Calling All Lawyers: iowahawk Needs Help (UPDATE: Resolved)
This blog is closed. For anyone who gives a crap, explanation follows.
***
Blogging has its occasional irritations, but there’s only one that truly angers me: when other sites reproduce my stuff, in full, without permission. I’m delighted whenever someone excerpts my stuff, or mentions it, or quotes it to illustrate what utter dreck it is. But goddammit, just don’t CTL-C, CTL-V my entire posts to another site without asking me first. It’s just simple etiquette, and it’s all I ask.I suppose I should consider it flattery, and in these days of IM and email and online forums it’s almost impossible to prevent. Still, when I see my complete posts appearing on other sites, it really ticks me off. On those occasions I sometimes contact the site owners and request that they edit it down, and/or add a link if (as is often the case) it is unattributed. Almost always, this results in a prompt and cheerful resolution.
Almost always. Recently, a post of mine was the subject of widespread unauthorized reproduction on other blogs (including a couple associated with major newspapers), prompting me to send 17 firm-but-polite requests for editing to their respective owners. No demands for apologies, or cash, just a request to whittle the reproductions down to excerpts. 16 of them responded promptly and positively, albeit with one grumble about the coming demise of copyright law. There was one exception. My work appears, in its entirety, in the comments section of this post. After repeated requests, the blog owner refuses to reduce or modify it, claiming that, as the “contribution” was made by a poster, he has “no culpability,” citing as authority his official sidebar. He suggests I take it up my complaint with the poster, the celebrated Mr. Anonymous.
Proverbial last straw. This blog will return whenever my material is removed from that site. If you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with him, not me. And, if you want to reproduce this post, you have my permission.
Sounds like some legal thuggery is needed. Anyone willing to help? Say so in the comments. It sounds like a bird’s nest on the ground, legally speaking. Justin? Interested in some rare plaintiff’s work for a good cause?
P.S. The proper defendant may not be the blogger, but the commenter. That doesn’t mean legal action isn’t warranted.
UPDATE: iowahawk says the matter has been resolved. Glad to hear it.
I have heard the name iowahawk, but never looked at his blog until this post.
I understand him being upset, but doesn’t this seem a little like cutting off his nose to spite his face?
chad (582404) — 2/24/2008 @ 9:23 pmIANAL, but I think this is what he should look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA
Basically, he needs to send a letter stating, under penalty of perjury, that he is the original author of the content of that blog comment, along with a demand under the DMCA to take the comment down.
Since the original poster was anonymous, unless the original poster comes out of anonymity and files, also under penalty of perjury, a counter-notice, the blogger has no choice but to take the comment down.
Failure to take down the comment will put the blogger outside of the safe harbor, and will therefore be open to a copyright infringement lawsuit.
I’m assuming that iowahawk’s original letter was not filed under penalty of perjury (most non-lawyers would not think to include that in a letter, and it’s generally a very bad idea to do so unless you’re absolutely sure you’re correct and have personal knowledge of the facts)
The letter needs to say that:
1 – under penalty of perjury
2 – Iowahawk is the true original author; and
3 – that Iowahawk has personal knowledge that this is true
Technically, the lawyer needs to be sent to the blogger’s agent for receipt of DMCA safe harbor notices, but if no agent is specified I assume that means the blogger himself is the proper recipient. (The idea of naming an agent to receive these notices makes more sense when you think about a big company like AOL, which would prefer that all notices go to one central location.)
Once the safe harbor is gone, the proper defendant is the blogger! You can also sue the commenter as a “Doe” defendant, but good luck finding their identity.
(Remember: IANAL!)
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 2/24/2008 @ 9:24 pmActually, I think Iowahawk should send the DMCA takedown letter to whatever ISP is hosing Arse-Crammer’s blog. I’m not sure whether Arse-Crammer is even a proper recipient of the letter, but his ISP is.
The ISP probably doesn’t have the ability or inclination to surgically remove the infringing post, so instead it will take arse-crammer’s blog offline entirely for a few hours/days until the blogger can remove the comment. Revenge is sweet!
Like I said, IANAL. Iowahawk should definitely talk to a real lawyer before proceeding.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 2/24/2008 @ 9:33 pmThis is at the end of yhe comment now…
“Thanks to Iowahawk.com”
Hazy (c36902) — 2/24/2008 @ 9:46 pmIowahawk is (intermittently) brilliant.
