MovieChat Forums > Rishik
Rishik (44)
Posts
How is it that disclaimers like these absolve a website of all copyright infringment laws?
Is the whole premise of this show that Walter is magic just because he knows a tiny bit of chemistry?
View all posts >
Replies
You all better kiss our asses for saving y'all and crushing that alien invasion. Today, we celebrate our independence by paying tribute to America, the last great nation of the world.
No, it was mostly entertainment / social networking.
The only way you'd find politics was if you intentionally went looking for it. Of course controversial films / actors were going to attract political discussion, that's the nature of controversial topics. And just because you don't personally see a topic as controversial doesn't mean it isn't controversial.
You have to realize though, that what we call "politics" in modern English often has absolutely nothing to do with promoting a change in law or form of government. It's more so that we just don't like what the other person is talking about so we call it "political discussion" even if it isn't.
I mean, discussing the historical inaccuracy of The Imitation Game (2014) isn't political, but I recall that the people who wanted to shut such topics down often viewed them as political and complained that anyone who didn't like a movie shouldn't be allowed to comment on the discussion boards.
No, I would say that IMDb was a great place to discuss a film / series that you wanted to... but that people couldn't take any negative commentary.
In truth, it's not the disclaimer but the fact that it is third parties who are hosting the infringing material that absolves them. Copyright law hasn't been updated for the 21st century and the early internet laws were set up to protect website owners from user submitted content that violated some law.
To me, the outrage only makes sense if you're complaining about the abstract definition being copyrighted. Why should we care that the wording of the definition is copyrighted?
You missed the point, male circumcision is performed for basically the same reason on male infants after birth, so I was asking if you wanted the same thing to be performed on female infants.
Hard to believe it's been 4 years already.
If you wrote your own definition and posted it on your blog then that definition is copyrighted by you, if you use someone else's definition without their permission then you're guilty of copyright infringement.
Now whether that entity gets after you for violating their copyright is up to that entity. Most likely would be that you get a cease and desist letter and should you ignore the request then the entity may pursue a trial. Just because none of this happens doesn't mean you aren't guilty, it only means that the copyright holder didn't pursue action.
The nonsense people believe these days about "Fair use" is absurd, really... most of it is derived from the idea their youtube video didn't get taken down therefore it is fair use. There is so much copyright infringement online that no entity can guard all their intellectual property effectively, and most won't pick small battles due to optics issues.
There is no "non-commercial use" clause to copyright law... it's all up to the copyright holder whether or not to pursue. Now the holder might supply a "non-commercial use" clause, but it isn't in the law itself.
On this topic, I have to say that history itself is quite difficult to get quite right and that the biases of the authors involved easily contort facts into lies. We also need to be aware of how the zeitgeist of the author may conflict with the zeitgeist of our current era, thus leading to an anachronistic view of the past. Our slave owning founding fathers, when taken in the context of their era would be liberal, but in the context of our era they can get painted as conservatives.
In effect, you need multiple sources and an understanding of the events of the time surrounding a person's history to get an adequate understanding of that person. It's not a matter of preferring biographies that have been authorized or are unauthorized, both are historically inaccurate on their own. One could likewise argue that to truly understand the person, you need to understand how that person sees himself and how others of that era saw that person.
Truth is relative.
Terrorism: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Implying that the lawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims isn't terrorism. Firebombing Tokyo and 66 other cities and dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima (all CIVILIAN targets) seems to be a "lawful use of violence" because the United States decided it was lawful to kill civilians to stop Hitler... thus the United States aren't terrorists, just by changing one little word.
Anyone who went to college knows that something being from an online source doesn't affect copyright permissions in the slightest. Simply because photos are in jpeg format does not mean they're no longer copyrighted and you are free to do whatever you want with them. Simply because something is in a free to access website does not mean it isn't copyrighted.
View all replies >