Over the weekend I posted a videoblog entry critiquing some comments made by Attorney General Rob McKenna in a video voters guide posted online by the Association of Washington Businesses. And tonight I discover that YouTube has pulled the video.
Why? I can only assume that the cowards at the AWB complained to YouTube that I had violated their copyright by including clips from their video. And at this point, I’ve had so many bogus complaints filed against me by the likes of the BIAW, the AWB, the Washington Association of Realtors and other Republican front groups, that YouTube just automatically yanks my videos assuming I’m a shameless pirate.
Whatever.
So, I’d like to offer the AWB the same deal I offered the Realtors: sue me. Really. Sue me. Because every time you have my video yanked, I’m just going to repost it somewhere else, as is my right under the fair use doctrine. So if you think you have a case, take me to court.
Or don’t you have the balls?
you are a shameless pirate! duh. did you ask the copyright owner for permission before using it? what you say, you never asked for p-p-permission? now who’s the coward?!
on whose legal opinion are you so confidently relying that this constitutes fair use? let me guess: david goldstein, esq? hah.
no, you probably looked it up on Wikipedia, being the poor indignant schlepper you are. would serve you right if this group did sue you; though it doesn’t sound like they’d get much.
Uhh. Come on wingnuts. McKenna is supposedly working for US. Don’t we all have a right to know what kind of policy pronouncements he’s making before special interest groups?
It’s not like he’s THEIR lawyer.
nbo @1,
Um… I don’t need to ask permission. That’s the whole point behind fair use. I used small portions of their video for the purposes of political reporting and commentary. That is fair use by any standard, and quite frankly I’m tired of this sort of petty harassment.
They wouldn’t pull this sort of shit on somebody with a lawyer on retainer.
Go Goldy!
The wingnuts are getting wingnuttier by the minute.
Goldy’s daring people to sue him reminds me of something. I’m trying to remember … Oh yeah! When Gary Hart dared the press to follow him around. So they did. And his life was destroyed, just like he asked for it to be.
Anyone think a day hasn’t gone by where he regrets that dare?
Troll,
You are now my hero poster. I read each thread, skipping the comments of everyone else just so I can read read your melodic prose. All of HA’s posters should aspire to be as you. An intellectual genius who has the foresight and experience to be a shiny bright example of how to live, how to lead and how to be humble.
I salute the greatness, the austerity, the vision that only you can bring to this blog.
The preceding message was brought to you by the hallucinogenic medications that were left over from my high school daze and recently found and experimented with.
Flashbacks are a bitch.
And so is Troll. (well, he is a little bitch anyway)
NBO:
Wife is lawyer. RR a lawyer too. Not want to speak for him, but I think he will agree with this.
Wife say political speech, unless and until the Republicans overthrow the country, is as close to 100% protected as anything can be going into court. Should Goldy be sued, unlikely because A: They really don’t want him to have anymore publicity and B: The outcome would not be favorable and they would lose the power of just having his video commentary yanked, there are a number of lawyers who would stand and advocate for him pro bono.
Some lawyers, not like failed lawyer Scott, have some morals and principles left. Unlike the AWB and BIAW.
Dear admirer,
Thank you for kind and accurate words. I think many others feel as you do but are reticent to say so for fear of going off-topic. I wish I could take all the credit for my body of work on this blog, but behind every great man, are many thousands of influences, and one of my greatest influence is Mahatma Gandhi, who once said “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” That is my mission here. I am but a simple man trying to fight hate and intolerance, one comment at a time.
Peace, and be well, my friend.
9:
The enormity of your ego is exceeded only by your hubris. You have severely over estimated your abilities and underestimated the HA readers knack for recognizing bullshit. A double barreled shotgun aimed squarely at your foot, or feets, as it were.
re 5: You are so right! Gary Hart fucking some tart on the ‘Monkey Business’ is exactly the same thing as Goldy’s using the ‘fair use’ provision to make a political point.
No wonder it took a while to remember it.
Troll & Troll Fan; Please not in public, be decent enough to get a motel room.
@11
The comparison is they are both daring people to come after them.
But I’m not surprised you got it wrong.
Hey Goldy and the Goldettes, why no purely positive Obama posts? Did you see my study? Ten out of the last ten presidential candidates posts were anti-McCain pieces. Not one “here’s what’s so great about Obama” post. All were just “here’s what’s so bad about McCain” posts.
Did you think this tactic is going to work?
“sue me. Really. Sue me. Because every time you have my video yanked, I’m just going to repost it somewhere else, as is my right under the fair use doctrine. So if you think you have a case, take me to court.”
Ha,Ha, Sue you ?
That is a laugh, You live in back of a van and use public services to access the internet.
to: Troll
re: #6
See “sarcasm”
“Follow me around. I don’t care. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They’d be very bored.”
Gary Hart
@16
I take any comment with my name in it as a compliment.
In the wake of the TV/media company online clip purges, fair use has taken a beating. This clip is mostly commentary on a cited source, a use no different than a newspaper story or research paper. I’m no lawyer, but isn’t this case exactly what fair use protection was created for? Professors rail about attacks on “intellectual freedom” for much less than this.
YouTube owns their infrastructure, so I guess it’s up to them to choose what content they host, but they can’t possibly realize what a rotten precedent they’re setting.
