-publishers exist on a simple business model: they very cheaply and electronically store the electrons representing the millions of books that hundreds of thousands of failures in the world believe is the next New York Times bestseller, so they can shave a percentage off the top of each individual sale to pay for the memory space and take a little profit from the cretins who come begging them to “sell” their epic works of literature. Part of this business model is not to edit, fact-check or copyright-check the works they sell, because that incurs cost. They minimize their cost and maximize their revenue (as any good business does) by pushing the liability off onto the desperate author who is probably a subhuman with extensive brain damage, poor bowel control, worse manners, and absolutely zero sense of what really takes place between the “idea” of a book and the actual, successful “execution” of publishable material.
Hypothetically, of course.
However, all is not lost for our hypothetical author Mr. Parkinson Williams. The DMCA also provides that he can file a counterclaim alleging that Mr. Carroll’s copyright claim is false, or that he, Mr. Williams, used the material under FUD.
Now the ball is back in Mr. Carroll’s court. The DMCA mandates that Mr. Carroll must provide the self-publishing platform with a court order, stating that he intends to file suit in a United States Federal Court claiming copyright infringement. Most people who use material improperly realize they are using it improperly. Or in the case of a scoundrel like our hypothetical Mr. Parkinson Williams, the pathetic jackholes could go ahead and use the material, knowingly make a false claim of fair use, and let the complainant go through the time and expense, the very GREAT expense, of filing a copyright suit in US Federal Court.
That would be enormously stupid, but no one has yet accused Mr. Parkinson Williams of having an intellect even half as strong as the aroma wafting up from the seat of his sweatpants.
Hypothetically, of course.
But, just for the sake of our example, let’s say that Mr. Williams is an honest writer, and he honestly believes he has used the claimed material under the FUD. Since this is a hypothetical discussion, it is within the realm of possibility, no matter how farfetched it sounds when measured against reality.
Just go with it…
Mr. Carroll has every right to file a copyright suit claiming that his copyright has been infringed.
The United States Copyright laws fall under Title 17 of the US Code. Sections 107 through 118 deal with the FUD.
Section 107 lists the following specific purposes for which a work may be fairly reproduced without infringing the author’s copyright:
· News reporting
The section also sets forth four factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether a particular use of copyrighted material is fair.
(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 distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement is intentionally left vague in the statute, so that determinations in court can be made on a case-by case basis, rather than relying on precedents that may not apply from prior to future cases. There is no specific number or percentage of words, lines or musical notes that may be taken without permission. For example, taking the six-second hook from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” would be infringement, because it is the central identifying piece of the music. Using “Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a damn!” infringes on the copyright of Gone With the Wind. And using
Shakespeare’s “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”Frost’s “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,” also infringes on that copyrighted work.
[damn nitpickers, always pickin at my nits… – PK]
Also, crediting the original source of the material does not automatically provide a defense against infringement.
Now, let’s say at this point that Mr. Parkinson Williams has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what material Mr. Carroll is claiming he holds the copyright for (I know, the hypothetical blanket is starting to stretch pretty thin, ain’t it?). We will say, for the purpose of this argument, that Mr. Carroll has claimed that Mr. Williams has infringed on Mt. Carroll’s original copyright in one case, and in a second case, Mr. Carroll is claiming an infringement against a work for which he has recently acquired the relevant copyright from the original author.
Assuming Mr. Carroll does, in fact, own the work involved, Mr. Williams has the four pillars of the FUD to fall back on.
1. What was the purpose and character of the alleged infringing use – was it used for educational , personal or non-profit purposes, which is the safer end of the spectrum? Was it for criticism, commentary or news reporting, which sit in the middle of the scale? Or was it for use in a for-profit venture, which is much higher risk? Clearly, in the case of both works referenced above, they were included in Mr. Williams’ strangely “written” books. So this pillar of the FUD works against Mr. Williams.
2. What was the nature of the copyrighted work(s)?
a. In the case of Mr. Carroll’s original work, it was a blog post which made no reference to Mr. Williams. The post itself included over 100 reader-generated comments, many of which did refer to Mr. Williams in unpleasant language. The blog post itself was a one sentence bit of non-sequitur humor, and the comments became an online conversation of sorts. That Mr. Williams was a subject of the conversation does not grant license for use of the post and all its comments. The subject matter is not relevant to the question of infringement. This too works against Mr. Williams.
b. The second work was a parody originally published pseudonymously on a third party blog. The work parodied a post that Mr. Williams himself had written and posted on his own blog some time previously, and then taken down, as he is often wont to do. Hypothetically, of course. The original subject of Mr. Williams’ self-described “satire” was Mr. Carroll and his family, who Mr. Williams undertook to describe in unpleasant language. The pseudonymous third party’s parody took Mr. Williams’ work and turned it about on him and his family, using somewhat more unpleasant language. In addition to the actual parody, the pseudonymous blogger undertook to explicitly identify the work as a parody, and to identify Mr. Williams as the writer and publisher of the original work on which the parody was based, as well as identifying Mr. Carroll as the original target of that work. This work was parody, a work of comedy clearly identified as such, and included a context which Mr. Williams did not see fit to include. Again, the subject matter of the work is not relevant to the question of infringement, so Mr. Williams again comes up short.
