Lamar Smith Author of Sopa - busted!

52 replies
#author #busted #lamar #smith #sopa
  • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
    .........................lol

    His defence, if he can think of one, might shed an interesting light on how he thought the act might work

    Because (and I'm assuming he didn't have permission to use the photo) it's "only a photo" and he "assumed the web designer would have made sure s/he had the correct permission"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449001].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ErikNilsson
    He shud face charges for that..
    Signature
    USA Bank Account + ATM Card for Non-USA Residents Service PM me
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449006].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
      Originally Posted by ErikNilsson View Post

      He shud face charges for that..
      Indeed he should - but he's a politician. 'nuff said.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449027].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
      Originally Posted by ErikNilsson View Post

      He shud face charges for that..
      Well, no. They can just ban his IP permanently. :p

      That should really help his campaign contributions.
      Signature

      "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449042].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Oh, the irony
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449014].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ramerika
    This is so classic of politicians smdh. Write bills for the many that they themselves are violating.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author magiclouie
    Can't help but sigh!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449038].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lori Kelly
    Do as I say, not as I do.

    Love the cat.
    Signature
    Learn Website Tips, How to Do Keyword Research, & How to Write Killer Content.
    Stop Wasting Time.
    Start Living Your Dream.
    Click Here NOW to Get Your Hands on
    One of the Most Valuable Ebooks Ever!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449051].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
      Originally Posted by Lori Kelly View Post


      Love the cat.
      I didn't love mine at half past three this morning when she was chasing a mouse round the bedroom. She finished up shut in the kitchen. Goodness knows where the mouse is! (I live in a converted barn - a variety of creatures believe they have prior claim.)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449061].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lori Kelly
        Originally Posted by rosetrees View Post

        I didn't love mine at half past three this morning when she was chasing a mouse round the bedroom. She finished up shut in the kitchen. Goodness knows where the mouse is! (I live in a converted barn - a variety of creatures believe they have prior claim.)
        Yikes. Look on the bright side, you have a cat that catches meece. I know what you mean about sharing your space with a variety of creatures. I live in Texas and there's more critters here than any place I have lived. The worst: scorpions. And no titter tat to help me out with those horrid creatures.
        Signature
        Learn Website Tips, How to Do Keyword Research, & How to Write Killer Content.
        Stop Wasting Time.
        Start Living Your Dream.
        Click Here NOW to Get Your Hands on
        One of the Most Valuable Ebooks Ever!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459203].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Yulia from DNP
    this is so funny its pathetic
    Signature

    Yulia borova
    Affiliate Manager | CPA Affiliates Network.
    $50 Signup Bonus – Faster approval for Warrior forum members

    Email: Yulia@DirectNetPartners.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5449992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
    Without a way to check, I don't know if I believe this or not.

    That said, I *REALLY* hope it is true! What fun it would be to create a PR nightmare.

    Marvin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450005].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author solado
    Instant classic
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450015].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicheMayhem
      Would not surprise me one bit if this turns out to be true.

      Nothing better then the prospect of his own bill causing his own site to be blacked out to all of America. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of users on the interwebz! lol

      Of course, it's also really sad to realize these people are supposed to be in charge.
      Signature
      Whether you think you can, or think you can't, YOU'RE RIGHT!! <~~Henry Ford

      Check out my video gigs on fiverr!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450083].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author renukoot
    Ha Ha Ha Ha Lamar..... Good Help this Man with knowledge
    Signature
    www.caressl.com - Upto 75% Discount on SSL Certificates & Website Scanner. If you don't find what you looking for, raise a support query and we will get you that SSL Certificate.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450103].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Attack
      Read about this yesterday and couldn't believe it. This things seem so typical of politicians anymore.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450156].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      How shocking - and how little of the truth is given.

      The site in question is not online - it was found in the Wayback Machine (which goes back to 1996). Odd the "revealing of this site" does bother to say WHEN the site was online. Inconvenient fact - so ignored?

      The shouting of "censorship" is what motivated people against SOPA.

      Isn't it just as bad to present only the facts that "prove" your point of view - and ignore the remaining factually relevant information?

      I saw one article saying the photographer (Schulte) said....

      And another saying the photographer (Schultz) said....

      Before agreeing with "shocking info" like the OP in this thread - might be a good idea to check the accuracy.

      just sayin....

      kay


      Edit: I just realized how rude my post sounded and I didn't really mean it that way.

