If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vice)   Rep. Lamar Smith, author of SOPA legislation, is a copyright violator   (vice.com) divider line 92
    More: Ironic, Lamar  
•       •       •

12280 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-13 12:54:54 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-01-13 12:56:01 PM  
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-01-13 12:56:26 PM  
Funny thing when those pesky laws come back to haunt their creators....
 
2012-01-13 12:57:45 PM  
95% of all websites are probably copyright violators in some form or other. They aren't all going to be shut down. But they will certainly be threatened, if they contain information or debates that the government doesn't want to be seen.
 
2012-01-13 12:58:07 PM  
good to see SOPA getting torn apart in the media lately
 
2012-01-13 12:59:41 PM  
So if I report a website, how would that work? How much info do I need to provide to the reporting agency? Can I inundate them with hundreds of false reports or would I get in trouble for doing that?
 
2012-01-13 12:59:55 PM  
The industry wrote the legislation, not some Congress hack.
 
2012-01-13 01:00:16 PM  
i42.tinypic.com
 
2012-01-13 01:01:46 PM  
The half-wit who signed on to support a tech-related bill, written and delivered to him by an army of Hollywood lawyers, doesn't understand its ramifications?

Color me farking shocked.
 
2012-01-13 01:02:11 PM  
Awesome.

The first strike against SOPA has already been struck . . .against the man who proposed the bill . . . by the man who proposed the bill!
 
2012-01-13 01:02:24 PM  

Macular Degenerate: Funny thing when those pesky laws come back to haunt their creators....


Why do you think pretty much every law they pass includes a clause that exempts congress members?
 
2012-01-13 01:03:44 PM  
Someone should get this info to the reps that are opposing SOPA-I think it would really help in the debate. Maybe.
 
2012-01-13 01:08:04 PM  
Why is it that the people who are the most hardcore outspoken against something are the biggest violators? Politicians against gays, Rush Limbaugh against drugs, etc etc.

Seems like all these people have some serious issues with projection of their own flaws.
 
2012-01-13 01:08:26 PM  
if its like other laws congress passes they will exempt themselves anyways.
 
2012-01-13 01:09:28 PM  
What, you didn't expect the laws to apply to them, did you?
 
2012-01-13 01:09:57 PM  

rebelyell2006: So if I report a website, how would that work? How much info do I need to provide to the reporting agency? Can I inundate them with hundreds of false reports or would I get in trouble for doing that?


You'd probably need a 53-foot tractor-trailer full of "info" to get a website you don't like shut down.

And by "info" I mean "unmarked, non-sequential $100 bills."
 
2012-01-13 01:10:10 PM  
That big dummy...
 
2012-01-13 01:12:09 PM  
Lamontar, you big dummy.

epoc_tnac: 95% of all websites are probably copyright violators in some form or other. They aren't all going to be shut down. But they will certainly be threatened, if they contain information or debates that the government doesn't want to be seen.


And violating Creative Commons is pretty common (so to speak); people tend to just grab whatever pretty picture they find on GIS and assume it's some stock photo anyone can use. Not to say that it should be overlooked, but as far as things go this is a pretty minor infraction. But this is exactly the sort of thing which leads to very selective enforcement; as you mention, it will be the sort of thing that most people will get away with until the piss off the wrong company, interest group or politician.

Anyway, it was much more blatant (and funnier) when John McCain did it.
 
2012-01-13 01:13:04 PM  

rebelyell2006: So if I report a website, how would that work? How much info do I need to provide to the reporting agency? Can I inundate them with hundreds of false reports or would I get in trouble for doing that?


I've always thought that this would be the best way to deal with these kinds of laws, some sort of massive denial attack, take out an entire nation through some sort of legal avenue. However I think that this law gives authority to the Attorney General or the like, who will only be answerable to his bosses - the lobbyists.
 
2012-01-13 01:13:17 PM  
Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.
 
2012-01-13 01:15:40 PM  

error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.


It still strongly suggests that SOPA's authors haven't the faintest idea what they're drafting even at the most rudimentary of levels.
 
2012-01-13 01:16:44 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Why is it that the people who are the most hardcore outspoken against something are the biggest violators? Politicians against gays, Rush Limbaugh against drugs, etc etc.

