Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you people do with yourselves...
They apologized and explained why the mistake was made.
As they should. So far so good.
They were very gracious about the matter...
Well, except for being threatening douchbags about the negative review. That's a perfect example of how not to do customer service really.
...but this stupid whore decides to leave negative feedback.
And it is her prerogative to give her opinion. Just like it's my prerogative to give my opinion of you and your comments - you are being an even a bigger douchbag for supporting this type of behavior from anyone, let alone someone who wants my business.
Good for them, perhaps that infantile little poop head will think twice before ruining someone's reputation in the future.
Hannah's Attic And Place has done that all by themselves. One negative review isn't anything very notable at all. On the other hand, threatening people who post a negative review is very newsworthy. Don't blame the user because Hannah's Attic And Place reacted in the worst possible way and ruined their reputation all on their own.
Side Note: You may want to curtail your insults of this person who posted the review. Your comments are bordering on libelous. Just some friendly advice.
I did not have a choice when he put me at risk, nor did the millions upon millions of Americans he put at risk by proceeding with his agenda to take out his grievances against the United States Government.
Umm...care to elaborate on this "risk" you speak of?
Thus far, the only harm I've seen come from the Snowden revelations is to the credibility of the US government and the other Five Eye nations.
But, I can't say that I don't have personal feelings of sympathy for the poor bastards trying to deal with that. Did the original poster use Tor? Tough shit for you then. Is the original poster judgment-proof? Tough shit for you then.
How does this fit into the long standing legal tradition of treating anonymous speech as protected by First Amendment? From your tone in what I quoted is sounds like you may wish to erode that protection, but I'm not sure, so I'm asking.
Tv stations view and approve commercials all the time. Same for programming and even infomercials. They actually do take responsibility for the content of their users.
TV stations also "opt" out of that responsibility by broadcasting a bit of legalese stating that "the following is the view and opinions of others and not necessarily the views or opinions of this station or it's owners".
Section 230 does that as the blanket default for websites. How is that any different from what the TV stations do if you omit the opt-in part?
But, as far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a "natural right to freely copy," and never was.
With all due respect, that is simply untrue. Prior to copyright and other IP laws, which have only been around for a small fraction of human history, copying others was exactly how humans learned. Histories and culture were passed from one generation to the next through song and stories. Innovations that improved living conditions were copied from the next village over and passed on to the next village.
The "natural right to freely copy" existed centuries before IP laws ever did.
Re: Learn the Basics Before you Open your Pie Hole
Publishers have been understandably frustrated because ASCAP is unable to negotiate a market rate for them with Pandora because of their consent decree, so they pulled out and directly negotiated rates that were much higher
And how do you spin the part about ASCAP and the labels refusing to let Pandora know which songs were pulled and using that as a negotiation weapon against Pandora? That is most defiantly collusion and an antitrust violation, isn't it?
Second, and most importantly he gets permission from the artist or label. Did "Dumb Starbucks" get permission to do this?
Fair Use doesn't require permission from the artist whatsoever. Requiring permission first would leave Fair Use useless and Fair Use is required to keep copyright from running afoul of the First Amendment protections on Free Speech.
Weird Al usually asks for permission because it's easier and cheaper than facing an infringement lawsuit - even if he won and it was found to be Fair Use.
Even so, Weird Al HAS used songs without permission on occasion because he believe the usage to be Fair Use.
Clearly this is an instance of extending the argument about how fair use isn't an exemption but a right of moral imperative or whatever the heck twisted interpretation that gets thrown around here.
Did you read all the way through the article? Mike laid out his reasoning as to why this instance most likely wouldn't be a legitimate fair use defense (and therefore NOT comparable to the GoldiBlox/Beastie Boys affair) with this statement:
...by more or less admitting that they're only doing this as a cover to be able to use Starbucks' name, rather than as legitimate social commentary, they're basically giving up their fair use defense.