Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Facebook Media Social Networks News

Your Personal Facebook Live Videos Can Legally End Up on TV (thememo.com) 144

Kitty Knowles, reporting for the Memo: Think you control what happens to your personal videos? Think again. One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May, has found out the hard way: he saw the birth of his son replayed on Good Morning America and numerous other media outlets. This week, he lost a high-profile court battle against the broadcasters. If you don't want this to happen to you, don't make the same mistakes. It's one thing wanting to share a life-changing moment with friends and family. But most would understand why Kali Kanongataa didn't want his child's birth aired for all to see. That hasn't however, stopped a US judge throwing out Kanongataa's copyright infringement case against the likes of the ABC, Yahoo, and Rodale, the company that publishes Women's Health. Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording, but decided to leave it that way. Media outlets broadcasting the clips have defended doing so on the terms of "fair use." Legally, "fair use" means that when pictures or videos are the focus of a major news story, selected footage can be used.Heads up, Facebook will soon release a video app for set-top boxes by Apple and Amazon to broadcast Live videos on the big screen.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Your Personal Facebook Live Videos Can Legally End Up on TV

Comments Filter:
  • by asylumx ( 881307 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @01:45PM (#53887703)
    I'll never understand why so many people think they have privacy when they broadcast/post things to the internet.

    ©2017 asylumx (881307), all rights reserved.
    • because they don't stop and think, they just point and click and say, oh, it'll be alright.
      • by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:12PM (#53887875) Homepage

        Of course, it'll be fine. If I change my mind, I'll just take it back down. You know, delete it from the Internet. How hard can that be?

      • Presumably he read the bit of the Facebook T&Cs that says that you grant them a non-exclusive, sublicensable, transferable, commercial license to anything that you upload, and that you agree to indemnify them against any claims of copyright infringement. They are entirely at liberty to take anything that you upload and sell it and are not required to give you a cut (remember the Starbucks posters with pictures of people who had uploaded Facebook pictures from their shops?). The only surprising part is
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Because it's natural to expect privacy. It's ingrained in human culture. That's what seperates us from the lesser animals -- the ability to reason and respect each other as equals. Privacy is a big part of that. People who shit on privacy don't see others as equal.

      The real problem for the facebook posters is that on the internet, human culture doesn't apply, and they have yet to come to terms with that.

      • by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @03:55PM (#53888665) Homepage Journal

        it's natural to expect privacy.

        It's natural to some of us. It's apparently not natural to some other people, which is why they broadcast their stuff to the Internet.

        If you're fucking your wife in your bedroom, you expect privacy. If you're fucking her in the town square, while occasionally making eye contract with strangers and saying, "hey, check out what we're doing," then that suggests that you don't expect privacy.

        I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?

        The real problem for the facebook posters is that on the internet, human culture doesn't apply, and they have yet to come to terms with that.

        No, the problem is that some users don't know the difference between fucking in the town square (uploading to facebook) vs their bedrooms (sending encrypted email).

        • I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?

          When Facebook purports to give you control over your data, privacy settings, then yes it is absolutely reasonable to expect that stuff to be private to the people you choose. Yes, we know that their impenetrable contracts give them loads of rights, but the site does not communicate that in how it works. Despite your colourful analogy, very little about how Facebook works would make a normal person believe that they are in a fully public place.

          I know it's superfun to call people stupid, and it makes you feel

        • My main issue here is that Facebook defaults to public on damn near everything. It's pretty much why my Facebook profile is near-dead, and pretty much entirely exists for some work-related stuff.
      • It's not natural to agree to a set of terms and conditions that explicitly grants a third party unlimited commercial rights to anything that you upload, upload some things, and then complain that you no longer have control over those things.
    • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:25PM (#53887985)

      Hollywood's IP is zealously protected, while ours is not. This is why we torrent, folks.

