Slashdot Mirror

Fiction imitates reality.

I file a DMCA takedown on something of yours.
You file the appropriate counter-claim to have it put back up.
I sue you into oblivion because my bank account is larger than yours.

I get friends from the EFF and other anti-censorship groups to fund trial.
We submit a simple motion for summary judgement based on fair use as commentary citing Folsom v. Marsh. The almost continual voice over makes it obvious commentary.
You lose trial and I am awarded costs.
Your bank account is much smaller.

The fact that there was commentary over almost all of the video makes it fair use. There is a very old case that makes this clear.
Folsom v. Marsh

no one can doubt that a reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

It is clear that the vidios are criticism and do not supersede the original work.

> That's because they're disparate constructs with completely different purposes that should not be lumped together.

They are ALL imaginary property, aka "artificially restricted rights based on GREED."

Trademarks = somebody has an exclusive on a word to prevent competitors from profiting from it
Copyright = somebody wants to restrict the public distribution of information, entertainment, etc.
Patents = somebody wants compensation for implementing an idea

When you have a system were colors and flags can be copyright ( http://www.yalelawtech.org/trusted-computing-drm/46-dc-ea-d3-17-fe-45-d8-09-23-eb-97-e4-95-64-10-d4-cd-b2-c2/ ), when 2 prime numbers can be patented ( http://books.google.com/books?id=1MTcYrbTdsUC&pg=PA168 ) you know the _underlying_ philosophy is entirely fucked up.

I am not saying people shouldn't be compensated for their time, knowledge, and skill, but honestly, this artificial notion of property is archaic and insane. "Yes, kids, you are supposed to share you toys, you selfish bastard. Yes, Johnny when you become an adult in the Real World (TM) you sue everybody who decides to shares "your" imaginary property. Who brainwashed you with this "sharing is caring" hippie bullshit? Don't you know people are "stealing" "derived income" from you! Yeah, unfortunately you can't patent the wheel due to prior art."

No wonder society have a fucked up contradictory schizophrenia view of "property." Every time we want our kids to have a certain behaviour, we turn around and teach them the exact opposite as adults.

That's because most criminal acts require mens rea. And the "please won't somebody think of the children" set doesn't want the test to apply to crimes against children. The problem is that it should apply to that. Meaning that if the image or the individual can't reasonably be known by the accused to be a minor, perhaps that individual shouldn't be convicted.

Another reason is that one is capable of, and indeed required to download, an image prior to knowing if it is legal.

Why Mens Rea Should Be Applied to Child Pornography Laws

Unfortunately, like with violence prevention and anger management treatments that progressives often want, these things get shouted down for not being adequate in punishing perceived evildoers. It's not until a person or his acquaintances get unfairly convicted that the attitude changes.