Michael K Gray wrote:As for the idea that males 'feed' their wives, this is not borne out by any tribe of which I am familiar.
In traditional Australian tribes, it is the other women who bring in and prepare most of the food and provide care & protection for pregnant females.
Sorry for the late response to this, I originally thought of answering but other stuff got in the way, and then it seemed to be a rather minor thing to bring up after the discussion had moved on to other subjects... but then I recently read I think Steersman pointing out the importance of admitting you where wrong, and got reminded/"inspired" to do just that, and I also have reason to chip in on the Amy Roth/DMCA subject, so I though it'd be nice to properly end this discussion before I continue.
You're completely right, if what you say is true about the other women taking care of the pregnant in tribes etc. I have to admit that anthropology is something that I have a limited knowledge of, and that what was going through my mind when I posted that was a completely lone women in a cave, lumbering around in the 8th month, trying to get food and protect herself on her own, compared to a women in a cave + a male, where the male was the typical "provider husband". The rest of the tribe for some reason didn't even enter into my thoughts.
Now, to Amy Roth.
Her recent post is complete bullshit. She's either lying through her teeth, or she is completely clueless on how copyright, DMCA and fair use actually work. Justin's use was well within fair use, the image was relevant to the point Justin was making on the absurdities of banning "fake jewelry", it was not blatant copying, and the use of that photo has no impact on Amy's actual businesses, since her business is about selling jewelry, not photos of jewelry.
This article from EFF is good reading on using others IP in blogs.
Her most important point seems to be that Justin, by accepting donations on his blog, is using her image commercially and is making money out of her copyrighted works, and that's enough to make the DMCA valid. Again, either she is clueless or dishonest, donations does not make a site commercial, and even if Justin's blog had been a commercial site, his use still falls under fair use and is completely legal. Even if you're a commercial company, and for example offer online reviews of products, like movies (see Rotten Tomatoes) you are allowed to for use copyrighted product images in reviews you publish, like thumbs of movie posters. Even if you're reviews are extremely negative and critical, the big movie companies can not shut down sites like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB with DMCA notices, when one of their movies get a 3/10 score.
Her whole damn post is misrepresenting copyright law and procedures so horrible it makes my eyes water.
She simply "asked his server to remove the image" - Filing a DMCA complaint is "just asking for the host to remove the image" the same way that mugging someone at gunpoint is "just asking for some money". Filling a DMCA notice is serous legal accusation, and if the host don't comply, they themselves open themselves up to severe legal actions and economic damages. Therefore, abusing DMCAs to oppress and silence others is harshly punished, and if you do it you can potentially face some
serious legal consequences.
She was completely unaware of what happens to DMCAd posts and no intention of censorship - She is either lying or completely clueless. DMCA claims are taken very seriously by most hosts, since they can be held accountable they always hit with the sledgehammer and not the scalpel. Even if the whole post would not have been removed, most hosts do have a 3 strike rule until they completely remove the whole blog.
This is basic knowledge, if for nothing else, just for the amount of drama abuses of DMCAs has caused to bloggers and youtubers. Anyone in the blogging business should know that DMCAs has been a tool often used to try to silence people, by very dubious and dishonest people. But of course, Amy isn't one of those slimeballs... no, she's just so angry that someone is making money with her art!!!!! :whistle:
Justin filing a counter DMCA "saying he had rights to my image" - No you lying *****. A counter DMCA is something that you have to do if someone is abusing the DMCA to try to silence people, WHICH YOU TRIED TO! It does not mean that the person is contesting your rights, it means that he thinks that your DMCA is invalid, because for example the use falls under fair use.
No one would take the case for under a $5,000 retainer because .. - Because any law firm know they'd lose the case since Justin's use falls under fair use, not because of the confused explanation about counter-DMCAing trolls Amy gives. Justin's use is almost a textbook example of fair use, and any law firm that took a closer look would see that.
Justin's use wasn't fair use because he makes money out of his blog - Simply not true, see above.
She temporarily lost the rights to her photos - No, you stupid... You still own the copyright! It's just that everyone has the right to use your IP if the use falls under fair use, forever and ever! That's how copyright laws work!
ps. this post was written ~14 hours ago, meant to post it but my internet went stone dead... :evil:
