That seems to be the one thing that is really problematic. I didn't see any problem with most of the photos; just pics of girlfriends and drunk people, and this is no big security threat. There are a lot of documents that might have been intended to be kept private, but how damning is this really, for example? And this one seems threatening at first, but what does it really tell us? The war photos are not especially gruesome at all and do not appear to reveal any information about anything, other than that some soldiers have an interesting sense of humor.
In the end, I think this guy has made the problem seem a lot worse than it is. I'm sure there are people inadvertently sharing information that should be classified, and that should be dealt with the same way we might deal with someone who posts such information on the mess hall bulletin board, publishes it in his local newspaper, or emails it to his girlfriend.
I did read the articles. The authors are wrong. There is no legally meaningful distinction between parody and satire as far as the first amendment goes. The distinction you're making -- and, it seems, a lot of bloggers are making -- is just flat out meaningless. The law protects parody because it allows an artist to make a point, not because it allows an artist to make fun of another artist. I understand the distinction you're making; but I believe it is wrong.
The cat in the hat case -- not a supreme court case -- is, I think, indicates that the parody must target the original in a meaningful way. Personally, I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold this distinction in the way people are claiming here. It is based on the idea that there must be a "need to conjure up the original work" that one is copying. I think there is more than enough need in this case, but beyond that I still think the distinction is specious. The first Amendment protects your right to make a point, not your right to make a point in the cleverest or most insightful manner. I had not read the cat in the hat decision until you pointed it out, but I think this distinction is simply wrong-headed.
Why is everyone taking for granted that there is some meaningful legal distinction at work here? So what if the song is a means to an end? So what if they could have picked another song? The first amendment does not just protect the BEST way to deliver a message. It DOESN'T MATTER whether the work is making fun of the original. In fact, the work is making a point that is even more worthy of first amendment protection.
That's false, as others have pointed out. It's true that the courts will look at how much of a work is used in another work when determining fair use, but that is only one factor to consider and they have been correctly reluctant to make a hard and fast rule about how much use of a work is OK. The big copyright case involving parody is the 2 live crew case; they used the entire song though changed the lyrics, just like Weird Al does, and the Court held that as parody it was strongly protected. Political parody like this case will be protected even more so.
After scratching my head for a while on this I did some googling. It is my perception that this distinction between "protected parody" and "infringing satire" is completely wrongheaded. There are a couple bloggers out there talking about this distinction and everyone makes the assumption that in the US, "parody" is protected speech and "satire" is not. I don't know of any Court decision upholding such a specious distinction. (Perhaps there is one, and if someone produces it I will happily eat my hat.) These bloggers also make the assumption that something is either one or the other. The main distinction they are making is that "parody" makes fun of the piece of art it is copying -- like 2 Live Crew's "Pretty woman" which is the main us supreme court case on this -- whereas "satire" is using copied material to make fun of something else.
I think all this discussion misses the point of protection of parody completely. Parody is protected (as I posted in response to another comment) because it is an important way for a speaker to make a point. Not because it is an important way to make fun of another artist's work. It doesn't matter what kind of point you're making; and in fact someone like jib jab who is clearly making a political point can probably expect MORE protection than someone whose only goal is to try to make another artist cry.
Can you cite a US Court decision making this distinction between satire and parody in this manner? I agree this is not a direct parody of the song, but so what? Parody is protected because it is an important means of social commentary, not because it is an important means of making fun of other artists! I'm no lawyer but I do study the first amendment and copyright laws, and I don't recall seeing this distinction being made in the 2 Live Crew decision. We protect parody because it is an important way for an artist to make a point -- that protection is not to my knowledge based on the kind of point the artist is making. In jibjab's case, the fact that the artist's point is core political speech only strengthens its protection under fair use.
If they had just picked a random song, you'd probably be right.
That is not true. I agree with your point that this was a good song for them to pick. But as far as jibjab's legal protection goes, it doesn't really matter what song they picked. A dancing picture of Bush in bra and panties singing "Oops, I Lied to the Public Again" would be protected fair use. It doesn't have to be a good parody or even a particularly insightful social comment in order to merit protection under the first amendment, and that's really what is at issue here -- it is the reason that parody is considered fair use.
Frankly, if I were jib jab's lawyers I would be popping the champagne. You couldn't ask for a better case that would not only have a solid basis for winning in court but also bring your client so much favorable media attention as astute commentators being persecuted for speaking their minds.
