Article

2010-07-23

Good morning

Posted by Fred 2010-07-23 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11125 views ] Top

#1 Happy Birthday/Daily Gam Shot

Charisma Carpenter aka Cordelia Chase in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (age 40)

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2010-07-23 00:25|| 2010-07-23 00:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Copyright trolls - coming to a blog near you.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-23 00:37|| 2010-07-23 00:37|| Front Page Top

#3 Note: Trolls comment does not apply to Charisma, above. :-P

Posted by gorb 2010-07-23 00:59|| 2010-07-23 00:59|| Front Page Top

#4 all the more reason, Gorb, to use only part of the article, with mocking snark inlines (i.e.: fair use)

Posted by Frank G 2010-07-23 07:29|| 2010-07-23 07:29|| Front Page Top

#5 Gorb: thanks for pointing out that article. I'll bring it to the attention of Fred and the other mods.

Posted by Steve White 2010-07-23 07:53|| 2010-07-23 07:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Charisma is one of the most accurately-named people in the world.

Posted by Mike 2010-07-23 08:29|| 2010-07-23 08:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Cordelia was one of my favorite TV characters of all time.

Posted by lord garth 2010-07-23 09:04|| 2010-07-23 09:04|| Front Page Top

#8 I saw another reference to Righthaven on another blog last night. It's a more finely tuned instrument of oppression than most of the proposals we've seen in the past year and a half. The blogger I read had already shut down his other blog.

Rantburg would have to do the same. I don't have the money for a lawsuit, not even for a "settlement." But all of our first amendment rights would be stomped flat, wouldn't they?

But surely that couldn't be the original intention?

Posted by Fred 2010-07-23 09:15|| 2010-07-23 09:15|| Front Page Top

#9 The word "lawfare" comes to mind.

As did my statement a month ago that the mismanagement of the country is basically the conduct of war by other means.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-07-23 09:27|| 2010-07-23 09:27|| Front Page Top

#10 So much for fair use. When you cannot even afford to defend yourself anymore.

Lawfare is right.

However I think for user-posted content they have to send you a takedown notice first right? But if you cannot afford to even appear in court...

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-07-23 09:59|| 2010-07-23 09:59|| Front Page Top

#11 That's they key, isn't it? The standard demand is for $75K in "damages." They've been settling for $1500 to $3000, which is about what it takes to hire a lawyer but much less than it takes to defend.

Posted by Fred 2010-07-23 10:10|| 2010-07-23 10:10|| Front Page Top

#12 Sic a dog on a dog. Media wants to be paid for the news. Fine. Get another lawyer to represent a class action suit demonstrating the 'media' fails to pay original sources for information. What few payments are made are an exception rather than practice. By connivance and ignorance of the victims, they steal the information and then resale it. Even under FOIA, inquires must reimburse the government for the work done to provide information. No need to pass new tax legislation, just charge the media for 'public information'. Republication of public releases should require a royalty payment. This can be played on both sides.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-07-23 10:19|| 2010-07-23 10:19|| Front Page Top

#13 This tidbit was recently posted on Instapundit:

UPDATE: Reader Joseph Dorsett writes:

The main way that Righthaven can be finding these blogs is through analyzing traffic sources. The solution for that is to not use any media generated by Stephens Media. No links at all. No links to AP generated content either. There is so much material on the web that there is no need to link (and send traffic) to any organization inimical to the blogosphere.

Clearly these people have no idea on how consumers find their website and how traffic affects their ad revenue. As circulation of Dead Tree News declines it will be interesting to see if rags like The Review-Journal survive by biting the hand that feeds it.

Yeah, dont look for me to send em much traffic in the future.

The easy solution: no links to AP. Easy enough!

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2010-07-23 11:15|| 2010-07-23 11:15|| Front Page Top

#14 It might not be a bad idea to come up with a RB-approved methodology and have the link posted in a conspicuous place. It probably wouldn't stop a copyright troll from going after you for the money, but maybe it would help.

Another idea is that you just have a list of links, sort of like Drudge. When you click on the link, you get the original article come up in a popup, plus the usual text copy of it that is properly snarked. From my Holiday-Inn perspective, that should give any copyright troll pause for thought. The news source gets their hit including all the advertisements, link-opportunities and eye candy, and you get to blast away with your finely-tuned, well-deserved snark.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-23 11:23|| 2010-07-23 11:23|| Front Page Top

#15 I don't link to AP. If it's an AP story, get the gist of it, google it, and pull it from somewhere else.
As far as Stephens Media, outside of the Vegas rag, they appear to specialize in local boony papers that, besides the locals, no one would probably be interested in reading.

Posted by tu3031 2010-07-23 11:28|| 2010-07-23 11:28|| Front Page Top

#16 A very good point, Scooter. We haven't been quoting AP articles in any length for a while now, perhaps we should not even link them. That hurts the Burg some; one of our several strengths is that you can always hit the link and get the original story. But if Righthaven and the AP want to play this game, fine, we can turn to alternative sources and never link the AP or the others again.

Posted by Steve White 2010-07-23 11:30|| 2010-07-23 11:30|| Front Page Top

#17 When you click on the link, you get the original article come up in a popup,

There you go. And remember dear readers, that popup will be a 10 x 10 window that appears under your browser window. And no fair turning 'on' your pop-up blocker ...

Posted by Steve White 2010-07-23 11:33|| 2010-07-23 11:33|| Front Page Top

#18 And of course there is nothing to stop this slimy bastard from knowingly posting copyrighted content and then turning around and suing for you for it.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-07-23 11:58|| 2010-07-23 11:58|| Front Page Top

#19 And no fair turning 'on' your pop-up blocker ...

Yeah, that would be a shame if people turned on their blocker, wouldn't it. I guess Fred can't control my popup blocker settings now, could he?

