intellectual property rights

[crosscountry]

on jokes!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Man, I knew this board was overmoderated, but that's more than ridiculous. I'd be embarrased to be a moderator today.

[Argos]

on jokes!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Man, I knew this board was overmoderated, but that's more than ridiculous. I'd be embarrased to be a moderator today.

I´m missing it. What are you talking about?

[crosscountry]

I posted a joke and the thread was locked to replies because of a premise of "intellectual property rights" someone might sue baut for using their joke.


I find that ridiculous.

[Argos]

Ah, now I remember. I thought that "who makes the jokes" was one of the most unfathomable secrets in the universe...

[suntrack2]

"I think all postings are mold here in intellectual property of baut.!!. that I don't know. But you see what I learnt that many underdeveloped states, or countries have done tremendous growth in achievements and their economic development with the assistance of the knowledge, But I think sharing knowledge or speaking on the knowledge that one is acquiring then this is not a sin.

you don't know argos! in off topic all of topics are bent in a decent way..looking dream of moderator, what's wrong there.

infact I was also missing but you know typing a paragraph like above is just so easy task for me, (though it is related or not, I just fill in the blanks, means I just fill the information in the blank message box). And I think this is the intellectual writing right of anyone. {I am making fun} and nothing more.

[01101001]

I find that ridiculous.

So, on what other topics, besides jokes, here, do you find it ridiculous that we cannot reproduce works in their entirety? Short poems? Song lyrics? Cartoons? Short stories? Paintings? Novels? Opera?

If someone does quote an entire joke, and in the admittedly rare case that the person who owns the joke decides to come after Phil and Fraser for damages (like Jay Leno suing author...), what do you think they should use for a defense?

[Moose]

If someone does quote an entire joke, and in the admittedly rare case that the person who owns the joke decides to come after Phil and Fraser for damages (like Jay Leno suing author...), what do you think they should use for a defense?

And I have to wonder if crosscountry is offering to cover the legal expenses if someone decides it's worth picking a fight over it? (The RIAA's sued people for a lot less.)

[tofu]

Oh come on. There is a huge difference between the Leno case, where someone collected up 100 Leno jokes, published them in a book, and made money off it, and some random obscure internet forum posting a joke. Please tell me you see the difference.

1. volume
2. money

That guy was making money from Leno's name and his reputation and his work. And if Leno decides one day to publish his own concordance of jokes, how many people will pick that book up, open to a random page, and see a joke that they'd already read in another book and think, "this is old stuff" and then not buy Leno's book? Thus, there is potential economic damage to Leno.

It is pretty ridiculous to think that a little web forum comes close to that. What do you think the lawyers are going to say in court? "your honor, the defendant knowingly and maliciously posted MY joke in his seamy little website. I demand restitution!" To which the judge says, "ok, how much economic damage was done because of this?" uh, well. None I guess.

And this isn't at all like what the RIAA gets upset about either. If you posted mp3's of a performance, then you'd be in RIAA land.

Sometimes I just don't get the hyperbole some people think is necessary. A joke - a single paragraph, is fair use under any definition of the term.

[01101001]

Oh come on. There is a huge difference between the Leno case, where someone collected up 100 Leno jokes, published them in a book, and made money off it, and some random obscure internet forum posting a joke.

Of course there's a difference. But, it shows that it happens, and if it happens to Phil and Fraser, whose money do you suggest they spend to defend themselves?

Sometimes I just don't get the hyperbole some people think is necessary. A joke - a single paragraph, is fair use under any definition of the term.

Cite please.

[Fazor]

Well, you're missing the point. It's thier site, and if they are uncomfortable with the content, that's reason enough to lock the thread.

Would they be sued for allowing a copywrited joke to be posted? Probably not.

Could they be? Definately. That's "jury by peers" for you. I've seen much dumber lawsuits get huge rewards. Will avoid hijacking the tread with examples of such, but lets just say we live in a CYA society. (cover your, fill in the blank).

