Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow. To join, email foggy at thefogbow dot com.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 508
Location: Right here in front of the picture tube!
=D>
How is that for brevity.
I completely agree Justin, I think I have suffered enough dane bramage from reading entire birther original posts.

_________________
COMING SOON! Something really clever!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 24310
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
I just hope I don't get baned. On the other hand, I have never denined any request of Justin's.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


:sterngard:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:41 am 
Justin wrote:
1. First and foremost, it limits the liability of this site in terms of copyright infringement. No amount of wanting to know what Orly is rambling about today will ever trump the need for PJ's protection.


IMO, this concern is misplaced. There is zero liability for any discussion forum which responds promptly to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions, and no liability if some bozo fails to issue such a notification. While the nuisance value alone of a kooksuit may be sufficient to justify a policy like this solely on that basis, it's not like there would be any shortage of competent counsel available to swat down something like that in no time flat.

That said, I don't disagree with the policy. It maintains the readability of the site and is just in general a good idea. I also assume the policy is implemented rationally, such that someone who actually does a line by line analysis of some legal document that is actually necessary won't get it nuked. I know I made one post quoting every relevant provision of a state constitution at the time of the founding to discuss the adoption of common law, and certainly quoted more than four paragraphs, but not all at once.

The "wall o' text" mass quotation prohibition, though, is a good thing and I'm glad it's baned. I usually skip that kind of thing even if it isn't baned. I can't imagine why anyone would need to quote more than four paragraphs of typical birfing from Orly or anyone else. Birfer text is sort of like sausage. Cut a slice out of it anywhere and you pretty much know what's in there.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 3183
Occupation: Rescue Ninja
What muldy said. :-bd

_________________
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.”

― Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 3:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:27 am
Posts: 1986
Location: Southern Gondwana
And some people will post a previous post in total just to say ............ "I agree"
Regards .............Dick


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:56 am
Posts: 374
Location: I stay ova dea.
Occupation: Online game marketing and design
Justin wrote:

If a site is infected, perhaps it's better not to visit that site at all. I'll reiterate the reasons for the posting guidelines here, though they're stated pretty well in the actual thread that details them.



How about a solution? If one can print a PDF version or take an image cap of the page and upload it to a file sharing site then that will solve the "don't post the entire page content" and those who are afraid of visiting malware hacked sites.

CutePDF offers freeware software that will print anything to PDF
Fastone Capture (even Google Chrome has a plugin) can do scrolling image captures of a web page


that way, one can still post a limited content, and link to where they can download the PDF (exampe Scribd) or the image (exampe imageshack) without going overboard on the policy and worrying about others (and being subjected to trojans)

_________________
If money is the root of all evil, why do churches constantly ask for it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 4:19 am 
DeeLite wrote:
How about a solution?


But I kind of like Justin's solution. Just don't quote lots of gibbering idiocy from birfers (or for that matter anyone else). People who want to see all that stuff can go where it is, and if where it is happens to be something like Orly's malware-infested site, they should avoid it anyway. Any other thing that people want to see, they can click on without fear.

If they don't want to see it, though, well, jeez. Four paragraphs is entirely enough to suffer from.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:56 am
Posts: 374
Location: I stay ova dea.
Occupation: Online game marketing and design
muldrake wrote:
DeeLite wrote:
How about a solution?


But I kind of like Justin's solution. Just don't quote lots of gibbering idiocy from birfers (or for that matter anyone else). People who want to see all that stuff can go where it is, and if where it is happens to be something like Orly's malware-infested site, they should avoid it anyway. Any other thing that people want to see, they can click on without fear.

If they don't want to see it, though, well, jeez. Four paragraphs is entirely enough to suffer from.


that's why I suggested that we keep to the request of only the paragraphs or sentences that pertain to the topic, and offer a link or "cap" of the page or site (should it be a hacked site with malware problems) if someone wants to torture themselves to see it in context

Hey, I'm all for discussion, but EVEN we can misconstrue or even get the wrong idea about a post, even on birther sites. Sometimes context is needed.

