Today IPR was contacted by Tom Stevens, accusing us of infringing his alleged copyright. What follows are parts of the e-mail exchange in italics along with comments.
Message received from Stevens via mutual contact Mark Axinn:
Mark,
Writers at IPR are ignoring my copyright and deliberately posting articles and photos of mine despite my request to Paulie and Lesiak to take them down. I then posted on IPR saying again explicitly that I do not give permission for the use of my photos and complete articles to be posted there. Again, they have refused to take them down.
I am certain that Warren, as an attorney and owner of IPR, would not want deliberate violation of copyright on his site.
If you don’t think he would like to hear directly from me, can you bring this issue to his attention. If you don’t wish to do that, please remind me of his e-mail address so I can contact him directly.
Thanks,
Tom
My initial response:
Mr. Stevens,
You are a public figure. When you make public statements about political issues then media have every right to inform the public of such statements. They are not copyrightable, and our use of them is fair use. I suggest you look up the fair use doctrine.
If there are particular articles and/or photos on IPR that you feel violate your copyright, please let me know by the URL, title and/or date posted. Please also include the copyright registration information for each.
I will review each article if you would please identify them specifically.
Warren
Stevens responds (excerpt):
Luis gave me permission to post his statement. He did not give it to IPR and the photo of the Objectivist Party logo was paid for and is owned by the Objectivist Party and cannot be used without permission.
My article was reprinted in total and a photo was taken off my Facebook Page, again which I paid to have taken.
A few notes here:
1. Minor point – The links are to the comments on the post, rather than to the post (the tail end of the url)
2. The first linked article is something Stevens copied. In other words, he seems to be claiming copyright over something he copied from someone else. I hope everyone recognizes this is absurd. Stevens, of course, does not.
3. I don’t know where our author got the photo. When I used Google Image Search, I found it in several places but nothing from Facebook came up. For example, it is on the Stonewall Libertarians website.
4. Stevens admits that he did not take the photo but rather that he paid (or so he claims) for someone else to take it. Copyright ordinarily goes to the artist, not the purchaser. Thus it appears he reposted the photo without explicit permission from the photographer, and he is in violation of that person’s copyright.
Moving on … My response (excerpt):
[The first] item is a statement of a public figure, and more important, it is not your statement but the statement of a different public figure. You have no standing to assert his/her copyright claim. …
[The second] is clearly a statement by a public figure. You describe yourself as both a candidate and party official. …
Again I suggest you review fair use doctrine. For example:
“Although the First Amendment does not provide a defense to copyright infringement, when an act of copying occurs in the course of political, social or moral debate, the public interest in free expression is one factor favoring a finding of fair use.” (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 1526, 1536 (C.D. Cal. 1985).) ”
https://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?show=CLEDisplayArticle&qVersionID=274&eid=898723&evid=1
…
Oh, one last thing – perhaps you could write an article about how copyright law fits within your political philosophy, whether it’s libertarian, objectivist, opportunist, or whatever you call yourself.
Warren
Mr. Axinn was amused by the “opportunist” reference. I thought the Hustler reference might also get a laugh, but so far nothing on that one.
We have other reasons why Stevens is being ridiculous here, but I’m holding some of my cards close to the vest in case he’s foolish enough to hire a lawyer who is dumb enough to take the case.
We’d love to hear comments from our readers, and Mr. Stevens himself is, of course, welcome to comment if he so chooses.
By the way, if it were up to me IPR would not cover Stevens at all. I consider him to be a pathetic sideshow who distracts from genuine libertarian candidates. But our authors feel he’s newsworthy and I respect their judgment.
Update: A subsequent message from Stevens just arrived.
I had given former permission to post my articles but given the IPR policy to let people post anonymously and the defamation that followed, I withdrew all such permission.
I know Warren doesn’t shy away from lawsuits. So perhaps he will sue me when I post an article about how IPR violates people’s copyrights and he will be free to sue me.
Tom Stevens
I won’t bother characterizing this response, but rather I leave it to our faithful readers.