Seems like all these people have some serious issues with projection of their own flaws.


That is so farking true.
 
2012-01-13 01:16:45 PM  
is that his daughter in the pic? I'd hit it.
 
2012-01-13 01:18:40 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

RIP
 
2012-01-13 01:24:29 PM  
www.fohguild.org
 
2012-01-13 01:25:19 PM  
Want a good take on the Patriots Act and its follow up? Read 'The Shadow War' aka 'The War of Shadows' by Jack Chalker (1979)
 
2012-01-13 01:27:29 PM  

Mentalpatient87: What, you didn't expect the laws to apply to them, did you?


Actually, copyright laws don't apply to government agencies. Anything can be used without license to "educate the public."
 
2012-01-13 01:28:55 PM  

SkunkWerks: error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.

It still strongly suggests that SOPA's authors haven't the faintest idea what they're drafting even at the most rudimentary of levels.


Well, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible bill with all sorts of unintended consequences. But it's not like the guy is actually pirating movies or distributing ebooks or anything. And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.

What I don't get is how the author actually tracked this down. I mean, did he see a background photo, wonder 'hey, now that I've found an achived version of his website, I wonder if this background photo was licensed under CC but not cited?', then somehow managed to track down the uncited author (maybe through exif data?). I mean, that seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially seeing how www.texansforlamarsmith.com has a a nocrawl provision in it's robots.txt, so I don't even know how they would get an archived version of the site. Plus it's from vice.com...

The whole thing just seems like a lame way to get a sensational headline without any substance to me.
 
2012-01-13 01:31:14 PM  

error 303: And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.


This distinction is the exact one that SOPA fails to make.
 
2012-01-13 01:31:17 PM  
Don't know about you, but I'm stockpiling copyrighted denials that politicians will probably use like I didn't know it said that © or Some industry contributor wrote that law, I didn't have time to read it 'cause I was too busy introducing it © or That only applies to them, not to us©..

As an added bonus, I'm copyrighting the following "... Services calling in reference to your current credit card accounts. There are no problems currently with your account. It is urgent that you contact us concerning your eligibility for lowering your interest rates to as little as 1% your eligibility expires shortly, so please consider this final notice. Please press the number one on your phone now to speak with a Live Operator and lower your interest rate, or press the number 3. To discontinue further notices. Thank you. Have a great day." ©
 
2012-01-13 01:35:35 PM  
He's just taking a wide stance on the issue.
 
2012-01-13 01:36:48 PM  

sprawl15: error 303: And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.

This distinction is the exact one that SOPA fails to make.


it's worse than that. If his website had a comments section, and the commenter used a copyrighted phrase, linked to copyrighted content without proper attribution, or posted a copyrighted picture without proper attribution, then the site owner, not the commenter, would be responsible.

I.e. we could make posts on fark that link to youtube videos that haven't been DMCA'd yet, and FARK would be responsible, and could have the domain seized.
 
rpm
2012-01-13 01:37:15 PM  

error 303: SkunkWerks: error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.

It still strongly suggests that SOPA's authors haven't the faintest idea what they're drafting even at the most rudimentary of levels.

Well, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible bill with all sorts of unintended consequences. But it's not like the guy is actually pirating movies or distributing ebooks or anything. And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.

What I don't get is how the author actually tracked this down. I mean, did he see a background photo, wonder 'hey, now that I've found an achived version of his website, I wonder if this background photo was licensed under CC but not cited?', then somehow managed to track down the uncited author (maybe through exif data?). I mean, that seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially seeing how www.texansforlamarsmith.com has a a nocrawl provision in it's robots.txt, so I don't even know how they would get an archived version of the site. Plus it's from vice.com...

The whole thing just seems like a lame way to get a sensational headline without any substance to me.


It's enough to get the site take offline under SOPA, so it's got plenty of substance.
 
2012-01-13 01:38:33 PM  
Big deal. He didn't make the website.

I don't give a flying squirrel about this guy. Nor am I pro SOPA. I just don't like irrelevant arguments.
 
2012-01-13 01:39:52 PM  

error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.