      • You are right, but we are trying our best to win our right to "fair use" in the courts, it has to cut both ways. I think this is actually a win for copyright but a complete loss for privacy. He was a dumbshit for live streaming it anyway.
        • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @08:12PM (#53889997)

          This case was hardly a "win for copyright." Under present law, any creator of content is supposed to get an innate copyright over his work, regardless of whether there is any formal filing. But in this case Hollywood has asserted its right to replay our content without credit or compensation over their media channels, while at the same time crushing as much fair use by hoi polloi as it can get away with. Yes, they are having it both ways.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Privacy no, copyright yes.

      I can't rebroadcast the NFL just because it's already been on TV once. Somehow, the court decided fair use doesn't apply to the NFL but does to this guy's facebook stream.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      Except this wasn't a privacy claim, this was a copyright claim.
    • This is not an issue of privacy, but an issue of copyright.

    • I'll never understand why the people say "X uploaded it to the internet, it must be fine" when the person being filmed in a vulnerable state was Y. It was the mother's privacy being invaded, and she didn't have shit to do with the video.

    • If you wouldn't put it on a billboard your grandmother drives by every day, don't put it on the internet.

      The preacher says to the choir.

    • Doesn't the same thing happen to YouTube videos already?

      I've never posted anything there I don't want the world to see, so if they use one of my videos I'd be flattered instead.

      However what does bother me is that I often see videos linked on other web sites, and then it's (C) YouTube. Or photos from Facebook, and it says (C) Facebook. Now I understand the part where YouTube and Facebook will have the right to re-use your videos/photos in any way they see fit, but how come they even can claim copyright on it

  • by r_naked ( 150044 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @01:47PM (#53887707) Homepage

    Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?

    You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.

    -- RN

    • They're also illegal to snoop / copy.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:40PM (#53888107)

      Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?

      You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.

      -- RN

      Good god, fuck no. Sorry but comparing email to a social network is like comparing a telegram to a video conference. The use cases are different. The presentation is different. The way it works is very different. What you can do with it is different.

      You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person.

      God you bring back nightmares of people trying to share something as simple as a few family vacation snaps via email. 30 people all getting nothing but messages that a sender has tried overloading your inbox, only to have it get resent in a format so badly compressed that no one can make out anything. Not to mention the persistency of things posted to facebook and the ability to modify collections of posts give it features that just aren't possible with email which are none the less great for when you're communicating with family and friends.

      I'm not going to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to a medium rare pepper steak with mushroom sauce, and a side of wonderfully spiced wedges, yes you could eat the both but you wouldn't use one in place of the other.

      • by r_naked ( 150044 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @03:25PM (#53888425) Homepage

        Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?

        You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.

        -- RN

        Good god, fuck no. Sorry but comparing email to a social network is like comparing a telegram to a video conference. The use cases are different. The presentation is different. The way it works is very different. What you can do with it is different.

        You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person.

        God you bring back nightmares of people trying to share something as simple as a few family vacation snaps via email. 30 people all getting nothing but messages that a sender has tried overloading your inbox, only to have it get resent in a format so badly compressed that no one can make out anything. Not to mention the persistency of things posted to facebook and the ability to modify collections of posts give it features that just aren't possible with email which are none the less great for when you're communicating with family and friends.

        I'm not going to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to a medium rare pepper steak with mushroom sauce, and a side of wonderfully spiced wedges, yes you could eat the both but you wouldn't use one in place of the other.

        I don't believe that I said that they were remotely equal. As for your "You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person." -- I guess you haven't heard of distribution lists? As for sending attachments -- uh, no. If I take a video of my niece, and upload it to Dropbox, I can get a link that I can paste into an email and send.... viola -- the family all has a copy, and Facebook (or anyone else for that matter) can't do shit with it.

        Now, you are correct about the fact that isn't as efficient as Facebook, but again, I guess you don't care about your privacy -- I do.

        -- RN

        • I don't believe that I said that they were remotely equal.

          No what you said was "You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL." Implying that people use Facebook to talk to friends and family and they can just use email instead.

          I guess you haven't heard of distribution lists?

          I have. Those wonderful all or nothing systems are quite useless for talking to a group of friends. They are unthreadded and a multi-person conversation is incredibly difficult to follow, even when the result is displayed in a supposedly easy format but let alone for email. Good luck getting all but a very specific subset of pe

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      I know people who really hates emails and prefer other methods like Facebook, textings (can't even BCC!), etc.