3. How much of the copyrighted work did the alleged infringer, Mr. Williams, use? There seems to be a question regarding what a copyright covers. Is a blog a copyrighted entity in and of itself? Are individual entries on the blog copyrighted? Is there a reasonable comparison to be made by looking at other media?
a. Is a musical album a copyrighted entity? Common sense requires assent. What about the individual songs on the album? If they are not individually copyrighted, how then can royalties be paid to multiple songwriters, lyricists and other performers who contribute to one song but not to others?
b. Is a television series a copyrighted entity? Again, common sense requires assent. What about individual episodes? The same question applies – how are actors, writers and directors paid residuals on syndicated broadcasts otherwise?
c. What about books? Books are of course individually copyrighted, but are the chapters within each book covered by that copyright? Common sense – they must be.
So what do these comparisons tell us? They tell us that a copyrighted work broken into individual parts is still copyrighted. One cannot sample a song and claim under fair use that it is but a small fraction of an album, nor illegally broadcast an episode of a television show claiming it is but one of 175 episodes. Likewise, one cannot re-publish a whole chapter of an Elmore Leonard novel or a Laura Hillebrand memoir and claim it is but a small portion of their body of work. The fact that Mr. Williams pirated an entire post with comments in the first case, and an entire parody, stripped of its explanatory context and twisted into painting Mr. Williams as a victim of totally undeserved insults in the second case, surely must weigh against him as well.
4. How does the use of the material affect the value of the infringed material? Mr. Williams can joke that his use of it improves its value, but, while hypothetical, this is not a joking matter. Hypothetically, Mr. Williams is a thief, and he knows it. Hypothetically, Anne Frank was not interested in selling her diary. Hypothetically, Vincent Van Gogh couldn’t sell his paintings to feed himself while he lived. The value of a thing is not determined by the money one can receive for it. Mr. Williams might have dogs that he would not (or could not) sell, but that has no bearing on their value to him. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Williams may or may not have expressed in the past a great terror at the thought of losing those hypothetical dogs. Their hypothetical value does not have a hypothetical dollar amount; their hypothetical value is intrinsic and subjective.
Hypothetically, let us suppose that Mr. Williams is attempting to make a similar but opposing Fair Use argument on his own blog. Also hypothetically, let us note that Mr. Williams claims it is his standard policy to use segments of a blog and link to the blog in question when excerpting the work of others. Finally, let us suppose, hypothetically of course, that Mr. Williams include in his argument a purported quote from the Electronic Freedom Foundation – a quote for which, contra his stated “standard policy,” he DOES NOT provide a link (and isn’t that instructive of the motives of Mr. Williams?):
This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it’s unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely to be fair. Linking to the original may also help to diminish the substitution effect. Note that criticism or Parody that has the side effect of reducing a market may be fair because of its transformative character.
Have people stopped reading Mr. Carroll’s blog because Mr. Williams steals his content? If anything, more people seem to be reading it.
But that is not the question we seek to answer in determining whether Mr. Williams’ use is fair. The question is, does that use affect the ability of the original author to generate a revenue stream from the infringed content? Could Mr. Carroll compile a number of his own blog posts (or even include someone else’s posts) on a particular topic into a book? Is such a My Slow Journalistic Death thing possible? Could such a Brain Dead idea possibly make any money? Would it be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress to consider such a thing? Or is it all just Cyber Ins@nity?
Hypothetically, of course. Or hypocritically, even.
It would seem reasonable to think that the owner of the material should be entitled to any revenue that could be generated, especially when considering the fact that the first copyrighted work is reproduced in toto and has no transformative character. Likewise the second work, which does have an entirely transformed character thanks to Mr. Williams’ underhanded and self-serving editing techniques. Additionally, the fact that Mr. Williams included the infringing material in books whose intent was to generate revenue would also tip the scales against him.
So again, given the hypothetical certainty of what copyrighted material Mr. Carroll is charging Mr. Williams with appropriating, a conclusion would seem reasonably easy to reach. It would seem, based on what we know, that Mr. Williams will soon be on the hook for two (or more, perhaps even hundreds more) counts of copyright infringement.
Hypothetically, of course.
A forty-three year old report (which predates Al Gore’s hypothetical invention of the internet and all the hypothetical internet copyright jurisprudence by at least two decades) puts it this way:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts [but not entire works – PK] in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages [but not entire works – PK] in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied [geez, why does this sound so familiar? – PK]; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations [but not entire works – PK], in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion [but not entire works – PK] of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work [but not entire works – PK] to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reposts; incidental or fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
So let us assume, EXTREMELY HYPOTHETICALLY, that Mr. Williams will prevail on the issue of fair use.
On second thought, let’s not. Because Mr. Williams is probably a subhuman with extensive brain damage, poor bowel control, worse manners, and absolutely zero sense of what really takes place between the “idea” of a book and the actual, successful “execution” of publishable material.
In other words, despite any protestations or disingenuous arguments to the contrary, Mr. Williams does not have a legal leg to stand on.