Goldy–
I like to see a fightin’ spirit in a little feller like you. I’m not a lawyer…I don’t know what the end result of this would be if you are sued. Sounds like you are mighty confident though. Keep standing up for what you believe is right!
Oh, just a hint though…it might be wise to re-consider your approach of sticking your chin out and screeching “hit me if you dare”. Lawyers are expensive and time-consuming. Not sure that your comments would help your case. Probably just best the STFU and do whatever you feel is best. Just a hint though.
re 13: I get the point. But, do you get mine? Muhammad Ali daring George Forman to come after him at the Thrilla’ in Manila is the same sort of daring as Goldy is using.
I think Ali’s rope-a-dope is more comparable to what Goldy is doing than what Hart did.
Think about it for a while — I know it takes you a little more time than most.
#18…
OK…no name, then.
You’re a moron.
re 21: correction: Joe Frazier.
Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are most responsible for blocking legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
Oh and coincidentally Jim Johnson (Freddie and Lehman) was the HEAD of O-blah-blah’s V-P search team. Johnson made tens of millions of dollars during the heydays and helped create this disaster. And Raines?? Head of Fannie and O-blah-blah’s trusted financial adviser. What a joke. Raines made $90 MILLLION dragging Fannie down the tubes with his incompetence. Raines finally had to say Fannie’s financials could not be trusted to be accurate!!
Cynical @ 24 is still shopping that “blame the Democrats on the housing collapse” theme. Rove’s talking points team really drug that one out of the gutter. They are betting that the public will not want to get involved in the hard work of decyphering complicated banking legislation, so they can mis-charaterize it and nobody will be able to call them on it. Or if they do, they will keep repeating it so often, or loudly enough to drown out those that have actually looked into it, that they might salvage a few votes in the process.
Bush didn’t try to save the banking industry in 2005, or whatever other dates you try to attribute to it. Bush tried to dismantle Congressional banking legislation so that it could be handled entirely by his administration – in effect deregulated entirely.
The Republican claims regarding the Community Redevelopment Act (or CRA for short, enacted in 1977 during the Carter Administration) are a red herring. The neo-cons have hated that legislation because it requires banks to end “red-lining” (refusing to lend in minority areas), and required lending to those areas on the same basis as is allowed elsewhere. Bush & Co. adopted the neo-con claims that the CRA forced banks to make “risky lending”, but the facts prove otherwise – CRA loans were actually a bit safer than other loans, because (get this) banks would be happy NOT to approve those loans, is they could find a reason not to. But in wealthier areas of the city, where more profit could be made from sub-prime loans based on no-income-verification-required applications (i.e., “liar’s loans”), the money flowed freely.
So what the Bush administration wanted to do was to remove essentially ALL controls over lending by banks, so that banks could lend in the same manner as the unregulated mortgage companies which the Bush administration also refused to regulate (or enforce existing regulations).
The truth is the opposite of what you preach.
One of the problem in politics is that if you want to put the public to sleep, start talking to them about reforms in bankruptcy legislation or banking regulations. Unless there is a real crisis, nobody cares, and they don’t understand the subject anyway. Even journalists are faced with a daunting task of trying to decide whether it’s worth their time to try to learn the nuances of the subject before they report on it. Rove & Co. rely upon that when they try to change the fundamental ground rules upon which we live.
Old bankruptcy rule: bankruptcy is the last safety net which keeps people from becoming destitute, and allows creditors a level playing field in which to get a fair and rational share in any distribution of assets.
New (republican) bankruptcy rule: creditors who make risky lending based on usurious practices have their profits protected, but debtors who may be in bankruptcy through no fault of their own must make sure they pay those profits to the creditors in order to teach them “responsibility”.
Old Banking Rule: Banks must adhere to capital requirements and follow sound lending practices or risk closure or prosecution for failing to follow regulations.
New Banking Rule: Make sure you fail spectacularly, at which time the goverment will bail out the business and the CEO gets a golden parachute – but the borrowers will still lose their homes to teach them about “responsibility”.
They won’t sue you Goldy for two reasons: 1. You and your delusional rantings are miniscule and irrelevant, and 2. Since gainful empolyment continues to elude you, they know that any judgement would not yeild any sort of payment.
Troll, your Gary Hart analogy is wrong on 2 levels. First, Hart denied he was having an affair and dared reporters to prove him wrong. Goldy has not only made it clear what he’s done, but he’s even stated what he’s going to do, and explained why it’s legal and moral. Second, the reporters who trailed Hart had no idea he’d issued that dare until after they’d caught him; your version of the story is a long-debunked myth. That doesn’t make Hart’s action any less wrong or dumb, but it’s nice to get facts straight.
The more troubling point here is that the AWB got YouTube to take down the video. HA can include it here, but it doesn’t have the same effect because it isn’t as widely distributed. That’s what this is about – not copyright and fair use, but fair criticism of comments by public officials being suppressed by those who see that criticism as adverse to their interests.
Gee, Rob McKenna STILL looks like a British schoolboy, all dressed up to give his final oral exam for his Latin class.
Senator Obama’s backer is in ….
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-.....4685/posts
16:
Thank you for ‘splaining it to him.
Troll, to clear up any doubt. I wrote the piece. You took the bait. Hook. Line. And sinker.