Somebody is Digging into Duggan

[Gannon]

yeah, but if you do not register an item, proving ownership is a bitch. just look at all the cases regarding songs and movies. and proving ownership is the heart of copyright

It seems the original author did their job CITING the sources which hold the original rights to the information.

Any talk about it, beyond my disclaimer, is obfuscation. Somebody is just upset that it is out there publicly, I'm guessing.

And they ain't got a damn thing to argue against other than that.


So...

[noise]

Well first off, I doubt someone would even waste the time and energr over the Copyright Protection of their Facebook comment. Otherwise, I would have to question the true priorities of said individual.

Second, even IF the Facebook comment was under copyright protection, I will bet, if anything, that Gannon's post would be protected under the Fair Use Act of 2007, as he's not claiming ownership of the post and I'm quite sure he's not profiting from the Facebook comment.

Third, although it's true that Copyright protection is technically automatic, said individual must still officially register the Copyright Protection with the government before they can bring forth a lawsuit for infringement [[according to http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html).

Now if the real issue you have is with the context of the Facebook comment itself, then just say so and keep the other passive-aggressive crap to yourself.

1. There was nothing "passive aggressive" about it. I was addressing an explicit comment in his post.

2. You posted a rather weak Fair Use argument.

3. I study copyright law for a living.

[noise]

It seems the original author did their job CITING the sources which hold the original rights to the information.

Any talk about it, beyond my disclaimer, is obfuscation. Somebody is just upset that it is out there publicly, I'm guessing.

And they ain't got a damn thing to argue against other than that.


So...

In fairness, the original author cited sources and then bastardized an inference from said source. It does not pass the scholarly test.

That said, I just found it to be an insulting read. I have no horse in this race.

[Gistok]

In fairness, the original author cited sources and then bastardized an inference from said source. It does not pass the scholarly test.

That said, I just found it to be an insulting read. I have no horse in this race.

Noise, thanks for that... I always find your posts interesting reads. You always avoid the pitfalls of logic fallacies, such as the Ad Hominem, as well as the Red Herring and Straw Man fallacies often found on this forum.

[313WX]

1. There was nothing "passive aggressive" about it. I was addressing an explicit comment in his post.

2. You posted a rather weak Fair Use argument.

3. I study copyright law for a living.

I guess I don't see the purpose of going into a copyright spiel over a facebook post, when in reality the truth is you simply disagree with the context of said Facebook post.

And as far as the post passing the scholarly test, I again respectfully disagree. I saw it as the poster simply forming a thesis of their own based on the facts they found, which is perfectly "scholarly." But besides all of that, it is yet again a facebook post, not a graduate school essay.

[SWMAP]

Yes! Let's not try to ascertain the facts about Duggan or try to determine if an accusation is baseless - its' after all not a graduate school essay we are talking about, just a widely disseminated Facebook post. No harm.

[noise]

I guess I don't see the purpose of going into a copyright spiel over a facebook post, when in reality the truth is you simply disagree with the context of said Facebook post.

And as far as the post passing the scholarly test, I again respectfully disagree. I saw it as the poster simply forming a thesis of their own based on the facts they found, which is perfectly "scholarly." But besides all of that, it is yet again a facebook post, not a graduate school essay.

My suggestion, given you stating to not see the point, would be to simply not reply. Especially in such a reactionary, accusatory way.

The truth, despite your repeated false claims otherwise, is that I work with copyright issues daily. When I read the word, I'm prone to reply.

Words have meanings. Repurposing them to fit your argument isn't going to work for most posters here.

[313WX]

Yes! Let's not try to ascertain the facts about Duggan or try to determine if an accusation is baseless - its' after all not a graduate school essay we are talking about, just a widely disseminated Facebook post. No harm.

Beyond that [[and ignoring your droll attempt at sarcasm), it's someone's opinion they're entitled to

[313WX]

My suggestion, given you stating to not see the point, would be to simply not reply. Especially in such a reactionary, accusatory way.

The truth, despite your repeated false claims otherwise, is that I work with copyright issues daily. When I read the word, I'm prone to reply.

Words have meanings. Repurposing them to fit your argument isn't going to work for most posters here.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. And I don't care what type of work you do, as it's not irrelevant to this thread discussion. Your issue is with WHAT the person is trying to say, not HOW they're trying to say it.

[noise]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. And I don't care what type of work you do, as it's not irrelevant to this thread discussion. Your issue is with WHAT the person is trying to say, not HOW they're trying to say it.

Yes, I know my occupation is not irrelevant. That's why I mentioned it.

You are not reading. You are very emotionally tied to your false premise. I am not, in any way, concerned with Duggan. I am only concerned with an embarrassing and insulting diatribe passed along as worthwhile and researched. It could be about Kwame, Gandhi, Pol Pot, or my great-grandmother and my criticism would be the same.

I would only defend it if it were about Bono.