It depends on what the punishment will be for violations. While this seems weak, if the punishment for a SOPA violation is what the RIAA wants, you could be looking at hundreds to thousands of dollars in fines, not even considering what you would have to pay to fight the allegations.

What I want to know is if these copyright violations apply to non-Internet property as well. Will the police be able to pull over anyone with a Calvin pissing sticker? If so, well played, SOPA.
 
2012-01-13 01:40:12 PM  

Crocodilly_Pontifex: it's worse than that. If his website had a comments section, and the commenter used a copyrighted phrase, linked to copyrighted content without proper attribution, or posted a copyrighted picture without proper attribution, then the site owner, not the commenter, would be responsible.


Indeed.
 
2012-01-13 01:43:38 PM  

rpm: error 303: SkunkWerks: error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.

It still strongly suggests that SOPA's authors haven't the faintest idea what they're drafting even at the most rudimentary of levels.

Well, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible bill with all sorts of unintended consequences. But it's not like the guy is actually pirating movies or distributing ebooks or anything. And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.

What I don't get is how the author actually tracked this down. I mean, did he see a background photo, wonder 'hey, now that I've found an achived version of his website, I wonder if this background photo was licensed under CC but not cited?', then somehow managed to track down the uncited author (maybe through exif data?). I mean, that seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially seeing how www.texansforlamarsmith.com has a a nocrawl provision in it's robots.txt, so I don't even know how they would get an archived version of the site. Plus it's from vice.com...

The whole thing just seems like a lame way to get a sensational headline without any substance to me.

It's enough to get the site take offline under SOPA, so it's got plenty of substance.


Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that he's not a copyright violator. CC licenses were created as an alternative to copyright. Sensationalist headlines and blog articles really go over the top, especially when there's plenty of room for real discussion.
 
2012-01-13 01:49:30 PM  

error 303: Well, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible bill with all sorts of unintended consequences. But it's not like the guy is actually pirating movies or distributing ebooks or anything. And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.

What I don't get is how the author actually tracked this down. I mean, did he see a background photo, wonder 'hey, now that I've found an achived version of his website, I wonder if this background photo was licensed under CC but not cited?', then somehow managed to track down the uncited author (maybe through exif data?). I mean, that seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially seeing how www.texansforlamarsmith.com has a a nocrawl provision in it's robots.txt, so I don't even know how they would get an archived version of the site. Plus it's from vice.com...

The whole thing just seems like a lame way to get a sensational headline without any substance to me.


Not only that, but the entire article is based off of that one screen shot.

I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that you have provided that the image was attributed to the source (me). So my conclusion would be that Lamar Smith's organization did improperly use my image.

In that one screenshot they don't credit the photographer, sure, but the image in the article and on BoingBoing is maybe half of the page, judging from the scroll bar on the side. For all I can tell, they did credit the photographer at the bottom of the page. The archive.org link they used doesn't work now, which makes me wonder when he pulled the page given that the article has been up for all of a day.

I don't like SOPA and I'm not too interested in defending the congressman, but this article is seriously weak.
 
rpm
2012-01-13 01:51:15 PM  

error 303: Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that he's not a copyright violator. CC licenses were created as an alternative to copyright. Sensationalist headlines and blog articles really go over the top, especially when there's plenty of room for real discussio


CC is not an alternative to copyright. It depends on copyright to work, it's just a standardized licensing mechanism.

He broke the license, therefore he's breaking copyright. Site goes bye bye. There's no gray area here. It's also meant to show how hard it is to manage in the real world when the primary proponent can't get it right.
 
rpm
2012-01-13 01:52:46 PM  

IMDWalrus: I don't like SOPA and I'm not too interested in defending the congressman, but this article is seriously weak.


They had a web archive link so you could check yourself. Now the robots.txt disallows that archive, fancy that.
 
2012-01-13 01:53:11 PM  
I don't think this has been said yet, so let me be the first.

The law does not apply to congressmonkeys.
 
2012-01-13 01:57:16 PM  

IMDWalrus: I don't like SOPA and I'm not too interested in defending the congressman, but this article is seriously weak.


Exactly. If I thought this article/issue would have any impact on getting more people to pay attention to this legislation maybe I'd find it more useful, but otherwise: MEH.