The single blogger who won’t play nice is, to quote a great literary work, a douche. (The commentator is likely just misguided or ill-informed.)
But, Hawk, if you’re listening…. don’t quit because people are jerks. We like your work, dude.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 2/24/2008 @ 10:15 pmfirst of all, you can’t let some british pussy kick an iowa blog off the web, that isn’t what my ancestors fought the revolutionary war for.
yes, california has a great civil litigation scheme where you can sue doe defendants, then start taking depositions to find out who “anonymous” is. i don’t know what iowa litigation is like, but i understand that the “doe” scheme operates in a distinct minority of states. as long as the blogger and/or his isp is american, and anonymous’s isp is american, yes, i could find out who anonymous is if i really wanted to, unless he used outstanding tradecraft (posting from an internet cafe while wearing a groucho disguise, or piggybacking on someone’s unsecured wireless node). enforcing california discovery and america’s dmca all the way across the atlantic could be cumbersome at best.
how fitting – a blog named after a christian prelate stealing the intellectual property of others. king henry ii had the right idea for dealing with uppity churchmen, too bad all my knights are out busy on quests right now. iowahawk’s fans are still at liberty to visit cranmer’s blog and mock him, his country and his religion. anybody up for an international flame war?
assistant devil's advocate (2ad350) — 2/24/2008 @ 10:24 pmI’m sorry for Iowahawk, but even sorrier for those of us like me who loved his ultra-skewering ability of mindless bloviating gasbags like Crissy Matthews.
On my blog, the excerpt linked to Iowahawk’s post. (scroll down)
Where will we go to get such mockery as this of Coulter?:
ANN: Don’t I know it, you repulsive Godless pederast. Sometimes the rhetoric of these Stalinist goons is as thick and ugly as your pasty, pus-cratered face. It seems that every time I drop a whimsical bon mot about Timothy McVeigh blowing up the New York Times, or poisoning Supreme Court justices, or simply noting the disgusting faggotry of Al Gore and John Edwards, I end up the victim of a totalitarian PC hate campaign designed to kneecap my First Amendment rights and book royalties. Some people, it seems, just can’t handle jokes and irony. . .
We love you, Iowahawk! Please come back!!
Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4) — 2/24/2008 @ 11:21 pmThat would be Blogger/Google.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/25/2008 @ 1:32 amHow about a post in the comments section letting all know the poster is a poser and a thief!
Of course attempt to contact the blogger who holds the keys to the comment staying up. He/she should stand up against his own commenter’s in the face of what IH authored,… Hell all he has to do is edit the post comment and add credits! Admonish the commenter and this is a done deal.
But for IH to take his site down? Nose off face is the reality.
TC (1cf350) — 2/25/2008 @ 1:45 amDid you just do a 100% copy of his post?
Kevin (3efe14) — 2/25/2008 @ 2:30 amKevin: yes, but apparently, you didn’t do a 100% read, else you might have read this: “And, if you want to reproduce this post, you have my permission.”
That said, I tend to agree with Chad that shutting down one’s own blog just because one douche copies it is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 2/25/2008 @ 3:37 amThe perils of the blogosphere. He’s being a whiner. Don’t have comments sections or quit the bellyaching.
voiceofreason2 (8453b2) — 2/25/2008 @ 4:38 amAnd at the same time he tacitly requests for people to flame the blog.
Once the first successful lawsuit against a blogger is accomplished the blogosphere will probably change drastically.
My guess is that Cranmer added the attribution after this started. Still, it’s a concession. Hope it’s enough for David to climb down. A guy with a face that blurry is not someone with whom you want to mess.
Brian (50cd25) — 2/25/2008 @ 5:20 amWhats the big deal? DMCA takedown request.
stef (d10c75) — 2/25/2008 @ 5:31 amGoodness knows that Google caves like a shoddy mine shaft at such things…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:06 am“Goodness knows that Google caves like a shoddy mine shaft at such things…”
Whats your experience with google and DMCA? I know they’ve taken down some non-infringing youtube stuff. That’s the entire point of the safe harbor system: to give the host an incentive to shut down the content.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
stef (4fe3dc) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:13 amGoogle will yank just about anything if they get a stern enough letter. They won’t even think twice about it.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:19 amIowahawk must be getting advice from Michelle Obama. If we don’t help him out with this, it’ll only mean that we don’t deserve him. If we help him out, he can finally be proud of the blogosphere.
nk (669aab) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:34 amBrilliant.