Posted by gorb 2010-07-23 11:59|| 2010-07-23 11:59|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm a little late to this game, but I thought there was a ruling that since computers, especially at a place of business, are not in total control at all times by an individual then IP addresses do not count as a legal form of identification? I understand that operating a web page is a bit more concrete an identity, but how can that be that someone goes and steals a car, parks it on the road in front of my house, I would be charged with the crime?

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-07-23 12:37|| 2010-07-23 12:37|| Front Page Top

#21 how can that be that someone goes and steals a car, parks it on the road in front of my house, I would be charged with the crime?

I don't believe the individual is targeted by the lawyers. The lawyers would go after the blog owner.

Sort of a cat/meat thingy, I guess.

Seems to me a couple of years back that our wonderful Congress tried to pass legislation requiring everyone to encrypt their wireless routers. I guess there is a good side to having people being able to hack into your network after all.

Of course, as a precaution, when I'm on RB I always have the curtains open so I can watch the street out in front of my house for suspicious vehicles, and I have a few IEDs buried under the curb and my shotgun by my side. After a few "incidents" they stopped bothering me.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-23 12:49|| 2010-07-23 12:49|| Front Page Top

#22 I could simply dump pages 4 and 6 and exclude any domestic news sources. AFP and Reuters have both had their own AP moments in the past nine years.

Posted by Fred 2010-07-23 13:05|| 2010-07-23 13:05|| Front Page Top

#23 Or I could keep pages 4 and 6 and still exclude any domestic news sources.

Posted by Fred 2010-07-23 13:06|| 2010-07-23 13:06|| Front Page Top

#24 Actually swksvolFF, It isn't even stealing since the original is still there. There is a vast difference.

I've always wondered if you could counter-sue for directing traffic to their site (uncompensated).

Plus, at least in the Burg's case - the content is either edited down and/or snarked - which would qualify it for Fair Use (right? I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, or ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express...). Its the linking to the article directly that gets their goat....

Perhaps route all links through tinyurl....

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-07-23 13:08|| 2010-07-23 13:08|| Front Page Top

#25 The problem is that even if you're sued for frivolous reasons you've got to defend yourself, otherwise the sewer gets a default judgment. That costs money.

I make the same amount today I made in 2001, when I started the Burg. It costs a lot more to live today than it did ten years ago.

Posted by Fred 2010-07-23 13:28|| 2010-07-23 13:28|| Front Page Top

#26 Don't be afraid to defend yourself. You don't even need a lawyer if the case is sufficiently frivolous. Remember, it costs them to sue as well. Judges don't like having their time wasted, and lawyers know that. In my experience many people will threaten to sue you, but very few actually will. Also realize that American lawyers are typically required to do a certain percentage of "pro bono" (free) work. More info is here: http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/directory.html

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2010-07-23 14:01|| 2010-07-23 14:01|| Front Page Top

#27 Its the linking to the article directly that gets their goat....

I would think that they would want people to link straight to the article so they get an opportunity to make money from click-throughs and other advertisements. If you just copy the article and comment all over it in a location removed from their own article, then they don't get their opportunity and hence the opportunity for a lawsuit.

I don't think they would consider to be "stealing their bandwidth" when you click on a link to them, if that is your concern, since they have achieved their goal of just getting people to view their page in all its glory directly so they have the opportunity to make money.

My thought for the Burg would be to pop up the original article in a new browser and to have the text copy in the original browser that is properly commented. That way they have their chance to make money, and you have chance to very pointedly parse and comment on their article, instead of just being able to comment about generalities in the article.

I've always wondered if you could counter-sue for directing traffic to their site (uncompensated).

I would think that this means you just volunteered to help them make some money. You would need a contract with them if you wanted a cut of this action for yourself.

Posted by gorb 2010-07-23 14:17|| 2010-07-23 14:17|| Front Page Top

#28 All the Latin American news I post I rewrite, and therefore, unencumbered.

I could get our Latin American stories from AP, rewrite it and then post it as our own, except they are sooo slow.

Posted by badanov 2010-07-23 16:46|| 2010-07-23 16:46|| Front Page Top

#29 There are some comments regarding suing bloggers here: Suing bloggers

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-23 17:30|| 2010-07-23 17:30|| Front Page Top

#30 I'd agree with gorb - it seems to me that there would be no problem with a simple link, that's how they get eyeballs. The problem is excerpting enough content that people don't click the link.

The titles of books aren't copyrightable. I'm not sure about article titles. Watching Drudge, he doesn't seem to worry about copying the titles. He also doesn't seem to link to AP much - I'll start looking for that.

The idea of the pop up - I doubt it would solve the problem. How about coding up a pseudofisk where the article would appear with the interleaved snark, as now, but could be switched off for review. The actual post would be just the snark. We'd have to learn a new commenting style, but it would be all Rantburg.

In that case, it would be helpful if the posting window was a bit taller.

Posted by KBK 2010-07-23 17:43|| 2010-07-23 17:43|| Front Page Top

#31 Nice link, KBK.

Thanks.

Posted by badanov 2010-07-23 18:00|| 2010-07-23 18:00|| Front Page Top

23:13 Swamp Blondie
23:03 Old Patriot
22:57 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, Alaska
22:53 Frank G
22:44 Nimble Spemble
22:34 gorb
22:33 anymouse
22:31 gorb
22:29 gorb
22:02 rjschwarz
21:25 eLarson
21:14 Barbara Skolaut
21:10 Barbara Skolaut
21:08 lotp
21:08 Pappy
20:56 phil_b
20:46 bigjim-CA
20:42 tu3031
20:36 bigjim-CA
20:32 tu3031
20:26 whitecollar redneck
20:15 Play4Keeps
20:14 gorb
20:13 gorb