LOL, Say hello to the democrat party of perpetual fraud. It never ends.

Game.

Set.

Match to Paul (not Hooson).

I can't wait to see how they try to spin this one!

whizbang blue? What's that?

Paul Hoozit? Who's that?

Idiot Liberal/Stalinist/Kook/Moonbat/Asshole. Oh, never mind.

What about nine minutes and six seconds of MSNBC Chris Matthews with Edwards by Lee Ward?

>What about nine minutes and six seconds of MSNBC Chris Matthews with Edwards by Lee Ward?

CRAP! lol

They're going to need JFO to splain this one!

"Mickey made him do it!"..LOL

HughS you got me on that one. I don't often miss things like that, but that one sailed right past me. Well done.

The credit goes to you Paul.

I just started scrolling looking for more of the same after I read your first post here.

They're going to need JFO to splain this one!

CCG and HughS made me do it!

--signed, JFO.

Posted by Paul Hooson
Published: Jun 30, 07 06:50 AM on WizBlue

Check the Coulter video...Paul Hooson was much more judicious here. He limited Coulter to 14 seconds. I'm shocked!

Geezus, those people are certifiable. How can you hope to reason with people like that?

Hoonson wouldn't know Fair Use if it bit him in the ASS! (except for how they "fairly" pass their crack pipe at Blue)

The ONLY way he has ever heard or read the term is seeing it posted in a comment on one of his fellow Blue Bloviaters posts.

Hoonson, you've been reading this thread haven't you?

As background, Lee posted an entire Time Mag article on the morning of the 29th (7 am). Less than an hour later I left a comment noting Lee was in violation of Time's copyright and also not in compliance of Fair Use
Policy.

Lee responded this way 3 hours later:

You're right, marc, about posting the article in its entirety. My bad.

My MO is to copy and past the entire article into my post composition text editing software, then delete portions of the article to end up with an extract. I was multi-tasking when I threw this simple post together, and I obviously scheduled this for publication without editing the text of the article.

Buwaaahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

Guess what, the lying piece of donkey dung STILL hasn't edited the post nearly 60 hours later, it's STILL in violation of Fair Use and STILL is an example of why LEE is by far the worst of the worst and should have his Blue account suspended in addition to being banned at Wizbang!

Now, "Mr." Paul Hoonsan did you in fact know what Fair Use was prior to seeing Lee's post?

Simple question, yes of no?

Regardless, will you now call out Lee for being a lying piece of shit who has now added THIEF to his bag of tricks?

Sunday Funnies Redefined.

And just for the record, Fair Use:

1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.

2. Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.

3. Internet Cases

* Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)
* Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet (see previous case). Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F. Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)

Your link to yesterday"s post is bad

I guess it never occurred to the geniuses at Blue that if you can't provide a full and complete quote from someone in context, that it's best not to quote them at all.

This is one of the most witless pieces of sophistry I have ever come across in the blogosphere.

LOL, liberals knowingly lie to themselves like the little 5 year old who swears he didn't take a cookie, knowing to himself he took "2 cookies", not one.

And where the hell is Hooson?

To borrow a phrase from someone he probably losses spittle over, Hooson "is hiding under his desk."

In his own words, "Legally...offensive".

Clipping a sentence fragment is legal under "fair use" but clipping 2 sentences out of a 1 hour T.V. show would have run Wizbang Blue afoul of the law.

Meanwhile Wizbang Blue stole 6 minutes and 33 seconds of broadcast video this morning. Guess the lawyers gave them different advice on that one.

As they say in "1337 Land" - PWND!!!! Actually, self-pwnd. Idiots.

Is Paul Hooson really Lee Ward? Remarkable similarity in logic, presentation (or lack thereof). Hee, hee.

Meanwhile Wizbang Blue stole 6 minutes and 33 seconds of broadcast video this morning. Guess the lawyers gave them different advice on that one.

That's a pretty low bar you set there - one that no one around here get under... Just saying.

If you have to 'lie' to use a quote the simple, honest thing to do is not use the quote. Left wingers educated in left wing radical colleges are too simple minded to understand that. The wasted a lot of money on 'non education'. Your (Hoosan or is that Hussain) family must be real proud to have reared a total public liar.

Is Paul Hooson really Lee Ward? Remarkable similarity in logic, presentation (or lack thereof). Hee, hee.

When Hooson first showed up here some months back, he struck me as being a lefty, but a somewhat reasonable one -- not a Lee-style Kool-Aid drinker.

Guess I was wrong.

Hoosen is one of the main reasons I keep begging Wizbang to put the commenters name at the top of the comments. Hoosens comments are often quite long and if you read them, they often seem reasonable in the first paragraph or two, then degrade to insantiy by the time the comment is done. So whenever I see a long comment I first have to scroll to the end to see who wrote it and then back up to read the comment if the author wasn't Hoosen or someone on his level.

I wonder what up with him. It's like he's on strong meds that only last a short time-- like he takes a pill and starts to type sanely, but it wears off after a couple of paragraphs and the comment degrades into psycho ranting.

I don't know what your personal qualifications are to speak on copyright matters, Paul. But I'm a former head lobbyist, a legal researcher, and acted as Pro Per Attorney for my business interests, winning most of my courtroom battles with opposing businesses, defeating some high priced corporate attorneys, preparing both my own legal filings and courtroom presentations.

Under federal copyright law there is an accepted principle known as "fair use" that allows for limited use of copyrighted material as an illustration where no public domain or GNU free license material remains. Under the last piece of legislation known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1988, some confusion has been created where a few business interests have complained when a link by bloggers is used for example, although I know of no case where a legal standing has prevented this use. The accepted limits of "fair use" remain something of a grey area where no higher court rulings have really established the hard and fast limits of just how much material can be used without inviting a legal challenge to the referencing of copyrighted material for illustration purposes. And limited use of copyrighted material for illustraion purposes under the accepted legal notion of "fair use" is common to all news groups, and the principle should in turn be the same for bloggers who need an illustration to better present a point or to provide a nature of credibility to their journalism.

Also under the notion of legal limits, I resent misleading attacks on my journalistic credibility as well. I pride myself in my honest opinions about various matters whether some agree with my opinions or not. I would hope that any future disagreement with my opinions is of a more elevated nature offering a more constructive and factual based dissent.

I firmly believe in respecting the dignity of others, and would certainly appreciate the same courtesy in return. Every human is a vessel of God, and deserving of that level of respect. It's not a bad thing that some persons simply disagree with one another on political or other matters. The very best to you, Paul.

That's the spirit Paul H., never give up, never surrender.

Hooson, are you honestly telling us that copying over six and a half minutes of video is allowable but adding two more sentences to Ann's video clip isn't?

Puh-leeze. Even bD isn't stoopid enough to buy that one.

I can't figure out what Hooson is claiming about fair use, and I practice in the area. Certainly the last comment is non responsive.

But Robin, a practicing lawyer in copyright law is no match for Hooson, who was a (gasp) lobbyist!

I firmly believe in respecting the dignity of others

But not their intellectuality, right? How else would you describe your factual representation of "fair use" in copyright law, but then fail to address Paul's original point? You know, the whole idea that clipping a copyrighted sentence fragment is fair use, while clipping the whole 2 sentence quote (of a 60 minute show) somehow violates that statute?

Care to resolve that little hang-up, oh lawyer/lobbyist extraordinaire?

Also under the notion of legal limits, I resent misleading attacks on my journalistic credibility as well.

If you have any credibility for which can be attacked, I have yet to see it. You have to earn credibility and the way you have handled this little mess certainly shows you have none.

and would certainly appreciate the same courtesy in return.

Do you need to borrow a tissue? Are you going to tell Kevin that big, bad Paul is being mean to you?