—
One afterthought: Imagine if politicians could intimidate the media by using copyright to suppress past statements. What if Ron Paul could sue those who published statements from his old newsletters? Or if Obama could sue to prevent publication of his college thesis?
This is why the fair use doctrine is important. I have advised our authors not to fear intimidation by politicians on something like this, because it is important that journalists be free to report the news. Stevens here is placing himself on the side of President Obama’s attacks on journalists, and defamation claims often brought by tyrants against journalists in third-world countries.
Disclosure: I am the owner of IPR and have hated Tom Stevens almost since the day I became aware of his existence. This article will mix fact and opinion.
So, did a lawsuit ever materialize?
So is Stevens IPR’s Ratbert, or is he one of the Elbonians?
He sounds evil enough to be Catbert, but he doesn’t appear to be smart enough.
@89, there is noting sick about opening up a newspaper and seeing comic strips included. Entertainment has been part of journalism for many decades. These Tom Stevens stories belong on the IPR website the way “Dilbert” comics belong in the newspaper.
Re: 88
You are a very sick man!
News sources often include comics.
Despite my request never to be mentioned on IPR again, writers can’t stop posting all sorts of links about my involvements and accomplishments.
On the one hand, I am said not be newsworthy and yet the gnats can’t help but be attracted to the fire.
“Live or perish in flame!”
more….
This is a thread about the use of “threats,” after all. Threats may be an effective tactic at times, but I happen to believe that the Golden Rule — with its universal application — woud suggest that those who don’t appreciate being threatened (everyone?) should not threaten others, either.
83 tk, good for Garrison! I’m pleased he saw a downside to his approach, which we CAN learn from.
Intransigence is an excellent way to polarize, which in social intercourse often backfires.
Sounding one step removed from Vermin Supreme is also not a good way to persuade large numbers to the cause of liberty, IMO!
Check out this bizarre story that involved Tom Stevens:
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_4.html
RC @81,
“Stopping slavery by killing hundreds of thousands also seems like a wild overreaction.”
Which is why Garrison urged the slavers for 30 years to avoid that, predicting that if they didn’t knock it the hell off, it would end in bloodshed.
74 ns: One can be an equivocating dilettante, but it’s the Kings, Gandhis, and Garrisons who make changes.
me: Yes, one can! And by all means if one has the desire to be a vessel for “change,” if the motive is loving, I support such behavior.
The thing that I’ve found since waking from Randian/Rothbardism, tho, is that their labeling things as “equivocation” is actually their refusal to recognize reality. Their deontological attempts to make all the world a b/w formula misses pretty much the purpose of the entire exercise. IMO, their well-meaning detour from Lao Tzu and even Thoreau led to a dead end.
74 ns, sorry, but Garrison plays games with words, IMO. Slavery =/= equal anything like fire, since fires are generally immediate incidents. Slavery was a longstanding institution. On its face, his analogy is actually laughable.
Stopping a fire seems like a good idea generally, but doing so by, say, blowing up a dam and flooding a town seems like a bad idea to me.
Stopping slavery by killing hundreds of thousands also seems like a wild overreaction.
73 ES, for me, MNR’s “logic” is warped and confused. First, a woman accepts the impregnation, then she reverses her acceptance. Somehow this become a parasitic “invader” — I guess because MNR thinks she re-labels the cells in her body as such.
The reality is quite different, since the fetus did not choose to “invade” or be a “parasite.” There was no intent on the part of the fetus, it just did what fetuses do, without consciousness.
The more accurate assessment is that a woman (and a man) either made a mistake OR used faulty birth control.
Rothbard was often a histrionical clown, IMO, given to broad sweeping and false generalizations.
Those who sincerely promote liberty principles do not support enslavers.
And, thus, there was no rush to deal with matters until they blew up.
David Potter (historian) has a simpler explanation:
The South believed its own proaganda about Lincoln.
The Republicans believed the slaveholders were bloviating about secession, but would come back due to their unionists, as witness the total rejection of secession in Virginia at their first convention.