  • by ripvlan ( 2609033 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @01:49PM (#53887723)

    Oh no - The horror, the horror. Oh wait ...this turns out to be a non-story.

    One cannot rebroadcast the "whole" movie without permission - but one can show limited clips. Just like Movie Reviewers do. They are allowed to show clips that represent the review points that they are making. All under fair-use.

    Now we'll start seeing more Youtube videos that say "I don't own the video but posted the complete copy here and it is owned by the owner - this statement makes is fair use" Yeah - no.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post [facebook.com] to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

      you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

      Someone shared your sh*t? Too bad - you have ZERO control over it at that point, even if you delete it.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        While what you said is true, it's also irrelevant. Nothing suggests they got a license from Facebook, if you do something newsworthy on your totally own, self-hosted blog it can be reported on the news. So if you have a problem with this story, go see Congress. There's nothing Facebook could have done to prevent this use of the content, even if the wanted to.

        • I know people don't even read the summary any more, but Facebook is mentioned in the TITLE. So Facebook's terms of use are totally relevant.
      • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

        Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post [facebook.com] to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

        How is that even relevant? In this case it was ABC that was redistributing the footage.

        • ABC has the legal right, via Facebook's ToS, to redistribute what is posted on Facebook. Same as EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. You post something on Facebook, I don't need your permission to repost it. Read the ToS and you'll see just how relevant it is.
          • I'm calling you out on that. Go on. Point me to the exact place in the TOS which says what you claim, I.e. allows ABC to redistributes publicly posted video. I say there isn't any such place.

            • And I'm calling you out for being an illiterate idiot - I already quoted the section, with a link to it. According to their ToS, ANYONE can redistribute anything you post. That includes you, me, ABC, and even Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
      • Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

        you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

        I was going to say that's the standard legalese any

      • I don't think it would matter where it was posted. True - FB has a license with you so that they can distribute your content for viewing on FB. But that isn't what ABC et al was using.

        Even if ABC had found the video elsewhere on the web -- reporting a story and using clips to convey the story is allowed under copyright. They were not making the WHOLE video available (I assume). A judge would look at how MUCH of the video was re-used to make a fair determination - but previous cases have determined that

  • Well, duh! (Score:4, Informative)

    by mmell ( 832646 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @01:50PM (#53887727)
    Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.

    You want to have some fun? Get shocked silly? Compare Gmail's TOS to Live's TOS. In my opinion, Microsoft is considerably less evil than Google (although Bing is still worthless when compared to Google search). Frankly, when I made that particular discovery I'm surprised I didn't stroke out on the spot with a heart attack. Totally not what I expected there.

    Back to the main point - I'd love to believe that Slashdot readers are highly likely to have read the TOS before signing on here, at Facebook, on Twitter, via LinkedIn, . . . sadly, I doubt it. C'mon, people - at least the SysAdmins and Engineers out there should have. After all, on the job it's part of what we get paid for, yes/no?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Microsoft has pretty much always been less evil.

    • Re:Well, duh! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ctilsie242 ( 4841247 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @01:59PM (#53887793)

      This. Once a video hits the Internet, be it YouTube, Facebook, or some other source, effectively it can wind up on TV or become someone's propaganda tape. With Facebook, the users are the product; not the customers, so it is no wonder why the EULA is clear in allowing FB to do what they so please to whatever is stashed or uploaded.

      If you want to compare TOS listings... the difference between my paid E-mail provider and my Gmail account is quite noticable. My paid provider says quite bluntly that they do not use any filter or search engine for ads on incoming E-mail, and that E-mail belongs to the end user, not them, and is only accessed by the mail provider in a limited number of circumstances.

      You do get what you pay for. I keep Gmail around, but if I'm doing professional work, it goes to the Exchange hosted account.

    • Our job is to get shit done. Reading lengthy, multi-page ToS that only lawyers can understand is not productive.

      Even if we were to understand all details, trying to explain why you need to find another solution to our bosses would be met by "install it anyway".