In 356 words, Paul Hooson still could not explain why several minutes of a video is okay but two sentences is not. Instead we get some mumbo-jumbo about the vagueries of the "fair use" statutes preceeded by a litany of his credentials to back it up.

Oyster, given Hooson's obvious predilection for hyperbole, his "credentials" are somewhat suspect.

Yesterday, I clearly addressed that I only objected to the Coulter quote from ABC that made reference to the "assassination" and "terrorism" comments that she used. I had no problem with her other opinions presented on ABC, only her joking encouragement of violence against a presidential candidate on American soil by foreign terrorists. Her other statements were not in question by me, only that specific statement. Is this clear enough?

Hey, J.R., in more than 20 years in business I've displayed a lot of toughness, including spending three early years in a business situation with no heat and an ice ring in the middle of the floor in subfreezing temperature, and twice fended off goofballs who wanted to cut my throat.And was once lead singer in a punk rock band in some of Portland's toughest bars and a rough childhood with lots of abuse. So a few mocking petty words don't even phase me by some persons with not even half of my willpower, drive and determination to standup for what I believe or succeed at business or whatever I do. I bring all of these tough "life of hard knocks" values to my business experience and parttime political writing. No tissues for me, thanks. A good day to you.

Spin, Hooson, spin!

First it's "Fair Use forbids me to quote more," now it's "that's all I was commenting on."

Of course, with the second excuse, you tacitly admit that you left out the context of the statement you quoted, which is what you were being criticized for!

You've spun yourself right into admitting that your critics were right! Congrats, Hooson!

Hey, J.R., in more than 20 years in business I've displayed a lot of toughness, including spending three early years in a business situation with no heat and an ice ring in the middle of the floor in subfreezing temperature,

Oh, the humanity! Stop! Stop, I tell you! You had me at hello.

Paul Who'sOn: You can use more words saying nothing than anybody I've ever seen. Amazing, even for a lobbyist.

Paul Hooson,

I think you mean faze as in "don't even phase me". And I am going to have to cite your poor grammar in the use of a double-negative.

This is just getting funnier and funnier.

Paul Hooson (now fortified with twice as much willpower as I) states:

Yesterday, I clearly addressed that I only objected to the Coulter quote from ABC that made reference to the "assassination" and "terrorism" comments that she used. I had no problem with her other opinions presented on ABC, only her joking encouragement of violence against a presidential candidate on American soil by foreign terrorists. Her other statements were not in question by me, only that specific statement. Is this clear enough?

As it pertains to your "fair use" argument, no it's not clear enough, in fact it doesn't make any sense. I couldn't care less what she was talking about, my beef is with your insinuated superior knowledge of copyright law and then failure to actually show how it applies to your explanation of why you could only that one sentence fragment.

Paul Hooson:

High-priced lobbyist!
Tough talkin' business owner!
Legal genius!
Rock star!

Is there anything he can't do?

Well, other than provide a coherent argument explaining why he deliberately misrepresented the Ann Coulter quote, I mean.

You forgot cage fighter...

Paul Hooson:

High-priced lobbyist!
Tough talkin' business owner!
Legal genius!
Rock star!

Is there anything he can't do?

According to Rosie, he can't melt steel with fire.

Hey, J.R., in more than 20 years in business I've displayed a lot of toughness, including spending three early years in a business situation with no heat and an ice ring in the middle of the floor in subfreezing temperature, and twice fended off goofballs who wanted to cut my throat.And was once lead singer in a punk rock band in some of Portland's toughest bars and a rough childhood with lots of abuse.

You know, you should write an autobiography. Then it could be turned into a Lifetime TV melodrama.

Ya know what the saddest thing about this is?

Hooson could have avoided all this by merely admitting that he'd taken the quote out of context and apologizing.

Or, better still, by not taking it out of context in the first place.

Whatever shame and embarrassment he may feel (and I am not going to speculate on how much that is) was brought down upon him by his own actions.

