Tracer Bullet

Of all the stupid things you've ever posted, this might take the cake. F off. Nothing about this warranted this response. chill out

He'll probably swipe a bag late and make a diving catch or something and be the hero. Meanwhile, KB will hit 4 HRs and OPS like 1.000 and get .2 seconds of time on the highlight video again.

Can someone just kick Mad Bum in the balls already

Appreciate joe having a "hey, the meatballs are freaking out b/c we lost 3/4 to milkwalky" (joe could give a horsefeathers how to spell your city name) meeting with the team today. Then putting a real line up out there and getting the W. It's like he's reminding the manager of the year voters who's who

Needs more KB. yup. based on that video, you'd think javier baez was the team mvp and that kris bryant flukishly hit three home runs in a game was otherwise just a guy. My first thought after seeing that is "why is KB getting the tuffy rhodes treatment"

Needs more KB.

hazing has gone too far

Update after playoff round 1: 1. HBC 2. Rodelo 3. Cubs in AZ 4. Hand Sanitizers 5. Kicks like Cade Foster 6. Quakers 7. STI 8. Alamo 9. Thome 10. D-block ----- Playoff Teams Decided by Playoff Finish ----- 11. Theocracy 12. Dealers 13. Calvinball 14. NSBB ----- Playoff Teams Yet To Be Decided ----- Pigeons CCK

on the 7th day while god rested, kris taught everyone how to play baseball

nm. it happened.

Fred reached out to me when he was passing near GR when I lived there. Just happened to be a day when I couldn't meet him for a drink but I figured I'd get another chance. Seemed like a really good guy. So sorry for your loss.

I've had either too much or too little bourbon to even begin to respond. But I'll gladly accept payment in additional bourbon.

if you want to get technical, that's a derivative work and still infringing. Now Getty is going to come after you guns a blazin. No way, in the ACTUAL image, his jersey says Garciaparra. If Getty is reading this, I was ACTUALLY drawing a picture of imaginary future Cub Mark Nomar i'm mostly joking

law certainly hasn't caught up with technology. it's not really possible for law to keep up, even before the more recent refusal of congress to work together to do anything. But can someone help me understand why copyright protection for some things, like photos and music in particular, should vanish simply b/c technology made them easier to copy/share? it hurts companies, like getty and record labels, but they pass on a big chunk of that pain to the artists. trolls are the ones that send you demands for what's probably not infringement or based on rights that are invalid, but the cost of which is lower than the cost to fight. i'm not saying getty does or doesn't do that, but that's not this. i've had many clients that have received those letters and been faced with a stupid choice of (on the lowest end) paying $2,000 for a license to use an image on a commercial blog post (that they'd already posted) or pay me more than that to fight it. Got someone now faced with a $55k "license" for the dumbest patent you've ever seen. I've heard similar complaints lodged against getty in the past, but I think they've made some adjustments to their enforcement procedures. more likely now if getty contacts you, they actually have the rights they claim to and what you're doing is actually infringing.

NO

I paid roughly $150,000 not to learn all that in law school, but you guys should all paypal me that amount. thanks

