October 8, 2010

A copyright primer for hypocrites

For all the same local conservative wing-nuts accusing Senator Russ Feingold of "running an illegal ad" and who on practically a daily basis copy and paste large swaths of text from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel into their blog posts,* consider the following:
Everything on or used in connection with our Websites, including but not limited to text, images, graphics, logos, audio and video content, software (collectively, "Content") ... is owned by us and/or our affiliates, subsidiaries, licensors or suppliers. This means that you cannot use the Content without our permission.

You may only use the Content online for purposes of visiting and using our websites,** and only for your personal, non-commercial use. This means that you may not download any of our Content, give copies to your friends, display the Content publicly, or charge anything for it.
That appears no less unequivocal than the NFL's celebrated warning.

So how exactly are you any different from Russ Feingold?

* A compelling argument has been made that these are exempt from Article I's "useful Arts" and therefore beyond the ambit of Congress.

** a.k.a., "extensive political blogging."


Jay Bullock said...

You're going to make their heads explode. And I pity whoever has to clean up The Mess That Was Once (Mary Eden/ Patrick D/ Fred Dooley)'s Head.

Rick Esenberg said...

I don't think anyone is going to explode. It sort of depends what is done but fair use for the purpose of commentary and criticism is a well known exception to the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Just reading the website doesn't answet the question. I am sorry that the law is inconvenient, but copping the NFL footage is really problematic.

illusory tenant said...

No more or less than the intentional copyright violation committed above. The only difference is, Journal Communications, Inc.'s deputy general counsel couldn't be bothered coming after me.