Any flagging system that assumes guilty-until-proven-innocent with no transparent appeals process is BROKEN and ABUSIVE.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Any flagging system that assumes guilty-until-proven-innocent with no transparent appeals process is BROKEN and ABUSIVE.
The super sleuths are out hot on the trial of these criminal masterminds who took out all these lefties ability to reign free stealing feeds infringing upon copyrights to line their own pockets. Headlines are screaming across the globe in search of these criminals as lefties heads explode and bang against the walls endlessly during the night. How dare anyone perpetrate such illegals actions to stop them from engaging in their own illegal actions. I think once these dastardly bsterds are found that a call for impeachment is in order.
You can legally record a broadcast TV program on a recording device such as a Video Cassette Recorder, Digital Video Recorder or computer for your personal use.
Recording programming for later viewing is called "Time Shifting" and is a legally supported act.
You can view the recorded content as many times as you want, you can make additional copies of the recorded content and you can distribute copies of the content to other people in person.
Educational uses of recorded TV content receive additional protection. It is legal to record a TV program and play it for a class.
You can also edit and parody the recorded content as long as the new version adds new value (insight, understanding, aesthetics) to the original.
For example, you can parody a music video by changing the audio track to a different song that sarcastically relates to the video's imagery.
You also can edit an episode of a TV show to show specific lines a character says to demonstrate that character's attitude toward a topic.
SOURCE LINK
I know all that. What you can't do is link into someone else's live feed to make money, nor can they record it to make money off it later....same rules as your own home based recording rules. This isn't the first time he's been warned about linking into others feeds, he complained he was unjustly targeted by CSPAN for linking into their feed, he figured CSPAN as a public non profit entity entitled him to do such. Well non profits have to make a buck to keep their non profit running so they didn't take kindly to him linking into their feed. They copyright to the material so they can sell the rights of broadcast to others, they don't profit off the money they use the money to buy their own broadcast time, pay for equipment and personnel to enable them to broadcast that which they think is important for the general benefit of public good....there's nothing stopping Pakman from going there and setting up his own live feed but he feels compelled to find ways to profit off the backs of someone else's hard work for his own gain.
Writers, academics, and journalists frequently need to borrow the words of others. Sooner or later, almost all writers quote or closely paraphrase material that someone else has written. For example:
Andy, putting together a newsletter on his home computer, reprints an editorial he likes from a daily newspaper.
Phil, a biographer and historian, quotes from several unpublished letters and diaries written by his subject.
Regina, a freelance writer, closely paraphrases two paragraphs from the Encyclopedia Britannica in an article she's writing.
Sylvia, a poet, quotes a line from a poem by T.S. Eliot, by way of homage, in one of her own poems.
Donnie, a comedian, writes a parody of a famous song that he performs in his comedy act.
Assuming the material quoted in these examples is protected by copyright, do Andy, Phil, Regina, Sylvia, or Donnie need permission from the author or other copyright owner to use it? It may surprise you to learn that the answer is "not necessarily."
Under the "fair use" defense, another author may make limited use of the original author's work without asking permission. Pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 107, certain uses of copyrighted material "for purposes such as...
criticism, comment, news reporting,
...teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
As a matter of policy, fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights. If you write or publish, you need a basic understanding of what does and does not constitute fair use.
SOURCE LINK
Tag @steemcleaners
As a blogger I am well versed in "fair use doctrine" as each site you post and blog on have varying rules for posting. Some only allow excerpts of news articles while others allow the display of the entire new article. I have yet to see any news organization go after a site for posting an article in it's entirety. One reason may be these sites don't use the materials to profit off and they drive traffic to the news site that people ordinarily wouldn't go check out so they serve as a free advertising vector that would otherwise cost news organizations millions in promoting their brand.
They tend to use capricious and tyrannical enforcement. Positive reviews tend to be ignored, but negative reviews are often hit with the ban-hammer.
This results in rampant hypocrisy.
Two people can post identical content with different commentary and one will be allowed to profit while the other faces obscene threats of litigation.
....and ps: all the sites require the posting of the articles link of origin.
Other news outlets use CSPAN footage ALL THE TIME.
Also, CSPAN doesn't "need to make money" because they're wholly sponsored by TED TURNER.
CSPAN's entire mission is to "make the daily function of government available to the public".
If ALL streaming commentary of the debate livestream was COPYRIGHT FLAGGED, then @davidpakman couldn't be considered "singled-out" or "unjustly-targeted", HOWeveR, that does not appear to be the case.
And when you consider that a 3rd party, unaffiliated with the copyright holder was able to "flag" and successfully block the program, there appears to be a major flaw in this "guilty-until-proven-innocent" PRO-CENSORSHIP environment.
Not only are these brainwashed slaves "accepting" the "morality" (MOBSTER ETHICS) of their corporate owners, they've inculcated these corporate values so deeply into their psyche that they now act as UNPAID agents (vigilantes) "enforcing" fundamentally immoral "rules" (originally designed to protect INDIVIDUALS).