      The person who "released" this info tried to find a violation on Smith's current site. She couldn't find a violation so she went to the wayback machine. She was digging - and the moment she found something in an older version of the site....she ran with it because it fit her purpose. But does it really prove anything - except there may have been a violation for an unspecified length of time in an unspecified year and a site changed for an unspecified reason?

      The photographer says it "doesn't appear to give credit" - but could the credit have been on a different page or included with other site info? He doesn't know - and neither do we. The politics of personal attacks doesn't require accurate info - only innuendo and partial facts.

      Personally, I think it's unlikely there wasn't credit given somewhere on the site - because Smith has been proposing copyright protection legislation for several years.
      Signature
      Due to the current pandemic I will no longer be shaking hands or giving hugs. You may wave, bow to me or give me the finger...your choice.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450425].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        How shocking - and how little of the truth is given.

        The site in question is not online - it was found in the Wayback Machine (which goes back to 1996). Odd the "revealing of this site" does bother to say WHEN the site was online. Inconvenient fact - so ignored?
        According to Wayback, it was online at least in July 2011. Surely he must have been just as offended by copyright infringement then as now?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450572].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Bredfan
        I agree with your sentiment, Kay. I'm in the business of political blogging, so I have to make sure my claims are correct, or I lose the trust of my (limited) readers.

        So I agree.

        Big "but." These Congressmen probably have very little to do with the nitty gritty of their website creation and design.

        Last year, I built and launched 5 political campaign websites (my brick and mortar biz). In each case, other than seeing mock ups and approving the final work, the candidates had nothing to do with the design.

        I very seriously doubt the Congressman had thought - especially back a few years ago - to ask his designer if all the images on the site had the proper licenses. It probably never occurred to him. In fact, I have designed about 30 websites in the past two years for corporate clients and I have never been asked - not once - about image licensing.

        Which, is the real point. I have designers off-shore do a ton of work for me. I tell them to get images from istock and even send them the stock numbers, then pay for them... but what if they don't use them? What if they pull an image off Google and don't pay the license fee? Then, I'm busted, through no fault of my own.

        The real point is that all the innocent people who would never infringe on a copyright knowingly get scooped up by this.

        Last - I have not scoured the bill for it, but I am not aware of a statute of limitation included. An important point....
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450665].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Personally, I think it's unlikely there wasn't credit given somewhere on the site - because Smith has been proposing copyright protection legislation for several years.
        I would not presume there was a credit. Moreover, as you know a "credit" does not excuse copyright infringement - it validates that there is knowing infringement.

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450705].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Bredfan View Post

          Big "but." These Congressmen probably have very little to do with the nitty gritty of their website creation and design.

          Last year, I built and launched 5 political campaign websites (my brick and mortar biz). In each case, other than seeing mock ups and approving the final work, the candidates had nothing to do with the design.
          The people who hire should insist on the image numbers and receipts. That's standard business practice for many designers.

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          The photographer says it "doesn't appear to give credit" - but could the credit have been on a different page or included with other site info? He doesn't know - and neither do we.
          The standard for credit for photos is under or on or very near the photo, not on some other page.

          Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

          I would not presume there was a credit. Moreover, as you know a "credit" does not excuse copyright infringement - it validates that there is knowing infringement.
          In this case, the photographer licensed the photo under creative commons, provided a credit was given and it was non-commercial use.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450868].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author raiko
            I would assume that if he purchased the photo from the source then he would not necessarily have to place a credit on the photo.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450912].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            The people who hire should insist on the image numbers and receipts. That's standard business practice for many designers.
            The problem there is the transfer of responsibility from the person doing the job to someone who was paying for a job to be done. Having to CYA when buying something seems to go against all the government buyer protection agency regulations.

            I don't see any of that helping anyone build a better business ... except the legal profession helping people to stay out of harms way.

            Marvin
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451425].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Joseph G Spiteri
              Well what do you expect... a politician to tell the hole truth and nothing but the truth give me a brake.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451534].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston View Post

              The problem there is the transfer of responsibility from the person doing the job to someone who was paying for a job to be done.
              Kind of like the transfer of responsibility to people who inadvertently get a bad link posted to their site by a spammer for streaming movies ....