As in, it's interesting what a lame comment that is? I am not ANAL, so I never went to law school, but I am pretty certain your distinction between "satire" and "parody" has no legal basis. (Frankly I don't think it has all that much semantic basis either, but that's neither here nor there.) Whoever's idea this lawsuit was is a moron, or is just trying to get some cheap attention. Whether this is "satire" or "parody," it is clearly protected speech, and it clearly falls under fair use of a copyrighted work, at least under US law. The Hustler v Falwell Supreme Court decision gave strong protection to what it called political parody -- argue semantics all you want, but the jibjab thing is clearly in the same class of protected speech. That was not a copyright decision of course -- it dealt with defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But it seems to me that if a certain class of speech is so protected that you can intentionally inflict emotional distress on someone with it, then you're certainly allowed to infringe copyright with it.
The bottom line here is that fair use is not about allowing you to quote a work in order to make fun of that particular work; it is about allowing you to quote a work in order to make a particular kind of social commentary. The fact that this particular social commentary is also core political speech (and not just making fun of a song, like in the 2livecrew case) is simply icing on the cake for jib jab's defense attorneys -- in fact, it means this kind of speech would be MORE protected than a parody of the song, not less.
none of those "hacks" have anything to do with linux. Those are service mode commands and "backdoors" that are written specifically for those devices. Whether or not a device has linux is irrelevant in terms of whether or not it is "hackable" by typing in service codes already programmed into the device.
OK, fine, running PalmOS. But please do it!! Of course, we all know Apple won't, because Jobs doesn't think Apple can rule the phone/pda market. The thing is, we all know that if Apple spent twenty minutes thinking about it, they could come up with a device that blows away what's out there. Treos are cool, but such things try to do too much and do it all in a mediocre manner. Apple could easily combine the simplicity of their interfaces with the tools required.
Here's one message I wish cell phone manufacturers would get.... there is no necessary reason a cell phone must look like a phone. It doesn't have to be cradled in my neck in a way that distracts me from driving AND screws up my spine. Make a headset essential and build a device that has a more practical shape for what it does. Then build different shaped devices for different needs (and then maybe I can finally get my dream emate-2)!
somewhat reduced quality? Have you listened to the crap they play when they put you on hold? Pretty much anything in my music collection is going to be better quality than the cheesy muzak they normally put on there.....
Thanks for the link - that Dana looks pretty cool. Close to what I'd like, but not quite. The website says it's easy to carry under your arm. That's what a handle should be for! And of course anything with a keyboard should fold or otherwise protect the keyboard from the other crap bouncing around in my backpack. And the screen should be bigger -- 3 or 4 lines of text is not enough to see. If it was $100 I would get one anyway, but at $400 you can get a new palm with color screen, camera, etc.... Not that I want those things, but the point of excluding them is to keep the price low.
I'd be interested to see a hardcore Newton fan actually make a list of what it would take to get him to switch to something new.
I will. I'm an emate fan as I noted in an earlier post. Here's what I want:
Form factor of the original. It's different for the handheld newtons but for the emate this means a usable keyboard that makes very little noise and a handle (and preferably indestructible green plastic around everything).
An option to get a greyscale screen. Color will be cool but I prefer battery life and it would be great if there was a much cheaper greyscale option.
A reasonably fast processor -- no need for 300+MHz they're putting in Axims and stuff, just something as fast as what's in last year's Palms.
Easy internet with wifi, as well as easy sync of key documents. My biggest complaint about my emate is I can't figure out how to turn the stuff I type into documents on my computer that I can edit easily. Or put textfiles from my computer onto my emate. I can do this with any new pda (I can even do it with my ipod).
Text editor. Something simple like the notepad included is fine, though preferably something with more modern capabilities. A NewtonOS equivalent of BBEdit would ROCK. (Yeah yeah so would emacs, I suppose).
A terminal emulater that at least does ssh connections.
A simple web browser.
An email program.
That's about it. I don't want a camera, mp3 player, or phone, but any of those things could be included as options. You don't need to design something I can hold with my neck -- just stick a headset jack on the machine. Personally I want it to look like the emate. That oqo is pretty cool looking but I bet the keypad is a bitch to type on. If you're just talking about handhelds, I'd ditch the keypad, or maybe just leave a number pad for dialing (assuming it's a cellphone) on one side of it, but otherwise just go for something like the Clie T55 form factor. Keep it simple. There's no need for a keypad nobody will use. If you want a usable keyboard, make a bigger device. Those are just my thoughts, I'm sure others will disagree....
