Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The best argument ever for intellectual property theft….
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:
Published in General
That was hilarious!
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!”
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?
Your post deserves to be sent around the world and I’m about to do my share.
No… Jaws 2 will be when the shark joins the law school glee club.
Who says sharks can’t swim among lawyers?
@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.
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.
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.
I think this classic recut trailer for The Shining is still better. It’s inspiring.
In the sequel, the shark will reveal what really happened at Chappaquiddick, exonerating Kennedy completely.
Beat me to it.
What a hoot! Both trailers!
The actual Supreme Court case is based on fair use as parody- Campbell v. Acuff.
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.
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.
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”.
Play it backwards for the hidden message. Play it on 78 and see God.
My goodness James, this made my day.
You appear rather sanguine on how this method could be used to suppress speech via prior restraint:
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:
How anyone can believe this does not violate due process is impossible to comprehend.
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. ·3 hours ago
Eeek! For some reason your random example scares me.
Actually, I am pretty sure this resembles Jaws as it would be produced if the current iteration of Steven Spielberg were in charge.
What do you think of the alternate bill Rep. Issa is working on?