...you say you're a university teacher for 20 years and have never had to copy copyrighted material?
How do you do your job then? I presume you do research. That would entail copying earlier works, done by other people, that is almost certainly copyrighted (at least, work that hasn't been done by scientists working on US government funds, which (ought to) go to the public domain), quoting hypotheses and theories about whatever field you're in and then presenting your own findings in either support of or as a rebuttal to them.
This is the most important sentence in the article and undermines what you're trying to say
"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." Unlike the GoldieBlox/Beastie Boys case, here they are flat out admitting that the only reason they are using the adjective 'dumb' is so they can attract customers with the Starbucks logo. Goldieblox didn't do that. Rather than just use the one word, they used someone else's music and then changed the meaning of the music entirely.
You could simply have your translation as a text file, go to an internet cafe, open up Gmail, create a new Gmail account with bogus information and use that for Youtube. If Google is ever asked to cough up the personal details of that account, then they can only say "Well, the account was made by "Mr. Fake Name" and the IP address corresponds to this net cafe. So anyone could have made it".
Ah! An excellent specimen. Come, gather round everyone, you can never tell when one of these fascinating creatures will pop up. The scientific term for this creature is selective-us reading-itus. This species demonstrates intense anger and social maladjustment. How you can tell them apart from other species is their ability to read a document, then complain that the author never mentioned something, when in fact they did.
Aaaah, I laugh whenever I see such curious animals. I can never quite figure out how they're able to do it.
You and I think very alike, as I had the same thought reading through this. I was wondering what could be their motivation to keep filing these lawsuits when they fail time after time after, and judgements from earlier failures are used against them in more recent cases.
Well no you can't. Snowden is living in Russia and the US does not have an extradition treaty with Russia. Sure, the US could send in some sort of squad to kidnap him or fly a drone over to assassinate him but that would violate all sorts of international laws. Violating the law to punish an alleged lawbreaker is...well...kinda missing the point, don't you think?
A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a horrible and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. A tyrant usually controls almost everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
Let's see...does Snowden tick any of those boxes? No. At absolute worst, he may (may!) have broken a law, but that would make him a criminal. If you still want to label him a tyrant then, that would mean labelling all criminals as tyrants also.
Re: Re: Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
"Boy you're not very creative, are you? Is your only definition of giving back letting you make verbatim copies of Mickey Mouse? "
Not the only definition but one that everyone should be able to enjoy. If I wanted to, I could print out right now 5,000 copies of the complete works of Shakespeare and sell them. No editing or changing, just the direct text from his plays. I would have no fear of being sued. Why is it that I can't do the same with Steamboat Willie or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?
Re: Re: Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
Parody A parody (/ˈpærədi/; also called spoof, send-up, take-off or lampoon), in current use, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on or trivialize an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satiric or ironic imitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
Under fair use, that is the only way I can take and make use of a copyrighted Disney work. (That or a review or for educational purposes).
Compare that with using a public domain work, where any and all usage of a work is allowed.
Saying that I should be happy at being allowed to make parodies is a slap in the face. I am not happy. Disney exercised their right to mine other people's works in order to create their own. There was no limit placed on them on what exact form their work could take. However, when it comes to Joe Blow, the same is not true. Joe Blow cannot do whatever he likes with Steamboat Willie or any other of a list of Disney movies that should have entered the public domain long ago. The only thing that Joe Blow can do is mock, comment or trivialize. He cannot continue produce and sell a movie sequel to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs telling the story of how the Seven Dwarfs came to the rescue of Snow White's children, or whatever storyline he comes up with. No, the form and execution of everybody else's work is already heavily limited when it comes to using Disney's work.
The problem is not just the character of Mickey Mouse or even just Disney movies alone. The problem is that thanks to Disney Corp's lobbying efforts, all works are copyrighted to insane lengths. There are tens of millions of cultural works that, without their lobbying, I would be able to use as I see fit...but thanks to them, I can't. Those works are held hostage under copyright.
Do you even know what the public domain is and what it means to use it?
The public domain is ALL creative works - movies, books, plays, songs, cartoons, TV shows, what have you - whose copyright term has expired or were never under copyright to begin with. Every single person on this planet is at liberty to use say Shakespeare's plays to create their own versions and not have to seek permission from or pay any descendants of Shakespeare or his estate or some sort of corporation controlling his works. If Disney were to tomorrow release a movie based on Shakespeare, that would be great. They're using other people's works to create their own. However, thanks to their lobbying efforts over the decades, I would be dead long before I would have the legal right to use their movie to create my own, just as they did before.
It is double standards. Disney is saying to the world "We are Disney. We should be free to take other people's works and use them to create movies that generate tens of millions of dollars for us, but you people? No, you can't use our works to do the same!"
Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
You're holding up fair use parodies as an example of Disney actively giving back to the public?
First off, copyright is not about keeping artists employed. Copyright's end goal is to enrich the public by (eventually) giving it access to creative works.
Second...fair use parodies are parodies done under fair use, which means without needing Disney's permission. That is not a case of Disney actively giving back to the public, more that they cannot claim copyright infringement. Even then, the threat of your fair use work being sued over hangs over everybody's head like the Sword of Damocles, since fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis. Disney, being a large corporation, maintains a large number of skilled lawyers, and would doubtlessly think nothing of destroying your fair use work in a court of law.
The fact of the matter is that Disney relied heavily on the public domain to make its movies, but has not allowed their own works to pass into the public domain, so everybody else can reuse them without fear of being sued into oblivion. As it is, the only way that someone can legally use a Disney work is in parody, which is NOT the same thing as being able to use a work entirely and in any way you see fit, like what Disney saw fit to do in its early years.