Thanks so much for posting the article in toto....
There you go again....
(graphic courtesy of MeekOneGOP from over on this thread
"Did I forget to post the full article again? D'OH!!"
FReegards,
ConservativeStLouisGuy
Posted on 05/04/2004 10:33:30 PM PDT by quidnunc
Watching Bob Kerrey, who seems to be emotionally unhinged, and Richard Ben Veniste, the lamest specimen of showboating hack, badgering Condoleeza Rice the other day, I understood more clearly why the Islamists despise the west. The 9/11 commission represents the very worst traits of American government: arthritic, retroactive, portentous, posturing, pseudo-legalistic, victimologically inclined, and utterly irrelevant to what we old-fashioned types still like to call the real world. By contrast, the Hutton inquiry in Britain was a model of intellectual focus and presentational restraint.
As to “BUSH’S FAILURE TO ACT!!!!” on a feeble August memo of Islamism For Dummies generalities, what act would the media have allowed the Feds to get away with at the time? Investigate Zac Moussaoui or the large number of other young Arab men who were passing through American flight schools? This was after an election campaign in which Al Gore solemnly promised that his first act as President would be an executive order prohibiting police from pulling over African-Americans for “driving while black”. In the wake of the Wen Ho Lee debacle, the media’s assumption was that he too had been racially profiled — arrested for no other reason than “working in a nuclear weapons laboratory while Chinese” (as Lars-Erik Nelson wrote). We don’t need an investigation to know why in 2001 Federal bureaucrats were reluctant to be flayed all over again by media scolds — this time for prosecuting the new hate-crime of “flying while Arab”.
After September 11th, some of us wondered whether, for all its tactical prestige, the destruction of that day wasn’t a strategic error for the Islamists. If you take them at their word, their object — as outlined in their most comprehensive “Letter To The American People” (November 2002) — is the west’s “complete submission” to Islam. It sounds a taller order when you look at the specifics –“ reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s [sic], and trading with interest”. Certainly the National Review Christmas party will be a more subdued affair.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
Ah. There's the problem. The only enemy the Left believes in, is the Right. And they don't want to understand us, they want to drive us into the sea (so to speak).
Maybe that's the solution. If we can just convince them that the Islamofascists (personally, I like the term IslamoNazis better, but it's not the usual one) are merely the Religious Right in bad dresses, maybe then they'll join the fight.
GOING THEIR WAY?
Watching Bob Kerrey, who seems to be emotionally unhinged, and Richard Ben Veniste, the lamest specimen of showboating hack, badgering Condoleeza Rice the other day, I understood more clearly why the Islamists despise the west. The 9/11 commission represents the very worst traits of American government: arthritic, retroactive, portentous, posturing, pseudo-legalistic, victimologically inclined, and utterly irrelevant to what we old-fashioned types still like to call the real world. By contrast, the Hutton inquiry in Britain was a model of intellectual focus and presentational restraint.
As to ?BUSH?S FAILURE TO ACT!!!!? on a feeble August memo of Islamism For Dummies generalities, what act would the media have allowed the Feds to get away with at the time? Investigate Zac Moussaoui or the large number of other young Arab men who were passing through American flight schools? This was after an election campaign in which Al Gore solemnly promised that his first act as President would be an executive order prohibiting police from pulling over African-Americans for ?driving while black?. In the wake of the Wen Ho Lee debacle, the media?s assumption was that he too had been racially profiled ? arrested for no other reason than ?working in a nuclear weapons laboratory while Chinese? (as Lars-Erik Nelson wrote). We don?t need an investigation to know why in 2001 Federal bureaucrats were reluctant to be flayed all over again by media scolds ? this time for prosecuting the new hate-crime of ?flying while Arab?.
After September 11th, some of us wondered whether, for all its tactical prestige, the destruction of that day wasn?t a strategic error for the Islamists. If you take them at their word, their object ? as outlined in their most comprehensive ?Letter To The American People? (November 2002) ? is the west?s ?complete submission? to Islam. It sounds a taller order when you look at the specifics ?? reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling?s [sic], and trading with interest?. Certainly the National Review Christmas party will be a more subdued affair.
But it?s remarkable how week by week many of the pieces seem to be falling into place ? in the name of multicultural sensitivity, there are more and more restrictions on mixed bathing at municipal swimming pools from France to Australia; porcine statuary is banned by an English council as offensive to Muslims; a Sharia court has been recognized for the purposes of family law in the Islamic communities of Ontario. The notion of a dar el-Islam across the whole planet may sound ridiculous, but just below the surface pretty much everything seems to be going their way.
The problem with 9/11 was that it was above the surface: it caught the eye and demanded a response. This seemed, in Talleyrand?s phrase, worse than a crime; it was a blunder. It removed al-Qa?eda?s hosts in Afghanistan and splintered the terrorist networks. On balance, one would have concluded that 9/11 was a setback for the inauguration of a global caliphate.
But, if you take the longer view, it was still a useful exercise in that it revealed the limitations of American power. The less insane Islamofascist leaders understand that you can?t militarily defeat the west, and that you don?t have to: the west will defeat itself, and it?s only necessary to be there to inherit when they do. In that sense, both the Spanish election results and the 9/11 hearings confirm the Islamists? view that the west is weak-willed and defeatist.
The best way to understand the enemy is to look at the Iraq war a year ago. Barely a sign of anything that looked like an army, but plenty of plainclothes thugs making mischief by blending in with the local populations. If things were the other way round, if Saddam invaded Massachusetts and some diehards from the Third Infantry Division holed up in a daycare centre, do you think the Republican Guard would give it a moment?s thought before leveling the daycare, kids and all? Everything the Baath regime did factored in what?s (according to taste) either the moral superiority or the moral squeamishness of the west.