The War department thought Fort Sumter had enough supplies to last a year without being resupplied by sea.
@75
No…. there was a war not because the South seceded;, but rather because the North refused to let the South peacably secede.
NS @ 74,
Precisely!
Why did slavery end? Because Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure in the war.
Why was there a war? Because the south seceded.
Why did the south secede? To protect the institution of slavery.
Why did the south believe they had to secede to protect the institution of slavery? Because they were convinced that the Republicans were in league with the abolitionists.
Why did they fear the abolitionists? Because in the 30 years leading up to these events, the abolitionists had made their radical beliefs increasing popular.
One can be an equivocating dilettante, but it’s the Kings, Gandhis, and Garrisons who make changes.
For your edification, Garrison’s most famous quote, on the issue of abolishing slavery:
Just so the whole parasite thing is in context, here is what Rothbard actually said;
“The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.”
tk, yes, aspects of Gandhi and Garrison’s goals were accomplished, surely. Although Gandhi died in that process, and to this day the Muslim/Hindu schisms remain at a fevered pitch. Not sure he wanted that, but I don’t think so.
And, sure, chattel slavery ended, but I’ve seen no evidence that Garrison wanted 600K to die in the process.
I’d say King’s desire for people not being judged by the color of their skin has been – unfortunately – an abysmal failure, although I would say there HAS been progress. Still, haters abound, and some of the overreactions (driven by liberal guilt) have not been virtuous in my view, and may have actually exacerbated a dysfunctional social arrangement. You may see it differently.
As for teleporting me back to 1830, I’d like to think I’d be for abolition as quickly as possible, but, yes, I’d be willing to engage in half measures to get there, knowing that wrong-minded thinking (IMO) is quite commonplace, then and now. I happen to think that the path of least resistance is almost always the most efficient, but it does require patience.
Thanks for asking!
RC @ 68,
“As for what is ‘fucking obvious,’ sorry, Brother, too vague. ”
OK, I can be specific.
If you had considered yourself an “abolitionist” in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s or early 1860s, you’re the type who would have insisted, right up to the moment the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, that full and immediate abolition was “too fringy,” and that Garrison should chill out and just advocate non-extension, colonization, compensated manumission, etc.
RC @ 69,
Gandhi’s goal was Indian independence. Accomplished.
Garrison’s goal was the end of chattel slavery. Accomplished.
King was killed before he accomplished his goals.
Each of them accomplished far more than the “moderates” in their own movements.
The idea that statelessness is “the only virtuous outcome” is one I’ve never considered, let alone adopted, as it is patently absurd.
more to TK, I’d think that – from your perspective as an anarchist – Gandhi, King and Garrison are each horrific failures. They not only didn’t really fully accomplish their goals, but they did nothing to advance what you consider to be the only virtuous outcome: statelessness.
tk, yes, well, some stand for what THEY BELIEVE is right, certainly. Gandhi and King may have stood against what they perceived to be an INJUST SYSTEM.
Whether they held high the banner on every single issue that they found dysfunctional, I can’t say – perhaps you know. My guess is even they kept their own counsel on “unjust libel laws,” for ex.
As for what is “fucking obvious,” sorry, Brother, too vague. But, to clarify, it’s not personal with me. It’s not that some PEOPLE are too fringy. It’s that some IDEAS are too fringy, and — more importantly – false. There is no “cult,” for ex.
Fringy and false seem like bad ways to fix social dysfunction. Surely we agree on THAT?!
RC @ 66,
—–
tk 65: “To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good?”
me: Well, TK, if that works for you, God bless you.
—–
It seemed to work pretty well for the guy who said it — Martin Luther King, Jr.
Those other two things seemed to work pretty well for the guys who said them, too (Mahatma Gandhi and William Lloyd Garrison).
Some people stand for the right because it is right.
Some people eventually do what’s right because they’re shamed into it by the people who stand for it.
