Wikipedia and Others to Shut Down for 24 Hours on January 18

In this image, logos of other companies were used to
illustrate the ABC stories. Would that be a violation,
or fair use? What about here?

Don't be surprised if you try to go to your favorite website and find it unusable on Wednesday. Some of them, notably Wikipedia, will be protesting a couple of intrusive "anti-piracy" bills in the House and Senate. In the worst case, if the bills were enacted into law, blogs like this one would be in danger of being shut down. Anything that could be considered someone else's intellectual property could be a violation, and it looks like corporations would be the arbiters. Sounds sort of like a corporatocracy or something, doesn't it? I don't like it, and I don't really care if it's left, right or bipartisan. And the big question: if site owners are responsible for content posted by others, how fast would Facebook and Twitter be out of business?

[Excerpt]


Wikipedia Blackout: Websites Wikipedia, Reddit, Others Go Dark Wednesday to Protest SOPA, PIPA

Do not try to look up "Internet Censorship" or "SOPA" or "PIPA" on Wikipedia, the giant online encyclopedia, on Wednesday. SOPA and PIPA are two bills in Congress meant to stop the illegal copying and sharing of movies and music on the Internet, but major Internet companies say the bills would put them in the impossible position of policing the online world. . .

Read more (with video) at: ABC News

Las Vegas Review-Journal Copyright Case Tossed. Good.

Here's the story of a hobbyist blogger, who was blogging along merrily, and then got freaked the hell out. Yes, I'd been blogging for a couple of years, careful to give attribution when I used sources, making it clear that not everything at Greenlee Gazette was produced by me alone. As is common practice on blogs, I clearly indicated excerpts and photos and whatnot. I thought everything was cool.

Then one day, a company called Righthaven started buying up the copyrights--so I thought--of articles from The Las Vegas Review-Journal (apparently in cahoots), and started suing bloggers who excerpted from that source, willy-nilly. You could be a big duke like FreeRepublic.com or Democratic Underground, or a little hobbyist like me. Well, I removed everything I'd ever excerpted--maybe 35 posts--except for the links, and one photo that I have every right to show, morally. And thank goodness, they never came after me.

But they did go after Democratic Underground with a vengeance. And they lost. Badly. And DU is going after them for damages. Good.

[Excerpt]

Judge rules Righthaven lacks standing to sue, threatens sanctions over misrepresentations

A federal judge in Las Vegas today issued a potentially devastating ruling against copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC, finding it doesn't have standing to sue over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, that it has misled the court and threatening to impose sanctions against Righthaven. . .

Read more at: VegasInc.

Democratic Underground to Fight Copyright Infringement Claim

Good. I hope they win.

[Excerpt]

Political Forum Fights Back Against Righthaven Copyright Troll Suit

Las Vegas - The online political discussion forum Democratic Underground is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by copyright troll Righthaven LLC, arguing in court documents filed Monday that the short excerpt of a news article at issue in the suit is a clear case of fair use. . .

Read more at: Electronic Frontier Foundation

Las Vegas Review-Journal Sues Sharron Angle for Copyright Infringement

I'm a moonbat, lefty liberal blogger, and the headline above gives me no joy. Why? Because while I disagree with just about everything Sharron Angle stands for, and cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would support her, I think she's getting a raw deal here.

As I wrote about before, The Las Vegas Review Journal, Vegas' only full-time daily newspaper--the Las Vegas Sun is an insert--has been suing bloggers and websites for excerpting their material.  Not warning them, not asking--or even demanding--that site owners remove the material, just literally making a federal case of it.  This situation has had me worried for quite some time, and I'll admit, I'm still not sure what to do about it.

I'm basically a one-man show, writing this blog as a hobby for the past three years. In that time, I've probably used the LVRJ as a source 15 times or so.  Considering that I've posted nearly 7,000 different posts, and that I live in Las Vegas, that's pretty light.  As most bloggers do, I usually write my own opinions on a news story, and then post a small excerpt, possibly a photo, from a variety of sources.  I've made every effort to show that these excerpts are not my work, and always provide attribution and live links.

There's a thing called "fair use," and it has always been my assumption (and clearly the assumption of most bloggers) that the conditions above meet fair use.  Most of the time, I'll only use the headline, photo and the first paragraph of a story. Occasionally, I'll use a little more, especially if the article is long and the paragraphs are short.  I make it a practice not to use so much of an article that there would be no point in clicking through to the original source.  I'm trying to "tease" the story, not steal it.  The RJ apparently does not see any distinction.

So, what to do? The deed has been done, and has been around on the internet for years.  I know there are internet "way-back" machines, and that even changing the original posts or deleting them altogether would likely be of no use.  Besides, I haven't made even a penny at this here blog thingy.  Sure, there are Google AdSense ads here, added on a whim a couple of years ago.  But you need $100 worth of AdSense earnings to get paid anything.  And after all this time, I ain't there yet.  Supposing that day ever comes, if you divide that $100 by the hours I've spent writing this blog, I'm still making nothing per hour. Fractions of fractions of a cent.