      • by mmell ( 832646 )
        If you're getting paid to get "Shit" done, that's sure one way to go about it.

        I get paid to do productive work - not "shit". If I ever recommend using any software in the enterprise and the TOS comes back to bite 'em in the ass, just who do you suppose will end up getting pilloried for it?

        • If I ever recommend using any software in the enterprise and the TOS comes back to bite 'em in the ass, just who do you suppose will end up getting pilloried for it?

          Exactly the same person who'd get pilloried if you told them not to touch it with somebody else's bargepole.

          HInt: it isn't your boss, you horrid little peon.

    • Re:Well, duh! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:02PM (#53887811) Homepage

      the data becomes their property

      The data is still your property. They just have an irrevocable right to use and sublicense it. Not much practical difference other than you can still sell your own licenses to it and you can still use it personally.

    • The solution is to self-host content. If he had hosted the actual content (video) at home or with a third party like EC2 and only given Facebook a hyperlink, it wouldnt be an issue. The problem is letting Facebook host your data, its a bad deal. Host your content in places that respect your ownership.
      • by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
        you still own it, as a condition of using facebook's systems, you agree to give them a license to use what you post.
      • Video at 720p takes about 2 Mbps (source [reddit.com]), or 2 Mbps * 60 s/minute * 1 GB/8000 Mbit = 0.015 GB/minute. Data transfer out of AWS costs 9 cents per GB plus tax (source [amazon.com]). If a 10-minute (0.15 GB) video goes viral (which used to be called getting Slashdotted) and gets 10,000 views, that could result in a big AWS bill: 0.15 GB/view * 10,000 views * $0.09/GB = $135. Is the average person expected to afford that without running his own ads?

    • Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.

      While I don't have a Facebook account, chances are pretty good they've built a shadow profile of me based on people I know, possibly photos I've been tagged in... and any other databases they've purchased.

      Short of being a complete hermit who only occasionally goes outside (in hoodie and sunglasses) and pays only in cash... there's no way to get any corporate

      • Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.

        That's the problem. On the internet you're as private as the most un-private[1] person who knows you.

        [1] Is there a word for that (in that sense)?

        • the most un-private[1] person who knows you.

          [1] Is there a word for that (in that sense)?

          Stupid?

          Inconsiderate?

          Naive?

          Clueless?

          Your relatives?

          HTH
          HAND :)

          Strat

      • by flink ( 18449 )

        Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.

        Depending on where you live and whether anyone is making a profit off of it, you might be able to claim a violation of your likeness rights. I doubt your friend got a model release from you before posting to Facebook. I don't know if something like that has ever been tried though.

        • The problem is that Facebook T&Cs, as well as granting Facebook an almost unlimited license to anything you upload also includes a clause that you agree to indemnify them against this kind of claim. So, while you might be able to take Facebook to court and win if they took a video your friend uploaded of you and sold it, they would then be able to turn around immediately and sue your friend for whatever amount the court awarded you.
    • It is what the lawyers (FTFY) get paid for. And the lawyers know that if they make a TOS that is 50 pages long, literally 2 people in a million will read the TOS and instead everyone will assume that their rights will be protected by the laws of the land.

      The simple solution for this kind of bullshit is to legislatively eliminate the customer as the product business model. If you want to run your site as advertising, that is fine, but no company should be able to own your data or your posts. As a side not

    • Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property.

      Better idea, read TFA because while Facebook may give themselves rights to your video this has absolutely zero to do with the issue at hand.

    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.

      Read the article. This case was decided on the basis of fair use. The question of who is the copyright-owner has no relevance to fair use.

      • by mmell ( 832646 )
        Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?
        • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

          Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?

          You weren't functionally on-target. TOS had nothing to do with this case.