[farmerjumperdon]

Cover Your Assets of course. You've got to cover your assets.

[tofu]

Well, you're missing the point.

no, I got the point. And just for the record, I don't care that they locked the thread. Note that I didn't post in either joke thread. I thought the threads were kind of boring.

But I'm entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that it was silly to lock them and that people here comparing a text joke to napster (for the person who mentioned the RIAA) or somebody who collected a ton of jokes and made a book - those people are going way overboard.

[Jeff Root]

Just because something makes perfect sense doesn't mean it
isn't mind-bogglingly stupid.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

Actually, Richard Roeper makes an interesting point about intellectual property rights in his book Hollywood Urban Legends. It seems there's this thing going around the internet allegedly by Matt Groening. Matt Groening denies writing it, but every time it comes up online, it's listed as being by Matt Groening.

Richard Roeper happens to know for a fact it isn't. Why? It's by Richard Roeper.

No, he's not losing money, but that's not really the point. The point is, he wrote it and someone else gets the credit. Intellectual property rights aren't just about money.

[Moose]

(for the person who mentioned the RIAA)

Tofu, you haven't done anywhere near enough research to be that dismissive.

Certain entities are well known for shotgunning without looking when it comes to lawsuits. Four claims of interest by the RIAA found in under five minutes of searching.

Lawyers representing several record companies have filed suit against an 83 year-old woman who died in December, claiming that she made more than 700 songs available on the internet.

[...]

Gertrude Walton, who lived in Beckley, West Virginia hated computers, too, her daughter adds.

In 2003 the RIAA sued a twelve year-old girl for copyright infringement. She'd harbored an MP3 file of her favorite TV show on her hard drive. Her working class parents in a housing project in New York were forced to pay two thousand dollars in a settlement.

"Plank does not speak Spanish and does not listen to Latin music," the EFF said in a statement. "More importantly, his computer did not even have KaZaA installed during the period when the investigation occurred."

The RIAA said Sarah Ward was sharing 2,000 songs through the KaZaA P2P network exposing her, at $150,000 per offense, to $300,000,000 in penalties. But not only had she never downloaded a song, but as a a Macintosh user, she couldn't even run the KaZaA software, which only runs on Windows.

The point is, there are plenty of people out there who really are that litigous, and the legal trend seems to be that ISPs and content providers are going to end up being liable for the content they carry, no questions asked.

If the admin/mods say they aren't willing to take on risk of litigation over a bunch of so-so jokes of uncertain pedigree, it's their absolute right to do so. It is most certainly not our right to impose potential liability on our gracious hosts, no matter how improbable.

It has been said before (and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular). If anyone is unwilling to abide by the rules set by Phil and Fraser, they are entirely free to start their own website/message board and set the rules as (and where) they like.

[Jeff Root]

Moose,

You just showed that it makes not one whit of difference whether
BAUT is filled with copyrighted material or not. BAUT will be sued
nomatter what. My cat will be sued, too. They'll probably win
the suit against my cat by default because I don't have a cat.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Moose]

You just showed that it makes not one whit of difference whether BAUT is filled with copyrighted material or not.

Wrong. It matters because it matters to our hosts. We don't carry copyrighted material because our hosts have decided they are unwilling to accept that risk on your or my behalf.

If you can't live with that, Jeff, go make your own site.

[Serenitude]

Moose,

You just showed that it makes not one whit of difference whether
BAUT is filled with copyrighted material or not. BAUT will be sued
nomatter what. My cat will be sued, too. They'll probably win
the suit against my cat by default because I don't have a cat.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

This is a strawman. Irrelevant post.

[Jeff Root]

This is a strawman. Irrelevant post.