Still, I get the butterflies.  So today, I went through my entire archive, and went through each post containing RJ material, and deleted everything but the headline, link and occasional photo.  One photo I won't take down is one containing images of my husband, his friends and co-workers shortly after 9/11 that appeared in the RJ and sat on my hard drive for seven years before I used it.  It's credited, I'm not making money off of it, that should be enough. 

But have my actions in deleting and resaving those posts "flagged" my blog? Possible. I don't know. But that's why I've written this post.  Which could also flag me, I suppose. Hopefully, it will serve as an explanation, should any of their lawyers see it.  Ugh. Still with the butterflies.  But the Las Vegas Review-Journal need not worry. I won't be sourcing them in the future. Not ever. I'll even delete every mention of them from the archives if they want me to.  I'm sorry that I may have led some traffic to their site.  Sorry if my massive worldwide audience of 50-200 people per day might have stolen that one Las Vegan who might have bought one day's paper from them.  And I'm nervous about even hitting "publish post" after writing this. But I'm keeping the 9/11 photo. 


Sharron Angle Being Sued For Copyright Infringement

Read it (what, you think I'm going to actually EXCERPT it???) at: Las Vegas Badger

EDITOR'S NOTE:  I thought I should add this copy of my disclaimer, which has been a part of the blog for most of its existence under "Mission Statement" at the top left:

© Copyright 2010 James L. Greenlee


All site contents © Copyright James L. Greenlee, except those works previously copyrighted by others. All efforts will be made to properly attribute non-original content. If your work has been improperly attributed in this space, or if you would like your work removed, please contact editor@greenleegazette.com.

Other bloggers are free to use anything from this blog, in whole or in part, as long as attribution and a live link are supplied.

HBO Pulls Nearly All Real Time with Bill Maher Clips

As noted below, I found that minutes after posting the "New Rules" segment of Real Time with Bill Maher--like I almost always do if there is a new episode--HBO pulled the clip for copyright violation. After a little research, I found that the old clips are mostly gone now too. I'm not sure who got a bug up their butt last night at TimeWarner to yank them all, but it seems to have happened.

I have mixed feelings about this. I understand and sympathize with their copyright concerns, and with the fact that Real Time is on a pay service. Sure, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to give it away for free. On the other hand, allowing the clips generates buzz, interests people to what the show is all about, and probably encourages some people to subscribe to HBO so that they can watch it live. HBO might counter that "who would watch it live if they can get it for free on the internet?" Well, Real Time is a live program. Many people want to watch such a program as it airs, especially since it is time-dated material. It has an expiration date. Somehow, NBC and CBS have survived as entities while allowing shared clips of their programs.

I checked out HBO's site, and while they have a limited number of videos there, they can--as far as I can tell--only be linked to, not embedded. Which limits their attractiveness for blogging. So, HBO, you may be in the legal right here, but you also may be losing a significant amount of buzz. MSNBC has not pulled links to their programming from YouTube, most likely because of that sort of buzz.

New Superman Movie to be Forced by Legal Decision?

This afternoon, I was listening to The Thom Hartmann Show on the radio, as usual. One of his topics was copyright law, which he argued--as a writer who holds many copyrights--that the laws as they stand are fairly ridiculous. Walt Disney is long dead, but the Disney companies still own the copyright to everything he did, and apparently will in perpetuity. Likewise, the creators of Superman, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster are both dead.

Long, long ago, National Periodical Publications kinda screwed the creators, giving them piddly chump change for the character. Along the way, there have been many lawsuits, and both men ended up with a little--but not a lot--better deal. NPP became DC Comics, which got bought by Warner Brothers, which is now Time-Warner. Siegel's heirs have since won more, and that's where I start to wonder if the copyright law makes much sense. Will the heirs' heirs also get royalties from Superman?

How tangential a character still pays? Superboy? Supergirl? SuperFly? Anyway, all of this seems to be forcing DC/Warner's hand as it pertains to a new Superman movie. Which could be great for fans. Or terrible, if they rush a picture out just to satisfy the lawsuit. Great Caesar's ghost!

[Excerpt]

Another Court Decision Regarding Superman And The Siegel Family

You’d be surprised what this means for you.

CBR is reporting that there’s been another ruling in the ongoing court battle between DC Comics and the heirs of Jerry Siegel. Fortunately, they were also kind enough to have their writer Brian Cronin, also a lawyer, explain exactly what it all means. . .

Read more at: Bam! Kapow!

Rockers Irritated at McCain-Palin for Using Their Songs

Photo from source, PopEater

Several rock stars are pissed that the John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign have used their songs for their events. I expressed a sigh of relief when I read this, having been a little startled to hear--in particular--Van Halen when Palin was originally introduced.

There probably isn't anything these artists can do to prevent someone from playing their songs--not in a free country. But you'd think for high profile events, that event planners would see what the artists think before using their work. It just seems like common courtesy. And then to refuse to stop using a song?