Not that he'll ever admit that, either. A good lefty to the core, he will blame someone else.

A good lefty to the core, he will blame someone else.

Or defend it by citing another's bad behavior.

According to Rosie, he can't melt steel with fire.

Ha! That only applies to mere mortals. Paul Hooson's firey laser vision can not only melt steel, but also grill chateurbriand to perfection. And serve it with a dry, red cabernet.

All at the same time.

Kneel before the god-like Paul Hooson, knave!

You forgot he's pretty good with a bo staff. And Nunchucks. And he's an bitchin dancer

You'd think he'd use his superstar influence and mojo to get his meth head brother out of jail...

Ya know, I bet Hooson is very very glad that Bush commuted part of Libby's sentence today.

It takes the attention away from this thread.

Maybe you should send Dubya a thank-you card, Hooson.

Holy cow, with all the stuff Paul Hoosen can do, I just realized that Buckaroo Banzi can't hold a candle to Paul Hoosen!

After all, Buckaroo was a physicist, neurosurgeon, Samurai, rock musician, Jet Car driver and comic book hero, but what's that next to Paul Hoosen!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckaroo_Banzai

Wiilliam Bennett and other social critics who are concerned about the coarsening of American culture are unfortunately right. Apparently Ann Coulter has breeded an entire audience of listeners and fans who try to imitate her brand of anti-intellectual insult humor, and show no real understanding of the role of government to keep schools open, streets lite, and provide for public safety like a legitimate political analyst of any political viewpoint would advocate.

I'm deeply sorry for our nation. You can see why the Asian economies are booming and taking all our jobs, or 12 million illegal immigrants are willing to take the jobs that Americans are too lazy to do, and Americans are growing fat living in a trailer park and drinking beer by comparison. America is certainly in a state of decline and a dying empire. Even small bans of terrorists like the Bin Ladens of the world have learned that they can bully around the U.S. because we have become so weak as a culture. And the Bible predicted that would all happen as well more than 2,000 years ago as it has happened to other nations leaving them in the ruins of time and dust.

The death of civility is only the death rattle for a dying nation. Very sad. Go on now, tell your jokes.

Hey Paul, care to wax poetic about your "fair use" argument? Or are you just going to continue to just ignore legitimate criticisms and then try to wrap them all up in some sort of Coulter blanket? Sheesh. We go from your stupid, wrong citation of fair use to the ruination of the American society. How sad you are indeed.

"Apparently Ann Coulter has breeded an entire audience of listeners and fans who try to imitate her brand of anti-intellectual insult humor, and show no real understanding of the role of government to keep schools open, streets lite, and provide for public safety like a legitimate political analyst of any political viewpoint would advocate."

Oh, you mean like this chick?

"You can see why the Asian economies are booming and taking all our jobs,..."

Oh, you mean like these happy campers?

"or 12 million illegal immigrants are willing to take the jobs that Americans are too lazy to do,"

I get so sick of that phrase. What about all the Americans working their asses off to support all the illegals mooching here?

"Even small bans of terrorists like the Bin Ladens of the world have learned that they can bully around the U.S. because we have become so weak as a culture."

Oh, you mean like this guy?

Paul, the moment you and your friends are willing to show equal outrage for the complete lack of civility by people like Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, Howard Dean (who by the way actually represents the Democratic Party) and a whole slew of others, your rants will fall on deaf ears. That you would exclusively use Coulter as your poster child on which to base your argument of the sad decline of our nation is disingenuous. Especially since few people here defend Coulter with the zeal and vigor we see others defend, or completely ignore, on your side of the aisle.

That you can't see or refuse to admit that this whole affair with Coulter was taken out of context to evoke the most extreme reaction is telling. Your argument has evolved from copyright laws to bemoaning the decline of western civilization all the while carefully dodging the very issue at hand.

Admit your'e wrong and moveon, pal.