bhull242’s Techdirt Profile


About bhull242

bhull242’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The US don't own the world despite what they think

    I know this is years later, but I just have to point this out.

    Commercial use absolutely can be fair use. Otherwise, use in news articles wouldn't be considered fair use. In fact, use of an image to promote discussion, whether or not you profit from said discussion, is a pretty clear case of fair use. Techdirt making use of the image for profit is largely irrelevant to the question of whether this use is fair use.

    Seriously, who pays for a photo just to discuss who might own the copyright for it? If you don't know who—if anyone—owns the copyright, who do you pay, anyways? Plus, that makes it newsworthy, which—again—means using it for discussion, criticism, or journalism is inherently fair use, commercial or not.

    There's also a reasonable argument that the photos in question are in the public domain, which would make the issue of whether it's fair use moot.

    I'm all for paying creators their due, but the whole point of the article is to discuss who the creator actually is, so I don't see how that applies here.

    As for use of an entire work, that too can be fair use. Put it this way: how is someone displaying an entire photograph to, say, provide artistic critique of it not fair use?

    I also don't get why you think that the other commenters are trying to "piss on a lovely story", or how that's relevant to this discussion. Nor do you explain why you believe that Techdirt or anyone who's disagreed with you here doesn't care about the monkey other than to bring them into an argument or why that matters.

    Finally, regarding applicable laws, Techdirt is based in the U.S.; therefore, the SPEECH Act says that U.S. laws regarding fair use (or laws that protect free speech at least as well as U.S. laws) are to be used here. Otherwise, the judgement is unenforceable in the U.S., even if the content is in "hyperspace" (which it isn't, really; I think you meant "cyberspace", but that's besides the point). You also seem to misunderstand how jurisdiction works. Basically, it has to be either where the defendant is (which is the U.S.) or where the actual offense occurs (in this case, also the U.S., because that's what the law says for copyright infringement with a website). There're some other details regarding "minimum contact", but based on existing case law, that doesn't really apply here.

  • Dec 11th, 2017 @ 8:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    As there is no incentive for anyone in the real world to create a fake restaurant… Uhhh… clearly there is some incentive for someone in the "real world" to create a fake restaurant: to troll people online. As proof, this guy—who's not a journalist—just did exactly that. And it clearly fooled lots of people who wanted to eat or work there, so that's kind of a problem. And—since it was top-rated—it could have made some other restaurants less visible to users.

    I also think that, if you can say that it's "usually" journalists doing this, that suggests this has happened fairly often, so I'm not sure how "fake" it is.

  • Dec 7th, 2017 @ 8:19am


    I just don't get what SMT is trying to accomplish here—at least in a way that is consistent with the law. There's no reason to unmask Doe at the point: they've been fully compliant with the CoD and the demands so far (beyond unmasking themself), they are not a repeat/multiple offender (it seems to have only been a single instance of infringement on a single material), and clearly there have been no issues regarding service or discovery (beyond Doe's identity).

    I've never heard of a case where someone sent a CoD letter to someone over copyright infringement, had the other party comply fully and promptly, only to then sue them anyway for copyright infringement. Also, as noted in the (non-)decision here, it's unheard of for someone to try to force the unmasking of someone outside of the pre-discovery phase, and it's almost always solely for the purposes of service, anyway, which clearly hasn't been an issue here.

    Again, what is SMT hoping to accomplish here that can't be done without unmasking them and doesn't violate Doe's protected rights that can't wait until a final verdict?

  • Dec 7th, 2017 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Just Wow!

    I love how you completely ignore any evidence that refutes your claims and offer no actual counter-argument or pertinent evidence. It's almost endearing. Almost.

    Seriously, how exactly does that video say anything about Mike's politics? Zoe—a Democratic politician—is basically just talking about how successful Democrats have been in California (which they are) at a Democratic convention in California. It doesn't have anything to do with how well she'd do in the Judiciary Committee, or her positions on the issues mentioned in this article. Also, saying that a person is a good choice for something because of their position on certain issues doesn't mean you agree with them on every issue, nor does it mean that you support their political party.

    Heck, I'm a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I agree with the Democratic Party on every issue, that I support every Democratic politician, that I agree with every politician I do support on every issue, or that there aren't some areas where I agree with Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians.

    You're conflating a lot of different things and ignoring any arguments or explanations that don't support your preconceived notions. Your view seems way too black-and-white.

  • Dec 7th, 2017 @ 7:37am

    Re: I can see it

    To be fair, it doesn't appear that the prosecutor asked the police to tell the teen to masturbate for the camera. That seems to have all been their idea. Also, once the news got out, the prosecutor didn't follow up on the second warrant they obtained for additional photos and agreed not to use the first set.

    That's about as far as my defense of any of these people goes, though.

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 7:25am


    The URL in the link is "h sign-obviousness-should-kill-patents.shtml", but it should be " ign-obviousness-should-kill-patents.shtml".