"It is totally outrageous that a former US Attorney knows so little about the law that he thinks he can rip off people. On the other hand -- another of Bush's legal appointees was Alberto Gonzales and he didn't seem to know much about the law either...," Jones said.





/Alberto haz a sad.

Wow. I think I've seen that one before.

/fine
//thank you fine

I have the strangest feeling I saw that clip before.

one of their best and most under-rated sketches - as I just said.

I have the strangest feeling I saw that clip before.

Even by NJ standards, that can't have been real.

/Lemon curry?

That's "humour, subby.

/FTFY
//pet peeve

Repeat, or is it?

Wow... what a farking idiot.

"Yeah, no one will recognize this old clip... let's use it."

...and I watched that episode last night, along with the ones from the cafe in Luton, the one that had the silly party, the one where Eric wants Rachel Welch, the Spanish inquisition episode and the insurance which did not pay out but came with a naked lady....

2 Cd's with 4 episodes each....

What is "that's just wrong" for $1,000.00?

Everyone knows if everyone has seen a clip enough times it enters public domain.

/and I've seen that clip before
//I'm pretty sure.

deja vu

I hope they take him down like gay boys in bondage...

By William Shakespeare.

What is it with the Republican party and copyright issues? How hard can it be to follow the laws your party wants enforced criminally rather than civilly?

"I'm surprised that a former U.S. Attorney isn't aware of his copyright infringement when he uses our material without permission. He's clearly made a terrible mistake. It was the endorsement of Sarah Palin he was after -- not that of Michael Palin."

"It is totally outrageous that a former US Attorney knows so little about the law that he thinks he can rip off people. On the other hand -- another of Bush's legal appointees was Alberto Gonzales and he didn't seem to know much about the law either...," Jones said.


I love when politicians get caught violating copyright laws, the artists in question almost always refuse to grant rights to use the material and always twist the knife a little deeper with comments like the ones above.

The likelihood of an entity "borrowing" or claiming ownership of copyrighted or other intellectual property is directly proportional to the entity's sense of entitlement due to an over-exaggerated sense of worth and power.

This applies to corporations as well as individuals.

I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

FTFA: "The Christie campaign should now be expecting the Spanish Inquisition..."

Does the author of TFA mean to imply that they didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition when "borrowing" material from one of the most universally recognized comedy troupes of the world?

ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

er, quoting is one thing. Lifting video of a sketch wholesale for an ad is quite another, don't you think?

/no, I bet you don't

ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

References, to be honest, has legal presedence of not being something you get very far trying to sue over. Use of images and/or soundbites without permission, however, is another manner.

ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

References in your own words using your own image can be fair use. Taking another person's image and voice from a copyrighted video isn't.

Cozret: What is it with the Republican party and copyright issues? How hard can it be to follow the laws your party wants enforced criminally rather than civilly?

Dude, laws are not made to be applied to politicians. They are for the those assholes downloading songs on The Lemonwires and BatToRents. Those are the ones that are killing the industry, not politicians that use songs and videos in state and nations wide ads without permission.

The best part is that they usually pick songs that say the opposite of their message.

Cornwell: FTFA: "The Christie campaign should now be expecting the Spanish Inquisition..."

Does the author of TFA mean to imply that they didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition when "borrowing" material from one of the most universally recognized comedy troupes of the world?

Of course they didn't expect it. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

wingnut396: Cozret: What is it with the Republican party and copyright issues? How hard can it be to follow the laws your party wants enforced criminally rather than civilly?

Dude, laws are not made to be applied to politicians. They are for the those assholes downloading songs on The Lemonwires and BatToRents. Those are the ones that are killing the industry, not politicians that use songs and videos in state and nations wide ads without permission.

True dat!

We all know that a single shared mp3 of a Bon Jovi song will cost the poor record company and artist gazillions of dollars, whereas association between the artist and a political party will only increase their value as a human being, and really, it should be regarded as free PR. There could absolutely not be any sort of negative backlash for being associated with one end of the political spectrum!

ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

Perhaps, but so what? Monty Python isn't some equal opportunity rip-off victim. How would you feel if someone you hated used your sh*t? Now how would you feel if a friend did?

ptelg: I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

Does that surprise you? Wouldn't it piss you off even more if the person who used your copyrighted material without your consent did it to promote a political position/party that you vehemently disagreed with?

ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

A copyright is, essentially, a piece of personal property. The owner of that property retains the right to allow or not allow it's use by anyone, at their own whim and discretion.
It's called freedom of choice - one of the cornerstones of good 'ol American Capitalism.
Now, if it were the case that the Pythons had NEVER attempted to protect their copyrights in any regard, it might complicate matters - but that isn't the case - they have defended their copyrights, and they are well established.
They are well within their rights here, even if your ideological bias leads you to believe they aren't being "fair".

It always amazes me when Republicans, who by and large favor copyright, and the assignment of rights in publishing, keep getting hammered on violation of said same.

It's not hard. You ask permission before you use it. And you insist that your campaign staff get permission before you use it. Just because you want something, doesn't mean that you get it.