do you really want an answer? yes please bill to: Mr. Cubin Ny 14 Robert E. Lee St. Heritage, AL (whatever the zip code for Alabama is) (clearly I'm just substituting my own definition of fair use and wondering why the world isn't conforming to it, but I am actually curious what disqualifies this from the legitimate legal framework (so that I can pretend I'm an expert on twitter)) ok, but same disclaimers apply (me = lawyer; but not your lawyer; this isn't legal advice). Fair use is a crazy muddy gray area. what one "expert" in IP thinks is fair use, including judges in the 2nd and 9th circuits (which see more IP cases than probably all other circuits combined), another will think is clearly infringing. But here's the quick and dirty analysis. I. Fair use is a defense. That means it's only relevant if what you're doing is copyright infringement. Also keep in mind that fair use is primarily intended to balance two things so important that they're both protected in the Constitution - copyright law and free speech. So it's rarely easy and not really supposed to be. II. So was this infringement? Copyright gives the owner (photographer, his employer, or company that bought the rights) certain exclusive rights, including the rights to make copies and display them publicly, which is what is at issue here. Answer is pretty obvious. III. Assuming infringement took place, should the fair use defense apply? That's a fact-intensive question, considering these 4 factors: A. Purpose/chracter of the use B. Nature of the copyrighted work (the photo) C. Amount/substantiality of the work (photo) that was used relative to the whole D. Effect, if any, upon the market value of the work (photo) There's no magic formula. It's not a majority rule and the relative weight given to those factors can change from case to case (and judge to judge). In many cases, #4 trumps all to find no fair use, but in some cases, the first factor can seemingly end the analysis in favor of fair use. Just for fun, let's run through them here. A. Purpose/character of the use - there are some ways that you can use someone else's work that make it more likely that the use will be considered fair use. Transformative uses (changing the character of the original) are good examples. If what you've done with someone's work "contributes to the public knowledge" then it's likely fair use. Creative works are protected by copyright in order to encourage creative contributions to society. Also, some purposes have more leeway, like education, commentary (or parody) and news. Note that doesn't mean schools get to infringe on whatever copyright they want because they're schools. You can't make a hundred copies of a book and say "educational purposes!" and get out of jail free. But if a prof wants to show a few minutes of a video in class (infringement!) to illustrate a point, fair use would be their defense. Also, parody has a meaning. Using someone else's work to make a humorous work doesn't make it a parody. Here Not helpful. Picture copied/pasted for the same purpose the owner made of it. What might help? Using a couple pictures to comment upon baseball in some way. Taking an image and making it much different. Below is an example of a transformative use that audiences usually get wrong. B. Nature of the copyrighted work - i.e., how creative is the thing you copied? The bar for fair use is lower if the creativity involved is lower. But the bar for creativity sufficient for copyright protection is REALLY LOW. So this is rarely meaningful. Most copyrighted works in fair use cases are creative and entitled to copyright protection. Here Not helpful. Photographs are considered creative. C. Amount/substantiality of work used - did you use all or part of a work? An important part? Again, there's not a standard below which, you're free. A very small percentage can be substantial. My go-to example - use the first 5 notes of Satisfaction and see how your fair use defense does in court. The more of the work used or the more important the portion used, the less likely the use was fair use. Here the work is the photo. if the whole photo was copied, then this isn't helpful for finding fair use. 0/3 so far. Things are not trending well for fair use. D. Effect upon the market or value. If the infringement destroys or harms the value of the work (either by removing the mark or damaging the reputation or value), then it's almost certainly not going to be fair use. But if the use has no impact on the market of the original, then fair use is more likely. Here Less obvious than the others, but probably also not helpful or maybe neutral. Some companies make money by licensing images online. The fact that they're easy to find on google doesn't mean that they're free. Will others be less likely to pay to license photos if they know they can use them for free without threat? Um.

That's not how it works. D'oh I thought it was an issue with taking images hosted off of Getty, but it dawns on me that I'm a moron and its Getty owned images. Well at least they're less likely to find the abuse of the image if its hosted on another site. Fine I'll take it down....this was the image http://i.imgur.com/Lz5E8nY.png if you want to get technical, that's a derivative work and still infringing. Now Getty is going to come after you guns a blazin.

presence of ads? that was the most obvious reason to me, but I'm curious if that actually matters or if whether or not a profit is realized is more important a factor hopefully now that cubinny has half of nsbb on retainer, someone can make room for pro-bono work to address my question do you really want an answer?

austin kearns though on the other hand, living deity kent mercker played for the reds so not all bad? You guys left out the Alpha and the Omega: http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/joe-morgan-3.jpg He's an idiot when it comes to baseball analysis, but that's why I hate ESPN.

It's indescribably beautiful.

Marge Schott, Pete Rose, Mario Soto The Reds have been affiliated with many hateable people. b/c otherwise everyone would punch him in his imminently punchable face

except the post i replied to directly disputing my statement that i'm just happy to have a roll of the dice. he was calling you a wet-blanket loser, not debating that it was a dice roll. Yes exactly this. I'm sure there are people who need this explained to them in the terms you're using but not most people here and no one that's posted in this thread. The Cubs are in the best position to win the WS. That doesn't mean they're more likelyti win than the field. But acting like we're no better off than the rangers is just stupid.

the main thing? No No it should not. It should be in the back of your head as a reminder to not get carried away, or react to negatively to a loss. But the main thing is thinking about the team playing and hopefully winning. i mean, with regard to whatever team you're a fan of, yeah, but that's a given. i basically just try to approach it as being excited about having the dice roll and seeing what happens rather than having expectations going in. it's hard not to, though, with how consistently well this team has performed for the most part. emotionally, though, i kinda am expecting it to happen this year, which i can't help. a roll of the dice? Teams that just squeak into the wild card should be feeling lucky they get one more roll of the dice in the playoffs. Good teams that win their division should feel good heading into the playoffs, but know it's going to be a battle every series. The Cubs have a laughable run differential and are by far the best team in baseball. That doesn't guarantee anything and no one should be totally shocked if horsefeathers happens and we lose. But acting like we aren't in a meaningfully better position than every other team (barring some freak injury in the next 2 months) is just as stupid as acting like they should just hand us the trophy b/c we're so much better than everyone else. If you're trying to protect yourself by tempering expectations, that's cool. But a horsefeathering dice roll?