Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: The Great Unwinding, in reply to James George,
One surviving child said she saw lights of other US soldiers in the yard while her family was being massacred, Brown and co reckon that is dodgy reporting eh?
Two experienced, courageous and respected war reporters, Jon Stephenson and Bette Dam, who were there on the scene and interviewed witnesses find fault with the Dateline report on multiple counts. In particular, they regard the “multiple shooters” theory as deeply flawed.
One surviving child said she saw lights of other US soldiers in the yard while her family was being massacred, Brown and co reckon that is dodgy reporting eh?
Basing such a claim on the witness of a traumatised six year-old (whose carers did not want her to be interviewed) would be wrong, yes. Especially when Afghani sentries have very clearly said they saw only one soldier leaving and returning to to camp and reported as much.
Meanwhile, according to Brown, a kiwi ‘reporter’ who claims third hand statements passed on to him by the US soldiers he is in bed with – sorry embedded with, is obviously more credible .
I’m guessing that either you don’t have a clue about the work Jon has done in the past and does now, or you know you’re lying and you don’t care.
In his most recent time in Afghanistan, Jon Stephenson has been McClatchy’s Kabul correspondent. If you know anything about McClatchy, you’ll know that it’s regarded as the best and most independent of the war news services.
McClatchy is also one of the news services used by Stars & Stripes. Stephenson does not work for Stars & Stripes.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Steve Barnes,
who they wish to share their keys with is also up to them.
In a legal sense, it really isn't. They're distributing works without the permission of the authors, and in some cases making money from doing so.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Alex Efimoff,
But he did copy
Did he???
I guess you could argue that he merely provided a facility for other people to copy works to (although he certainly will have copied the files internally). But he also made millions of dollars from selling advertising around that infringing content, and actively incentivised uploaders whose infringing files were downloaded most often.
The case, if it ever gets to court, will partly hinge on his lawyers’ ability to argue that he he knew nothing – nothing! – of this sweeping breach of copyright, and never downloaded such a file himself. I don’t think anyone really believes that.
I’m appalled by the nature of the raid and by the way our police were suborned, and I like Dotcom as a figure. I think owners sometimes brought it on themselves. But to feel sympathy for him is just to acknowledge that the boundaries of copyright in the internet age are fuzzy.
None of the above, of course, means I don’t think it’s shabby that other people used yours and Jackson’s work without attribution and/or permission. But if we think that copyright is something that only applies to our stuff, we’re not really having the debate.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Steve Barnes,
And Kim Dotcom is fine by me, certainly more likeable than most with his wealth which, by the way, wasn’t “earned” by shitting on the workers.
But he did copy other people's creative works and enrich himself from them.
-
Just out of interest, who here has urged a Lessig-liberal approach to non-commercial copyright infringement (around, say, TV shows) and/or said something nice about Kim Dotcom?
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Petra Jane,
By using a CC-BY image without attributing it to Alex, those organisations aren’t covered by the license. According to the Creative Commons FAQ:
Ah, I see what you mean now.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Petra Jane,
Creative Commons doesn’t replace copyright or any other rights held by the author, it just says “here’s the boilerplate license for anyone who wants to republish or reuse this work, if you want to use this work under these terms then you don’t have to check with me first”.
Yeah, but it’s not an NC licence. Just attribution. So those are the terms on which Alex has released the image. News media can't be faulted for using the image without seeking permission, just for not attributing.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to nzlemming,
To be fairer, Russ, if you click on that username it takes you to the profile of partyzane
Duh. I thought I had and got a null result. Parallax error, clearly.
I happily take back the part about it being hard to attribute. But it still might make things easier uploading under a real-name username, no?
Edit: Phew I'm not going mad. I clicked on the Partyzane link in the comments for the image, which gives this message:
Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Partyzane. If in doubt, please verify that "Partyzane" exists.
Hence my confusion.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to JacksonP,
Send them all an invoice. Seriously, if it’s been on there long enough, and has ended up in print, you’re entitled to be paid.
Not under the stated CC licence. That only requires attribution.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Alex Efimoff,
The below photo of mine was used by many NZ media organisations including tvnz website, nz herald etc for their articles on Auckland port strikes… they’ve got that photo from the Auckland’s wikipedia page but almost no one mentioned my authorship :( I just didn’t know what to do
To be fair, Alex, you did make it hard for them to acknowledge your authorship by not, so far as I can see, letting anyone know your real name. So the only condition they needed to meet under the stated licence -- attribution -- was arguably not possible.
In saying this, I'm assuming that you are either the Partyzane listed as author, or gave that user permission. Correct? If not, the problem is actually at Wikipedia, not the media organisations.