If you want to represent the party of responsibility, you have to actually take some. Otherwise, you're just aping the behaviors and without any real understanding...

We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby, ulcerous, little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive.

We are sorry if this impression has come across.

hubiestubert: It always amazes me when Republicans, who by and large favor copyright, and the assignment of rights in publishing, keep getting hammered on violation of said same.

It's not hard. You ask permission before you use it. And you insist that your campaign staff get permission before you use it. Just because you want something, doesn't mean that you get it.

If you want to represent the party of responsibility, you have to actually take some. Otherwise, you're just aping the behaviors and without any real understanding...

Not only that, but every time the Republicans rip off an artist, they get publicly and embarrassingly reamed by them, lawsuit or not. You would think that would be enough to make one check twice.

Ooooooops.

Given the increasing silliness of the current crop of Republicans, the Election Night Special sketch (new window) is worthy of a nod in this thread.

This is a nice little campaign you got here, Christie. It would be a shame if anything were to...happen to it.

jso2897: Now, if it were the case that the Pythons had NEVER attempted to protect their copyrights in any regard, it might complicate matters

No, it wouldn't. Copyright can be asserted (or not) at the whim of the owner. The only form of IP you actually have to actively defend is a trademark.

Even so, I think the Pythons would likely sue anyone attempting to profit from their work without permission, regardless of political affiliation. Perhaps, with Democrats, they might not turn it into some sort of Spanish Inquisition.

thamike: Not only that, but every time the Republicans rip off an artist, they get publicly and embarrassingly reamed by them, lawsuit or not. You would think that would be enough to make one check twice.

Then again, it would be a huge blow for the Republican party to admit that they are sick and tired of using country songs whenever they need some music for an add because nasal-whining men in hats and boots are the only artists that would allow the Republicans to use their music. That could be an insult to a big segment of their core supporters.

t3knomanser: No, it wouldn't. Copyright can be asserted (or not) at the whim of the owner. The only form of IP you actually have to actively defend is a trademark.

Not really, because things would eventually have to end up in a court, where logic is banned from entering, and a good lawyer could argue that a performer has never set presedence for asserting copyrights at earlier time, making this event too fair use, as others have been granted the same privilege.

I'm not saying that his claim would be based on legality, logic, sanity, or necessarily even facts, but that has never been a hinderance for an argument to be used in a court of law.

"Sarah Palin, not Michael Palin"

*snerk*

ghare: "Sarah Palin, not Michael Palin"

*snerk*

I'll admit it, I giggled.

Cornwell: and a good lawyer could argue

They could argue whatever they like, they'd get absolutely no traction with that kind of argument. Copyright doesn't work that way, and no court would find in favor of the defendant based on that logic.

I didn't come in here for an argument.

jso2897: ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

A copyright is, essentially, a piece of personal property. The owner of that property retains the right to allow or not allow it's use by anyone, at their own whim and discretion.
It's called freedom of choice - one of the cornerstones of good 'ol American Capitalism.
Now, if it were the case that the Pythons had NEVER attempted to protect their copyrights in any regard, it might complicate matters - but that isn't the case - they have defended their copyrights, and they are well established.
They are well within their rights here, even if your ideological bias leads you to believe they aren't being "fair".

Aaaaand the pwnage is complete.

Chris Christie once bit my sister...

No realli!

Cornwell: Not really, because things would eventually have to end up in a court, where logic is banned from entering, and a good lawyer could argue that a performer has never set presedence for asserting copyrights at earlier time, making this event too fair use, as others have been granted the same privilege.

I'm not saying that his claim would be based on legality, logic, sanity, or necessarily even facts, but that has never been a hinderance for an argument to be used in a court of law.

A single take down order would suffice to dispel the lack of precedent.

Copyright law is pretty solid. They didn't get the permission from the copyright holders, nor does this fall under Fair Use.

t3knomanser: I didn't come in here for an argument.

Yes you did!

Cornwell: t3knomanser: I didn't come in here for an argument.

Yes you did!

This isn't an argument. It's a contradiction.

according to the people who share music, this is "sharing" so it is okay.
there was no financial gain, nothing was sold.
nothing was stolen.
nothing to see, move along...

brigid_fitch: Cornwell: t3knomanser: I didn't come in here for an argument.

Yes you did!

This isn't an argument. It's a contradiction.

Listen, if we're going to argue I have to take up a contrary position.

ptelg: I am half tempted to scour the internets looking for Monty Python references in Democrat speeches. Then send them to the republican. I'm willing to bet that if this was a Democrat, Monty Python wouldn't lift a finger.

I'd like to know your reasoning for this line of thinking. So, are you saying it's okay that a Republican ignored copyright issues & lifted almost an entire sketch as long as a Democrat did it, too? And the surviving members of Monty Python should just suck it if, let's say, some Democrat rebroadcast an SNL segment 20 years ago? Is that what you're saying?

As a Republican, shouldn't you be more upset over the lost revenue that this kind of video pirating would mean to a capitalistic society overall, regardless of who perpetrated it?

/Reminder: The SNL segment is a hypothetical. I am aware of no such thing.

Republicans: Because when we do it, it isn't breaking the law.