SAF SUES ERIC HOLDER, FBI OVER MISDEMEANOR GUN RIGHTS DENIAL [More]
and
As in all its recent lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for Nevada, Righthaven demands damages of $150,000 apiece and forfeiture of the website domain names from these new defendants:Can I get me some?
...The Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., and an official there, Keeva Segal, who are associated with the publication Women & Guns and the website womenshooters.com.[More]
CUM ULLA SELLA IN PUGNO TABERNA, 'n all that...
This is nuts. What newspaper would work so hard to destroy free publicity for their paper? Not to mention the creation of so much NEGATIVE publicity!!
ReplyDeleteDoesn't make any sense at all.
A newspaper photographer I knew complained about people using others' images on their Facebook pages without regard for copyright. Not HIS images, ANY images. RECENTLY, with everything going on in the country and the world. Tunnel vision is prevalent among the authorized journalist class. It's the Bill of Right: the First Amendment, specifically THEIRS.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a good time to mention that mainstream media newsrooms are protected from police search under the shield law that allows them to keep sources confidential.
As David asks, can I get me some?
The other suit: fighting BACK against GANG MEMBERS is "assault and battery"?!? Citizen as high school student. You both get suspended -- for life, in this case.
Another explanation of why gangs are ALLOWED to exist. They're very useful to the government. Plus, they hardly ever attack politicians.
Must see: Chicago journalists throwing Rahm Emanual softball questions bully and threaten a radio newsman asking the questions that need asking. Emanuel is cool with it being done.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.libertyjuice.com/2010/10/14/chicago-journalists-shield-rahm-emanuel-and-threatens-radio-host/
Yes and no, MML--in my own case, I work very hard to do the Gun Rights Examiner column every day--not just researching and writing, but also promoting it. We are compensated based on page views-- a pittance, really, but it can help when you're putting a kid through college. When I see my stuff reprod in total on other sites, even if there's a link, there's no incentive for anyone to go over and read the original. That's taking crumbs out of my kids' mouths.
ReplyDeleteIn almost all cases, I realize it's because they liked what they read and wanted to share it, and I'm grateful for that. So my policy has been to write a polite email explaining this, telling them I appreciate links and even a fair use sampling of the work is fine, take multiple paragraphs, but please don't post the whole thing. If they don't respond or get snotty and still leave it up, I send them legalistic language. On a rare occasion when there has been serial abuse and outreach has been repeatedly ignored, I've had the Examiner lawyer send a cease and desist, except she was totally ham-handed about it, so I've decided not to do that any more.
But I do have a vested interest in protecting my work, and I try to be reasonable about it. This site here, I give people free use as long as they give credit and a link. Examiner, which is a business venture on top of everything else, I treat differently, just like I do the stuff I sell to magazines--I found a couple sites selling my columns as frickin' term papers a few years back.
Waddya do...?
Sooo all those people that download music should have their Second Amendment right taken away?
ReplyDeleteYes?
okay just checking.
This will end well.