Jobs has a point, except: 1 - this was supposed to happen years ago; it still hasn't really happened yet, and 2 - can you think of a PDA/cell phone combo that wouldn't get its ass KICKED by just about anything Apple puts out, even on a bad day? PDA/cell phones are here, but barely; the best ones are over $600 and are mostly clunky solutions that try to do everything. The Treo is the coolest one I've seen, but I'd rather have one with fewer features and better interface. The little sidekick thing is a good idea in theory but in the real world it's lame. Personally I would love an emate with a headset connection. A cell phone doesn't have to be something you can hold up to your ear by stretching your neck and fucking up your spine. If anyone can see that, it's Steve Jobs. But, alas, he doesn't, or at least he hasn't yet....
Slashdot Mirror
25% of DoubleClick's advertising is still getting through.
I don't mind waiting fifteen years to organize my photo collection.
The lawyers always win. The person with the most lawyers comes in second place.
Microsoft patented France.
In the end, I think this guy has made the problem seem a lot worse than it is. I'm sure there are people inadvertently sharing information that should be classified, and that should be dealt with the same way we might deal with someone who posts such information on the mess hall bulletin board, publishes it in his local newspaper, or emails it to his girlfriend.
That should be NO PORN, which is the military's designation for secret information other than porn. Classified porn, of course, gets its own category.
The cat in the hat case -- not a supreme court case -- is, I think, indicates that the parody must target the original in a meaningful way. Personally, I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold this distinction in the way people are claiming here. It is based on the idea that there must be a "need to conjure up the original work" that one is copying. I think there is more than enough need in this case, but beyond that I still think the distinction is specious. The first Amendment protects your right to make a point, not your right to make a point in the cleverest or most insightful manner. I had not read the cat in the hat decision until you pointed it out, but I think this distinction is simply wrong-headed.
Why is everyone taking for granted that there is some meaningful legal distinction at work here? So what if the song is a means to an end? So what if they could have picked another song? The first amendment does not just protect the BEST way to deliver a message. It DOESN'T MATTER whether the work is making fun of the original. In fact, the work is making a point that is even more worthy of first amendment protection.
That's false, as others have pointed out. It's true that the courts will look at how much of a work is used in another work when determining fair use, but that is only one factor to consider and they have been correctly reluctant to make a hard and fast rule about how much use of a work is OK. The big copyright case involving parody is the 2 live crew case; they used the entire song though changed the lyrics, just like Weird Al does, and the Court held that as parody it was strongly protected. Political parody like this case will be protected even more so.
I think all this discussion misses the point of protection of parody completely. Parody is protected (as I posted in response to another comment) because it is an important way for a speaker to make a point. Not because it is an important way to make fun of another artist's work. It doesn't matter what kind of point you're making; and in fact someone like jib jab who is clearly making a political point can probably expect MORE protection than someone whose only goal is to try to make another artist cry.
Can you cite a US Court decision making this distinction between satire and parody in this manner? I agree this is not a direct parody of the song, but so what? Parody is protected because it is an important means of social commentary, not because it is an important means of making fun of other artists! I'm no lawyer but I do study the first amendment and copyright laws, and I don't recall seeing this distinction being made in the 2 Live Crew decision. We protect parody because it is an important way for an artist to make a point -- that protection is not to my knowledge based on the kind of point the artist is making. In jibjab's case, the fact that the artist's point is core political speech only strengthens its protection under fair use.
That is not true. I agree with your point that this was a good song for them to pick. But as far as jibjab's legal protection goes, it doesn't really matter what song they picked. A dancing picture of Bush in bra and panties singing "Oops, I Lied to the Public Again" would be protected fair use. It doesn't have to be a good parody or even a particularly insightful social comment in order to merit protection under the first amendment, and that's really what is at issue here -- it is the reason that parody is considered fair use.
Frankly, if I were jib jab's lawyers I would be popping the champagne. You couldn't ask for a better case that would not only have a solid basis for winning in court but also bring your client so much favorable media attention as astute commentators being persecuted for speaking their minds.
The bottom line here is that fair use is not about allowing you to quote a work in order to make fun of that particular work; it is about allowing you to quote a work in order to make a particular kind of social commentary. The fact that this particular social commentary is also core political speech (and not just making fun of a song, like in the 2livecrew case) is simply icing on the cake for jib jab's defense attorneys -- in fact, it means this kind of speech would be MORE protected than a parody of the song, not less.
