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 byyfsH qcastle-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.
Today’s coin flip apparently came up tails, so no lawsuit today!
Tomorrow is another day.
It reminded me of something I wrote back when he was having issues with copyright ownership of the first post on this blog.
It had been a comment but grew too long. I put it aside and by the time I came back to it the moment had passed. But Bill’s strange letter to Flynn deserves a response. So here it is, after the jump: Continue reading “An Open Letter to Bill Schmalfeldt”
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die.
I only hope you purchased 10,000 copies to actually read about my repeated butthurt over the epic pwnage I have suffered at the hands of legitimate copyright owners. But, if like in the past, the book is being purchased by people who will go through it page by page looking for reasons to get it thrown off the bookshelves (what am I saying? Only REAL, PRINTED books sit on bookshelves! My puny little cyberfile never will. I can’t afford the expense of writing a real book, I’m ridiculously indigent, and I hope the judge notices) like they did with my previous books, a little something to keep in mind:
It costs me nothing to publish these books. A fine reflection of their actual worth, when you think about it.
This book costs you $00.10. Even if, as in the past, as in the present, as in the future, you find reasons to take the book off the
shelves hard drive and induce another case of EPIC butthurt, I will just remove the one violation you note, save the manuscript under a new cover with all the other violations intact, and upload it again. For nothing.
In both a financial and existential sense.
Meanwhile, when you purchase the book for no other reason than to induce this man of the cloth to fill that cloth with fear pee, bigs and butthurt, and as a side benefit to boot it from the
shelves hard drive, you’ve spent 10¢, put 4¢ in my pocket, and if it gets pulled from the shelf computer I’ll just have it back up there in a couple days.
And believe me, there are always more Depends.
And round and round we go until you complain about each and every violation, and the 767th version is just a 64 word pamphlet not worth the electrons it takes to store it. And the used Depends mount to the roof of the trailer like a snowdrift of Big Business. Because I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to play puhrtend awther and do the hard stuff it takes to actually write a good book – like, actually write something.
No one is accusing me of being intelligent. But if hundreds, perhaps thousands of legitimate copyright owners really want to give me pennies to NOT publish a book (oh, and don’t forget the desperate and incurable INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EPIC HEMORRHOIDAL BUTTHURT, which I secretly enjoy, and isn’t THAT pretty strange for guy who spends all his time on his ass to begin with) – why don’t we just cut out the middle man? Just give your money to my sekrit benefactor now and save yourself the effort of filing a thousand copyright claims. In fact, how about this: since I only make 4¢ a book, why not donate a nickel to the tip jar for every 5 days I stay offline? It’s what you really want anyway, and look, I finally found a way to monetize something everyone wants me to do anyway!
Doesn’t that make good sense?
Unless it really is all about the butthurt (mmmm…I do love the butt stuff!), in which case, rock on.