He calls attention to the ongoing tsuris of protecting original writing, which would be negligible if the blogosphere did a better job of self-policing.
capitano (03e5ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:22 amHe didn’t need no stinkin’ DMCA letter. He posted a link to the offending site and let his band of faithful fans harass the poor schmuck into submission.
Behold the power of a popular blogger
quasimodo (edc74e) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:47 amHe didn’t need no stinkin’ DMCA letter. He posted a link to the offending site and let his band of faithful fans harass the poor schmuck into submission.
Behold the power of a popular blogger
Somehow I think that some bloggers might feel this is an unfair tactic if the tables were reversed. Let’s say Patterico publishes something Huffpo takes great exception to. All Huffpo has to do is link to Patterico’s site and watch the site be overwhelmed with hits the server cannot process fast enough.
A similar thing happened to Hotair when Drudge linked to one of their threads. Intent wasn’t to make them crash but the traffic was too much and down they went for a few hours. This was not malicious.
It is suspected some of the HA denizens purposely overwhelmed Mike Stark’s site for posting an audio of Malkin cursing at CPAC 2006. It was down for two days. This probably was malicious.
The Blogosphere is still the wild west in terms of manners and “honorable behavior”.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:05 amThe blogger removed the comment that reproced Iowahawk’s post in full, referencing being overwhelmed by supplicant’s of the Hawk. He took it down, but it’s a pretty dickish explanation.
daleyrocks (906622) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:17 amThank you Pat & readers for your powers of persuasion.
I don’t want to belabor this, but I want to correct one addition thing: the blog owner is now insinuating I tried to extract money from him. That is complete and utter bulls***. My only request was that he either remove the comment or reduce it to an excerpt.
Dave in Chicago
iowahawk (e633c3) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:33 amiowahawk
I doubt nothing more than a few of us berating this Cranmer fellow in the comments was enough to spur him to action. No, it’s more likely this snaggle-toothed poofter did a little research and found out just whose stuff he was thieving.
You don’t want to find 95 per nitro in your water feature? End up behind the tracks on a makeshift Inca altar? Being dragged behind some of the Second City Maulers’ finest softtails?
Then simply do as the man asks.
Hey, I’m not saying ‘Hawk’s going to take this sort of action. No, just that the man has friends. Really bad friends…
spongeworthy (9b4e06) — 2/25/2008 @ 10:05 amI dunno, I like Cranmer’s site and I’m going to be visiting it often. He’s on the side of the good guys.
nk (669aab) — 2/25/2008 @ 10:18 amI sympathize with the frustration. But as you may know, I think copyright is in need of serious reform (though not in need of jettisoning, as some have mistakenly characterized my views). I can imagine several scenarios where copying an entire post to another site might serve the needs and ends of the blogosphere. If a lawsuit like this were to successfully prevail, it would open up a Pandora’s Box that would fundamentally alter it. It would then evolve into just another big newspaper in electronic form. But again, I sympathize and know that I am in the minority opinion on this. If he managed to get the change he wanted through a simple request – good deal.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 2/25/2008 @ 11:07 amI also like Cranmer’s site, and think you’ve been unfair on him. He didn’t steal your stuff – it was someone who posted on a thread. But having found your blog, it’s interesting stuff, so good has come of it!!!
The Black Fingernail (c9fd65) — 2/25/2008 @ 11:29 amOut of curiousity I wonder how many who profess anger at the hosting site for allowing this commenter to post Iowahawk’s words would argue it is their inalienable right to copy digital music without regard to paying the artist for their effort.
It only seems to matter when it is your own work that is taken.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 2/25/2008 @ 11:35 amI dunno. “The guy” (since he’s “copywrited” his name) seems to be a massive dick.
The talking about himself in the Third Person is dumb as hell.
And the insult to IowaHawk is, frankly, a little annoying…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 12:12 pmI asked that guy why copyright only pertains to words that make somebody money. And I asked where Burge demanded money from him. I didn’t insult him, and I think they were legitimate questions. My comment was deleted.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 2/25/2008 @ 12:48 pmMy initial thought was “Iowahawk is whining a little too much about this.” My second thought, after reading “Cranmer”‘s explanation of why he deleted the comment was, “No, THIS guy is whining WAY too much.” I agree fully with Scott in comment 29. I doubt this “Cranmer” would have the guts to stick his hand in the flames.
kishnevi (2978ce) — 2/25/2008 @ 1:45 pmWhy Jim, it’s because you dared to question His Grace…
I think the guy has a couple of screws loose…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 2:04 pmI dunno, guys… I think ol’ Dave was off the reservation on this one.
