Well, reposting the entire website is by no means fair use, but there's nothing stopping anyone from quoting.
See the other response to my post and the associated replies for an explanation of how it's really not that cut and dried. Political speech isn't the same as the typical commercial works that people tend to consider when thinking about copyright. There's a public interest factor in the nature of the work that plays a big part in the determination of whether something is fair use. In this case, the accuracy of the reproduction as a statement of fact regarding the positions taken by the candidate are in the public interest. So it could very well be considered fair use to reproduce the site to give the entire context to those statements made by the candidate.
There are 4 tests for fair use, and this use failed 2 of them: the entirety of the work was copied, and no value was added by transforming what was copied. It seems to me that the political purpose could be served with commented excerpts ("Just a month ago, my opponent advocated eating babies - here it is in her own words") - mirroring the entire site is just the lazy way out.
You're completely disregarding the nature of the work in that analysis. Excerpts are inevitably attacked for being taken out of context, whether they actually are or not, as we've already seen with the new site since they took the reproduction down. The value of the work is that it was a faithfully reproduced copy of the original site, and therefore cannot be accused of being a case of quote-mining or distortion. This serves the public interest, and is why it should be considered fair use. The reason for generally disallowing complete reproductions is that it dilutes the value of the work, but in this case it is not a commercial work, and therefore the reproduction does not compete with anything in the market. The public interest in accurate representation of political speech should certainly outweigh the essentially non-existent marketability of the work.
That would cross the line. The rest of the site does not.
A full mirror of everything from the original website (with no commentary or mark-up) doesn't cross the line? I guess to you there is nothing that would, then.
In what way does it cross the line? Which of the fair use tests does it fail, and and why do you consider any particular alleged failure to be sufficient to deem the reproduction of the site an infringement?
In addition it appears that the only interactive function on the fake site is the capturing of names of persons seeking to add their names and email addresses as supporters of Sharron Angle.
Surely the Reid campaign is not planning to obtain the names and email addresses of Angle supporters under false pretenses and then to misuse those names and email addresses for some purposes other than the purposes for which the individual signors intended!
Doesn't really fall under fair use - at all.
They make a claim in a C&D letter that reads like a political press release, fail completely to support it with any evidence, and you accept that as an argument against fair use coverage for the site? I agree that they should certainly not be collecting any data from people who fill out the form, but then I haven't seen any evidence that they are. The form was part of the copy of the website, and I have no idea what happens to any data that gets submitted. It may never actually get saved anywhere, or it may get emailed to whatever address was originally in the code, or they may actually be collecting it somewhere. That would cross the line. The rest of the site does not.
Holy crap. It sounds like you and I have a lot in common politically. Let's have a beer sometime.
But I want to say that you shouldn't conflate Independent with Moderate. A person can be both, or only one, or neither.
That's true too. I know some independents that are farther to the extremes than either party. I happen to also be in line with Pojut's views on 2nd amendment and socialized medicine. I'm a non-registered independent. I'm in an open primary state, so it works out ok, except that that state is Texas, so I'm very much outnumbered by ultra-conservatives.
The real kicker is that we have no idea whether the candidate in question is a corporate stooge masquerading as a nutcase in order to win the primary, or a nutcase masquerading as a corporate stooge in order to win the general.
By contrast, her opponent in the general is clearly a corporate stooge.
It would be good to know. I'd personally rather vote for a corporate stooge than a nutcase. At least there's some method to their madness. Unfortunately, until we fix our election system, that's the kind of choice we have to look forward to.
I think what she is trying to prevent is past comments from being taken out of context or being changed slightly so that their meaning is completely different. Take for example a statement she says(ie "I think we should get rid of Social Security"), and follows up with why she feels that way and what she'd do in its place or how she would change it. Now what she said could be complete BS, or it could be a well thought out explanation/plan of action. All her opponents would have to do is eliminate the rest of her argument, then present it as it was on her original site. Now they have "proof" that she hates whatever they want. That's just the more ethical treatment, if they wanted to get real mean, they obviously could.
And before someone says that Reid wouldn't do that, just remember, this is the guy that wanted to get the health care bill pasted so bad, that he allows a prevision that opted his state(Nevada) out of it.
