A spokesperson for Harper Collins told me that “Substantial Damages will be sought”. “We intend to put them out of the business of printing protected material ever again.”
A spokesperson for Harper Collins told me that “Substantial Damages will be sought”. “We intend to put them out of the business of printing protected material ever again.”
Good, break the scumbag lefties. While your at it, take a hard look at all their email records to find evidence of the billionaire financier bankrolling all radical left organizations. Hmmm, even the Vancouver mayoralty race.
“A spokesperson for Harper Collins”
Not that H.C. is this Rightwing death beast org either, which makes this delicious.
Someone is going to have a TON of fun. (-:
Boy did these fools goof-up.
Palin is going to have a ton of fun.
“Do not annoy Mr. Happy-Fun Court”
A stimulus package for lawyers … that will keep us all well entertained.
Oh dear, I don’t believe I’ve stocked enough beer and popcorn for the coming legal show. Cjunk, Kate, et. al., please post updates of this story as it progresses.
Gawker also did a shameful hit-piece on Christine O’Donnell, shameful even by the left’s usual treatment of conservative women. O’Donnell had lots of faults but she certainly didn’t deserve the Gawker treatment. I hope Palin puts them out of business permanently.
Looking forward to Nov 30
Remember now, she’s an idiot, and lefties are smart.
From Gawker to Wanker. Seems like a logical progression.
Boy,are those comments at “Gawker” ever nasty!
I don’t know anyone who describes their political opponents in language like those people use, not even the redneck fanatics at that Saskatchewan blog. Must be young basement dwellers,or illiterate.
One guy’s avatar is “Obama is my president”. Says a lot about him.
(IN NELSONS VOICE FROM THE SIMPSONS)
POINTING FINGER AT GAWKER AND SAYING ……HAAAA HAAAA!!!!
dmorris, yes those comments are quite revolting. I mean, I’m certain there are hate-filled crackpots on the right, but they seem to be a pretty rare breed. Contrarily, left leaning blogs, as a rule, seem populated with nothing but.
To wit, the most level-headed comment over at Gawker, to paraphrase, says, “I hate Sarah Palin, but she may have a legal case.”
There’s been a couple occasions where I’ve defended Obama against what I thought were spurious allegations. I’ll say something along the lines of, “I’m certainly no fan of Obama, but…” But to throw the word “hate” around so cavalierly, I would never consider such a thing. And, I don’t actually ‘hate’ Obama. I just vehemently oppose his policies.
Hate comes so easily to those on the left. It’s actually really sad.
HeeHee!!!!
@colin from mission b.c.
That is all they know …is hate no debate ,no disagreeing just they hate you your a hatespeak spreader so on and so forth hate is all they know .
Hold up … are you seriously railing for the abolishment of the “fair use” clause in copyright law?
Well according to the wiki if the leak may have damaged the profitability of the book, which would be a reasonable argument, then it would not be classified as fair use. It’d be an interesting court battle. Personally I’m all for “fair use” nudge nudge.
Please see here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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 commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(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.
If I understand correctly, Gawker was trying to game-change Mrs. Palin’s book, paint her and her work incorrectly and trying to make some cash out of it.
Gotcha. Yes, if their use of those excerpts falls out of the bonds of fair use, then they should be held liable. I’m not sure whether they do or not, since I haven’t read the original article. However, profitability and bias aren’t generally an issue when portions of a work are quoted by news organizations or even private bloggers. Otherwise you get into situations where an author can sue anyone who gives them a bad review, effectively limiting free speech.
If the complaint is that they’ve misused quotes in order to misrepresent what she was saying, then she might have a case if she sued for libel, but I find it hard to imagine that their article could in any way violate the spirit of the “fair use” laws, unless they’ve quoted entire chapters verbatim.
the name of the organisation (defendant) in this news item is indicative of trouble brewing. good luck to said misanthropic crew – they’re going to need it (schadenfreude x 10).
😉
I believe Gawker’s actions WERE illegal and definitely unethical.
Who cares if they go out of business?
It is usually helpful if your enemies think that
you are stupid.
Sarah Palin? For the last two years at least, she
has been brilliant. The most skillful politician of the last thirty years.