According to Cranmer, the anonypost included a permalinky to Iowahawk’s site; I don’t know if this is so or not, because I cannot remember, but I did read that, and the anonypost did more or less
In fact, iirc, I came across to Iowahawk because of that. So, if it was attributed, *with a link* what’s the problem?
So. I dunno. Cranmer is probably off the reservation too. But all is resolved, so back to our regular scheduled programming…
Gregory (f7735e) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:07 pmThere was no link.
And the poster reproduced the whole thing without permission.
Patterico (975d26) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:19 pmAh, I see the guy is now claiming there was a link.
Well, there wasn’t. He’s lying.
He deleted my polite comment about it, too — and probably countless others.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:46 pmLet me try.
nk (669aab) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:55 pmCheck out comment #4 to this thread: that’s exactly what I saw. No link, and no URL for the post itself. Just bare text with the main site’s URL.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:02 pmCorrection: iowahawk.com isn’t even the main site’s URL.
So it did iowahawk absolutely no good at all.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:03 pmYes, that’s what I saw too and basically that’s the comment I just left there.
nk (669aab) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:07 pmExactly what I left there:
I do remember an attribution to Iowahawk at the end of the poem in the deleted comment but it was not a clickable link or even a URL. Is this what you meant by “link”?
nk (669aab) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:09 pmI saw it too, Pat…
And would swear to it in court…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:19 pmAh, well, then ol’ Dave was on the reservation after all. Shows you even intelligent folk like me get things wrong all the time.
But now I gotta wonder – is it so very hard for Blogger.com users to edit comments? I mean, I woulda thought the easiest thing to do was to search the original link out and dump it in the comment. Or update the original post – *that* I know you can do. If Cranmer didn’t even want to bother with that, then he really is just being a pain for the fun of it. That ain’t cool.
Gregory (f7735e) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:36 pmI like Iowahawk, but geeze … what a crybaby. Shutting down your own site until someone else does something you want is like holding your breath until your mommy gives you a cookie. If he wanted his readers to help him put pressure on the offending site he could have just asked and saved the embarrassment of throwing a tantrum.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 2/26/2008 @ 3:02 amThe guy is still digging. Tell me someone has screen shots of the not being the “iowahawk.com” at the bottom of the post…
And yeah, my comment went the way of the dodo bird…
He doesn’t seem to big on “open and honest”…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:13 amWell, it is starting to look like we’re kicking a dead horse right now. Also, go to the main page of Cranmer’s site. You’ll agree with me that he’s on the side of the good guys.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:27 amI dunno. Rampant dishonesty isn’t a trait I like to see on this side of the street…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:35 amCranmer is kicking a dead horse, nk. I’m not going to let a weasel off the hook just because he wants to lie to people and hope people won’t notice.
Here’s the comment I left:
After me, “Angry White Guy” left this comment:
Those comments are gone, without any explanation as to why, message that we have been banned, etc. I have screenshots. Instead, this weasel says:
But he is deleting comments that point out that it was attributed to the wrong web site.
And he’s not responding to the fact that he claimed it was a “link” when it wasn’t.
As for his statement “The accusation was that the ‘poem’ was unattributed.” — that’s moving the goalposts. The accusation was that the guy reproduced iowahawk’s entire post without permission and without a link. That accusation is correct.
Also, he is implying iowahawk demanded money from him, which iowahawk denies. Who do you think I believe?
I don’t care whose “side” he’s on. I think your boy is a dishonest putz.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:03 amAs for proof of what the thing actually said, I don’t have a screenshot, but I have something just as good: Google cache.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:05 amFor the record, I’d be that Angry White Guy…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:10 amI suspect that Hawk would forward his original e-mail. I doubt Cramner would forward “what he recieved”…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:11 am10:20, new comment up… lets see how long it lasts…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:22 amI believe that it is indisputable that a commenter and not Cranmer posted Iowahawk’s content. Well, I’ll tell you. In my miserable excuse of a blog, I allow open, anonymous, unmoderated comments. I delete the ones I don’t want as the mood takes me, maybe with an explanation or not. Had I been in Cranmer’s situation, I would have immediately complied with Iowahawk’s request because I like Iowahawk (although his last couple of posts are pretty lame. Kato Kaelin … sheesh!) Had the request come from Pandagon I would have referred Amanda to my Terms of Use.
