| | The issues may be complicated, but I am sure you can handle them with some effort. The South Park clip posted above is a thirty second excerpt, not an entire work. It falls under fair use as it illustrates the dangers of opposing an intellectual property conglomerate. You seem to have missed that point. Your second-hand John Galt "creation" is, on the other hand, an entire derivative work, the rights to which are explicitly reserved to the owner. You apparently don't know the distinction.
And my point was not that you should not have done what you did, but that there is no basis for complaint if the owner has the work removed from YouTube according to YouTube's policy. The embeded works you see here are simply links to outside portals. The person who uploads materials to those portals in the first place is the one responsible for permissions. Posting embed code here is a link to a publicly available YouTube address, not an actual upload of copyrighted material on mine or RoR's behalf. You, on the other hand, actually uploaded the copyrighted sound file from the protected medium to the web yourself. Perceptually, the embeds here resemble your uploads. Conceptually there is a huge difference. This is yet again a vital distinction you either fail or chose not to recognize.
As for your supposedly not ever posting here again, who, exactly, forced your hand in post five? Your complaint is apparently with the person who posted your Octopus parable, not with me, except for the fact that I have taken you seriously.
There are plenty of interesting issues of law here. But you have not addressed them, and seem to be entirely ignorant of them. There are relevant Objectivist principles, but you seem to be interested in emotionalism, claiming the mantle of victimhood, and mere yuh-huh / nuh-uh gainsaying. No, I don't hate you. You have some skill, as I noted in my first post. It will be enjoyable to examine your own creations, should you ever produce them.
|
|