_________________
If money is the root of all evil, why do churches constantly ask for it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: DMCA
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:37 am 
muldrake wrote:
There is zero liability for any discussion forum which responds promptly to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions


AFAIK, in order to be protected under the DMCA, Politijab would have to, among other things: (1) form a corporation or other limited liability entity to operate this website and (2) register an agent with the US Copyright Office. See http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/. AFAIK, Politijab has done neither. These are only two of the requirements for protection under the DMCA--there are more. See "Eligibility for Limitations Generally" and "Limitations for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf . Furthermore, the DMCA does not stop you from being sued in the first place and being forced to defend yourself and prove that you complied with all of the requirements for protection, and it further AFAIK only provides protection for claims made in the USA. If you believe any of the above statements are incorrect, please identify the incorrect statements and cite your authorities.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: DMCA
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 4:44 pm 
alan wrote:
muldrake wrote:
There is zero liability for any discussion forum which responds promptly to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions


AFAIK, in order to be protected under the DMCA, Politijab would have to, among other things: (1) form a corporation or other limited liability entity to operate this website and (2) register an agent with the US Copyright Office. See http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/. AFAIK, Politijab has done neither. These are only two of the requirements for protection under the DMCA--there are more. See "Eligibility for Limitations Generally" and "Limitations for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf . Furthermore, the DMCA does not stop you from being sued in the first place and being forced to defend yourself and prove that you complied with all of the requirements for protection, and it further AFAIK only provides protection for claims made in the USA. If you believe any of the above statements are incorrect, please identify the incorrect statements and cite your authorities.


I don't see anything in the text of the statute that says it only protects corporations. If you have any support for that, I'd be glad to see it.

The statute is also peppered liberally with phrases like "complies substantially" and "substantially the following," and other language indicating fairly clearly the statute is intended to be construed liberally to accomplish its purpose and not to be full of "gotchas." This kind of drafting is intended to convey how courts should apply the law.

I imagine if the issue were ever litigated, the phrase "Internet Service Provider" would be interpreted as liberally as the similar language in Section 230 of the CDA; that is, any third party who is not the originator of the material.

Similarly, just as courts have treated claims based on technicalities about allegedly defective DMCA notifications with disdain, I doubt they're going to treat a litigant well who sues without any attempt whatsoever to notify first, on a website where it's very easy to determine the responsible party. Complying with formalities would be nice, and if Justin is actually very concerned about copyright liability, he should probably at least put a notification on the front page as to where such notifications should be sent, and if he's very, very concerned, actually register someone as an agent with the Copyright Office.

Finally, if a case did survive anyway, the four paragraph rule really isn't going to offer much protection, because four paragraphs could easily be the core of a brief but still copyrighted work. I suppose it would be evidence of a lack of intent to assist in copyright infringement.

Not that I'm really interested in a lengthy debate about the issue, though I'd be interested in your basis for the claim that you have to be a corporation to qualify as an "Internet Service Provider." I also wonder why you think a court would disregard the language in the statute itself which fairly clearly prescribes a substantial compliance standard rather than a hyper-formal list of absolute requirements.

I don't have any authorities other than the statute itself, since as far as I know, nobody has ever based a claim of copyright liability on your theory of the statute and how it should be applied.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: DMCA
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 5:44 pm 
Either you designated an agent or you didn't, and if you didn't, you get no protection from the DMCA. See page 12 at http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/201 ... re_tro.pdf . I see no practical way for a small group of individuals who jointly operate a website to designate an agent with the Copyright Office without forming some sort of organization. It is certainly possible that the organization could be a non-limited liability organization, such as a partnership where every partner has unlimited liability for any action taken by one of the other partners, but no one in their right mind would do that.

AFAIKS, the word "substantially" is used only in conjunction with the contents of notices. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 . That would not suggest the requirements I cited above (none of which involved notification) should be liberally construed. Specifically with respect to the contents of your agent designation, the Copyright Office has other ideas about that, and will not accept an agent designation that is in less than complete compliance. Try it sometime and you will see. Furthermore, if you think you are going to go into court and litigate the issue of whether you substantially complied with a law, when you easily could have been in complete compliance, then you clearly have never been involved in litigation.