And most people, like you, stand in the middle and whine that the first set of people are too “fringy” to influence the second set of people, until after they have, at which point you consider what you previously denied to be fucking obvious.
64 ev: DO NOT TAKE RIGHT-WING BAIT you guys.
me: Hmm, that’s interesting. I’m pro-choice, so it seems somehow that you’ve connected dots quite inaccurately. Despite my being pro choice, I don’t think it’s either accurate (for the most part) nor rhetorically winning to characterize fetuses as “parasites.” Care to try again, armed with facts rather than wild conjectures?
Ya might try asking first next time, rather than making wild accusations!
tk 65: “To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good?”
me: Well, TK, if that works for you, God bless you. It seems a fool’s errand to non-cooperate with each and every “evil” one perceives, since the list is LONG and it’s futile to fight so many battles at once, IMO. I don’t accept any such obligation, and, of course, I recognize that my perceptions of dysfunction (I don’t do “evil,” since I recognize that it’s a subjective, pliable, situational concept) differs from others whom I respect.
The way I roll is to offer my opinion when so moved as to how to make the sad song better.
Libel laws may contribute to sadness, but in the grand scheme of things, their contribution seems tiny. There are far more important matters at hand. If, for ex., a Nozickian nightwatchman state could be achieved in 50 years, but libel laws continued, I’d say that’s a pretty darned positive outcome.
Improvement happens incrementally, and I do accept that. Patience is most certainly a virtue, which seems best to practice patience and moderation in all things.
RC @ 63,
—–
t’s this sort of thinking, along with statements like “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state,” that doom L-ism to the fringes.
Deontological, tin-eared, and bracing (sometimes careening towildly overstated falsehoods, as with the “cult” language.)
—–
Stuff like “To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good?”
Or “Political power, in my opinion, cannot be our ultimate aim. It is one of the means used by men for their all-round advancement. The power to control national life through national representatives is called political power. Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler?”
Stuff like “[the constitution is] an agreement with death and a covenant with hell?”
Robert Capozzi @ 63, I hope your attempt to insert shmushmortion into the discussion fails miserably. DO NOT TAKE RIGHT-WING BAIT you guys.
61 TEETH: An excellent case for the legalizing libel can be found in Defending the Undefendable.
me: Yes, right up there with characterizing fetuses as “parasites.” It’s this sort of thinking, along with statements like “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state,” that doom L-ism to the fringes.
Deontological, tin-eared, and bracing (sometimes careening towildly overstated falsehoods, as with the “cult” language.)
Now, in the case of “libel,” I actually do hear that. These are just words, after all. But words can injure, especially in a marketplace that’s still driven by reputation, in part. With no libel laws, there’s no signal in the public square that says, “Be careful what you say about others.” Instead, without the signal, anything goes.
I can envision a day when libel laws are unnecessary. I can also envision that abolishing libel laws tomorrow is survivable.
However, ADVOCATING libel law abolition based on Blockian syllogisms seems highly contra-indicated…tin-eared, bad politics, etc.
However, one could get around libel pretty easily..
For example:
“Would it affect your opinion of him if you learned that he was a criminal?”
The above tactic was used in a congressional campaign decades ago, and is used to this day.
Personally, I prefer to use statements made by the individual whether it be from his blog, or published in a place where anyone can find it if he/she were to look.
Steve
@60, however, it’s not that simple. Whether something is an opinion or statement of fact partially depends on context and tone of voice. Ultimately, a jury decides on which is it.
“He is a criminal” can be interpreted as an opinion.
“In my opinion he is a criminal” can be interpreted as a statement of fact.
Merely saying “It’s my opinion” does not guarantee that a jury won’t interpret it as a statement of fact. A jury can infer a “wink, wink” in there. “In my opinion — wink, wink — he is a criminal.”
Libel should be legalized. It’s too easy to bully someone into silence by threatening an expensive and risky libel suit.
An excellent case for the legalizing libel can be found in Defending the Undefendable.
@59 Its not definition if its stated as an opinion rather than a factual assertion.