So let us instead consider the recourse available to the aggrieved party, Mr. Carroll.
Section 512(f) specifies:
Misrepresentations. — Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
Shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Given that Mr. Parkinson Williams suffers [he’s such a victim!! ELEVENTY!! – PK] from a neurological disorder that is worsened by the stress caused whenever he stomps his own BBs, his request for damages due to a frivolous suit would likely be laughed not just out of the courtroom but out of the entire courthouse, past the neighboring lawyer watering hole, down the street around the corner and up the hill.
The damages from once again (and repeatedly) stomping his own BBs, on the other hand, are likely to be steep indeed.
Hypothetically, of course.
Publisher’s note: This is Bill Schmalfeldt’s view. We, at The Thinking Man’s Zombie, enjoy parodying Bill Schmalfeldt by taking his words and twisting them back on his fat, stinky ass. But sometimes, God provides an epic bit of dumbassery that requires little but to change names and visual aids.
I learned this lesson a little too late. Too late for my health, too late for my reputation, just too late. But not too late to pass some advice on to my reader (Gail) and those of you imaginary and or accidental readers who are righteously outraged by the filth smeared on your computer screens by the haters, misogynists, homophobes, anal rape enthusiasts and fools. But enough about me.
What I am about to show you should make you physically ill. I hope.
Continue reading “Schmalfeldt Wants To Be ‘Shut Down,’ Not Argued With”
Would you knowingly hand a loaded pistol to a toddler?
Of course not. And you don’t need to have the reasons explained to you. You just wouldn’t.
For much the same reasons, Bill Schmalfeldt, the extremely short-termed former President of the convicted bomber/perjurer/drug dealer Brett Kimberlin Renegade Chapter of the National Blogger’s Club, Inc., should not be allowed to have a computer with access to the Internet.
I am loathe to give this troll any attention whatsoever. He’s like Martin Bashir, but without the tact. Like Alec Baldwin, but without the impulse control. Like Rachel Maddow, but without the Adam’s Apple. Like Touré, but without the racial cachét to compensate for his ignorance. Like Stephanie Miller, but without the bowel control.
What set Bill off this time?
Lee Stranahan, his wife and their dead-in-the-womb child.
Apparently, Bill doesn’t like the fact that this grief-stricken man whose daughter died in utero has different political views. And so, bullying, defamation, libel and harassment of Stranahan, his family, and anyone who rises to his defense has become Bill Schmalfeldt’s raisôn d’être.
Bill Schmalfeldt has had over 23,000 accounts on Twitter.
Now, I’m not here to make jokes about Bill’s “Creator” being the south end of a northbound crack whore, which rhymes with boar. That would be crude. And Bill loves the crude. I read somewhere recently that reading his Twitter account is like jumping face first into a brimming septic tank with your mouth open, then trying to stay under as long as you can.
Especially when he talks about women, or makes the homophobic insults that seem to be his bread and butter when insulting men.
I don’t know what can be done about additional Obamacare regulations that would require conservatives to give birth in a government hospital where they and their children could be tattooed, chipped and tracked for re-education and indoctrination.
I do know what can be done about Bill Schmalfeldt.
What do you do when you see a toddler holding a loaded gun?
You take it away from him. Unless he shoots you with it first.
Bill has the First Amendment right to express his stupidity. He can purchase a soap box, stand on a street corner, and scream at the moon if he likes. Which he does like to do. A lot.
Twitter, a private company, is not required to provide Bill with a platform to spread his hatred and harassment.
Nor is Amazon. Nor CreateSpace. Nor Lulu.com. Nor Smashwords.
Twitter, and other social media and online publishing services, should take the proper step of shutting down Bill Schmalfeldt. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives Schmalfeldt or his master, convicted bomber Brett Coleman Kimberlin (who sues to censor anyone who speaks unkindly about him at the drop of a hat), the right to have a Twitter account. Or to publish a book.
There is a sickness in the left wing of this country. We ignore it at our peril. I learned quickly that arguing with people like Schmalfeldt is pointless because they simply have no tolerance for any views but their own. Schmalfeldt is enjoying every angry Tweet he receives about this topic. I think a reasonable solution would be to put Schmalfeldt in a room with Lee Stranahan, lock the door, and open it when Schmalfeldt’s screaming and crying in terror can no longer be heard, and the coppery smell of drying blood overcomes the stink of the overflowing Depends.
Schmalfeldt is a coward, a keyboard commando.
I believe it has nothing to do with Lee Stranahan, his family or their personal medical decisions. The idea that a death in childbirth of a child in Texas is somehow newsworthy to a self-styled unemployed pretend journalist in Maryland? That’s just a symptom. Bill Schmalfeldt is a disease. And those three or four misguided, ignorant people on earth who take him seriously are the small, scurrying rodents that carry this disease from place to place.
Don’t engage him. Shun him. Deny him a platform. Ridicule him. Teach your children that Bill is always wrong. Teach the kids that people like him exist only as cautionary tales of what happens when you profess tolerance with your mouth but practice hatred, harassment and evil in your deeds.