Copy Rights ® vs Homeland Security

[verytwistedmind]

If you ever want to make the “®” it’s alt + 174.  Now don’t say I never taught you anything.

There have been two interesting articles regarding copy right I want to discuss.

Article 1:

The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

Immigration and Customs

Comments

Basic comprehension fail.

[squidb0i]

As a musician I have a vested interest in sane copyright, so have bothered to look into the topic.

So.

This is obviously a PHOTO of the seal used in an article, just as is done with nearly every article ever, anywhere.
It does not purport to be official in any way, and does not infringe copyright.

By the same faux logic, you should be sued and shut down for using the screen capture you just used, and every article that uses a photo of someone or a corporate logo should suffer the same fate.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[silver_chipmunk]

DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT

(oooh, and a chance to use this brand new icon! Thanks!)

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[gunslnger]

No, I said quite clearly that it looks to me like they violated the law, which only requires that there be indication of intent to look official. In other words, if it was brought to court, and I was on the jury, I would vote guilty. I understand that you wouldn't. That's why these things are brought to trial in the first place.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[squidb0i]

One would have to be pretty retarded to think this was official.. oh, wait, I see the problem here.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[silver_chipmunk]

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to be polite.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[squidb0i]

I used to have problems doing that.
Then I stopped trying - no more problem.

;)

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[gunslnger]

One would have to be pretty retarded to think that's what I said... oh, wait, I see the problem.

Re: As I said, the CfAP article is just like any other article using a photo of the subject.

[gunslnger]

Incorrect. He did not post any of the seals listed in the law, so he did nothing illegal, but the CAP publication looks illegal to me.

Of course it does.

[squidb0i]

You have a little partisan hatchet to grind.

Re: Of course it does.

[gunslnger]

Since I have no idea who the group is, sure, you must be right. There's no possible way that I would look at the facts as presented and come to the opposite conclusion of you unless I was motivated by some ulterior motive.

As a musician

[verytwistedmind]

As a musician I have a vested interest in sane copyright

What are your thoughts on ICE shutting down sites that violate copyright?
Have you been a victim of copyright infringement?

Re: As a musician

[squidb0i]

I'm completely in favor of it, as I'm a frequent victim of copyright infringement.

For example this release was online before we even got it back from the duplicators. (It's common for uploaders to get jobs at duplicating houses to gain quicker access to pre release material.)

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Endif-Meta-2006-FWYH-Industrial-Rhythmic-Noise-Techno/43247da3c1e7fc2ce0f00b4d21c724f2616a7f4a3581

One of the tasks our label has is finding and reporting sites that infringe our copyright. Tympanik artists get frequent updates on the effort.

Re: Basic comprehension fail.

[penguin42]

This is obviously a PHOTO of the seal used in an article, just as is done with nearly every article ever, anywhere.
It does not purport to be official in any way, and does not infringe copyright.

Are you sure you're looking at the actual publication that's at issue? It sound like you're just talking about the news article reporting the controversy.

Re: Basic comprehension fail.

[squidb0i]

Yep, that's what I looked at, given that it's what is linked to in the OP.
Still a photograph. Still looks more amateurish than official. Still not copyright infringement.