The issue here is about them posting a copy of the site she was using to express her views during the primary. That provides all of the context of her statements, because it's her own creation. The new site is being accused of misrepresenting her views, which is exactly why it should be completely fair use to present her old site as they did. Then they can't be accused of misrepresentation.
By the time I read this news item, the site Reid posted, www.therealsharronangle.com, was redirected to a site that is clearly mocking Angle. However, if I understand correctly, Reid's campaign originally reposted her entire website verbatim, with no indication that it was not being hosted by Angle's campaign.
If so, Angle's complaint may not be without merit. She seems to deserve a lot of mockery, but you don't get to pretend you're someone else in a political campaign, especially when you have a functioning mailing list sign-up form on your 'fake' site.
I don't really see it as them pretending to be her, and I haven't seen any actual evidence that they were collecting data either. They were directing people to a copy of the site that Angle herself was using to express her views during the primary. This provides all of the context so that there's no misrepresentation of her stances, such as the new site has already been accused of. Seems perfectly fair to me, as long as they aren't actually collecting data. This seems like exactly the type of political fair use that serves us best.
Thank you for that textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy.
If the program actually works, it doesn't really matter who takes credit for it.
If the program works but is also used to recruit for a religion, then I wouldn't consider it a good thing. You're taking them off one drug and putting them on another. I'm not even entirely sure which one I would consider to be the worse problem either. I've had first-hand experience with drug abusing family members, but I think that that's probably easier to deal with than having one that's a scientologist. Also, it's not an example of the genetic fallacy when the statement reflects the merits rather than the source either. Cults, in the colloquial use of the term, are bad because they either hold extremist views that are harmful to their members or society, or they are scams designed to benefit the leaders of the cult, or both.
Flamebait? WTF? Does Sharron Angle have mod points on slashdot? What Runaway1956 says is perfectly correct. Using copyright law to silence political speech goes completely against the whole idea of the First Amendment.
I think it was calling her a skank and a bitch that earned that mod. Can't really argue with that, it's an accurate moderation. He should leave the name-calling out and just make his point. It would be a lot more effective that way.
It isn't necessary to post the entire site unmodified in order to show what her views were so I doubt it's protected under fair use.
It is if you want to avoid accusations that you're taking her statements out of context. Such accusations are always used to muddy the waters. What better way to back up your statements about the candidate than to provide all of the context of the original statements, just as she presented them? This is a political work, being used for political purposes, and as such is usually given the most expansive fair use exception to copyright.
The Cease and Desist letter certainly doesn't in any way demonstrate that this was happening. It sure implies it via broad innuendo, but very definitely doesn't want to say it was happening. Then again, the whole letter reads more like it was meant to be shown to the voters than like a legal document, full of carefully biased language that you hear in a debate, not coming from a law office. I'm guessing that the salvo has no legal objective at all, but is entirely a PR move. It sure smells like it to me.
Yep. I got the same impression from that letter. The hyperbolic tone, the underlining of the part implying that they were collecting data, the use of words like "nefarious", and the statement that the only apparent purpose of the site was to collect info on Angle's supporters. It reeks of political theater.
Fair use covers excerpting for a number of purposes,
but there are limits to how much can be used.
The complaint in the letter is not that they excerpted from her Web site,
it is that they mirrored the entire thing.
That's not in any of the gray areas where there are
disagreements about whether you've used to much or not;
it's an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement,
should the copyright holder decide to pursue it.
The Nevada Democratic party clearly isn't going to fight this.
The link provided in the complaint letter
now redirects to a different site
that does not appear to be a copy of the original site.
The limits on what can be used are not set in stone, and it depends on the type of work and what it is being used for. Political commentary tends to get the widest exceptions to copyright, and posting a site in its entirety seems quite reasonable for political purposes, as it provides all of the context of the original site, and there aren't the issues of market dilution that you have with commercial works. By doing it this way, they can say that they are accurately representing her views rather than quote-mining, because her views are displayed exactly as she displayed them herself.
Umm, you need read and understand the facts before you post.
The issue is not that Senator Reid's campaign merely reposted parts of her website. Or that she was running away from positions she has taken in the past.
It was that the Reid campaign created a website to look like hers and used that site to get names, emails and other information from people who believed it was her site.