/OMG, I heard he hotlinks too. Death penalty.
 
2012-01-13 01:58:20 PM  

error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.


So we should overlook minor offenses? Do you think they would afford the common man the same courtesy?
 
2012-01-13 02:01:56 PM  
Do you happen to need a reason to be against SOPA? How about this - this thread alone has at least two copyright violations above me that would warrant shutting down the entire site.
 
2012-01-13 02:03:39 PM  

rpm: error 303: Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that he's not a copyright violator. CC licenses were created as an alternative to copyright. Sensationalist headlines and blog articles really go over the top, especially when there's plenty of room for real discussio

CC is not an alternative to copyright. It depends on copyright to work, it's just a standardized licensing mechanism.

He broke the license, therefore he's breaking copyright. Site goes bye bye. There's no gray area here. It's also meant to show how hard it is to manage in the real world when the primary proponent can't get it right.


Technically speaking the photographer did not register his work with the US Copyright office, he registed with Creative Commons. So his webmaster would be a Creative Commons license violtaor, rather than the Congressman (who is an idiot) being a copyright violator.

Further, the photographer offered his image as a free stock image, so it's not like he went around stealing photos for personal gain.

Like IMDWalrus said, it's a really weak article all around. I mean, seriously, we're taking vice.com as a legitimate source of journalism and intellectual property law now?
 
2012-01-13 02:04:57 PM  
Next you'll be telling us the anti-gay politicians are secretly gay!

It's OK though, laws like that are selectively enforced - the politician is in no danger.
 
rpm
2012-01-13 02:09:14 PM  

error 303: Technically speaking the photographer did not register his work with the US Copyright office, he registed with Creative Commons. So his webmaster would be a Creative Commons license violtaor, rather than the Congressman (who is an idiot) being a copyright violator.


Doesn't matter. That just means he'd only get statutory damages, not punitive. Copyright is automatic. It's a copyright violation BECAUSE it's a CC violation.
 
2012-01-13 02:09:32 PM  

error 303: SkunkWerks: error 303: Using a photo under a Creative Commons license, without sourcing the photographer, while I suppose a violation of the terms of Creative Commons, is really pretty weak.

There's plenty of reasons to hate SOPA, but if this is really what we're going to call blatent copywright violations, I'm not impressed.

It still strongly suggests that SOPA's authors haven't the faintest idea what they're drafting even at the most rudimentary of levels.

Well, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible bill with all sorts of unintended consequences. But it's not like the guy is actually pirating movies or distributing ebooks or anything. And while he's ultimatly responsible fo the content of his website, it's more likely his webmaster screwed up then him.


That's the whole point. He (probably) had no intention of violating any copyright, but if his legislation passes then simple mistakes like this could cost him his website/reputation/campaign etc.. Similarly it could cost other people their ability to voice opinions, share creative works of their own (e.g. mashups, caricatures, etc..), jobs, businesses, etc..
 
2012-01-13 02:11:39 PM  
Huh.... So, for example, what would be a good Santorumism for this guy?
 
2012-01-13 02:15:12 PM  

error 303: rpm: error 303: Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that he's not a copyright violator. CC licenses were created as an alternative to copyright. Sensationalist headlines and blog articles really go over the top, especially when there's plenty of room for real discussio

CC is not an alternative to copyright. It depends on copyright to work, it's just a standardized licensing mechanism.

He broke the license, therefore he's breaking copyright. Site goes bye bye. There's no gray area here. It's also meant to show how hard it is to manage in the real world when the primary proponent can't get it right.

Technically speaking the photographer did not register his work with the US Copyright office, he registed with Creative Commons. So his webmaster would be a Creative Commons license violtaor, rather than the Congressman (who is an idiot) being a copyright violator.

Further, the photographer offered his image as a free stock image, so it's not like he went around stealing photos for personal gain.

Like IMDWalrus said, it's a really weak article all around. I mean, seriously, we're taking vice.com as a legitimate source of journalism and intellectual property law now?


The photographer does not have to register with the copyright office (new window). You're citing old law. Second, the photographer offered it freely on specific terms. Terms which cannot be violated just because it's easy to obtain the photo. Of all the parts of your argument, that's some really weak sauce right there. Downright laughable.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report