A backhanded defense of MDE and the whole lawsuit issue
I first want to say that I generally disagree with the lawsuit against M.D.E. because he seemed to be largely ignorant of intellectual property and copyright laws, and has since rectified it (and there may be a case to be made about 'fair use' since he was using the graphic as proof for one of his many unfounded accusations). I also disagree with the notion that MDE should be exposed through the courts, since I believe in protected anonymous political speech (if MDE exposes himself through carelessness, that's another story) and he hasn't broken any serious laws.
I also disagree with the notion that Inside Minnesota Politics is doing this just to spite MDE because he is a threat to DFLers. That's just silly, MDE is, if anything, a poor man's Drudge Report (except MDE never had his Lewinsky moment). A lot of blowing things out of proportion, recycling other people's stuff (i.e. reprinting MN GOP press releases and calling it news), and a bunch of "exclusives" which are either petty, rumors, or never pan out. I think that while we don't feel threatened by MDE, it would feel good to give him a taste of his own medicine.
The last thing we should do is make a martyr out of this man, frankly he's no Nelson Mandela nor should he be thought of that way. I also believe in consistency when it comes to these sorts of things. I don't want to see a good anonymous blog to go through this in the future, so why should I support it when it comes to MDE?
I would suggest that MDE should talk to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sort of the ACLU of the internet, and they might be a big help in this case. Any sort of lawyer you can hire with the money gathered from bloggers will probably not go very far, talk to the EFF. If they won't offer help, then talk to the ACLU, they might be interested.
The final question is, will MDE eventually stop deleting/blocking my comments on his blog?
I also disagree with the notion that Inside Minnesota Politics is doing this just to spite MDE because he is a threat to DFLers. That's just silly, MDE is, if anything, a poor man's Drudge Report (except MDE never had his Lewinsky moment). A lot of blowing things out of proportion, recycling other people's stuff (i.e. reprinting MN GOP press releases and calling it news), and a bunch of "exclusives" which are either petty, rumors, or never pan out. I think that while we don't feel threatened by MDE, it would feel good to give him a taste of his own medicine.
The last thing we should do is make a martyr out of this man, frankly he's no Nelson Mandela nor should he be thought of that way. I also believe in consistency when it comes to these sorts of things. I don't want to see a good anonymous blog to go through this in the future, so why should I support it when it comes to MDE?
I would suggest that MDE should talk to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sort of the ACLU of the internet, and they might be a big help in this case. Any sort of lawyer you can hire with the money gathered from bloggers will probably not go very far, talk to the EFF. If they won't offer help, then talk to the ACLU, they might be interested.
The final question is, will MDE eventually stop deleting/blocking my comments on his blog?
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
The ONLY person that owns any copyright protections for the picture in question is the person who took the actual picture.
Frankly, unless IMP could prove they took that picture they have a somewhat weak case. What I would have to look at though is who the burden of proof lies on in THAT particular instance. Copyright & Fair Use have a unique thing in that different instances place the burden of proof on different people.
I believe in this instance IMP would have to prove that they own the rights to the picture which means that they would have to prove they took the picture. Otherwise, they have no case against MDE.
On such flimsy grounds I cannot imagine IMP wanting to actually pursue a lawsuit. As our lawyer said, copyrights are generally more expensive for the plaintiff than the defendent...and that copyright cases are VERY expensive. Given that, only a fool would gamble a victory on such thin grounds.
There must be another reason for their actions. Just like the real reason they (erroneously) threaten us with a lawsuit is to try to silence criticism (which is supported by the voice mail that Peter left on my phone).
Post a Comment
Frankly, unless IMP could prove they took that picture they have a somewhat weak case. What I would have to look at though is who the burden of proof lies on in THAT particular instance. Copyright & Fair Use have a unique thing in that different instances place the burden of proof on different people.
I believe in this instance IMP would have to prove that they own the rights to the picture which means that they would have to prove they took the picture. Otherwise, they have no case against MDE.
On such flimsy grounds I cannot imagine IMP wanting to actually pursue a lawsuit. As our lawyer said, copyrights are generally more expensive for the plaintiff than the defendent...and that copyright cases are VERY expensive. Given that, only a fool would gamble a victory on such thin grounds.
There must be another reason for their actions. Just like the real reason they (erroneously) threaten us with a lawsuit is to try to silence criticism (which is supported by the voice mail that Peter left on my phone).
Links to this post:
<< Home