Can we afford that now? Tammy Bruce, the magnificent lesbian whom the doctrinaire left has driven over to the other side (politically speaking only, I hasten to add), has called on the US to ?level Fallujah?, as long ago the RAF leveled Dresden and the USAF Hiroshima: that way the losing side knows it?s lost. ?Steady on, old girl,? I thought, as I read Miss Bruce. I don?t subscribe to the view that we can win the ?hearts and minds? of the Sunni Triangle, but, heartless and mindless as they are, I?m reluctant to kill 300,000 of them.
But Miss Bruce usefully clarified the options. If the Bush doctrine ? fixing the problem at source by reforming dysfunctional states ? is a long shot, what?s the alternative? If failed states stay failed, and we permit ourselves only to fight defensively, through e-mail chatter and airport security, and railway bombs neuter American allies even more thoroughly than they already are, and a suitcase nuke goes off in Dallas or Detroit, then at some point it?s going to be a choice between the Bruce option or a slow surrender. And, given the pitiful performance of Bob Kerrey, Bob Byrd, Ted Kennedy et al these last few weeks, the latter looks the better bet.
National Review, April 26th 2004
You neglected to post everything — this, for instance:
Document copyright Steynonline.com. All rights reserved.
If you don't want to post entire articles, but you recognize that ALL Steyn articles will be posted on this web site in their entirety, then why do you persist in annoying the rest of us with your holier than thou legal position which may or may not be correct? Why must YOU, St. Quidnunc, be the one to post Steyn articles?
Nonsense!
Take some time to study what is in the Stanford University Fair Use and Copyright Center.
It is not permissable to post copyrighted material in toto on Free Republic unless prior permission has been granted by the copyright holder.
There seem to be some slow learners here on FR.
The only people who are entitled to definitively determine what is permissible are federal judges applying federal copyright law on a case by case basis.
The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction."This rule — less is more — is not necessarily true in parody cases. In a parody, the parodist is borrowing in order to comment upon the original work. A parodist is permitted to borrow quite a bit, even the heart of the original work, in order to conjure up the original work. That's because, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, "the heart is also what most readily conjures up the [original] for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. " (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
-snip-
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).)
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html
You don't get it. The owner of this website allows full-text posting of articles except when there has been a complaint. Your complaints don't count.
If and when a Federal judge issues a ruling, affirmed on appeal, that the practice of posting full-text articles at this forum, in the context in which it is done, violates the law I'm sure the owner of this forum will comply with the ruling.
Well then counselor, surely you recognize the significance of this excerpt from the Stanford Copyright & Fiar Use site:
While the person who uploaded the material is the actual infringer, whoever maintains the site can be held liable for allowing the material to be posted at the site. As with any unauthorized material, the wisest approach to dealing with unauthorized uploads at a site is to remove it quickly or disable access to the material pending resolution of the dispute. (See Section A.)A site permitting uploading of material can post a notice prohibiting any unauthorized activities and require that perpetrators pay for any damages caused by such activities. The notice should be placed prominently so that persons performing uploads will see it. Alternatively, the site may include a "click to accept" agreement (often called a clickwrap agreement) setting forth similar terms. A clickwrap agreement is a page or window that appears before the user is allowed to perform a certain function (in this case, an upload) which states the terms of an agreement. The user will not be allowed to proceed until he has clicked in a box to indicate he has read and accepts the agreement.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/6-b.html
The FR terms-of-service agreement contains just such a clause as I have highlighted in the second paragraph of the excerpt above.
The bottom line — if an individual poster infringes copyright then that individual poster is in the trick bag when the stuff hits the fan.
Right off the bat, there are arguments regarding the extent of the fair use exception on an internet article that is reposted for comment and non-commercial reasons, and there are arguments regarding the effect on the rights of a copyright holder by posting an article on the internet and giving free access to it. Giving restricted access to articles, by, for example, requiring membership or payment of a fee, would definitely be a factor in favor of keeping control in the original source, but I don't think it would be dispositive.
I can certainly see arguments on both sides, but I am strongly in favor as a policy matter of allowing the republication of articles and other information that is already posted and available on the internet. In any event, some Stanford defense of restrictive interpretations of copyright law is not the final word on the matter, nor is Quidnunc's view necessarily correct.
Technology changes all the time, and when it does, it presents interesting dilemmas with respect to fitting it into existing laws and concepts. In 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, the nearest corollary would have been if an activist went around posting his thoughts on a building in the town square. Would he then be entitled to keep those words to himself? Could someone take the piece of paper? After all, it had been effectively abandoned, and in property law, could become the property of whoever found it. Couldn't they take it home and read it, give a copy to their friends, discuss it over the dinner table?
What if he owned the building on which the bill was tacked? Does he then control whether a person can take the piece of paper off the building? How about if someone standing on the sidewalk writes down the words, and gives a copy to his friends?
Interesting issues all, and all treated dismissively by St. Quidnunc, who knows all. I don't mind him having those views. I wish he would stop trying to post articles here in light of his views, especially articles that someone else would have posted in its entirety eventually. Quidnunc, you can rest assured that every Steyn column will be posted here, and we don't need you to do it for us. So, please quit. Excerpt articles that you bring us that we would not have otherwise found, if you wish. But don't jump off the Staten Island Ferry and tell us you've discovered Manhattan, and that it belongs to the Indians.
I'm a Kirkwood High grad. Go Pioneers!
(original sketch by Salvador Dali)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.