[size=4]Moral Styrofoam[/size=4]
[b]The elite’s problem.[/b]

Yes, I wish it were possible that we could recall the prize," Hanna Kvanmo told the Agence France Press. Ms. Kvanmo serves on the five-member committee that gave Yasser Arafat the 1994 Nobel Peace prize. She's not alone in her sentiments. "I cannot hide my deep disappointment and despair," committee member and Oslo bishop Gunnar Staalsett lamented, agreeing that the Peace prize should be withdrawn. Odvar Nordli, former Norwegian prime minister and another committee member, concurred.

Of course, none of these people are referring to Arafat. They sigh with the contentment of an artist gratified by a work well completed when they contemplate Arafat's blood-soaked paws stroking the prize: "Ahhh," they seem to be saying, "we at least got that one right."

No, Ms. Kvanmo's "wish" is that Arafat's corecipients, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, would return their prizes. Well, not Rabin, since he's dead. But Peres should give it back, say these moral titans, because he has remained in Ariel Sharon's government while it manages to stop kamikaze bombers from blowing up the citizens who elected it.

My views regarding the European political and intellectual elite have gone from mere contempt to palpable disgust.

See remainder of Mr. Goldberg's article at:[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg040802.asp[/url]

[Edited, just in case...]

Eric The(SanitizedForYourProtection!)Hun[>]:)]

Good Post Eric...

Acid(the well hung, drunk, womanizing, sharp shooting, educated, devilishly handsome, and charming as a leprachune with a horse-shoe up it's ass) Gambit

Good one.

Hmmm...reminds me of the lyrics to the song "Home" by Roger Waters from the album "Radio K.A.O.S.":

"When they overrun the defences,
A minor invasion put down to expenses.
Will you go down to the airport lounge?
Will you accept your second class status?
A nation of waitresses and waiters.
Will you mix their martinis,
Will you stand still for it,
Or will you take to the hills?"

Jonah is always good.

Jonah Goldberg has become one of my favorite commentators. I love his wit.

To my fellow ar15.com posters though, I offer this caution -

Please consider the damage to Ar15.com that could occur when publishing copyrighted material to this website. Links, and fair use, are one thing, but the entire article is another.

Some boards are facing financial ruin as a result of this practice. Try a google search. See how far it’s gone. Eric - Try Lexis-Nexis, or whatever you pro’s call it. It’s real.

Goatboy, are you paying attention?

Mike

Hmmm, I think that the 'fair use' doctrine might apply, what do you think?

[size=3]Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use[/size=3]

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the [b]fair use[/b] of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, [b]for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[/b] In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a [u]commercial nature[/u] or is for [u]nonprofit educational purposes[/u];

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

What do you think?

Eric The(Non-lititgious)Hun[>]:)]

What do I think?

I’m not a lawyer and I defer to your judgement. Recent stories on the subject give me pause, and I wanted to bring them to your attention.

Please consider checking out recent cases. Freerepublic comes to mind, although I’ve never been to their site, it's a little to “Cato Institute”  for me.

I know you mean no harm.

Personally, I avoid the posting of entire articles. In my view the author deserves the “hits” they would receive from such a large board as ar15.com.

Besides, I defer to no one in my admiration of JG. He even sent me a email reply once, one I’ll not erase!.

Mike(whoissmartenoughtnottoarguewithalawyer)flash

Thanks, [b]flashman[/b], but I was hoping that you might know the answer!

I just pulled the statutory language off my database of federal laws.

Does anyone know the state of the law on this?

Eric The(I'mNotACopyrightAtty)Hun[>]:)]

Hey Eric,

Why do the French plant trees along their roads?

So the Germans can march in the shade.[:D]

Yes, and no.  Since I am an educator, I have heard quite a few presentations about copyright and fair use.

Copyright is a negative right.  Boil it all down to the idea, "If you did NOT create, then you have violated the copyright by reusing the work."

By typing a post, I own the copyright to the post.  (Not kidding.)  Anyone who copies my post, or portions of it are violating the copyright that I possess.  

Fair use is argued AFTER the copyright is perceived to have been violated.  Fair use is a defense not a right.  

However, even for the purpose of education, we have been told time and again that NO MORE THAN 10% of a copyrighted work may be used and be safely defended under the 'Fair Use' clause.

Posting the entire article (more than 10%) would be hard to defend.  

We are cautioned to use no more than a few lines from a song, or poem.  No more than a paragraph or two from an article.  No more than a selection from a few pages of a novel.

Keep it under 10% and you should have reasonable expectation of defense.

For instance.  Posting the entire "Black Hawk Down" movie here in a compressed video for all to see, then justifying your violation of copyright as "an oppportunity to debate, and educate others" is not going to fly.

The same argument would apply to posting the entire article.

TheRedGoat

Ps.  Last I heard the penalty for copyright violation was 100,000.00 per instance.  