Right, but you'll be indicted for aiding and abetting a forum
combatant in time of war, so you won't be available to give
testimony against my cat unless you make a plea bargain.
Besides, I already have catnappers heading over to Gillian's
place to nap her cat. Gillian's cat will provide corroborating
testimony that my cat was framed. And if it doesn't, I'll just
tell the judge that it is my cat! The photo on his driver's
license is so fuzzy, the judge will never see the difference!
HA! HA! HA! You can't win! I've got all the angles covered!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Moose]

forum combatant in time of war

Er... Oooookaaaaaay.

[TheOncomingStorm]

did someone forget to take their meds.

[hhEb09'1]

Cite please.

Here. O wait, those guys were arrested for telling jokes. Nevermind.

[Gillianren]

My cat can't fit the pill bottle in his mouth to take my meds. (He took my ID, though, and I still haven't found it. My cat is planning to steal my identity!)

[TheOncomingStorm]

My cat can't fit the pill bottle in his mouth to take my meds. (He took my ID, though, and I still haven't found it. My cat is planning to steal my identity!)

lol, well what do you call a hundred lawyers chained to the bottom the ocean?
ans: a good start.
If those two guilty we all are.

[tofu]

Tofu, you haven't done anywhere near enough research to be that dismissive.

I've been reading slashdot for about 10 years now, and they post every one of those RIAA stories. So yeah, I know how crazy the RIAA is. I promise you, I'm up to speed on that situation.

What I'm dismissive of is the idea that posting a joke on a message board is going to get you sued. It's not. The RIAA issue is completely different. Posting a joke is more like posting the lyrics to a song or a single page from a book. People don't get sued for doing that.

If the admin/mods say they aren't willing to take on risk of litigation over a bunch of so-so jokes of uncertain pedigree, it's their absolute right to do so.

Why did you write that? Why do you feel the need to remind me that the mods can do what they want? Does that point seem to be in contention? Has anything that I've said made you think that I don't already KNOW that the mods can do what they like?? We've already covered this ground in this thread:

Fazor: Well, you're missing the point. It's thier site
Me: no, I got the point. ... But I'm entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that it was silly to lock them

See that? See it? I get the point. It's their site. I got it. It anoys me a little when people say something so blindingly obvious, so I'd really like to know what's going through your head when you typed that out. "Tofu is a moron. He thinks he owns this place. How dare he have an opinion. I'm going to set him straight."

Seriously. Why would you read an opinion and feel the need to explain to me what a moderator is?? Why?

[hhEb09'1]

Seriously. Why would you read an opinion and feel the need to explain to me what a moderator is?? Why?

Alllll riiiight. See what happens when you start telling jokes? That's why we're careful around here, we don't let people run around with sharp comments and pointed barbs. Sure, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.

[crosscountry]

Just because something makes perfect sense doesn't mean it
isn't mind-bogglingly stupid.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I like that one. Is it copywritten?




tofu has already said (in his own legally un repeatable way) so I won't repeat anything for fear of having this thread locked.


man, I have a bad attitude already today and it's only 10AM.

[Jeff Root]

Just because something makes perfect sense doesn't mean it
isn't mind-bogglingly stupid.

I like that one. Is it copywritten?

It's significantly better than I thought it was as I was writing it.

I consider it to be copyright only in the sense and to the extent
that it is original with me and anything anybody creates that is
copyrightable is automatically copyright. Although I could say
that I am putting it into the public domain, or could assert some
kind of Gnu-like thingy, I don't do either, but prefer to just say
that anything I put into the Internet without a specific assertion
of copyright is pretty much free for anyone to use, whether I
like it or not. It is certainly free for you to use!

I finally found the story I was looking for: "Jokester", by Isaac
Asimov, in the collection 'Earth Is Room Enough'. He explained
where jokes come from. It is definitely a copyright-free source!

man, I have a bad attitude already today and it's only 10AM.

Not quite 5:30 AM here.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[crosscountry]

Being that I share a first name with him, I like your summation of what he said

[Frog march]

If you could find the exact place where a joke is encoded in pi then all you would need to do is give the pi reference and you'd be all clear. Simple.