Thus: “He is a criminal” is potentially defamatory.
“He looks like a criminal” cannot be.
“In my opinion he is a criminal” is probably safe.
“He stole money from X” could be defamation.
“He steals women’s hearts” is not.
“So perhaps he will sue me when I post an article about how IPR violates people’s copyrights and he will be free to sue me.”
I hope he post that article so that you can repost it and we can defame him in the comments,
@50 sounds reasonably good to me.
@31, especially by members and even leaders of the CP.
If you change “Concerned Libertarian Citizen” to “Fucking Retard”, you get “Fucking Retard.”
How clever of me!
@53 – Evidently you’re too stupid to realize you put “vice versa” and didn’t change the letters of your name
Tommy says in 51, “I do not seek the attention or the publicity.”
I call bullshit on that quote.
Here’s a little word game:
What would our names become if in our first name, we changed all the a’s into u’s, all the n’s into m’s, and all the h’s into c’s and vice versa?
I would become Homhermed Libertarian Citizen, Mark Axinn would become Nurk Axinn, and Han Shot First would become…uh oh, nevermind that…
“I do not seek the attention or the publicity.”
Not a bigger lie has ever been told. Dr. Tom loves to have his ego stroked as evidenced by his self serving vanity blog.
Re: 50
Please do! I would be happy if you never mentioned me again on IPR in any article or at any time.
I do not seek the attention or the publicity.
“Giving table time to Stevens, Grundmann, and the US parliament game belittles those who work for real change. Not 15 minutes of internet glory.”
We are moving in the direction you suggest on this.
“If I were you, you might contact state affiliates if you can. Offer them a weekly posting about party events and activities. Most state chairs might appreciate some coverage. Especially if it is free.”
As I said before, I have reached out and while people were polite, no one stepped forward.
If you have contacts with state party affiliates, please by all means reach out to them and let them know we’d love to have content from them for our site.
“…contact state affiliates…”
Liberty for American magazine has been doing this for the last few weeks, and is about half way through them. As the only monthly magazine to make systematic coverage of Libertarian party politics, we are looking to make major changes and expansion in our areas of coverage. We are also expanding our international coverage, most recently with a long article on the German Partei der Vernunft (Party of Reason).
I have found what appear to be several dead affiliates, e.g., web pages view 2012 as forthcoming elections, no functioning page,… but perhaps they are hiding elsewhere. I can readily identify what appears to be the most active affiliate so far, in that I was immediately contacted by most of their state committee about current campaigns.
@41
I agree that Jill, Paulie, and Chris do a great job of keeping things current. I think, as you mentioned, the content is King argument is becoming blurred. If it is the purpose of the site to be recess yard or sand box, then I suggest moving those items to another board or page. There is no reason to muddy the waters of the site. News is news and opinion is opinion.
A press release needs an action in order for it to be news worthy. Your theory about government or public education is not a press release type of item and unless from a party official, I don’t feel bloggers should just publish their feelings or thoughts and present them as a article.
Clear and concise separation would make things easier to comprehend.
If I were you, you might contact state affiliates if you can. Offer them a weekly posting about party events and activities. Most state chairs might appreciate some coverage. Especially if it is free.
If you maintain an entertainment plug for the site, then forget everything I mentioned. I would never keep anyone from a good time. But again, if IPR gets a rebranding somewhat like the Onion, then you can’t go back. If news is opinion at IPR, then that is for ALL the articles.
If we compared IPR 2010 to 2013, the level of hatred and childish activity has grown exponentially.
For myself, I do blog, but I keep cannabis reform and Art on the big plate. I do post local happenings in Missouri about the constitution and libertarian candidates when I can confirm action. But since it is few and far between I don’t feel it carries national merit. I network with Hemp and Cannabis groups throughout North America but most of those players are with Democrats/Republicans which IPR doesn’t cover.
I always help candidates when I can with media. The past special election in the MO 8th I gave a media listing to the campaign manager for the Libertarian candidate when he requested one.
