Did the judge really just open the door to the possibility that as long as the label claim that "fair use" is only a defense that must be argued in court post-'infringement' (which the judge reading of the Ninth Circuit ruling seems to support), they will never qualify under the standard of "subjective bad faith"? That's just great...
If you think the people have not been beaten or murdered for being gay since the 90's in the western world, you need to turn off Fox News and get a clue about the real world.
Try google, it should be able to help you get started.
P.S: Sorry for breaking the "don't feed the troll" rule
Mr. Newhoff's argument fails for him not realising that while the logical structure of both sides of his comparison are the same the underlying ethics are different.
Mr Newhoff's fundamental error lies in him inverting the roles of copyright and sharing in his loose 'Kantian principle' argument. Copyright fundamentally goes against the liberty of the individual and the good of society at large by curtailing a most fundamental of human behaviors: the exchange of ideas and opinions. To reuse the metaphor, copyright is the ATV used by content producers to drive in the yard of my knowledge and run of the flowers of my creativity, not the other way around.
Curtailing other people's behavior in order to make money may be acceptable (if the result is a greater global output of a beneficial product) but it is not a fundamental right, unlike the plights from all discriminated minorities.
This argument, if valid, create a huge problem for the concept of a World Wide web.
You see all registrars are accredited by ICANN. ICANN is a US entity and hence all the TLD it supervises are american property, are they not?
If using a US registrar is enough to allow an american law enforcement unit to seize a domain name then, using but a small logical step, all domain names are american property as they all 'belong' to ICANN.
If this logic becomes the norm, we will all live in closed National Wide web like the one Iran is currently trying to build, just so that we foreigners don't have to be extradited to the US for doing something legal in our own country (yes, the case of Richard O'Dwyer is somewhat unrelated to this discution but the pattern forces reflexion).
The fact that Rojadirecta set up new domain names and continued their alleged crimes shows that they have no intention of stopping.
Maybe they have no intention of stopping because their actions are legal in their country.
When did US law become World law? This is unacceptable from an international trade and commerce standpoint, without even touching on the violation of the principle of self-determination which the USA used to champion so many decades ago.
There should be reasonable limits on free speech, as has just been demonstrated here.
I don't think so. Last time I checked there were no limits to free speech in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
From a philological point of view, setting ANY limit set on free expression is the top of a slippery slope ending in complete censorship. Once it has been accepted that anything that is said CAN be restricted from public discourse, then it is a fairly small step to anything that does not further the agenda of the ruling socio-economic group SHOULD be restricted. For examples please go look at China, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia.
From a sociological point of view, denying someone the right to express an idea is the best way of convincing them that they are right. The best way of dealing with ideas of the quality brought forth by Christopher is not to censor his ideas nor to treat him like a pariah, it is to engage him in a discussion where the fallacies of his stance can be exposed and, hopefully, overturned.
The solution to inacceptable or taboo speech is not censorship... it is more speech.
PS: I'm a bit late to the fray, but I believe that this type of ideas need to be conteracted at every turn.
"But Wright said she didn't believe courts would see the rarity of an image as a "fair use" exception from copyright law." (quote from the MSNBC.com piece)
You have to admire lawyers in their inate ability to interpret laws in the way that serves them.
Case in point: if an image that is UNIQUE cannot be covered by fair use due to it's rarity, please do explain what is the use of this specific exception to copyright.
I guess in their world view, humanity would be better off if only a few news organisation had been able to lisence this picture (days after the event, if at all) and that as a result only a small percentage of the planet had been able to rejoice in another of mankind's great achievements.
I usually hate analogies but maybe this will help:
If you put your couch up for sale, and I want to buy it, AND we agree on the value of it, you get paid I get the couch.
If I want to consume your ideas because I value them, I buy you a beer and become your friend. Then I have access to all your ideas for free. (yes, it reductive and cynical, but it will serve for the purpose)
Added value only exist in the second case as the collision of our ideas can and usually ends up creating something that is greater that the some of its parts. This is what copyright keeps from happening and why its limitations can only be 'balanced' against the loss for society has a whole.
Now if you want to sell your ideas, you have to prove first that they are worth buying... like everyone else. You don't deserve to get paid just cause you decided your ideas are worth something.