For some time, I've been predicting that the copyright laws would ultimately be used to defeat free speech. There are now countless examples. Remember when the New York Times tried to take down a parody site? When Michael Savage did the same thing by claiming that when his critics merely quoted his material to ridicule him, they were "infringing"? The same thing happened with leftist professors, Exodus International. Even a news show which criticized the HSUS was yanked from YouTube -- forcing me to get the embed from a server in Iran of all places.
It's getting scarier and scarier.
The recent government takedown of 73,000 blogs (which Glenn linked earlier) -- ostensibly for "infringing" makes me wonder whether something big is starting:
73,000 blogs is a significant number to take down in one swoop, regardless of what some users of the site may or may not have been doing. Time will tell if it was indeed a copyright complaint that took down the service but the signs are certainly there. Not so long ago the conclusion that this type of action could be taken on copyright grounds would have been dismissed out of hand, but the current atmosphere seems to be changing. [Emphasis added.]
I hope the bloggers take them to court and win.
Because, if this stuff keeps up, my blog will be taken down for doing something as ordinary as fisking the news.
posted by Eric on 07.17.10 at 08:33 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9846
Comments
I am so glad to see that somebody is taking Michael Savage to task for claiming infringement. Savage had claimed that CAIR infringed on his copyright without permission when they reproduced snippets of his broadcast. Savage lost in court because CAIR was obviously complying with the "Fair Use" doctrine which allows limited infringement when political comment is being made (as well as in other instances). Savage dons the mantle of free speech crusader but in actuality if he had prevailed in court the precedent would have meant that free speech would have been limited to us all:
I am so glad to see that somebody is taking Michael Savage to task for claiming infringement. Savage had claimed that CAIR infringed on his copyright without permission when they reproduced snippets of his broadcast. Savage lost in court because CAIR was obviously complying with the "Fair Use" doctrine which allows limited infringement when political comment is being made (as well as in other instances). Savage dons the mantle of free speech crusader but in actuality if he had prevailed in court the precedent would have meant that free speech would have been limited to us all:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dg6n6657_151ggrzqhf2