              How much slack are these regulators going to cut innocent victims of this law if it is passed? Can we say we didn't know that the link was there because it is user content?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451714].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I'm sorry. This is just so hilarious that all I can say is ROTFLMAO.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    This is a bunch of garbage anyway -

    Whether an artist is 'given credit' for a piece of artwork is spelled out in the terms of use when the artwork is purchased. The lack of credit means absolutely nothing on its face.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450784].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    As Bredfan mentioned, politicians rarely have anything to do with their websites. But this was certainly very funny.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450785].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Istvan Horvath
    Se non è vero è ben trovato...
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450818].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
      Originally Posted by Istvan Horvath View Post

      Se non è vero è ben trovato...
      For those that do not speak the language:


      Even if it is not true, it is well conceived.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459468].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Keith
    If its your site, its your responsibility to know. otherwise the defense for violating this and many other laws would be "but I paid this other guy to do it."

    None of us do it, but if this law passes, any work done on any site will need to be done by someone who is bonded and insured in case there is any legal trouble.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450854].message }}
  • someone needs to rank this guy for the term 'hypocrite" in google ...
    as well the term "creepy old man" lol
    that would be priceless
    Signature

    Fraser Mackie
    Affiliate Manager
    Sellhealth.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450933].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bill Cousins
    They are all signing on to the FREE MONEY! They don't read or understand 90% of what they are signing on to! Its all about the campaign donations and BIG business!

    Thar I gave my rant!
    BC

    BTW... he looks like the guy from the original Bob Newhart show
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5450967].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    What we are seeing here is some of the problem created by the law. Did he infringe? Did he know it? If he didn't even realize this one, how can everyone else be expected to always know. Under the bill, there won't be warning - his site would be pulled instantly and he would have to defend it. If he could prove he bought the photo or had rights to it, that might be a quick process, it might not be. Bureaucracy isn't always swift. Is there a clause for prosecution for pointing a finger at someone falsely or would that be a separate civil suit?

    Too many issues. I'm sure if anyone in Congress sees this, though, they are getting the point.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451554].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author arranrice
    This is just funny!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trytolearnmore
    Someone has been watching 9gag today

    On topic: yeah, this sure is pathetic. That's what you get when you let geezers control something they can't understand.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451731].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
      Right, jokes aside, is the owner going to take action?

      I know if it was my work, I'd be fighting tooth and nail regardless of who he is.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5451956].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I would not presume there was a credit. Moreover, as you know a "credit" does not excuse copyright infringement - it validates that there is knowing infringement.
      I don't agree. Assuming there might have been a credit given is no different than assuming there wasn't credit given. It's all guessing and assumption until we see the entire site in question.

      The terms of the photo (according to the photographer) were that anyone could use it as long as the source was credited. How could that be an infringement if credit was given?
      Signature
      Due to the current pandemic I will no longer be shaking hands or giving hugs. You may wave, bow to me or give me the finger...your choice.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5452107].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Reno
    Here's some other images from 9gag website
    (that they CLEARLY don't have rights to use)
    :









    *************

    No wonder they are against SOPA. And they didn't even give the creator
    credit on the image, below the image, on the page, or anywhere. Poor guys...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5452055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pex7
    I want to laugh at this....but I'm just too much in shock....

    I really hope this goes viral
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5452070].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardnova
    While this is not at all surprising, it is very funny.

    Originally Posted by Aussie_Al View Post

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5452108].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DavidG
    I don't even know why I'm surprised.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5453665].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author andynathan
    I know the site is down, but can we get the artist to sue Lamar smith until he pays any fines from his copyright violation.
    Signature

    Delighfully Inexpensive: The Scientific Formula For Profitable Blogging takes you step-by-step into how to create mind-blowing content that inspires your readers to learn more about your services.
    Scientific Formula For Profitable Blogging Link

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5454169].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sue McDonald
    That is amazing that someone recognized the owner of the original photo. Well done for point this out.
    This will get a lot more people who have used images on the web.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5454260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
    This has made my day.
    Signature

    BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5454282].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Reno
    Really people?

    How many times will you continue to say if this was the law his site would be shut down? His site is in the USA and not even under the proposed law. Even if it were, is the websites Primary purpose piracy? Nope.

    So no, his site wouldnt be shut down if the law was passed.