How that works is they pay a royalty to use it if they want unfettered access other than what's allowed under the fair use doctrine.
Don't think I didn't go look all this up before writing my opinion when he was making his allegations, if I remember right he was linking into CNN's link at a covered CSPAN event, CNN sent him the warning to cease and desist. His argument was he had a right because it was a public event that everyone has access to because it was a open public forum, a host of different corporations fund CSPAN, whether CNN is one of those corporations or pays a royalty for certain events I do not know but it is not free to hook into CSPANS link.
Like I stated there is nothing stopping Pakman from going to these "public" functions of government and setting up his own link for free but he chooses to steal access to the events instead.
If you look it up Twitch has said they have been served numerous times from different entities about copyright infringe, it's something they struggle with keeping up with, once served with notice Twitch has to take down the offender legally. Twitch did not receive any notices of such from any that were served with the fake notices, meaning the entity who held the right did not notify Twitch of any violations. Apparently some pranksters decided to do that which Pakman feels totally comfortable doing and somehow hacked into the system and sent their own notices of violations. It's actually pretty funny considering...but of course not to the lefties whose heads were left exploding as we all know those guilty of such a travesty against those busy bodies engaged in their own illegal activity must be hunted down and given a sentence that'd make Roger Stone feel blessed while all the while the underlying illegal offending criminals must be sympathized with. After all they can't have any snowflakes totally dissipating before they make it to the election booth in November. Pakman evidently thinks he is covered under the fair use doctrine of use because he uses the broadcast in a different type of forum, that being adding commentary content while the broadcast is happening, that may be so but he isn't allowed to profit off it as he stated he is doing...then still hosting the show in it's entirety is also a debatable grey area even if not done for profit, it's just if whoever pays for the rights of broadcast wants to go after the offenders or not, sometimes this isn't always done going after the offenders via giving notice and warning to the web hosting site but rather by direct means of civil litigation.
This is just the nature of how capitalism works, you invest your money for a expected rate of return. These news/television conglomerates don't pay millions of dollars for the right to broadcast if they didn't think they could make their money back, as such when it comes to news organizations other news outlets pay a scheduled fee for access of use, and/or a one time diem for usage of the material, that's how they make their money....every time a Pakman comes by it cuts a little chunk of their income away until all the little chunk stealers start adding up into major losses. People of this mentality are no different than shoplifters who go into the stores and steal. The losses start adding up then it passed off onto the consumers, it's no different in television land.
Yeah I'd say there some major flaws involved I am just not confident that one dastardly deed was worthy of more criticism or scrutiny than the other. At a minimum one offender was after a few comedic laughs jokes on you....the other one actually ended up costing people money.
....or it could just be as simple as people don't want to pay more for those who feel compelled to steal.
Legality of Usage (per Public domain)
All video...
...from within the chambers of the United States Congress is exclusively filmed by C-SPAN. C-SPAN's copyright policy states, in part, "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution." Therefore this video is in the public domain as a US Government work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSPAN
Copyright & Licensing
All inquiries must be made online.
Please carefully read all of the following information before proceeding.Under C-SPAN's copyright policy a license is generally not required to post a recording of C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video. However, simultaneous streaming or retransmission of the C-SPAN networks' video coverage of any event not in the public domain, live or recorded, may not be posted under any circumstances without a license.Keeping a C-SPAN logo on the screen during the non-commercial use constitutes sufficient attribution under this policy.Federal government events include:
Congressional committee hearings
Executive agency hearings
Events at the White House
Congressional and Presidential Commissions
Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.C-SPAN does NOT permit unlicensed commercial use of any of its video programming (including coverage of federal government events) whether or not C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video. Under this policy a license is required to use C-SPAN video for:
Documentaries, films or television programs
Distribution by broadcast, cable or satellite
Corporate, trade or professional use.
Compilation DVDs and the like.
Any use that relies substantially on C-SPAN video to generate revenue.
Any other use that C-SPAN believes enhances the value of an organization or entity.
If you require a license and your use is permitted, please continue.Continue
https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/
Phenomenal analysis by the way.
Oh, right, AND copyright law was originally conceived to protect INDIVIDUAL CREATORS from MASSIVE CORPORATIONS.
And now it's almost exclusively used to do the exact opposite.
Copyright is de facto censorship.
Debate over.
I thought you said attribution links were required when posting excerpts.
Here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright
You must have skimmed over this part, "Copyrights are exclusive rights granted to the AUTHOR or CREATOR of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work."
Oh boy the cheetah bot is probably hot on my trial, I'd better what out. lol.
No I didn't skim over any part I was merely showing you copyright wasn't implemented because of massive size corporations.
It was designed to protect AUTHORS from PUBLISHERS.
History of copyright
The history of copyright starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.