Comments on: Copyright hypocrites at the Associated Press

By: bradley

bradley — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:06:51 +0000

Ironically, copyright laws don’t protect people as much as they think. Unless you are suing in Federal Court (all copyright suits are Federal) for more than $150,000 in damages, they don’t want to hear from you. I had a copyright attorney tell me that my potential copyright suit, against a former client that used my work without paying for it in certain venues, wouldn’t be accepted in Federal Court in Chicago, since it would clog the courts. I was only suing for $50,000. In other words, as he said, I was doubly screwed-by my former client AND by the copyright court system.

By: Ocracoke

Ocracoke — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:44:07 +0000

I am not expert enough to know whether putzs or putzes is correct.

Putzes–you need separation between the two similarly sounding consonants.

By: JohnHolliday

JohnHolliday — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:25:52 +0000

Without any evidence to speak of, she, using her sources, named him in her story forever associating him with the act…for me, this is a rather frightening power.

You hit the nail on the head, meatpieandtatters.

This always been a sticky point for me with the press vs. the police. When a police officer needs to get a warrant, first, he must get an affidavit swearing to the crime. If the officer uses a source as the claimant, he must produce that source if the defense requests. Officers I know will let the warrant fall because they don’t want to give up their source. So, a criminal gets away.

With the press, the power is much more vast. They can fake a source and claim freedom of the press to not produce the source. So something even worse than an abuse of police power is at work; a person may lose their reputation. Read John Lott’s book, “Freedom-nomics” for the best discussion on the loss of reputations.

So, the police can’t put you in jail, but the press can destroy your reputation with impunity. The main stream press is such scum.

By: slp

slp — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:37:42 +0000

On March 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am, meatpieandtatters said:
AP=Annoying Putz’s

You need an editor [from AP]?

’s is for possessive.

s or es for plural.

I am not expert enough to know whether putzs or putzes is correct.

By: geminicontender

geminicontender — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:24:39 +0000

ass-propos

By: USMCgramma

USMCgramma — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:44:39 +0000

And the correction will appear where? In the want ads?

By: Jules Crittenden » Precedent Set

Jules Crittenden » Precedent Set — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:37:23 +0000

[...] Malkin: Self-exempting journalism. [...]

By: meatpieandtatters

meatpieandtatters — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:51:09 +0000

How about former AP reporter Tony Loci who wrote about the government scientist accusing him of being behind the anthrax attacks? Without any evidence to speak of, she, using her sources, named him in her story forever associating him with the act. Whether or not he’s to blame, and thus far no evidence has shown he is, the fact that a media entity can blow jive across their considerable infrastructure and rope some poor bastar# into their reach, for me, this is a rather frightening power. The idea that they could moan about misuse of their images while simultaneously stealing someone else’s photos is ALL TOO BELIEVABLE from the clan who make situational ethics look like riding a children’s tricycle.

By: DBNinKY

DBNinKY — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:47:19 +0000

Patteric.com

“And Instapundit agrees with me that Ledbetter has a better fair use argument than does the AP.”

Ditto to the max! Also, Steyn’s “DuPre” remark was very funny!

By: zorro

zorro — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:53:09 +0000

Another death rattle of the main stream press (I hope).

They’re profit-driven.

Exactly right meatpie. There was a time when news divisions were not profit centers. It must have been the late 60’s when broadcast media decided that the news divisions had to carry their own weight. The focus immediately switched to the sensational for the purpose of selling more ads.

By: meatpieandtatters

meatpieandtatters — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:42:57 +0000

I think a lot of people don’t realize that all news-related entities are in business to make money. AP just like CNN or MSNBC create and sell copy. They’re profit-driven. This whole idea of objectivity and that journalists exist to keep politicians honest is pure crap. Because they write the stories they ignore their ethical conflicts. Only when it suits them do they eat their own.

By the way, when was the last time you read about an important news person who was caught with a prostitute? Media and politics=the opposites ends of the same pile.

By: puhiawa

puhiawa — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 06:14:22 +0000

Strangely enough, I believe the MSM considers themselves not only above the law, and Congress is no help here with these silly exemptions from testimony bills, but a part of the government. Watching arrogant fools like John King make one think that these uneducated halfwits consider themselves as decision makers.

By: snapped shot

snapped shot — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:30:58 +0000

AP Caught Red-Handed?…

Now this is an interesting development for the wire service that caters to terrorists first [Ed.:—I should've added ", the customer second." No bad joke goes unturned over here!]:

When a prostitute hired by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer w…

By: allrsn

allrsn — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:05:32 +0000

It is a very simple concept: socialism at work.

By: SHoward

SHoward — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:46:49 +0000

AP = All Pretend