|
Bernies campaign is entirely staffed by dnc recommendations apparently
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? Who gives a poo poo, other than you, because of course you do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
quote:13 Hours makes the best case for Bay as a toy-box aesthete with an abstract sense of motion and color—and the best case against him as an incoherent jingoism fetishist. From the AVClubs review of the movie http://www.avclub.com/review/thanks-some-first-rate-action-michael-bays-13-hour-230666 They give it a C+
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Who gives a poo poo, other than you, because of course you do. Because it's funny that that the Bernie campaigns legal people are insane
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Realtalk though, the slapfight over PP suing kind of misses the forest for the trees. Sure, it's free speech, but the right to free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, just protection from government punishment thereof. If they have them on record as using illegal tactics to create their media, welp, that's a crime. Sorry. Otherwise the government has no jurisdiction charging them. Good point. PP isn't suing for libel or any small time crap. They are trying to force a RICO action over the theft and publication of private medical treatment information, creating a shell medical organization, gaining government IDs with false information, and gaining credit instruments with false information. These are serious crimes with hefty penalties. I don't see how punishing people who commit these acts restricts the freedom of the press. Also: Joementum posted:Obviously, Bernie Sanders is a big supporter of private ownership of property. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Good point. PP isn't suing for libel or any small time crap. They are trying to force a RICO action over the theft and publication of private medical treatment information, creating a shell medical organization, gaining government IDs with false information, and gaining credit instruments with false information. These are serious crimes with hefty penalties. I don't see how punishing people who commit these acts restricts the freedom of the press. It totally doesn't, which is why trying to attack those shitheads' 1A rights also is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
E: not helping
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Who gives a poo poo, other than you, because of course you do. Presumably you'd say the same if any campaign had abused the law to silence a major source of free public information. Just because Sander's campaign abused the DMCA for stupid reasons doesn't make the abuse less hostile to fair use and free speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Did they give a reason why they want Wikipedia to stop giving them free advertising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Also: I see what you did here
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Presumably you'd say the same if any campaign had abused the law to silence a major source of free public information. No I wouldn't because its a slap fight over a .png file that I can just go to their campaign website to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:No I wouldn't because its a slap fight over a .png file that I can just go to their campaign website to see. this makes the case more stupid not less
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
i think they rescinded the complaint so maybe stop talking about it because it's boring
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
TheQat posted:i think they rescinded the complaint so maybe stop talking about it because it's boring Do you have a source on that? I'd be interested if they gave a reason. Raskolnikov38 posted:No I wouldn't because its a slap fight over a .png file that I can just go to their campaign website to see. So do you just not care about copyright abuses at all or just the ones that you don't like? edit: this tech dirt article lays out why its super dumb for Sanders of all people: quote:You can read the full takedown letter here, sent by a redacted lawyer at Garvey Schubert Barer, a firm that claims to have expertise in intellectual property law. If that's true, they sure don't show it in this letter. First of all, they're sending a DMCA notice, which only applies to copyright, but posting campaign logos is hardly copyright infringement. When you're talking about logos, at best you're talking trademark, but that's not an issue here either. Whether it's trademark or copyright, Wikimedia hosting campaign logos is clearly fair use. If they're really arguing copyright, then it's an easy fair use call. If it's trademark, there's no "use in commerce" on the Wikimedia side, and no likelihood of confusion. Either one is simply stupid to argue. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have a source on that? I'd be interested if they gave a reason. twodot fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it's not unreasonable for a campaign to want full control over the content that's next to their logos. Having an official logo on a vandalized Wikipedia page isn't a great place to be. Wikipedia appears to be claiming the other logos, including the one up for Sanders right now, are too simple to qualify for copyright protection. I'm not sure if that's true. Logos, especially for a political campaign are clearly fair use. There's absolutely no legal ground for the Sanders campaign here. I would be amazed if Jeb!'s quote:Observers have noted that it's debatable whether logos qualify for copyright protection at all. Even if they do, Wikipedia commentary about a political campaign seems like a crystal-clear example of fair use. Most of all, it's unclear why Sanders' lawyers think that removing their logos from a nonprofit site like Wikipedia would help the campaign. quote:First of all, they're sending a DMCA notice, which only applies to copyright, but posting campaign logos is hardly copyright infringement. When you're talking about logos, at best you're talking trademark, but that's not an issue here either. Whether it's trademark or copyright, Wikimedia hosting campaign logos is clearly fair use. If they're really arguing copyright, then