Copyright

A Happy Ending to the Latest Case of Copyright Censorship

Belgian bigot backs down.

|

Yesterday I described how a spurious copyright claim by a man unhappy to see his words quoted back at him had knocked two libertarian websites off the Internet. Today those sites are back online and claiming victory. Tom Knapp reports:

Before Mr. T or Dolly Parton got a chance to work with Sylvester Stallone, Pelé paved the way.

The C4SS and S4SS sites are back up.

The DMCA takedown notice has been formally withdrawn.

We've proven (to ourselves especially!) that we can fight and win a battle of this sort using just "the power of the pen" (we made no resort to the state or its laws)….

And the man who was initially our tormentor? He appears to not only have surrendered, but to have realized the error of several of his ways (certainly the un-wisdom of trying to suppress speech and maybe a little bit about the attitudes that set the whole incident in motion in the first place as well) and to have reversed himself in a monumental manner.

To wit, he has made a substantial (and that is an understatement) financial donation to C4SS. To the best of my knowledge that donation was not solicited, and it certainly wasn't demanded or made a condition of any kind with reference to C4SS's conduct.

NEXT: Louis Farrakhan Guest at Iranian Dinner Party in NYC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So I think we’re all on the same page that none of the guys in that image are wearing pants, right? I mean why else would they only show them from the ribcage up?

    1. What are pants?

      1. Ha! 3pm single post. A small victory against the squirrels.

      2. The Archduke will be along shortly to school you.

    2. “Sword fight!”

      1. The article is about “a happy ending”

        1. I gotta “hand” it to those guys, a happy ending is wonderful.

    3. They all got caught in the same open manhole. What does it matter if they have pants on or not? Sicko.

    4. I mean I don’t know much about Europe and I haven’t watched a ton of soccer, but I’m fairly certain that naked-from-the-waist-down guys’ dongs bumping and jostling against each other like commuters on a crowded subway is an integral part of the game.

    5. If their whole bodies were there, they’d be a Y, not a V.

      And Yictory isn’t a word.

      Yet.

      1. If their whole bodies were there, they’d be a Y, not a V.

        So pants are unnecessary for victory?

        1. Legs are unnecessary.

          And with or without pants you could form an X as well. And “Xictory” isn’t a word either.

          1. I guess not in your limited world. But in others’ less-limited worlds, MAYBE IT IS! SO THERE!

      2. I’m fairly certain that naked-from-the-waist-down guys’ dongs bumping and jostling against each other like commuters on a crowded subway

        You ride an unusual subway. NTTAWWT

    6. Is your Akston as Hugh as you claim it is?

  2. Net Neutrality will correct this.

  3. Wow, he even made a big donation? Is this guy schizophrenic? Kill all Muslims one day, and take my money the next.

    1. The guy was a member of a subchapter of the S4SS group which had been kicked out for being too racist. It makes a bit more sense with that bit of context.

  4. I watched Escape to Victory Draw last week. There is no way Hatch could be a good goalkeeper with the Capt. Kirk two footed kicks, but the ridiculous implausibilities are what I love about the movie, especially the French overrunning German positions at the end.

    1. I found Pele unconvincing as a Nazi.

      1. You have won one Internets. Congratulations, sir.

  5. If it quacks like a statist, redistributes like a statist and monopolizes like a statist, it’s not a libertarian. People like Noam Chomsky calling themselves libertarian doesn’t make it the case.

    1. People like Noam Chomsky calling themselves libertarian doesn’t make it the case.

      Note that the top story on the C4SS page right now is a critique of Chomsky.

      1. Chomsky doesn’t go far enough?

        sorry, I’ll actually read the article.

      2. While driving, I call everyone Chomsky.

        “Hey Chomsky, the light’s not getting any greener!”
        “Forget how to use a turn signal, Chomsky?”

        This is because I am certain Noam Chomsky is a terrible driver who ruins the road for the rest of us, and all bad drivers are his disciples.

        1. Seattle’s traffic patterns would support your thesis.

      3. Noam Chomsky is perhaps the United States’ best-known anarchist. There’s a certain irony to this, however; for just as St. Augustine once prayed, “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet,” Chomsky’s aim is in effect anarchy, but not yet.

        Ok, wow, I do like that opener. I like it a lot. I’ve read and listened to my share of Chomsky over the decades and Chomsky definitely began to dither when people started asking him about small– really small government.

