But after reading the transcripts in the Prince case, it could have been said that Prince was arrogant in that he did not bother arguing that he had any intent to transform the Cariou photographs, and that he could care less about their value as photographs on their own.

He skirted the traditional defense for Fair Use, of intent to transform the material used. This wound up not being arrogance but a principled position.

And it set a new standard which, IMO is correct, that what an artist thinks s/he is doing is irrelevant regarding Fair Use. What is important is how the finished piece compared to the original in the eyes of a reasonable person.

Still May Not Be Kosher (none / 0) (#186)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:25:51 PM MDT

Regarding racial epithets.... seems to me it is best to avoid spelling out even with ! marks.

Further, I certainly would never equate the former's armed threats of violence against state and federal law enforcement personnel with the latter's acts of civil disobedience. Passive nonviolent resistance as was mostly practiced by Occupy protestors requires an enormous personal reservoir of self-consciousness and self-discipline, and none of that was on display by the Bundy clan and the militia types who rushed to their defense.

Speaking for myself only, I've always strived to maintain a healthy level of skepticism toward government officials, even when I've worked for them as a senior advisor. But I would offer that when personal suspicions lead one to identify even peripherally with the self-inflicted travails of a deranged crackpot like Cliven Bundy, then it crosses the threshold to become simply another term for "paranoia."

When this difference was pointed out before, the response from the Conservatives and Libertarians here was:  Shows you why you need to be armed.  The non violent approach of the Occupiers was rejected as ineffective.  

I have really thought about that response over the last few days.  The approach of MLK and Gandhi was tossed over in favor of rifles....might makes right....and there is at times much truth in that.  But that is why MLK and Gandhi were so great....From a Christian perspective--going by Jesus of the New Testament--violence is opposed as well, as Jesus rebuked Peter for slicing off the ear of the Roman soldier.

K-dog, you are dogged in your Libertarianism--applying that idea to its logical conclusion with Bundy.  But that is one of my major concerns with Libertarianism.  It is rigidly dogmatic, ignoring the real world consequences and having no room for compromise or exceptions....A rigid ideology, an abstract ideology can end up hurting real people.

I do think Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party.  They will end up going Libertarian to a large degree--going back the Republican Party that was Isolationist and in the permanent minority.

To all you Libertarians out there, Ayn Rand Paul was being true to his beliefs when he said he opposed the Civil Rights laws because they interfered with private parties' decisions.

If you can bear it watch this And you will see what I mean.

It's weird. I agree with much of the criticism of MoDo in that colunmn, but  that doesn't mean that she can't get it right every now then.

And no, it's not the "laughing with you" kind.

Language is like a river as it changes naturally over a long period of time.

I don't know, we don't have everyday use, we have very selective use, and sensitivity about who uses a word and not about their intent, but solely about who they are, their race etc.

Kids among themselves use all sorts of what most adults see as "bad language", but it varies from friendly to insulting by intent.

I don't care for the thoughtless evolution in media of attacking people for failing to adhere to politically correct language.

I don't care for anyone using names to dehumanize other people, and I see that as the heart of many verbal attacks, a howl like Donald Sutherland's in invasion of the body snatchers, not one of us.

I have been called hon by waitresses.. never sir.  

Service people tend to want to use terms of endearment, and for suits sir seems right, I guess.

Sexism is imbedded in our language, best to become aware and change it.