As for Iowahawk demanding money, I would like to see Iowahawk’s “cease and desist” email. There’s no need to believe anyone if there’s a basis for independent judgment.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 5:47 pmMy latest comment, which will no doubt be deleted along with the others I have left, reads as follows:
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 5:58 pmI just added this:
That’ll be gone soon too.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:17 pmWell, apparently in the Western-cultured world, you have the right to make an ass of yourself. And to be objectionable. Which I now believe both ‘Archbishops’ to have made full use of, no? Specifically, Cranmer has used his right to delete or retain posts at his discretion.
Others have a right to call you on it, lambast, lampoon and generally shame and humiliate you back to doing the right thing. Which I would say was done here there and elsewhere also, no?
This thing has got legs! But I can tell you this; if it was a lefty I disagreed with, I won’t permalink, but I’d definitely attribute. Won’t want to be associated with the tripe they usually churn out. If only Cranmer could have done the same minimal thing to this comment…
Gregory (f7735e) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:22 pmI just left this and have screencaptured it:
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:40 pmLying fucking crapweasel, that Archbishop is. The old archbishops are kind of nutty, no?
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:44 pmnk:
I just tried to post this comment at Cranmer’s site, but it isn’t appearing. I may have gotten myself banned. My comment includes iowahawk’s e-mail, which further shows how dishonest Cranmer is.
Here’s the comment that won’t seem to post:
So why did this blogger insinuate that iowahawk is one of a group of people who “spend their lifetime demanding monies from wherever their words have been inadvertently or unknowingly reproduced”?
He just asked the blogger not to allow the entire piece to be reproduced in its entirety.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:04 pmThere is no excuse for Cranmer’s misrepresentations in this matter.
SPQR (f33853) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:09 pmSpQR – There are plenty of excuses. He is an ass. He had a tough childhood. He doesn’t like his life. He has BDS. The excuses are freaking endless.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:15 pmHere’s the rest of the exchange.
Cranmer replied:
And iowahawk said:
And Cranmer said:
What a strange reply.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:26 pmI just copied and pasted your comment there, Patterico. It posted.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:32 pmStrange ain’t the word for it, patterico.
SPQR (f33853) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:35 pmYou haven’t been banned, nk. Apparently I have.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:37 pmYou have to be an Episcopalian to really appreciate people like Cranmer. I know a lot of Cranmers.
DRJ (d8934e) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:39 pm‘hunted down and beaten within an inch of their life with a cold rusty tire iron’.
It was part of Iowahawk’s terms of use just this morning. I can’t find it on the same link to his site right now. I am trusting my first instinct more and more that Iowahawk is … I’ll reserve judgment.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:39 pmOK, I looked at iowahawk’s Chaucer post and it makes sense now. There is an update dated 2/15 which says:
iowahawk never referenced this in his e-mails to Cranmer, though. You have now seen the entirety of the correspondence between them.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:40 pmI am trusting my first instinct more and more that Iowahawk is very funny, and very honest.
And that update suggests to me that he might have been hoping to make money off of reprint rights. Which would have been destroyed by people reproducing it in full.
Cranmer’s obstinacy may have cost iowahawk money. That’s why it’s wrong to claim he got his “pound of flesh” by getting Cranmer to take it down eventually.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:42 pmI am comfortable making this blanket assertion, and I am positive that there has yet to be, nor will there ever be, and exception to this rule. Any guy that refers to himself, in the 3rd person, as His Grace, is a douchenozzle.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:44 pm“He threatened litigation, yet google and blogger would be as culpable as His Grace, notwithstanding that none of these parties was aware of any breach, and and such litigation would need to establish intent with a likely claim for damages.”
iowahawk sent me all the correspondence. He didn’t threaten litigation.
Cranmer is a liar.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:44 pmJD,
True dat.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:44 pmSo: a liar and a douchenozzle.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:45 pmHis Grace – If I may address thee, your majesty … You are a douchenozzle. No sir, not just a douchenozzle, but a douchenozzle and a liar. No, not just a douchenozzle and a liar, but a douchenozzle and a lying crap weasel. Yeah.
