It's a PowerPoint document. They didn't specify which version, but even if you assume the oldest possible version, that only puts it at 26 years old.
I'd say it follows the same rules and is entitled to the same protections as any other work covered by copyright.
They seem like pretty weak arguments to me. "Well, they're not selling the information, and it's a church, and we want to know, and they don't want us to know, therefore we can ignore the copyright."
But I'm not a lawyer either. It could be interesting to see this go to court just to see if the argument stands up to legal trial.
I think you might be stretching. I don't see where they're even attempting to censor criticism, just the material they have a copyright on.
It looks to me like they just posted the material, with no journalism or commentary around it. (Except for the page with links that basically say "this is our response to their suit, and here's the file again".)
I wouldn't expect a "fair use" defense to fly if I created a site called "MovieLeaks", and then proceeded to post full Hollywood movies -- even if I had a discussion board, commentary, mini-review, whatever next to it. So, how does MormonLeaks' actions qualify as "fair use"?
Yeah, they'd be much better off signing up with one of their many competi-- um....
It's a classic example of misdirection. If you can put the focus on discrediting the messenger, then people will assume the message itself is meaningless. It's why people dismiss right-wing arguments by accusing the speaker of getting his information from "Faux News" and left-wing arguments by claiming they're from the "liberal-controlled MSM", for example.
The Russian people are getting "backdoored", all right....
President Putin ordered the Federal Security Service to produce encryption keys to decrypt all data on the Internet. According to the executive order, the FSB has two weeks to do it.
Your third link, with the text "prevent DIYers and non-Apple-approved repair shops", doesn't really support your point. It links to an article about an image of an alleged Apple-designed screw of a proprietary design; but the article states (in an update) that the image was fabricated by a Swedish design company that was experimenting with how Apple rumors spread across the internet.
Isn't that essentially what recording, compressing, and sending a file over a computer does? I mean, the way you just described it sounds like what would happen if I typed the bible into a word processor, saved it, and emailed it to someone in China.
Considering how badly tech issues seem to get handled in courts (though maybe that's just bias considering this is a website that tends to report the bad issues), I think she's lucky the judge didn't overreact, assume the evidence was deleted, and give her a hefty fine or prison term.
IR-emitter glasses that can mask your face from cameras: http://petapixel.com/2013/06/19/these-privacy-glasses-use-infrared-light-to-hide-your-face-from-cameras/
What gets me is that the page they throw up if they detect an ad blocker says to turn it off "to continue into Forbes' ad-light experience." When I use adblock, it tells me how many things it blocked, and just to show that page, the number is in the double digits.
Except it reveals the trick in the headline. Anyone who's familiar with the "co-author trick" doesn't need to click.
"SACEM Hates Copyright Holders for Using This One Weird Trick to Stop 'Bolero' from Entering Public Domain"
When I click on a Forbes link, I get that fun page telling me to turn off my ad blocker to enjoy their "ad-light" experience. Meanwhile, AdBlock tells me how many items it blocked in loading that page, and the number is always in the double-digits.
I'm not sure if they just don't know how many ads they're trying to serve me, they think I'm stupid to not realize they're showing me a dozen ads per page, or if they honestly think that many ads is really "light". But the end result is the same; I haven't seen an article on their site in a long time.
It has an amazing ability to coordinate a contest between a team of wild horses from the Rocky Mountain region against a team of cougars from the southeastern US.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it fair use?