They didn't create one to look like hers, they used a copy of her actual website. The letter claims they were collecting information, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that they did so. That would definitely be crossing the line. Posting the site itself seems like fair use as political commentary.
It is an open book. However, having dealt with a number of design contracts, there may have been a written agreement between the designer and the campaign that nobody else would use that site design, which this would violate to some extent. Nonetheless, there are ways around that: posting screen shots with commentary, for example, or just quoting the text.
I'd also expect Angle to contact The Wayback Machine if she doesn't want old copies of her site online...
Any agreement they had does not trump copyright law, and fair use has not yet been completely gutted. I'm somewhat suspicious of the collection of information submitted by users, but I haven't seen any evidence that the data was actually collected and saved anywhere. Other than that, it seems like fair use for political purposes. They are showing people exactly what she was saying, and there can be no claim that any of it was taken out of context, because all of the context is right there.
"I haven't had time to look at this in detail" - the key part of your comment is this.
The summary makes it sound like they took screenshots and posted them on harry reid's website. What actually happened is that they copied Sharron Angle's old website in its entirety, created a new domain with her name in it (therealsharronangle.com), and hosted a copied version of the website themselves, without indicating on the website that is was a parody. This is known as a copyright violation, and could even be seen as a phishing attempt.
It's not a parody though. It's her actual website, as she was displaying it during the primary. It's intended to inform people about her beliefs as she presented them to her base, and which she is trying to hide now that she is in the Senate race and wants a wider appeal. I think that, at most, they may need to put a notice stating that at the top. This does seem like a pretty clear case of fair use for political commentary.
By "reposting old versions of her website," what the submitter actually means is "copying all of the code and images from Sharron Angle's old website, registering a new domain (therealsharronangle.com), and re-creating the entire (old) website." There was even an operable section to sign up as a volunteer, thus collecting the personal information of people who might accidentally come to the phishing site instead of the actual Sharron Angle site. This is known as phishing, and is indeed a violation of copyright.
Gee, Slashdot spreading a misleading story in a bid to make an unfavored politician look bad. Unfortunately, this isn't really unusual for Slashdot.
Do we know that they were actually collecting the submitted data, or was it just possible to submit the data, but the site didn't save it anywhere? I'd say that that would be a legitimate complaint. I just haven't seen anything that confirms it.
It appears that the complaint is legitimate. Rather than clearly use the content of the prior website as part of a legitimate debate, it is being used in a way that can be seen by some people as an impersonation site, and some people could easily be led to believe it is the candidate's site, and not an opponent's site. This deception could be used to harvest e-mails and other information deceptively.
Yes a political opponent should be allowed to repost content to comment on it -- but not to repost a mirror site that can be confused as to origin of who is running it.
Umm.. it IS the candidate's site. Just a previous version of it, which happens to be the entire point. If they're using it for harvesting emails or other information, then sure, go after them for that, but just posting her site as it existed before as a means to illustrate her views seems like fair use for political purposes. Maybe they should stick a frame around it explaining what it is. I think that would remove any possibility of confusion, and any possible argument about the purpose of the site.
Wait, who have you ever heard say that humans are the only thing affecting climate?
Anyone who has ever said that expensive changes in industry will result in significant change in global warming. So, basically any policy maker, and pretty much every single person at those AGW global summits.
Really? Please cite one that has actually said that. They may say that humans are making a very significant impact on the climate, but they don't say that we're the only thing affecting it.
The Japanese always have to over-complicate things. If only they hadn't insisted that the probe be able to transform into a giant, laser-sword-wielding humanoid form as well...
You might be right, but Christians still bring a lot more harmony to your society than you would give them credit for. The 'do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you' western value is 100% Christian. A lot of non-Christian cultures don't have this, and you can see a big difference in the way they treat each other. I haven't been to every country in the world, but I've been to a lot, and there's often quite a difference.
I'd say that genuinely good people bring harmony to society. Whether people are Christian or not doesn't seem to make much difference. There are good people that are Christians, and good people that aren't. There are less good and even bad people of both types as well. I'd rather be around good people that lack the rather bizarre beliefs in ancient mythology, but that's just my preference.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, reposting the entire website is by no means fair use, but there's nothing stopping anyone from quoting.