I cannot wait for the iowahawk “His Grace” post. It should rank right up there with the one about the criminal journalists.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:55 pmI sort of doubt he wants to carry it any further.
That doesn’t mean I won’t, of course.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:14 pmNow I am often dummerer than a 2×4, but the following things can be added to the list of absolute truths, things that the Universe simply cannot argue with.
1. If you refer to yourself as His Grace, you are a douchenozzle.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:17 pm2. Being the target of an iowahawk parody is not something you should strive for.
3. Barry Obama is all about the hopeyness and changeyness.
4. Hillary is toast.
References to “His Grace” seem to me to be part of the blog persona, like Allahpundit’s original schtick, so I don’t think that calling him names based on his usage of his own blog persona schtick is fair.
Liar is fair.
SPQR (f33853) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:25 pmSPQR – As usual, you are probably right. But still, you have to admit, he is kind of a douchenozzle.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:26 pmTo what purpose?
I suppose it could serve as a lesson to everyone not to in any way copy, excerpt or link Iowahawk content, or permit any of their commenters to do so, because who knows what it might lead to and who wants to wonder what Iowahawk might consider an infringment and how many of his fans might take it much farther than he intended.
Iowahawk dropped it, so why don’t we?
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:28 pmJD, ah, yes, there are definitely douchenozzle characteristics there.
nk, you do realize that your own comment misrepresents the way that Iowahawk wanted to handle this?
SPQR (f33853) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:30 pmI suppose it could serve as a lesson to everyone not to in any way copy, excerpt or link Iowahawk content, or permit any of their commenters to do so, because who knows what it might lead to and who wants to wonder what Iowahawk might consider an infringment and how many of his fans might take it much farther than he intended.
Bullshit.
You’re being completely unreasonable about this, and I don’t understand why.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:33 pmNo, SPQR, I don’t. I understood him to say that he wanted the copyright violation stopped. I did not understand him to say that he wanted a flame war after the copyright violation stopped.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:34 pmnk – It is not so much of a flame war, as it is pointing out the readily apparent douchenozzliness displayed by His Grace. He could have been graceful and removed it, or linkeed it, when it was brought to his attention. He chose not to, in quite the manner of a douchenozzle.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:38 pmIt will serve as a lesson not to copy iowahawk’s entire posts without his permission, and to take them down right away if you or a commenter do and he asks you not to.
It is unfair to him to claim that this serves as a warning not to link to him or quote them at all. That sort of unreasonable comment, nk, is irrational and unlike you.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:42 pmThe flame war is Cranmer’s doing, for a) being a dick, b) being a liar, and c) deleting posts that demonstrate that he is a dick and liar.
And you aren’t helping things by suggesting that a) Cranmer is being honest (he isn’t) or b) iowahawk was being unreasonable (he wasn’t).
You’re acting like Cranmer is your brother. He can do no wrong.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:44 pmYou’re being completely unreasonable about this, and I don’t understand why.
Because I like both these guys and I don’t think we should be a couple of pickup queens egging on their boyfriends to a fight. OK? Iowahawk is satisfied, Cranmer wants to forget it and save as much of his pride as he can, so let us forget it too.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:48 pmnk,
iowahawk has a representative, Lynn Chu. It says so above in the part I quote from his update.
That suggests to me that he is trying to make money from his writing.
How is he going to do that when some dickweed reprints his posts in their entirety?
I made this point before and you ignored it, even as you acted as though iowahawk was being unreasonable. I don’t think he was. I think he was very restrained.
Now I’m supposed to sit by while the guy who initially refused to take down/edit the comment lies about it — and watch you claim he’s telling the truth, and the rest of us just won’t admit it?
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:48 pmWhere is Iowahawk in this? Does he want us to do this?
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:50 pmCranmer wants to save his pride? Let him not lie. Let him not delete comments showing how he lies.
How do you know iowahawk is “satisfied”? If he lost a chance to reprint the piece for money, he probably isn’t satisfied.
Regardless of that, Cranmer is lying.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:50 pmFrankly, Iowahawk’s first communication was orders of magnitude more polite than the softest cease and desist I’ve ever written …
SPQR (f33853) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:50 pmWhere is Iowahawk in this? Does he want us to do this?
