but people ARE standing up to it.
Short version, this guy wrote an article on the " 'Free speech' means you can't say anything we don't like" idiocy from the 'Human Rights Commission'. Richard Warman, the jackass who Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and others have written of, takes note of it and, finding a couple of errors, does he ask for a correction? Say "You messed up"? Hell, no, that's not nearly good enough:
At the same time, he requested "that the McGill Tribune remove this article immediately from your website. Further, that a full retraction and apology in language to be agreed from Mr. Tau and the Tribune appear in the next hard-copy edition of the Tribune with the same prominence and location of the original article. Also, that this same retraction and apology be placed in perpetuity on the Tribune's website in place of the original article. Lastly, that the Tribune issue DMCA notices to all others reposting the article in order to prevent further dissemination of the libel."
Happily, this guy and the paper are standing up to the threats. And making some noise about it, which is all to the good. About the only thing that'll fix this in the long run is enough people telling the clowns to piss off, and standing up to them, and it stirring up enough people to cause real problems for the clowns.
2 comments:
It's unclear from their website whether the Tribune claims to have copyright over their editorial postings (rather than the author).
If they don't, they can't issue a DMCA copyright violation notice, since they don't own the material.
(For that matter, reposting large portions of it as commentary on the political controversy would be protected fair use.
Plus the DMCA doesn't apply in Canada, since it's US law.)
Well, regarding copyright, I spoke to an author once who said that when she sent an article to a magazine, the magazine had a right to publish the article, but she retained the reprint rights if someone else wanted to publish it later.
Post a Comment