it's an easy fair use call. If it's trademark, there's no "use in commerce" on the Wikimedia side, and no likelihood of confusion. Either one is simply stupid to argue. This is dumb and at best shows Sanders has little control over his campaign. Why did they hire this law firm in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it's not unreasonable for a campaign to want full control over the content that's next to their logos (edit: This is distinct from whether they are legally obligated that control). Having an official logo on a vandalized Wikipedia page isn't a great place to be. Wikipedia appears to be claiming the other logos, including the one up for Sanders right now, are too simple to qualify for copyright protection. I'm not sure if that's true. Pages so visited/important are heavily monitored / locked to prevent vandalism. There is legitimately no reason to ask for the logo to be taken down, especially since it's there in a non-biased setting (theoretically). I'm just pinning this on a bad lawyer or whatever. It's a nonissue but it was so head-scratching it got attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
http://boingboing.net/2016/01/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-withdr.html Here's one source on the complaint against wiki being withdrawn
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
TheQat posted:http://boingboing.net/2016/01/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-withdr.html Finally lol. quote:Conclusion: The campaign has contacted the WMF and formally withdrawn the DMCA. I will be undeleting the images immediately after I save this message and notifying the 3 users who I sent notices too on their talk page. I have already notified odder and we are asking for a written version of the withdrawal (it was done initially over the phone) so that we have it formally for odder and for posting. Jalexander--WMF 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Why are they wasting the revolution's money on these lovely IP lawyers again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
no idea, it seems like it could only have been someone who didn't understand wikipedia which seems really silly in 2016
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
This is a few days old but I don't remember it being posted. Speaker Paul D. Ryan calling trickle down economics a liberal idea https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/686926711737421825
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
TheQat posted:no idea, it seems like it could only have been someone who didn't understand wikipedia which seems really silly in 2016 its not, half the members of congress barely know how to use their cellphones
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:This is a few days old but I don't remember it being posted. Conservatives really, really depend on their base having the memory of goldfish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It totally doesn't, which is why trying to attack those shitheads' 1A rights also is stupid. Free speech isnt free
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Free speech isnt free Thank you, are troops. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Thank you, are troops. yw
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Conservatives really, really depend on their base having the memory of goldfish. It's a pretty safe bet!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:This is a few days old but I don't remember it being posted. Holy poo poo the responses to that are incredible. quote:@RealTrillBill @SpeakerRyan *Paul Ryan trips on his way to podium, cue cards spill everywhere*
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
TheQat posted:no idea, it seems like it could only have been someone who didn't understand wikipedia which seems really silly in 2016 Actually, I just had an interesting thought. Maybe some enterprising dork used a script to find uses of the logo and automatically send DMCA notices. At least I hope it's something stupid like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
nah it was deliberate stupidity these things happen, they withdrew it, so nbd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:nah it was deliberate stupidity The campaign initially stood by the DMCA take-down for several hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The campaign initially stood by the DMCA take-down for several hours. lol Changing my vote to Hillrod now! This injustice will not stand. I mean it literally will not stand, because it has been withdrawn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:lol Typical pubbie 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Dear Hillary liker, Sanders is running a negative, republican style campaign! Donate to Hillary now!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The campaign initially stood by the DMCA take-down for several hours. ...You work for CNN, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Holy poo poo the responses to that are incredible. Well, it's certainly Neoliberal idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
The NRA is rewriting children's stories. First up: Litte Red Riding Hood Has a Gunquote:“What big teeth you have!” Grandma said, as his fierce jaws came near.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:This is a few days old but I don't remember it being posted. His elaboration on that stupid statement is even worse: quote:Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) launched a broad critique of President Obama’s economic record hours before the president delivers his final State of the Union address. So, the president doesn't deserve credit for the economic growth, as the fed is responsible for that, but in addition to economic growth, the fed is also killing economic growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
I do not personally know a Ted Cruz supporter and for that I thank the nonexistent God. I do know trump backers though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I do not personally know a Ted Cruz supporter and for that I thank the nonexistent God. I do know trump backers though. I know several, and their existence strengthens my nonbelief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:35
|
|