I don’t need his permission to demonstrate that a liar is a liar.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:51 pmIf this is a flame war, which I would suggest is most certianly not, it would be a flame war of His Grace’s choice. It seems that he chose to distort, exaggerate, and outright lie when all he had to do was either take it down, or link to it. The honest and honorable way to handle it was most certainly not chosen.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:53 pmThis is kind of funny to read this. I had never heard of Iowahawk but am amused by the strong defensive effort for him and his right to make money.
Would his defenders be this proactive in telling a friend or colleague that copying digital content was in effect preventing someone from making money? Or would they say that’s not the same thing?
Inquiring minds…
voiceofreason2 (fda8fa) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:02 pmvoiceofreason2, given that intellectual property law is a specialty of mine, what would your guess be?
SPQR (f33853) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:07 pmSPQR,
voiceofreason2 (fda8fa) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:12 pmI would imagine you advise them not to illegally copy material. What do you think those who don’t share your specialty may say?
Let me sleep on it.
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:13 pmVOR – I would say that you should not do that. I have never done so, and when my daughter is old enough, she will learn that as well.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:20 pmHey now, VOR2, Iowahawk (David Burge) is pretty good. I enjoyed his little take on Chaucer, and I actually think he could have made some money out of his parodies and satire. Won’t be the first time someone did, after all.
For myself, I personally ask permission to reproduce artwork on my websites and/or blogs. Not so much photos, though a) I haven’t used any yet and b) I’m not sure why I should if it’s non-commercial. Maybe I’ll have to reconsider that one. Start asking for permission, I mean.
As for quoting, I think attribution is important. It is (or should be) the benchmark for courtesy online; if you use someone’s words, you should make sure everyone has an opportunity to know it. By heaven, that should be Blogging 101 and made a damn law. (Well, maybe it is already. Enforcement, then!)
But that’s me. Others clearly have different ideas. Reading Cranmer’s exchange with Iowahawk, it is clear that the ol’ Archbishop overreacted. Which is somewhat of an understatement, perhaps.
However, perhaps Cranmer’s actions can be analysed in a slightly different fashion. You gotta admit, while Iowahawk’s initial response is perfectly neutral (even polite and conciliatory) in tone, it does read somewhat like a block of legalese. Which is fine for lawyers (and Pat, you and some folk here are lawyers, right?). Well, some people aren’t, and they get seriously cheesed off by that lawyerspeak. Even if, strictly speaking, it isn’t.
If you read between the lines, Cranmer acts pretty much like Joe Sixpack giving the world (or in this case, Iowahawk) the finger. And the more people pile on, the more uptight he gets and the more he shows the finger.
I do not excuse him. It is very bad form for someone who’s trying to moralise. Very bad form. But I do understand him. Oh, and how. If you caught me in a bad mood and I got something like what Iowahawk sent, (let alone what SPQR might have written as stated in #89) my first impulse might very well be worse. Something on the order of “FU, F Off, and take your attitude with you. I didn’t post it, and I’m not obligated to take it off. So sod off!’ except with a whole lot more expletives. Which would have been wrong, nae doobt, and I hope I would have come to my senses in a while. But oh yes, I understand that impulse perfectly. 😉
Given the choice between reading Iowahawk and Cranmer, I’d go for Iowahawk, if I had to choose. Which I hope will not be the outcome here.
You know what? I wish Anonymous would own up and say ‘hey look, sorry for all the trouble, next time I’ll attribute better.’
Feel free to edit for clarity or whatever, Pat. Don’t want to eat up your bandwidth.
Gregory (f7735e) — 2/26/2008 @ 11:12 pmnk,
Cranmer is doubling down. At his site he leaves this comment:
I have set forth iowahawk’s e-mail. It does not complain that the lifting was “unattributed” — in THE FIRST LINE or anywhere else. That is simply a strawman accusation that Cranmer made up.
nk, I have forwarded you by e-mail the e-mail I received from iowahawk with the entire thread between iowahawk and Cranmer. Cranmer is just lying — flat-out lying — when he says iowahawk is selectively quoting from his e-mail. iowahawk did not threaten litigation. He did not demand money. He did not complain of lack of attribution.
He said this:
Cranmer is lying.