I post in threads only. Readers find them or they don’t.
Not to be campfire lame, but I have enjoyed this site since it was born. But my take on its motion is that down hill keeps getting faster.
Giving table time to Stevens, Grundmann, and the US parliament game belittles those who work for real change. Not 15 minutes of internet glory.
It is your baby Warren. Raise it how you see fit.
Even if there were copyright infringement, it is not always such a big deal.
This is because, unless an item was registered for copyright with the US copyright office (in which case there’s be statutory damages), the infringed party can only sue for actual damages.
This means that Dr. Stevens could only sue for the monetary value of his photo and/or article. He’d have to prove in court that his photo and/or article has a market value of X dollars (i.e., that he normally sells reprint rights for X dollars) to collect X dollars.
Otherwise, even if he won, he’d only collect a symbolic One Dollar in damages.
Just because a Big Studio can sue for millions if the latest Batman film is infringed, doesn’t mean that Dr. Steven’s photo has a market value in the millions.
Warren is right about Jill, Paulie and Chris.
Keep up the good work guys!
Another distraction from “Doctor” Tom Stevens
@40 — Drtomstevens may try to claim moral high ground because, in his crippling schizophrenia, he never intended his press release to be taken as a press release, but rather as a “news article.” It isn’t a very tenable legal position, however.
As Tom Knapp says “On the one hand, I think IPR would be much improved if it completely ignored Stevens as a matter of policy.”
Also, I doubt that Dr Stevens has permission from Leonard Peikoff to call his grouplet the “Objectivist Party.”
Of course, if he is using the term “Objectivist” to reference an Aristotleian viewpoint completely separate from Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, he might have a right to call his group Objectivist. Still, it seems like a case of A = null A.
@38 All interesting suggestions. But hard to do on $60/month in revenue.
We would love to have more authors. If you’re willing or have suggestions please let me know. If you think you can help us implement some of the other content suggestions (you mentioned video for example) again let me know.
Content is the big thing. I would love to have more. I have reached out, in particular, to Green Party leaders inviting them to assign an author or authors. They were polite but no one stepped forward.
As for the comment scrum we have, I don’t love it but that really is the core of the site. A lot of users seem to enjoy it and they keep coming back.
Our three main authors, Paulie, Jill and Chris, do yeoman’s work and are vastly under appreciated by many. If you think you can add a better voice we would be happy to give you a shot.
But please don’t insult Stevens. That’s my job. 🙂
@33
Whether it is a press release is disputable. It is not labeled as a release. There is no contact information listed. And it was not issued or sent to news agencies.
exodus …..movement of the people…..couldit be time for a new 3rd party site, where are all the coolkids these days?? see what happened after favorite nemesis WAR leftthe stage , we grew bored…..who can we hate to lift our spirits?????? anger is a gift:)
@17
I make jokes because people earn them and I find humor in many things. But if you are talking specifically to me about improvements, then I offer this.
1. Register who can post articles on here and assign them a set subject matter. Time them out for 1 year or whatever and rotate writers every other year. A different voice might bring some needed variety. It might also bring more readers. If you play to their vanity. Blogging is not science.
2. Register writers who will write original pieces or work with existing writers like Radley Balko, who is known for his expertise in Police brutality and drug reform. You might also offer Richard Winger a weekly posting specific to court rulings or ballot access per party. Instead of focusing on Parties, focus on content and general current need.
3. Network with other bloggers in a general sense that bring video footage from festivals or meetings per party. Create a platform for viewing and offering a response from other bloggers within the network. This network should include bloggers who moderate twitter, facebook, or Pinterest accounts (social media).
4. Somewhat like a newspaper, a blog can manipulate itself with using several pages listing topics for each separate page as to avoid redundancy. For example, Press releases, Calendar of Events, Candidates, Party-specific news from a party official might be a few suggestions. Or assign a blogger to a state party.
5.These new pages might make it easier for viewers to navigate the entire site as to aid in their objective for being at the site. For example, a Green party member in Virginia might want to know if their is a candidate running for the Greens in Wisconsin.