I'm watching some sort of McCain-Palin whistle-stop on MSNBC right now, and would swear that Van Halen's "Right Now," played them off. It's starting to sound like a theme song, and I'm quite sure Van Halen doesn't like that idea!

[Excerpt]

Heart Attacks McCain Over 'Barracuda'

"I feel completely [expletive'd] over," the band's Nancy Wilson told EW on Thursday night after their song was played following McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. According to TMZ -- which broke the scandal, the band has filed a cease and desist order. . .

Read more at: PopEater

Bloggers Beware: Big Media is Watching

I operate this blog like many other bloggers do. I find interesting stories, I write my thoughts on the issue, copy and paste the headline and a snippet of the article, and usually a picture--all attributed, and linked to the original source. I try to go a step further, and put quite a bit of thought into my own commentary. I make an honest attempt to make the posts largely my own, and then give the reader the opportunity to read what inspired me to post it.

It's all rather quid pro quo, as far as I'm concerned. I get something interesting to put on my blog, the original authors get more eyeballs on their work. I myself have been excerpted on other blogs and consider it to be quite a compliment.

But not everybody feels that way. The bigger content providers--AP for one, but not only them--are cracking down on the practice. And they're even making their own rules apart from existing "fair use" laws. This will severely inhibit a lot of bloggers, will reduce traffic on the very sites that are crying foul, and has the potential to turn many blogs into boring news aggregators like The Drudge Report. Ugh. Stay tuned.

[Excerpt]

Bloggers: Big Media Is Watching

The Associated Press unleashed a firestorm in the blogosphere earlier this month when it demanded that a political site take down AP content it said violated copyrights. Bloggers, including Michael Arrington of TechCrunch.com and Markos Moulitas of Daily Kos, cried foul, saying the AP's move threatened the free flow of information over the Web. The furor abated a few days later when the AP tempered its demands. . .

Read more at: Business Week

Video Piracy: Is it Like Stealing a Car?

Here's the latest video clip from Commercials I Hate, which has a terrific (and funny) analysis of the issues involved in downloading copyrighted materials. The issue is a little less cut-and-dry from the "you wouldn't steal a car" argument. And it got me to thinking about just how much I myself have paid for various versions of the same movies; VHS, LaserDisc, DVD. . .

It's over $150 for The Rocky Horror Picture Show alone! And that doesn't count two LPs, two cassette tapes, the CD, and a box set DVD! Oh, and the sequel, Shock Treatment on LP, CD, VHS and DVD. I think if you put that all together, you get somewhere north of $400! Check it out:

ATT and Others Set to Filter the Internet?

In a classic case of closing the barn doors after the horses get out, media companies are frantically trying to keep their products in the form that they want them at the price they want us to pay. I understand this, honestly.

I, like most people, am totally against piracy as it pertains to movies and music on a big scale. I'll go out on a limb, and say that people who illegally obtain media, and distribute it for sale are bad. OK? I don't even like it when people download movies on those sharing sites. There's something distasteful about that to me.

The line is fuzzier when it comes to ripping CDs, copying them to your iPod, or burning a CD for your mom. And if you're only using music or video that you've already paid for on a different device, well, I don't see anything wrong with that.

So while going after the big dudes makes total sense to me, it sounds in this story like they're trying to go after the little guy. And creating roadblocks and hassles to getting legitimate media. It sounds bad.

[Excerpt]

AT&T and Other I.S.P.’s May Be Getting Ready to Filter

For the last 15 years, Internet service providers have acted - to use an old cliche - as wide-open information super-highways, letting data flow uninterrupted and unimpeded between users and the Internet.

But I.S.P.’s may be about to embrace a new metaphor: traffic cop.

At a small panel discussion about digital piracy at NBC’s booth on the Consumer Electronics Show floor, representatives from NBC, Microsoft, several digital filtering companies and the telecom giant AT&T said the time was right to start filtering for copyrighted content at the network level. . .

Read more at: New York Times

Car Porn? Toyota Suing Porn Star "Lexus"

Photo from source, PageOneQ (with edits!)

This is only the second or third "beefcake" shot in the 1,200+ post history of this blog. And I'm posting it because I find this sort of hilarious.

Apparently, Toyota has it's bumpers in a knot over the fact that a gay porn star is using the name "Lexus," which is the same name as their luxury brand. So they're suing. If you remember back to the Lexus division's creation, Toyota had to fight off at least two different lawsuits for essentially the same thing: copyright infringement.

One suit was from the Mead paper company, which carried a paper stock called "Lexis." The other suit was from the search engine, "LexisNexis." Both cases were dropped because nobody thought anyone would confuse a ream of paper or a web service with a car. Duh. Does Toyota think that someone would confuse a gay porn star with an RX 330?

[Excerpt]

Toyota Threatens Legal Action Over Gay Porn Star Named 'Lexus'

What does Toyota have to do with gay porn? A lot, apparently. The U.S. branch of the Japanese automaker recently sent a communiqué to Daniel Grangier, president and CEO of Switzerland-based EBOYS Studios, regarding one of his stars, who goes by the screen name 'Lexus'. . .

Read more at: PageOneQ