Feel free to analyze it and make up your own mind.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/26/2008 @ 11:54 pmThank you for the emails, Patterico. I believe you and that your conclusions are the more reasonable ones. So I am backing off from my defense of Cranmer.
At this point, the most I can say in Cranmer’s favor is that it was not reasonable for him to read either a threat of litigation or demand/expectation of making money in Iowahawk’s statement that the parody is copyrighted. And that it is worse than unreasonable, now, for him to insist that any such inferences he may have drawn were explicit threats from Iowahawk. Further, his insinuation in his last comment that there was more to the email exchange and that Iowahawk is quoting selectively is indefensible and has damaged his overall credibility with me.
In short, you were right and I was wrong.
nk (669aab) — 2/27/2008 @ 5:17 amP.S. But still … Kato Kaelin?
nk (669aab) — 2/27/2008 @ 5:30 amYeah, that was pretty funny, huh?
I’m glad you’re backing off. Because the next step — which I still might take — is to e-mail all 7 people iowahawk e-mailed with his form letter, asking them for a copy of what iowahawk sent them.
Because iowahawk sent me the e-mail addresses and encouraged me to do so.
The mere fact that he volunteered this, as a way to prove what he sent Cranmer was the same, tells me what I would get in response if I actually did it. It would be still more proof that Cranmer is a liar.
Whether I do it, and whether I do a post about all this, pretty much depends on how much Cranmer pisses me off going forward.
He deleted my comment where I told him I have the e-mails and know he is lying. Of course, I have a screenshot. In fact, I have everything I need to do a post about this, if I feel like doing one.
I’m sort of inclined not to at this point. But Cranmer could certainly change my mind about that.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 2/27/2008 @ 6:56 amThe mere fact that he volunteered this, as a way to prove what he sent Cranmer was the same, tells me what I would get in response if I actually did it.
Even if he had not, I don’t believe for a minute that Iowahawk would give you anything other than the exact email exchange he had with Cranmer. (Well … maybe … if he’s been using nitrous oxide for purposes other than powering his cars.)
Also, what I think is called for here is a humorous post. Remember that Iowahawk is running for President along with Goldstein? My Michelle Obama comparison may be a little lame but what about “Presidential Candidate Tries To Expunge Writings; Disses British Prelate”?
nk (669aab) — 2/27/2008 @ 7:10 amNever mind. I already wrote it. Bet you a dollar to the next panhandler you or I see that you cannot do a funnier one.
nk (669aab) — 2/27/2008 @ 10:53 amWow, this has got really heated.
I still like Cranmer, but you lot have executed him a second time. All this talk of there being no attribution and no link is just not true. I saw the name Iowahawk in the thread – it’s what led me to Iowahawk in the first place. If you lot are saying it wasn’t a hyperlink, you’re being really pedantic. It was a link because it linked me to his name, hyper or not!!!
BTW, how can any blogger actually control what someone posts in a comment thread? You’re all talking as though it was Cranmer who plagiarised and didn’t ask permission. If you had a really popular blog with 100s of comments from 1000s of fans, would you really spend time searching for copyright breaches?
The Black Fingernail (c9fd65) — 2/27/2008 @ 11:11 am“All this talk of there being no attribution and no link is just not true. I saw the name Iowahawk in the thread – its what led me to Iowahawk in the first place. If you lot are saying it wasnt a hyperlink, youre being really pedantic.”
Are you really this bad at reading?
We’ve already addressed this point, but I can see we need to dumb it down for ya.
Go to iowahawk.com right now and tell me what you see.
Patterico (422b17) — 2/27/2008 @ 1:01 pmOnce you’re done, genius, you can admit that “unattributed” is a strawman. Very much like the strawman Cramner himself has been using, in fact.
Patterico (2fe6ed) — 2/27/2008 @ 1:05 pmNails – The fact that Cranmer is deleting comments from people here shows he can and does monitor and control his comment section. Piss off.
daleyrocks (906622) — 2/27/2008 @ 1:11 pmJust because you don’t know what a hyperlink is, that doesn’t make someone who does a pedant.
By taking down copyrighted material.
No, but I’d do something when one was politely pointed out to me.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 2/27/2008 @ 1:14 pmAnd I wouldn’t be such a dick about it.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 2/27/2008 @ 1:14 pmOr at least a much more amusing dick would be an improvement, eh Jim?
SPQR (f33853) — 2/27/2008 @ 2:37 pm