          They're an interesting topic in and of themselves, and your beliefs about them are reasonable. But even if there was a company with the most privacy-friendly TOS in the world, that still wouldn't have helped in this case. His was a newsworthy story, and ABC showed a short clip, so it was fair use, and the TOS between him and facebook have nothing to do with the relationship between him and ABC.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      Not ownership, but rights to it.
  • arguing for your live video rights on facebook is like listening to the cattle argue for ownership over their milk. Its not going to happen.

    in the future, consider recording the event, uploading it to something like owncloud or your own personal storage, and editing it accordingly. Once its ready, take the time to upload it (if you so desire) to youtube and select an appropriate license (hint: not youtube.) to share with friends. if and when approached for the footage you may then negotiate the terms
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Appbook apped this stupid LUDDITE by apping his video because he agreed to the Apps & Appditions when he signed app for Appbook! He should stop being a LUDDITE and only app apps while apping other apps!

    Apps!
  • Only post advertisements for your business. Don't put personal shit on the internet.

    • Only post advertisements for your business. Don't put personal shit on the internet.

      I know a self-employed gal (belly dancer / teacher) who uses facebook very well as a way to get gigs and keep her classes full. It's about her, of course, but she uses it more like a big-shot CEO uses twitter - promotion and influencing - than as a view on her personal life - she doesn't even list her kid or hubby on relations, nor does she share pictures of them.

      That's the right way to use it - it's all potentially public to everyone, but she gets a revenue boost by using it so it's a win/win for her.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Suppose you give birth to a baby by the side of the road. A news crew is in the area and films it. Do they have the right to broadcast it? Because this happened in a public place, the courts have ruled you have no right to privacy. Because it is a newsworthy event, the news people have the right to film it. But, pretty much any court would agree with you if you sued the news people for invasion of privacy if they broadcast it. The case at hand is really no different. The problem is that the courts no

  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:16PM (#53887905) Homepage

    When the video is running pull out a Gotse picture for a few seconds and just like in Mortal Kombat yell Goatse!!!!

  • 100% his fault (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EndlessNameless ( 673105 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:17PM (#53887909)

    There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.

    The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.

    I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all. And then had the audacity to file a lawsuit.

    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.

      The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.

      I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all.

      Are you conflating legal privacy protection with legal copyright protection?

      The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significa

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seriously this has been the case for a very long time already. And it has nothing to do with website Terms of Service. As the judge explained, this is an actual case of FAIR USE. Period. Not a thing to do with anyone's TOS, nothing at all. This is proper use of Fair Use laws to take clips and segments for commentary and news reporting.

    "Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."

    Please don't confuse "bi

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If the judge decided there was no expectation of privacy, then what measures can Facebook implement to provide legal privacy if not practical privacy? If the data is legally private, where would wiretapping laws come into play?

  • by snookiex ( 1814614 ) on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:43PM (#53888119) Homepage

    Everyone here is bitching about privacy, but I wonder why on earth would you publicly broadcast your partner's labour over the internet. I mean, seriously, people has to stop mediatizing their moments. Just enjoy your life.

  • by Martin S. ( 98249 ) <Martin,Spamer&gmail,com> on Friday February 17, 2017 @03:25PM (#53888423) Homepage Journal

    People get sued for tens of thousands for each download of a torrent on, when a corp broadcasts others material to millions they get of scot free.

  • Hoohaas on Facebook, who would have thought.

  • Any other thing is naive, specially if it's free.
  • If allowing the public to access your content means that you can no longer exert copyright control over it, then that means that every single open source license ever invented has just been shut down cold.
  • So if someone steams a Hollywood movie with closed caption as a creative narration - we are OK to watch it b/c it is a fair use???
  • No don't think that you as a citzen can do something similar. These laws were made to ensure that the noble class rules over the peasant class for all ... what? Yes? ... ah... ok... sorry to interrupt, there was a mix-up in the time scale. So as I said, these laws were made to ensure that the corporate, legal entity rules over... what? oh? ok, apparently we don't say that anymore, the proper phrase is "can create more jobs".

  • And now some judge is saying it doesn't apply. Let's extrapolate where this can go. Like to any Internet video content including MSM outlets by anyone. Anyone remember a recent Trump interview by ABC where the network was making all sorts of outrageous copyright claims? Anyway, I see it as another good opportunity to get off FB and have a life.
  • I'm not on Facebook! Screw that!

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin

Working...