Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ClevelandSlim
finally... the shit was gettin funny, but this statement by chadglni was just too fuckin ridiculously humerous. because making a website has been technically known as "publishing" you can see a difference here between a site owner sticking a thumb on his page to send traffic to the sponsored site where the actual records keeping is maintained. well, what if they change "publish" to "build" it's still the same fuckin thing... you can build a webpage AND just like a store owner can build his store. then placing the magazines inside on a rack would classify him as a secondary producer.
the fact remains, as long as the statute reads the way it does, it can go either way. the free speech challenges need to include this, and the many other sections that can be interpreted too many different ways to be clarified.
|
No...It can't go either way. It says very clearly, if you put images on a web site, you are a secondary producer. There's no fucking interpretion of anything. How can so many people keep skipping that part? That part was the main, if not the only, reason for the ammendment to the law.
The bottom line is, you don't matter. Not your interpretation, or anyone else's means a fucking thing. The only interpreation that matters is the view of the people writing and enforcing the law. And believe me, you walk into a court and spout that bullshit, they'll show you exactly how they interpret it.