The basic point however is that contrary to what you said, an online forum does not get automatic protection from the DMCA. It can get protection, but only if it carefully reads and follows the law.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: DMCA
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:33 pm 
alan wrote:
The basic point however is that contrary to what you said, an online forum does not get automatic protection from the DMCA. It can get protection, but only if it carefully reads and follows the law.


Whether the Copyright Office accepts a particular filing isn't the same question as whether or not someone has actually been notified of something and complied with it. People end up "online service providers" sometimes without even knowing it. If someone like that, for instance a blogger with an open comment section got a notification because of a comment and complied with it, they'd be very unlikely to be found liable, with or without the DMCA. Even not being shielded by the DMCA doesn't mean someone has a copyright claim against you. You still have to be vicariously or contributorily infringing.

In any case, my basic point is that the four paragraph rule would be a poor protection for copyright issues, but that it's a great protection for saving my eyeballs and IQ points, so I like it. If copyright is the concern, though, it would be a good idea to use the DMCA rather than a four paragraph rule.

As to whether you need to be a corporation to file as a registered agent, that's just not true. There are plenty of people who are not corporations, who have filed as their own name, in an individual capacity, and act as their own agents.

Here's one example: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/w/wintin.pdf
Here's another: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/j/jnsouves.pdf

Even without these issues, though, a case of the sort the site is most likely to face isn't even going to turn on complex statutory construction and similar arcana. If anyone files a lawsuit, it will likely be a total nutjob who will not be deterred even by a rock-solid DMCA defense based on golden tablets bearing a designated agent's name on the front wall of the Copyright Office, but will probably be incapable of making out even the simplest claim of anything. The nuisance will just be dealing with the idiot.

While obviously if someone is going to bother designating an agent at all, one should comply with all the formalities just because it's no more difficult to do it correctly than it is to screw it up. However, it is highly unlikely that a person who complies with a takedown letter even without the DMCA will be found liable for contributory or vicarious infringement. All losing the DMCA safe harbor does is put you where you'd have been before the DMCA existed. Even then, a court would have taken a very dim view of someone who sued a third party for infringement without even attempting to notify them.

If we actually want to talk more about my prediction that a court faced with this question would take a very expansive view of the safe harbor, especially with a defendant who had acted in good faith, or would disregard the safe harbor entirely and simply rule that such conduct would probably have defeated liability even pre-DMCA, we should probably start another thread.

If you just want a last word before we terminate the threadjack, I don't mind and promise not to reply again.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 3889
Location: Kailua, HI (home) Honolulu, HI (work)
Occupation: Development Director for The Arc in Hawaii (non-profit supporting adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities)
I agree with the 4 paragraph rule and Justin's reasoning for it. That said, I've noticed on the Birthright Citizenship thread that MichaelN is now posting roughly 4 paragraphs of cut and paste followed by
another huge amount of cut and paste hidden inside one of these.

Isn't this also a violation of the 4 paragraph rule?

_________________
"This leap...is where counsel entered the thicket of legal frivolity."
Judge Clay D. Land - Oct. 13, 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: DMCA
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 7:12 am 
muldrake wrote:
If you just want a last word before we terminate the threadjack, I don't mind and promise not to reply again.


OK, here's the final word. You said:

muldrake wrote:
There is zero liability for any discussion forum which responds promptly to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions


That is categorically wrong, since the DMCA affords no protection to any forum, including Politijab, that has not complied with the requirements of the DMCA, including the requirement to designate an agent with the US Copyright Office.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 9039
Location: USA
Occupation: Otherwise occupied
Speaking of Internet Powerhouse Outhouse Andy Martin....

Did he hold his press conference on the sidewalks of New York?

_________________
Reality Check Radio
RC Radio Blog

"The ultimate authority on the validity of a government issued document is the government that issued it." - Foggy, January 29, 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
Reality Check wrote:
Speaking of Internet Powerhouse Outhouse Andy Martin....