See the other response to my post and the associated replies for an explanation of how it's really not that cut and dried. Political speech isn't the same as the typical commercial works that people tend to consider when thinking about copyright. There's a public interest factor in the nature of the work that plays a big part in the determination of whether something is fair use. In this case, the accuracy of the reproduction as a statement of fact regarding the positions taken by the candidate are in the public interest. So it could very well be considered fair use to reproduce the site to give the entire context to those statements made by the candidate.
There are 4 tests for fair use, and this use failed 2 of them: the entirety of the work was copied, and no value was added by transforming what was copied. It seems to me that the political purpose could be served with commented excerpts ("Just a month ago, my opponent advocated eating babies - here it is in her own words") - mirroring the entire site is just the lazy way out.
You're completely disregarding the nature of the work in that analysis. Excerpts are inevitably attacked for being taken out of context, whether they actually are or not, as we've already seen with the new site since they took the reproduction down. The value of the work is that it was a faithfully reproduced copy of the original site, and therefore cannot be accused of being a case of quote-mining or distortion. This serves the public interest, and is why it should be considered fair use. The reason for generally disallowing complete reproductions is that it dilutes the value of the work, but in this case it is not a commercial work, and therefore the reproduction does not compete with anything in the market. The public interest in accurate representation of political speech should certainly outweigh the essentially non-existent marketability of the work.
That would cross the line. The rest of the site does not.
A full mirror of everything from the original website (with no commentary or mark-up) doesn't cross the line? I guess to you there is nothing that would, then.
In what way does it cross the line? Which of the fair use tests does it fail, and and why do you consider any particular alleged failure to be sufficient to deem the reproduction of the site an infringement?
From the C&D Letter:
Doesn't really fall under fair use - at all.
They make a claim in a C&D letter that reads like a political press release, fail completely to support it with any evidence, and you accept that as an argument against fair use coverage for the site? I agree that they should certainly not be collecting any data from people who fill out the form, but then I haven't seen any evidence that they are. The form was part of the copy of the website, and I have no idea what happens to any data that gets submitted. It may never actually get saved anywhere, or it may get emailed to whatever address was originally in the code, or they may actually be collecting it somewhere. That would cross the line. The rest of the site does not.
Holy crap. It sounds like you and I have a lot in common politically. Let's have a beer sometime.
But I want to say that you shouldn't conflate Independent with Moderate. A person can be both, or only one, or neither.
That's true too. I know some independents that are farther to the extremes than either party. I happen to also be in line with Pojut's views on 2nd amendment and socialized medicine. I'm a non-registered independent. I'm in an open primary state, so it works out ok, except that that state is Texas, so I'm very much outnumbered by ultra-conservatives.
The real kicker is that we have no idea whether the candidate in question is a corporate stooge masquerading as a nutcase in order to win the primary, or a nutcase masquerading as a corporate stooge in order to win the general.
By contrast, her opponent in the general is clearly a corporate stooge.
It would be good to know. I'd personally rather vote for a corporate stooge than a nutcase. At least there's some method to their madness. Unfortunately, until we fix our election system, that's the kind of choice we have to look forward to.
I think what she is trying to prevent is past comments from being taken out of context or being changed slightly so that their meaning is completely different. Take for example a statement she says(ie "I think we should get rid of Social Security"), and follows up with why she feels that way and what she'd do in its place or how she would change it. Now what she said could be complete BS, or it could be a well thought out explanation/plan of action. All her opponents would have to do is eliminate the rest of her argument, then present it as it was on her original site. Now they have "proof" that she hates whatever they want. That's just the more ethical treatment, if they wanted to get real mean, they obviously could. And before someone says that Reid wouldn't do that, just remember, this is the guy that wanted to get the health care bill pasted so bad, that he allows a prevision that opted his state(Nevada) out of it.
The issue here is about them posting a copy of the site she was using to express her views during the primary. That provides all of the context of her statements, because it's her own creation. The new site is being accused of misrepresenting her views, which is exactly why it should be completely fair use to present her old site as they did. Then they can't be accused of misrepresentation.
By the time I read this news item, the site Reid posted, www.therealsharronangle.com, was redirected to a site that is clearly mocking Angle. However, if I understand correctly, Reid's campaign originally reposted her entire website verbatim, with no indication that it was not being hosted by Angle's campaign.