Yeah! Celine Dion!!
Oh, you mean "music to vomit by," not "music to induce vomiting." My bad.
There's already an IR remote program for PalmOS out there too for those with a palm-based device.
Perhaps this is for the same people to whom Sony also markets a $5000 digital camera, a $2300 minidisk player, or $3000 headphones?
For $700 it better damn well import magic apprentices, whoever they are. Hell, for that price, one of those apprentices better give me a blowjob.
none of those "hacks" have anything to do with linux. Those are service mode commands and "backdoors" that are written specifically for those devices. Whether or not a device has linux is irrelevant in terms of whether or not it is "hackable" by typing in service codes already programmed into the device.
I don't want any hotcakes either.
OK, fine, running PalmOS. But please do it!! Of course, we all know Apple won't, because Jobs doesn't think Apple can rule the phone/pda market. The thing is, we all know that if Apple spent twenty minutes thinking about it, they could come up with a device that blows away what's out there. Treos are cool, but such things try to do too much and do it all in a mediocre manner. Apple could easily combine the simplicity of their interfaces with the tools required.
Here's one message I wish cell phone manufacturers would get .... there is no necessary reason a cell phone must look like a phone. It doesn't have to be cradled in my neck in a way that distracts me from driving AND screws up my spine. Make a headset essential and build a device that has a more practical shape for what it does. Then build different shaped devices for different needs (and then maybe I can finally get my dream emate-2)!
somewhat reduced quality? Have you listened to the crap they play when they put you on hold? Pretty much anything in my music collection is going to be better quality than the cheesy muzak they normally put on there.....
"C" was just an abbreviation.
Thanks for the link - that Dana looks pretty cool. Close to what I'd like, but not quite. The website says it's easy to carry under your arm. That's what a handle should be for! And of course anything with a keyboard should fold or otherwise protect the keyboard from the other crap bouncing around in my backpack. And the screen should be bigger -- 3 or 4 lines of text is not enough to see. If it was $100 I would get one anyway, but at $400 you can get a new palm with color screen, camera, etc.... Not that I want those things, but the point of excluding them is to keep the price low.
I will. I'm an emate fan as I noted in an earlier post. Here's what I want:
- Form factor of the original. It's different for the handheld newtons but for the emate this means a usable keyboard that makes very little noise and a handle (and preferably indestructible green plastic around everything).
- An option to get a greyscale screen. Color will be cool but I prefer battery life and it would be great if there was a much cheaper greyscale option.
- A reasonably fast processor -- no need for 300+MHz they're putting in Axims and stuff, just something as fast as what's in last year's Palms.
- Easy internet with wifi, as well as easy sync of key documents. My biggest complaint about my emate is I can't figure out how to turn the stuff I type into documents on my computer that I can edit easily. Or put textfiles from my computer onto my emate. I can do this with any new pda (I can even do it with my ipod).
- Text editor. Something simple like the notepad included is fine, though preferably something with more modern capabilities. A NewtonOS equivalent of BBEdit would ROCK. (Yeah yeah so would emacs, I suppose).
- A terminal emulater that at least does ssh connections.
- A simple web browser.
- An email program.
That's about it. I don't want a camera, mp3 player, or phone, but any of those things could be included as options. You don't need to design something I can hold with my neck -- just stick a headset jack on the machine. Personally I want it to look like the emate. That oqo is pretty cool looking but I bet the keypad is a bitch to type on. If you're just talking about handhelds, I'd ditch the keypad, or maybe just leave a number pad for dialing (assuming it's a cellphone) on one side of it, but otherwise just go for something like the Clie T55 form factor. Keep it simple. There's no need for a keypad nobody will use. If you want a usable keyboard, make a bigger device. Those are just my thoughts, I'm sure others will disagree....Jobs has a point, except: 1 - this was supposed to happen years ago; it still hasn't really happened yet, and 2 - can you think of a PDA/cell phone combo that wouldn't get its ass KICKED by just about anything Apple puts out, even on a bad day? PDA/cell phones are here, but barely; the best ones are over $600 and are mostly clunky solutions that try to do everything. The Treo is the coolest one I've seen, but I'd rather have one with fewer features and better interface. The little sidekick thing is a good idea in theory but in the real world it's lame. Personally I would love an emate with a headset connection. A cell phone doesn't have to be something you can hold up to your ear by stretching your neck and fucking up your spine. If anyone can see that, it's Steve Jobs. But, alas, he doesn't, or at least he hasn't yet....