I see Gawker has edited the page several times today and removed some previous links.
This is going to be entertaining.
Hold up … are you seriously railing for the abolishment of the “fair use” clause in copyright law?
Posted by: Alex at November 22, 2010 6:55 PM
Where exactly is anybody “railing” for this? Hint: nowhere.
Gotcha. Yes, if their use of those excerpts falls out of the bonds of fair use, then they should be held liable. I’m not sure whether they do or not, since I haven’t read the original article. However, profitability and bias aren’t generally an issue when portions of a work are quoted by news organizations or even private bloggers. Otherwise you get into situations where an author can sue anyone who gives them a bad review, effectively limiting free speech.
If the complaint is that they’ve misused quotes in order to misrepresent what she was saying, then she might have a case if she sued for libel, but I find it hard to imagine that their article could in any way violate the spirit of the “fair use” laws, unless they’ve quoted entire chapters verbatim.
Posted by: Alex at November 22, 2010 7:27 PM
Which was the point of the original post, which you obviously missed the first time around with your nonsensical query. Ms. Palin’s publisher has filed suit for copyright infringement, which a judge has deemed to have sufficient merit to proceed to a hearing later this month. It will be there where Gawker’s Fair Use defense can hold water.
But, at least you’re demonstrating a capacity to learn. Well done.
“…can hold water or not.”
The book has yet to be released.
ah, here we go. I knew something was missing/edited out of Gawker’s snarky response post.
“[Sarah: If you’re reading this—and if you are, welcome!—you may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with the law. Try starting here or here. Or skip the totally boring reading and call one of your lawyers. They’ll walk you through it!]”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hchbHlVpN4EJ:gawker.com/5693797/+sarah-palin-is-mad-at-us-for-leaking-pages-from-her-book&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Herewith a nice analysis, by a lawyer, of Gawker’s snark and resulting legal situation:
http://patterico.com/2010/11/21/snark-fail-gawker-mocks-sarah-palin-for-her-supposedly-stupid-yet-ultimately-correct-legal-position/
how unique.
a presidential candidate possible runs to the lawyer in the country with the most lawyers per capita than any other. where you get sued for, well anything under the sun as long as their lawyer thinks he can part you with your money as well as their client the plaintiff.
“a presidential candidate possible runs to the lawyer..”
Interesting, Harper Collins is possibly running for president?
Wow, beagle, those were really confusing sentences. They had no clear thoughts and had grammatical errors to boot. Please edit.
beagle Yeah but it is nice to see the left get dragged into court for the venom every now and then. After all only one side is held reponsible under mental health laws. It’s nice for the legal industry to stretch out every now and then.
Hey beagle, Gloria Alred said she liked getting her junk felt up by TSA on Hannity’s TV show, but Sarah Palin suing Gawker for cause is just stoopid, right?
Right?
I just visited that little hell-hole this week for a video (that refused to run no matter what). Whilst there I had a look around. I noticed but didn’t read; an article about the insanity of Roger Ailes, an article about the ridiculousness of Glenn Beck, an article about the stupidity of Palin, another article about Ailes, another article about Beck, another article about Palin, another article about Palin, and then, without a trace of self awareness, an article about Beck’s obsession with Soros.
Regarding fair use, just ask the Associated Press.
OT
Looks like SP will run for President judging by her interview on Hannity. Regardless of her prospects, this woman holds absolutely no punches, and apparently is willing to say everything that J.McCain wasn’t willing to say in 08′.
The Left will claim that this is the greatest thing that could happen for the Democrats and BO. They might be correct; but, when are they ever correct? We will see how ‘smart’ SP is when she’s forced to debate the likes of NGing and MHuck.
Indiana Homez said: “The Left will claim that this is the greatest thing that could happen for the Democrats and BO.”
Dude, that alone should tell you everything you need to know. Palin may or may not have the raw “intelligence” of Iggy or Dion or [yeah right!] Barack baby, but she’s sharper than all of them rolled in a blanket.
If she does run for the Republican nomination, her most powerful contribution, win or lose, will be to drag the establishment phonies out into the open on all kinds of issues. Little things like taxes, the TSA, foreign policy, crooked banks, crooked monetary policy, etc.