Pps.  A rather famous copyright infringement case was won based upon teachers projecting images of cartoon characters onto posterboard.  Tracing the image, colorizing it, then adding messages like "Mickey wants you to be polite in Mrs. Brown's Class."

Apparently a parent saw the posters, inquired about the infringement, got blown off, then told the cartoon company.   I am not sure on all the details, since it has been years since I saw it in print.

BTW, here is a good speech about copyright.  FWIW, copyright is an internationally recognized (and enforced) right.

[url]http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/other/copyright/session1/[/url]

"Copyright, as its name implies, involves the right to copy items. The owner of copyright materials has no rights as such to reproduce the material as he or she wishes,
but rather gets the right to prevent third parties from copying (and doing certain other things) to his or her material without permission."

"In general, the first owner of copyright in a given work is the person who created it."

"As I said earlier, copyright is a negative right. The owner of the copyright has the right to prevent third parties, without permission, from doing a number of acts with
the copyright work. For this reason, these acts are known as "restricted acts".

The main restricted acts are as follows: to copy the work; to issue copies of the work to the public; to rent or lend the work to the public"

"If someone carries out one or more these acts on the copyright work without the permission of owner, or authorises someone else to do so, then
that person is infringing the copyright in that work. "

TheRedGoat

In that case, Eric's fines for copyright infringement in THIS forum alone would be enuf to pay back the entire $133 billion we've wasted on israel -TWICE.

AND put a serious dent in the US tax dollars wasted on the rest of the Arab nations in the Middle East.

[}:D]

So what KIND of lawyer ARE you Eric, anyway???

[}:D]

And don't forget:  a portion of this site is a PAYING MEMBERSHIP.  This is sure to cause issues with the Fair Use doctrine.

[size=3]An [i]excellent[/i] one![/size=3]

Eric The(OrSoI'veBeenTold!)Hun[>]:)]

I hope not IP law!

Touche!!!!!! (Prolly a personal injury ambulance chaser [}:D])

But, uhhh, will that be cash or charge to pay for all the copyright infringment violations you've committed on this site???? 'Member, $100K per!!!

[}:D]

Voulez-vous pommes frites avec ca?

I would love to tell you all that I'm an attorney who has dedicated his professional life to the expansion, preservation, and protection of our right to keep and bear arms, as safeguarded by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution...

[b]But I can't![/b]

I practice mostly real estate, bankruptcy, and corporate law. As a sole-proprietor. No big firm, just the Hun and three secretaries![:D]

BTW, I wouldn't touch personal injury law with a [b]ten foot pole![/b]

[u]Not[/u] even a padded, crash-proof, child-proof, OSHA approved, collapsible upon impact, non-surface marring, nonflammable, permanently marked with safety instructions, free safety manual available upon request, child-safety locked [b]ten foot pole![/b]

Eric The(UsedAccordingToDirections!)Hun[>]:)]

Let me translate using my non-existent French:

Voulez - Venezuela

vous - speak

pommes - apples

frites - frightens

ca - California, of course.

Roughly translated -

Venezulean-speaking apples frighten avec's in California.

OK, I get most of that, but what the #@!! is an "avec?"


[;)]

Actually g'man, that is my totally wrong, bastardized high school French version of:

Voulez-vous=Would you like
Pommes frites=Fried potatoes
Avec=with
ca=that

Would you like fries with that?

Oh. I knew that.


I get it - its a joke. French. Fries. Ha ha.


[:D]

BTW - Eric -

I counted the words you copied vs. the words in the complete article, and you copied 10.7% of the article (which rounds to 11%), exceeding the 10%
copyright threashold. Yer still in violation.

[:D]

See? I can be a lawyer too!!!!![;)]

No, [b]garandman[/b], you are a very good bean counter, so you need to remain a CPA.

I've e-mailed Mr. Goldberg for his opinion. I note that there is no © on any of the articles, so I wonder if that's even a requirement?

Eric The(StayingOutOfCourt)Hun[>]:)]

Maybe you should also contact the Texas State Bar and ask if you've committed an ethical violation as well!  (Report Garandman as well for unauthorized practice while you're at it!)

Since you've just mentioned that you're a gun rights lawyer, have you heard of a NY lawyer named John Renzulli of Renzulli and Rutherford?  I just sent off a resume to him, he does a lot of manufacturers liability work.  Got any pointers for me for when I talk to him about an internship?

"France - A Nation Of Waiters"

...seems like an insult to waiters..

Actually, [b]Minman72[/b], I mentioned that I [u]wasn't[/u] a gun rights attorney!

I know just enough firearms law to keep me up late at night worrying about a lot of stuff.

Eric The(Well,MaybeNotALot,ButEnoughToKeepMeUp!)Hun[>]:)]

Actually, no.  The little symbol is NOT required.  I assume you did NOT read the homework speech I assigned.  Whoever creates the original work, automatically owns a copyright.

TheRedGoat

ps.  I even lecture over this in my class, and I have given presentations in regards to it.  Computer Science people have to be real careful about Copy Right Laws.  Easy way to get fired.