If so, Angle's complaint may not be without merit. She seems to deserve a lot of mockery, but you don't get to pretend you're someone else in a political campaign, especially when you have a functioning mailing list sign-up form on your 'fake' site.
I don't really see it as them pretending to be her, and I haven't seen any actual evidence that they were collecting data either. They were directing people to a copy of the site that Angle herself was using to express her views during the primary. This provides all of the context so that there's no misrepresentation of her stances, such as the new site has already been accused of. Seems perfectly fair to me, as long as they aren't actually collecting data. This seems like exactly the type of political fair use that serves us best.
it doesn't matter, cults aren't okay.
Thank you for that textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy. If the program actually works, it doesn't really matter who takes credit for it.
If the program works but is also used to recruit for a religion, then I wouldn't consider it a good thing. You're taking them off one drug and putting them on another. I'm not even entirely sure which one I would consider to be the worse problem either. I've had first-hand experience with drug abusing family members, but I think that that's probably easier to deal with than having one that's a scientologist. Also, it's not an example of the genetic fallacy when the statement reflects the merits rather than the source either. Cults, in the colloquial use of the term, are bad because they either hold extremist views that are harmful to their members or society, or they are scams designed to benefit the leaders of the cult, or both.
Except there are some states that have open primaries. Where you can vote in an other party's primary instead of your registered party's.
Nevada isn't one of those states.
Flamebait? WTF? Does Sharron Angle have mod points on slashdot? What Runaway1956 says is perfectly correct. Using copyright law to silence political speech goes completely against the whole idea of the First Amendment.
I think it was calling her a skank and a bitch that earned that mod. Can't really argue with that, it's an accurate moderation. He should leave the name-calling out and just make his point. It would be a lot more effective that way.
It isn't necessary to post the entire site unmodified in order to show what her views were so I doubt it's protected under fair use.
It is if you want to avoid accusations that you're taking her statements out of context. Such accusations are always used to muddy the waters. What better way to back up your statements about the candidate than to provide all of the context of the original statements, just as she presented them? This is a political work, being used for political purposes, and as such is usually given the most expansive fair use exception to copyright.
The Cease and Desist letter certainly doesn't in any way demonstrate that this was happening. It sure implies it via broad innuendo, but very definitely doesn't want to say it was happening. Then again, the whole letter reads more like it was meant to be shown to the voters than like a legal document, full of carefully biased language that you hear in a debate, not coming from a law office. I'm guessing that the salvo has no legal objective at all, but is entirely a PR move. It sure smells like it to me.
Yep. I got the same impression from that letter. The hyperbolic tone, the underlining of the part implying that they were collecting data, the use of words like "nefarious", and the statement that the only apparent purpose of the site was to collect info on Angle's supporters. It reeks of political theater.
Fair use covers excerpting for a number of purposes, but there are limits to how much can be used. The complaint in the letter is not that they excerpted from her Web site, it is that they mirrored the entire thing. That's not in any of the gray areas where there are disagreements about whether you've used to much or not; it's an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement, should the copyright holder decide to pursue it. The Nevada Democratic party clearly isn't going to fight this. The link provided in the complaint letter now redirects to a different site that does not appear to be a copy of the original site.
The limits on what can be used are not set in stone, and it depends on the type of work and what it is being used for. Political commentary tends to get the widest exceptions to copyright, and posting a site in its entirety seems quite reasonable for political purposes, as it provides all of the context of the original site, and there aren't the issues of market dilution that you have with commercial works. By doing it this way, they can say that they are accurately representing her views rather than quote-mining, because her views are displayed exactly as she displayed them herself.
Umm, you need read and understand the facts before you post. The issue is not that Senator Reid's campaign merely reposted parts of her website. Or that she was running away from positions she has taken in the past. It was that the Reid campaign created a website to look like hers and used that site to get names, emails and other information from people who believed it was her site.
They didn't create one to look like hers, they used a copy of her actual website. The letter claims they were collecting information, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that they did so. That would definitely be crossing the line. Posting the site itself seems like fair use as political commentary.
It is an open book. However, having dealt with a number of design contracts, there may have been a written agreement between the designer and the campaign that nobody else would use that site design, which this would violate to some extent. Nonetheless, there are ways around that: posting screen shots with commentary, for example, or just quoting the text.