6. Before you enter the posting for threads there is a flash disclaimer acknowledging that posting on a thread is voluntary and public domain but if the post doesn’t remain within the construct of the original blog article then under the discretion of the owners of the site, the posting will be removed.
7. To appease the nutball class currently invading IPR, place all deleted/removed postings to a separate page and archive read only. Don’t link the posting to the thread from which it came and don’t comment on why it was removed. No one can act on them, just read them. The disclaimer should acknowledge repeat offenders will be removed permanently (spammers).
I am not concerned with being Libertarian or Green or whatever, but I offer these things as a free service about customer interface and function.
IPR is becoming a hate mongering shithole of spam and grand standing. I would never tell Warren what to do , but right now, these are my suggestions.
^that should be @32
@33 — the whole idea of a SLAPP is that the plaintiff would have enough funds to continue the lawsuit indefinite. I doubt Stevens even has the funds to serve papers.
Edit re: 34. Tom Stevens is apparently a registered Republican, so that sentence above should read “all but two he made up himself.” This assumes he’s also still a Libertarian Party member somewhere at this writing. But the roster still includes Personal Freedom Party, Objectivist Party, Pennsylvania Liberty Alliance, Northampton County Schism of the LPPA, the list goes on. . .
It’s interesting to see this article filed under “Libertarian Party.” But I suppose because Tom Stevens is a member of so many political parties, all but one he made up himself, the categorization is a crap shoot. Perhaps IPR should consider a new category called “Humor.”
@20 Queens is in the EDNY not the SDNY. And I’m not sure EDNY is correct either.
Meltwater was copying AP articles, not press releases. Stevens’ “articles” about himself are rather different from a journalist reporting on what someone else does. Meltwater did not address fair use regarding statements by candidates. And the AP articles were registered for copyright. Stevens has avoided my question about that because he probably hasn’t registered.
No neutral IP lawyer would waste his time with this triviality.
Hi Warren –
If he should sue, you may wish to check in with http://www.popehat.com. Wherever the suit is filed might have a robust anti-SLAPP provision that could help settle things quickly.
@22 … sadly I have to agree. What happened to politics? Too much Biblical debate, condemnation of homosexuals, school yard name calling etc.
Yes, Tom Stevens changed his vanity blog post after original publication to say “article” instead of “statement,” which is an indication that he knows a “statement”may be freely distributed.
It looks like DrTomStevens has edited the text at the drtomstevens blog, recognizing the reality laid out @11; to reflect a modifeid assertion that the piece about St. Trayvon of Skittles is an article and not a statement.
Tom Stevens, the gift that keeps giving, just like the gift of herpes. Lets see which political group he tries to infect next.
@20 Looking at this guy’s blog, it is at drtomstevens.blogspot.com . The software indicates the item about Tom Stevens was posted by a “Dr. Tom Stevens”.
Schizophrenia notwithstanding, when you distribute an item about yourself written in the third person, that is called a press release. That’s just reality.
A press release is something designed to be reprinted and commentated upon.
Q: Did you hear about the libertarian, objectivist, opportunist, or whatever he calls himself, narcissist third person blogger who performs auto-fellatio?
A: He is quite full of himself.
@22
“As of late”?
You must be new here.
@17
Since you asked:
1. Reinstate good faith commenters.
2. Refocus on third party and Independent news and issues
3. Refrain from airing personal and legal issues on the site
@21
I’m not giving advice. I only quoted what the court the suit will likely be filed in has said about a similar matter.
There’s too much drama, gossip and bickering in the comments as of late.
Perhaps you shouldn’t be giving legal advice to an attorney.
“Why waste the money?”
Did you not see where I proposed the simple arbitration be “pro-bono”?
I can understand some of Mr. Stevens’ argument here.
“Dr. Tom Stevens Emerges As The Sole Republican Party Candidate For New York City Public Advocate,” may be considered a news article from Liberty Lion. It differs from “Objectivist Party of California President…” in that it is not a personal statement on public issues, but a narrative of Stevens’ Public Advocate candidacy.
