Further to yesterday's debate about intellectual property et al, I think I may have come across the best argument yet against SOPA. If enforced, it would bring an end to works of thieving genius like this masterpiece:

If Jaws was made by Disney.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

K T Cat
Joined
Sep '10
K T Cat

That was hilarious!

Valiuth
Joined
Apr '11
Valiuth

But the real kick is when Disney make Jaws 2. That's the one where the shark joins the high school swim team..."Show me the rule that says a shark can't be on the swim team!"

Not JMR
Joined
Nov '10
Not JMR

No, this definitely qualifies as a 'transformative' work, so it would still be permissible under fair use doctrine.

Man, aren't I just the life of the party?

Edited on Jan 20 at 5:40am

Joined
Nov '11
Sandy

Your post deserves to be sent around the world and I'm about to do my share.

raycon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon
Valiuth: But the real kick is when Disney make Jaws 2. That's the one where the shark joins the high school swim team..."Show me the rule that says a shark can't be on the swim team!" · 13 minutes ago

No... Jaws 2 will be when the shark joins the law school glee club.

Who says sharks can't swim among lawyers?

James Delingpole

@notjmr That's really interesting. As you can see I'm really very ignorant of the details of this SOPA issue: it's one for geeks and lawyers and I'm neither.

But I came across this film via one of my libertarian Twitter friends who was using it as part of his argument of THINGS THAT WOULD BE BANNED IF SOPA WERE ENFORCED.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Not JMR
Joined
Nov '10
Not JMR

Actually, my legal training is limited to listening to Law Talk at 3/4 speed in order to understand what Richard Epstein is saying. In other words, take my comment with a grain of salt.

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

raycon

Valiuth: But the real kick is when Disney make Jaws 2. That's the one where the shark joins the high school swim team..."Show me the rule that says a shark can't be on the swim team!" · 13 minutes ago

No... Jaws 2 will be when the shark joins the law school glee club.

Who says sharks can't swim among lawyers? · 22 minutes ago

Gee raycon, have some mercy will you?  They are dumb animals -- it's not proper to subject  them to danger like that.

The sharks, I mean.

AmishDude
Joined
Dec '10
AmishDude

I think this classic recut trailer for The Shining is still better.  It's inspiring.

outstripp
Joined
May '10
outstripp

In the sequel, the shark will reveal what really happened at Chappaquiddick, exonerating Kennedy completely.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn
AmishDude: I think this classic recut trailer for The Shining is still better.  It's inspiring. · 5 minutes ago

Beat me to it.

Paul A. Rahe

The King Prawn

AmishDude: I think this classic recut trailer for The Shining is still better.  It's inspiring. · 5 minutes ago

Beat me to it. · 8 minutes ago

What a hoot! Both trailers!

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen
Not JMR: Actually, my legal training is limited to listening to Law Talk at 3/4 speed in order to understand what Richard Epstein is saying. In other words, take my comment with a grain of salt. · 3 hours ago

The actual Supreme Court case is based on fair use as parody- Campbell v. Acuff.

genferei
Joined
Oct '10
genferei

It's kind of annoying that many of the commentators who have a go at the anti-SOPAtistas haven't actually read the bill (which is, admittedly, drafted to avoid easy comprehension).

Here's how it might work. Some foreigner - let's call him James - has a website - let's call it jamesdelingpole.com. On this website he has some ads, sells some books. He puts up a link to some emails liberated from a warmist institution.

An academic takes exception to her compromising emails being made available so she sends a notice to Google and Amazon (and whoever) saying that James is promoting the infringement of her IP rights, viz the copyright in her emails. Google etc. send the notice on to James.

James now has a choice. If he does nothing, Google must stop providing advertising (and the related payments) to his site, and Amazon (and other payment providers) must prevent transactions with US customers from taking place. If he chooses to dispute the notice, he must consent to the jurisdiction of US courts.

The academic may also ask a US court for a temporary injunction effectively removing jamesdelingpole.com from the internet unless he removes the link.


Joined
Oct '10
Calvin Dodge

My attitude to SOPA/PIPA mirrors my attitude toward the Federal "drug war". If enforcement of a law requires outrageous actions, then it's time to end the law.

Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas

James Delingpole: @notjmr That's really interesting. As you can see I'm really very ignorant of the details of this SOPA issue: it's one for geeks and lawyers and I'm neither.

But I came across this film via one of my libertarian Twitter friends who was using it as part of his argument of THINGS THAT WOULD BE BANNED IF SOPA WERE ENFORCED.

Thank you for enlightening me. · 4 hours ago

Then your friend, like so many others, was being hysterical.

Even if SOPA passed... flawed as it was... it was not the "End of the Internet".

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay
Not JMR: Actually, my legal training is limited to listening to Law Talk at 3/4 speed in order to understand what Richard Epstein is saying. In other words, take my comment with a grain of salt. · 4 hours ago

Play it backwards for the hidden message.  Play it on 78 and see God.

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

My goodness James, this made my day.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn
genferei: It's kind of annoying that many of the commentators who have a go at the anti-SOPAtistas haven't actually read the bill (which is, admittedly, drafted to avoid easy comprehension).

What do you think of the alternate bill Rep. Issa is working on?

Roberto
Joined
Mar '11
Roberto
genferei: It's kind of annoying that many of the commentators who have a go at the anti-SOPAtistas haven't actually read the bill (which is, admittedly, drafted to avoid easy comprehension).· 2 hours ago

You appear rather sanguine on how this method could be used to suppress speech via prior restraint

"The Act would allow courts to order any Internet service to stop recognizing [a] site even on a temporary restraining order... issued the same day the complaint is filed,"

No adversary proceeding is required at all apparently if a response is not prompt enough and even then no appeal is possible, the defendant must file a separate lawsuit after the fact. A site can be taken offline for months or years depending on how long it took to resolve matters. It has already happened.

Let us not forget for a moment  that as mentioned in the letter above blocking entire domains could:

"suppress vast amounts of protected speech containing no infringing content whatsoever"

How anyone can believe this does not violate due process is impossible to comprehend.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In