...huh.
Screencap of Hal's case on the PACER system.
Screencap of Hal's case in a list of filed cases, marked under Copyright Infringement.
So Hal's going forward with this, with his primary case as Copyright Infringement, which would give him notice enough to add on the other charges listed in his Complaint document. His copyright notice is as follows: © © 2007 - All text, headlines and commentary on this web site as well as the content of my radio show and internet webcasts, the sounds, inflections and intonations of my human voice and my appearance, image and likeness are all COPYRIGHT 1962 - 2007, Harold C. Turner; all Rights reserved.
So he's filing a case because we recorded his shows and made alterations to his image. Which may, on a technicality, be true infringement, since there was the 7chan dollar prank and the slew of shopped images (mostly involving cocks, some with several at once). Still, that could be claimed free speech, much like his show; his image may be copyrighted, but the shopped images could be claimed as artistic free speech. Bullshit, obviously, because it's not really artistic to shop a bunch of dicks over a man's image, no matter how funny it is, but it's still technically free speech in regards to the freedom to do such and not have it considered slander.
Still remains to be seen, natch.
Screencap of Hal's case in a list of filed cases, marked under Copyright Infringement.
So Hal's going forward with this, with his primary case as Copyright Infringement, which would give him notice enough to add on the other charges listed in his Complaint document. His copyright notice is as follows: © © 2007 - All text, headlines and commentary on this web site as well as the content of my radio show and internet webcasts, the sounds, inflections and intonations of my human voice and my appearance, image and likeness are all COPYRIGHT 1962 - 2007, Harold C. Turner; all Rights reserved.
So he's filing a case because we recorded his shows and made alterations to his image. Which may, on a technicality, be true infringement, since there was the 7chan dollar prank and the slew of shopped images (mostly involving cocks, some with several at once). Still, that could be claimed free speech, much like his show; his image may be copyrighted, but the shopped images could be claimed as artistic free speech. Bullshit, obviously, because it's not really artistic to shop a bunch of dicks over a man's image, no matter how funny it is, but it's still technically free speech in regards to the freedom to do such and not have it considered slander.
Still remains to be seen, natch.
posted by BFAnon at 11:31 AM
3 Comments:
as someone stated copyright infringement = wire fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud
what next, then?
p.s. well of course he ain't do shit, RIAA with millions of dollars has problems with suing people. Yet I wonder where this whole thing will go.
The two problems I see with the wikipedia article, through the legal definition of wire fraud:
1. Anonymous didn't stand to gain money or property through the attacks on his site, and the calls to his show were all strictly legal, in the sense that Anonymous was calling the show, albeit most with the intent of to prank call it, and not disrupting the broadcast signal itself. Hal declared that the Anonymii interrupted the show, which they did to an extent; the conversation of Hal's intended topics was interrupted, but the output of the overall show, which Hal claims was disrupted, still continued. Prior to the recent legal issues, Hal claimed that a show was halted from broadcasting due to a DDoS attack, but it was, in fact, not aired at all; any show that did not air was intentionally grounded by Hal himself, to both bolster the accusation of broadcast interruption and raise support, and this occured at least once.
Furthermore, there was no gain in neither the case of the pizza delivery nor mailing supplies delivery. It was stated in Hal's complaint that Papa John's (good pizza, by the way) had assumed the order to be false initially, and phoned him, where he confirmed it to be a false order; the mail supplies, though he lists that as wire fraud as well, were free, as well as the number of other items sent to his location.
2. According to copyright law, Hal is entitled to hold copyright over his image and audio. However, parodies are also protected by copyright law, in definition as "the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." The shopped images could be considered parody, however derogatory they may be. So if Hal's attempting to catch Anonymous over the misuse of his image, the label of "parody" can be in effect, I assume. As far as I know, no alterations to his show's audio, save for the recording of it, have been made. And the fact that he broadcasts his show for anyone to listen to nullifies the argument that recording his show is considered stealing it; he's not enforcing a pay-to-listen system. It states, on his site, that a five to ten dollar donation is expected, but not mandatory. He can't demand a pay system, since he apparently has cause to worry about the loss of his listeners and supporters.
So there's not much he can do in the way of copyright infringement, which is all that's been filed thus far.
Post a Comment
<< Home