Did he hold his press conference on the sidewalks of New York?


Here's what I know -- maybe others can supply more info.

The presser was scheduled for 2PM. At 2:30 he posted this:
Quote:
2010-05-26 20:31:15 - BULLETIN: Andy Martin

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:01 am
Posts: 23544
Location: Planet Earth (most the time)
Occupation: I'm not at liberty to say.
So, the regular routine.

_________________
Yes We Can! ~ Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 11:24 am 
I haven't seen anything more from Andy Martin. Maybe he'll reappear in DC for the Lakin hearing.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
There's a new post repeating the same Internet Powerhouse story at the Demonrat Times:


Quote:
Legal scholar and Obama author/film producer Andy Martin today presented the U. S. Army with a simple and direct explanation of why Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as President, and why Lt. Col. Terry Lakin lacks criminal intent in challenging Obama

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
...and it appears that a commenter there has left an interesting opening that someone might like to follow up...

Quote:
Written by RW&B about 37 minutes ago.

This is great news!

Are there any photos of the news conference? How many attended? Are we finally going to see some coverage in the lamestream media?

Keep up the good work!


:- :-

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 6:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 8037
Location: HQ Email/Website Hacking Dept, located in the basement of a Liberal-Socialist-Swine Ivory Tower
Occupation: College Instructor; Psychologist
June bug wrote:
I agree with the 4 paragraph rule and Justin's reasoning for it. That said, I've noticed on the Birthright Citizenship thread that MichaelN is now posting roughly 4 paragraphs of cut and paste followed by
another huge amount of cut and paste hidden inside one of these.

Isn't this also a violation of the 4 paragraph rule?


MichaelN just surrendered, so I think we are ok.

_________________
"I have a Ph.D in horribleness."Dr. Horrible of the Evil League of Evil
"The birthers are particularly good at puting two and two together and coming up with aardvark."Pat Gund


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 5:45 pm 
nycpeter wrote:
Anthony R. Martin-Trigona wrote:
But birther sentiments are extremely strong across the south and west, where the bulk of the Army comes from. Thus, I would tread cautiously in wading into the birther brouhaha generated by Colonel Lakin. Making fun of the beliefs of families who provide the bulk of your soldiers is not a good idea.

Source: Inside-PR, http://www.pr-inside.com/barack-obama-i ... 915462.htm


Birther sentiments are much less strong than utter contempt for deserters. While soldiers tend to be conservative, they also tend to be pragmatists. I think they have a lot more sense than this worthless worm gives them credit for having.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Posts: 2615
New (sorta) docket entry:

Quote:
0000005 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (HRCP 12B6) (HRG 7/20/10 @ 10:00AM BEFORE J/TRADER) 06/02/2010

_________________
"The best thing you can possibly do with your life is to tackle the mother****ing s**t out of it.”
“What’s important is that you make the leap. Jump high and hard with intention and heart. Pay no mind to the vision that the commission made up. It’s up to you to make your life. Take what you have and stack it up like a tower of teetering blocks. Build your dream around that.”
― Cheryl Strayed, Tiny Beautiful Things.

~myblog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Posts: 2615
New docket entry

Quote:
DSM DEFTS' M/DISMISS (J. MOLAY) GRT


In other words: DISMISSED.

Edit: Modified title to make clear which case this is.

_________________
"The best thing you can possibly do with your life is to tackle the mother****ing s**t out of it.”
“What’s important is that you make the leap. Jump high and hard with intention and heart. Pay no mind to the vision that the commission made up. It’s up to you to make your life. Take what you have and stack it up like a tower of teetering blocks. Build your dream around that.”
― Cheryl Strayed, Tiny Beautiful Things.

~myblog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 26499
Tes wrote:
New docket entry

Quote:
DSM DEFTS' M/DISMISS (J. MOLAY) GRT


In other words: DISMISSED.


Really nothing new or surprising, but I'm lost. :lol:

Which case is this?

Thanks.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 3 Image x 21


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group