        I remember a talk he gave in which he essentially said, “Whoa, whoa, partner, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. When I say “anarchism”, I’m not talking about throwing out those institutions which protect human rights and dignity” — he then went on to describe the federal government.

        1. And in this world there happen to be huge concentrations of private power that are as close to tyranny and as close to totalitarian as anything humans have devised.

          Chomsky can be delightfully unhinged.

          1. Chomsky can be summarized as this: Anarchy wouldn’t live up to its potential without government.

            That’s almost literally what he claims.

      4. One of several top stories, to be fair. (And it dates to January 2010.)

      5. Wow, a comment at the bottom of that article (by “DavidE”) that tries to “explain” Chomsky makes him look even less reasonable.

        OF COURSE contracts aren’t democratic, “democratic” isn’t some holy virtue. Democracy is inferior to individual choices.

        And this conception of inalienable rights as “stuff you’re not allowed to decide for yourself” turns the concepts of rights and freedom on their head, so they’re shackles upon what you’re allowed to do with yourself rather than control over yourself and your property. If I freely agree to let someone hit me in the face (DON’T JUDGE ME!) complying with my request isn’t coercing me.

        What that commenter (if he agrees with what he describes), and perhaps by extension Chomsky, REALLY want is for people to be slaves to their ideals of human behavior. It is sick and astoundingly hypocritical. I’m disappointed that it got so many upvotes.

        1. How could democracy even apply at all to an employment relationship? It is a contract between two people (or one person and a corporation of some sort). IT doesn’t even make sense to talk about whether or not it is “democratic”. Each party freely enters the contract and can dissolve it at any time (though not always without penalty).

          1. How could democracy even apply at all to an employment relationship? It is a contract between two people

            The response is already set up with this half of your statement.

            It’s not a choice when one party holds so much more power than you.

          2. In spite of all the flaws in the democratic state (which I don’t have to dwell on here) it is at least in theory a democratic relationship. In contrast, the employment contract is not even in theory democratic; the employer is not even in theory the representative or trustee of those being managed within the scope of the contract, the employees. That is the root distinction behind Chomsky’s lingering respect or hope for institutions that are at least in theory democratic and his condemnation of the capitalist firm that is not even democratic in theory.

            My previous link unfortunately doesn’t take you to the comment, but the rest of it is down there in all it’s incoherence.

        2. That DavidE shows up in the BHL blog as well. He can say some pretty terrible things.

          In this case, it’s like he’s arguing for an anarchism that spreads around the problem of the state. The social contract is meant to justify a contract with a collective, where consent obviously cannot be attained by every individual. It’s not an analogue with an individual contract, with the social contract being the democratic/republican form of agreement.

          He wants employment to be handled in the same way that the state/social contract is supposed to operate, with the workers engaged in some communal, democratic agreement with the owners. Somehow that makes them freer than individually contracting with the employer!?

    2. But Bill Maher and Glenn Beck are still libertarians, right?

    3. Chomsky is indeed a terrible anarchist or libertarian. But I do have to give him some credit for making me the libertarian/anarchist that I am today. Even though a lot of what he claims is just wrong, it is worth a lot to read someone who introduces the possibility that the conventional wisdom about the value of various institutions might be wrong.

  6. There’s no such thing as Statelessness.

    1. So call it something else.

      1. How about “weightlessness”. Does that work?

    2. Do you mean that it doesn’t exist, that it can’t exist, or that it is not even a meaningful proposition?

  7. Today’s feel-good story! Thanks, Reason!

    *runs off with a smile on face, wearing a red sweat jacket and no pants*

    1. Almanian in a red sweat jacket and no pants is not a happy ending.

  8. C4SS, by their own admission, is substantially funded by a racist. Didn’t Mussolini flirt with “left-libertarianism” before founding fascism?

    1. And we are supposed to conclude what based on that one example?

    2. So… When will we be seeing the Reason expose on C4SS?

    3. No, he flirted with Socialism.

      1. Subsets and supersets

    4. I’ll answer that one later, once you’ve been transported to one of the camps we’re building with that money right now.

      1. Do I need to bring my own postcards or do you guys take care of that?

  9. Oh look. They’re back. hooray.

    Pity, though I had no real hope that this one group of leftists would be actually destroyed by that other leftist–and see–they’re colluding now.

    Go Left-libertarianism! go!

    Why shoot yourself in the foot when you can shoot yourself in the face?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.