I'd also expect Angle to contact The Wayback Machine if she doesn't want old copies of her site online...
Any agreement they had does not trump copyright law, and fair use has not yet been completely gutted. I'm somewhat suspicious of the collection of information submitted by users, but I haven't seen any evidence that the data was actually collected and saved anywhere. Other than that, it seems like fair use for political purposes. They are showing people exactly what she was saying, and there can be no claim that any of it was taken out of context, because all of the context is right there.
When they attack what is essentially an attempt to close a phishing site just because it's done by a conservative.
You would think that they at least had the common sense to check out the story.
Haven't seen any evidence of phishing. You have, I assume? Care to share?
"I haven't had time to look at this in detail" - the key part of your comment is this.
The summary makes it sound like they took screenshots and posted them on harry reid's website. What actually happened is that they copied Sharron Angle's old website in its entirety, created a new domain with her name in it (therealsharronangle.com), and hosted a copied version of the website themselves, without indicating on the website that is was a parody. This is known as a copyright violation, and could even be seen as a phishing attempt.
It's not a parody though. It's her actual website, as she was displaying it during the primary. It's intended to inform people about her beliefs as she presented them to her base, and which she is trying to hide now that she is in the Senate race and wants a wider appeal. I think that, at most, they may need to put a notice stating that at the top. This does seem like a pretty clear case of fair use for political commentary.
By "reposting old versions of her website," what the submitter actually means is "copying all of the code and images from Sharron Angle's old website, registering a new domain (therealsharronangle.com), and re-creating the entire (old) website." There was even an operable section to sign up as a volunteer, thus collecting the personal information of people who might accidentally come to the phishing site instead of the actual Sharron Angle site. This is known as phishing, and is indeed a violation of copyright.
Gee, Slashdot spreading a misleading story in a bid to make an unfavored politician look bad. Unfortunately, this isn't really unusual for Slashdot.
Do we know that they were actually collecting the submitted data, or was it just possible to submit the data, but the site didn't save it anywhere? I'd say that that would be a legitimate complaint. I just haven't seen anything that confirms it.
It appears that the complaint is legitimate. Rather than clearly use the content of the prior website as part of a legitimate debate, it is being used in a way that can be seen by some people as an impersonation site, and some people could easily be led to believe it is the candidate's site, and not an opponent's site. This deception could be used to harvest e-mails and other information deceptively.
Yes a political opponent should be allowed to repost content to comment on it -- but not to repost a mirror site that can be confused as to origin of who is running it.
Umm.. it IS the candidate's site. Just a previous version of it, which happens to be the entire point. If they're using it for harvesting emails or other information, then sure, go after them for that, but just posting her site as it existed before as a means to illustrate her views seems like fair use for political purposes. Maybe they should stick a frame around it explaining what it is. I think that would remove any possibility of confusion, and any possible argument about the purpose of the site.
Wait, who have you ever heard say that humans are the only thing affecting climate?
Anyone who has ever said that expensive changes in industry will result in significant change in global warming. So, basically any policy maker, and pretty much every single person at those AGW global summits.
Really? Please cite one that has actually said that. They may say that humans are making a very significant impact on the climate, but they don't say that we're the only thing affecting it.
The Japanese always have to over-complicate things. If only they hadn't insisted that the probe be able to transform into a giant, laser-sword-wielding humanoid form as well...
more like a noisy and obnoxious minority of a community.
So all slashdot users are Christians?
No, they don't try to legislate you into conforming to their beliefs. They'll just argue with you.
You might be right, but Christians still bring a lot more harmony to your society than you would give them credit for. The 'do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you' western value is 100% Christian. A lot of non-Christian cultures don't have this, and you can see a big difference in the way they treat each other. I haven't been to every country in the world, but I've been to a lot, and there's often quite a difference.
I'd say that genuinely good people bring harmony to society. Whether people are Christian or not doesn't seem to make much difference. There are good people that are Christians, and good people that aren't. There are less good and even bad people of both types as well. I'd rather be around good people that lack the rather bizarre beliefs in ancient mythology, but that's just my preference.
That would be funny if it wasn't true. You can get it from Amazon too.
Some pretty funny reviews there too :)