I suggest Mr. Redlich review the recent case of Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., 2013 WL 1153979 (S.D.N.Y.), 9 (S.D.N.Y.,2013), which provides a good statement of the relevant law:
“The reporting of facts is not protectable under the Copyright Act since facts are ‘never original to an author.’ Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Business Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1999). But compilations of facts may be protected under the Act since the arrangement or presentation of facts ‘can display originality.’ Id. There is even more room for originality in descriptions of facts. Id. Thus, news articles may be entitled to protection under the Copyright Act to the extent they contain original expression. Id.“
This is all going according to plan, Mark Axinn will be Honored Chairman for Life of the LPNY.
There, laid out all my cards on that one.
When Doctor Stevens becomes the Grand Wazoo of the Imperial Empire, then you’ll all be sorry you mocked him as you sit in your tiny cubicle at the Objectivist Re-Education Center where you will come to learn the errors of your ways.
@15 Do you have any suggestions as to how we can improve?
@8 Perfect solution. Who cares about a political gnat? He’s getting way more attention than he deserves. He’s irrelevant to real third party/independent news.
IPR was a great place to find NEWS about third parties like Green, Libertarian, and Constitution. And now it is gone.
A moment of silence for the remains of IPR. Rest in peace good friend.
Free the cheese!!
I didn’t realize Rivas was such as distinguished gentleman.
http://i.imgur.com/xzRc1dH.jpg
Many reputable newspapers publish a comics page. The Tom Stevens material can serve the same purpose.
“Luis Rivas gave only Liberty Lion permission to publish his article. Liberty Lion published it and IPR stole it.”
Luis Rivas is also a public figure in his capacity as chair of the Objectivist Party of California.
Sorry, I forgot “Dr.” Tom went to a TTT law school. He doesn’t know any better.
“Issued a statement” is not the same thing as “published an article.”
“Issuing a statement” is the same thing as issuing a press release. It is something designed to be reprinted and commentated upon by the public at large.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=issued+statement
Is the good doctor seriously too stupid to know this?
@7 Why waste the money?
@8 I have something like that in mind.
On the one hand, I think IPR would be much improved if it completely ignored Stevens as a matter of policy.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if we’re not going to ignore him, we should mock him in third person instead of giving him the first person voice he claims to not want. I predict it will be about 30 seconds after we stop re-printing his crap and start describing it our own words that he’ll be bellyaching about THAT.
Easy and cheap solution:
Mutually agree to have a neutral copyright lawyer examine (pro bono) this very simple matter and respect his finding.
IPR is a commercial site since it includes advertisements.
“have hated Tom Stevens almost since the day I became aware of his existence”
Why do you hate?
lol
Articles about Stevens have little impact on traffic. And IPR does not make a profit.
“It is being said that full articles on any “public figure’s blog” belongs to IPR and can be reprinted and used as they see fit.”
That is not our position.
I, too, will hold my cards close to my vest. But commenting on the above, posted by a man who often has publicly claimed he “hates” me, Luis Rivas gave only Liberty Lion permission to publish his article. Liberty Lion published it and IPR stole it.
The Objectivist Party logo belongs to the Objectivist Party, who purchased the work of a graphic artist. It does not belong to IPR.
The photo of me with a Broadway cast was purchased with a donation. It is mine and has been stolen by IPR.
While the “fair use doctrine” might permit a recopying of a part of my work, it does not cover the wholesale theft of entire articles.
There was a time when I gave permission to IPR to reprint my articles. Anonymous posters hid behind fake names and engaged in defamatory statements against me. I withdrew all permission.
All this has been done to increase traffic to IPR who sells ads. My work cannot be used for someone else’s profit.
Understand the consequences of IPR’s claim. It is being said that full articles on any “public figure’s blog” belongs to IPR and can be reprinted and used as they see fit.
That is what is ridiculous!
bwahahahaaa!