Hersh Reports on Covert Action in Iran

[Reality]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

How exactly is working with Sunni fundamentalists not going to backfire this time?

 

[editec]

Funding THIS ADMINISTRATION to do ANYTHING is mistake. Shame on the D's for enabling this nitwit.

These confederation of dunderheads couldn't administrate a one car funeral.

 

[dilloduck]

The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh July 7, 2008

I like people who can write in the future.

 

[Reality]

I like people who can write in the future.

I didn't see that originally. Must be the New Yorker's pub date.

 

[dilloduck]

I didn't see that originally. Must be the New Yorker's pub date.

probably---but I couldn't resist

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think I've ever seen a board with more copyright violations. I guess that's cool here, eh?

 

[matty]

Where's the infringement?, I wanna see whatchyou mean...

 

[Reality]

I edited the original post due to the poster's concern.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I would like to point out that this supposedly "covert" operation is now front page news and it is actually a minor type of operation.

Having said that, to all of you 9/11 conspiracy theorists out there, do you REALLY think that the US government could keep a plot to blow up the World Trade Center from leaking to the NY Times??????

Giving me a fucking break........

 

[Steerpike]

Where's the infringement?, I wanna see whatchyou mean...

Originally the whole article was just cut and paste. Not really supposed to do that, but I'm probably more apt to notice/mention it than most.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think I've ever seen a board with more copyright violations. I guess that's cool here, eh?

Originally the whole article was just cut and paste. Not really supposed to do that, but I'm probably more apt to notice/mention it than most.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion, this board has more copyright VIOLATORS than any other you've seen ....

The rules of the board clearly preclude copyright violations, and there are more than a couple threads detailing specifically how to post a link. We usually correct them the first time or two and point semd a PM to the offending member. If they still fail to comply, their article gets deleted. Now guess how dumb THAT looks when the article's gone and it's got replies ...

 

[Reality]

I would like to point out that this supposedly "covert" operation is now front page news and it is actually a minor type of operation.

Having said that, to all of you 9/11 conspiracy theorists out there, do you REALLY think that the US government could keep a plot to blow up the World Trade Center from leaking to the NY Times??????

Giving me a fucking break........

Funding the same sect in Iran that Khalid Sheik Muhammad is a member of should be front page news. How many times are we going to make this mistake?

 

[editec]

I don't think I've ever seen a board with more copyright violations. I guess that's cool here, eh?

I don't think there's any copyright violations on this board.

FAIR USE laws cover places like these, believe me.

 

[politicsezine]

I think it will fall to John McCain or Barack Obama to launch a war on Iran. Obama may try to negotiate, but I have a hunch that war with Iran is now inevitable. Some terrorist stuff will happen, Iran will be the culprit and we'll ended up in another war. Obama may talk about negotiation but when push comes to shove he will still have the balls to declare war when its necessary.

ie. For example if Iran launched a nuclear missile on Israel there would probably be a reprisal from Israel and the United States, regardless of which person gets elected in November 2008.

Besides, we need to finish building that oil pipeline from Iraq, through Iran and Afghanistan to China. The Chinese want that oil for their booming economy.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think there's any copyright violations on this board.

FAIR USE laws cover places like these, believe me.

Free Republic, LLC, owner of the political website freerepublic.com, was found liable for copyright infringement in L.A. Times v. Free Republic for reproducing and archiving full-text versions of plaintiffs' news articles even though the judge found the website minimally commercial. She held that "while defendants' do not necessarily 'exploit' the articles for commercial gain, their posting to the Free Republic site allows defendants and other visitors to avoid paying the 'customary price' charged for the works."

The April 2000 opinion ruled concerning the four factors of fair use that 1) "defendants' use of plaintiffs' articles is minimally, if at all, transformative," 2) the factual content of the articles copied "weighs in favor of finding of fair use of the news articles by defendants in this case," though it didn't "provide strong support" 3) concerning the amount and substantiality prong, "the wholesale copying of plaintiffs' articles weighs against the finding of fair use," and 4) the plaintiffs showed that they were trying to exploit the market for viewing their articles online and defendants didn't rebut their showing by proving an absence of usurpation harm to plaintiffs. Ultimately the court found "that the defendants may not assert a fair use defense to plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim."

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think there's any copyright violations on this board.

FAIR USE laws cover places like these, believe me.

Not when you're cutting and pasting an entire work that could easily be excerpted and linked to. One of the factors in determining fair use includes the amount of the work copied, and if you take all of it it cuts against your fair use argument.

Full text cut and paste of a news article from another internet site is quite unlikely to be construed as a fair use.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think there's any copyright violations on this board.

FAIR USE laws cover places like these, believe me.

Yup.

 

[Steerpike]

Yup.

No. This is not how fair use is determined. You don't just look at a site or an entity and say "oh year, fair use applies to them." Fair Use applies to EVERYONE. The nature and character of each individual use is examined to determine whether it is a fair use or not, and just because you're on a political message board doesn't mean everything is fair use. If you were right, Allie, and fair use just "applied" to the board, then you could post any kind of copyright-protected material you wanted here. That's clearly not the case.

 

[editec]

I believe that that case involved thousands of pages of the Plantiff's articles which were posted full text without credit, and archived.

Not having seen the offenses in question, I can't be positive, but I think we're talking about a scale of violation of copyright which has nothing to do with what happens here.

 

[Shogun]

Keep in mind that I am three shades of guilty of this very thing...


but, im betting the dusty archives of USMB counts just as much as Free Republic. I have seen no evidence that posting entire articles on a messageboard is imprevious to copyright laws. Quite the opposite, which is why I posted about FR. do you have anything to offer as evidence otherwise?