    And why keep jumping to the ASSumption that all it takes is one complaint, for an otherwise legal website to be shut down? Who said that the shutdown is automatic when a complaint is recieved? Where is this coming from?

    Its Scaremongering based on scenarios which dont even apply to USA websites.

    I dont support the proposed law, but the comments im reading show for certain that most havent read the law, much less understand the problems it attempts to address.

    Spoiler alert: this bill was floored, meaning there will be no vote on it at all, and this happened BEFORE the site blackout protests. The sites protesting this and aski you to do the same and call your congressman forgot to tell you this in their notices, because they wanted you to further their agenda, and its working, hooray!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5454283].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Ken Reno View Post

      Really people?

      How many times will you continue to say if this was the law his site would be shut down? His site is in the USA and not even under the proposed law. Even if it were, is the websites Primary purpose piracy? Nope.

      So no, his site wouldnt be shut down if the law was passed.

      And why keep jumping to the ASSumption that all it takes is one complaint, for an otherwise legal website to be shut down? Who said that the shutdown is automatic when a complaint is recieved? Where is this coming from?

      Its Scaremongering based on scenarios which dont even apply to USA websites.

      I dont support the proposed law, but the comments im reading show for certain that most havent read the law, much less understand the problems it attempts to address.

      Spoiler alert: this bill was floored, meaning there will be no vote on it at all, and this happened BEFORE the site blackout protests. The sites protesting this and aski you to do the same and call your congressman forgot to tell you this in their notices, because they wanted you to further their agenda, and its working, hooray!
      Really Ken - and you didn't get the answers to your questions in the official SOPA thread yet? I have read the bill. It is you that seems to be misunderstanding something. And the bill was put on hold but it is not dead, although it's not getting much support since the blackout protest. Now a lot of people tried to explain this whole thing to you. Go back and read everything.

      I'm really sorry that you don't understand precedent, progression or anything else much other than MSM claptrap, but stop coming into threads and telling everyone else they are stupid or foolish. IF you look around you will find there is a good reason that people are opposing you on every post you make. Good grief.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459440].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Ken Reno View Post

      Really people?

      How many times will you continue to say if this was the law his site would be shut down? His site is in the USA and not even under the proposed law. Even if it were, is the websites Primary purpose piracy? Nope.

      So no, his site wouldnt be shut down if the law was passed.

      And why keep jumping to the ASSumption that all it takes is one complaint, for an otherwise legal website to be shut down? Who said that the shutdown is automatic when a complaint is recieved? Where is this coming from?

      Its Scaremongering based on scenarios which dont even apply to USA websites.

      I dont support the proposed law, but the comments im reading show for certain that most havent read the law, much less understand the problems it attempts to address.

      Spoiler alert: this bill was floored, meaning there will be no vote on it at all, and this happened BEFORE the site blackout protests. The sites protesting this and aski you to do the same and call your congressman forgot to tell you this in their notices, because they wanted you to further their agenda, and its working, hooray!
      Really Ken - and you didn't get the answers to your questions in the official SOPA thread yet? I have read the bill. Paul Myers has read the bill - several others read the bill. It is you that seems to be misunderstanding something. And the bill was put on hold but it is not dead, although it's not getting much support since the blackout protest. Now a lot of people tried to explain this whole thing to you. Go back and read everything. Also look up the difference between putting a bill on hold and killing it. Tell us truthfully - you were one of the people hammering others for worrying about the NDAA going through after O promised to veto it right? Apparently you learned nothing from that one.

      I'm really sorry that you don't understand precedent, progression or anything else much other than MSM claptrap, but stop coming into threads and telling everyone else they are stupid or foolish. IF you look around you will find there is a good reason that people are opposing you on every post you make. Good grief.

      If nothing else will get you to stop and understand the issues -- maybe the fact that a large numbers of very intelligent business owners, and even some representatives went through a lot of trouble to issue warnings should give you at least a slight clue that something more is going on than you apparently seem to be able or willing to grasp.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author royljestr
    Nice! Whoever figured that out deserves a slap on the back
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459286].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author richrowley
    Let me buy the guy who discovered that a BEER! Brilliant!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459308].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    ha ha now this is genius. I bet he will be getting a knock on the door reall soon. ha ha.

    I actually spat out my coffee on my monitor over that one. You guys owe me a new monitor. LOL.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jpboxersox
    How funny..What a loser!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5459452].message }}

Trending Topics