The fact that it's posted even when the article has nothing to do with copyright is part of the gag. Title of the article: Miami Heat Owner Hit With $155,000 In Legal Fees After Losing His Bogus Copyright Infringement Lawsuit You were saying?
Giving accurate credit to the source is showing respect. That's all that ought to be needed or expected. Once somebody posts something publicly, its... public. Yeah? You gonna be saying that after somebody posts one of your ebooks or artworks online for people to download without payment, making sure to credit you as the original creator? (-_Q)
Given the fact that Techdirt content is in the Public Domain, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
Hey, guys. Thanks for getting my perfectly reasonable comment out of moderation in good time. ;(
Copyright as censorship . Only this time, someone's actually out a fair bit of cash for abusing the system. That, in and of itself, is an anomaly. Hopefully, this anomaly will become like those in which non-infringing works are taken down via automated processes. ;)
Investigating a privacy breach by breaching the privacy of the reporter who exposed it is... perhaps not the proper response. Oh, it's absolutely the proper response if you're trying to scare people out of whistleblowing and reporting on the issues thus uncovered. Whether or not it's the moral response, Vodafone clearly just doesn't care. :(
Absolutely your fault for buying a device with an OS that has the word 'blows' as part of its nickname. ;D
Craigslist was under attack, and caved this week by shutting down its Adult Services section (and replacing it with a black bar that read "censored"). Some people, at least, were beginning to stand up and point out that forcing Craigslist to do this actually helps the criminals it's supposed to stop [...] Indeed. I remember seeing a TV programme about a guy who was known as the Craigslist Killer and how he was caught because he used Craigslist to attract his victims. Can you imagine how long it would have taken to catch him if he had had to use the darknet?
Trunk is claiming that 2600 has infringed the copyright of an image that they represent. If they only represent the work, then they have no more right to sue over it than I do. They have no idea about Loadus. Well, the person who made the photograph with the ink splatters certainly has an idea of the work they borrowed from, if not its creator.
I beg to differ. Trunk Archive appears to be arguing that 2600 Magazine has copied a part of the image on their website (which they do hold copyright in), when the fact is that both parties used a part of the same freely licensed work. Do try to keep up.
Under its ToS, the NY Times states that users hand over the copyright of anything they post to the paper and waive their moral rights (which exist in written works in Europe). What part of that isn't stealing copyrights when no consideration is offered in return? You're possibly thinking of unauthorized duplication of items under copyright protection. No, I think of that when I hear/read the term 'copyright infringement'.