Terms of Service and the lies of Bill Schmalfeldt.

It would seem the current line of defense for Bill Schmalfeldt seems to be an attempt to point out that Hoge does the same thing he’s being blamed for.  But that’s not entirely true.  It’s not even mostly true.  I’m not sure that it’s even a tiny smidgen true.

A frequent complaint as of late from Bill Schmalfeldt seems to be Hoge using entire twits (I don’t know why others call them tweets, it isn’t tweeter) on his webpage, and as a result Bill seems to be running around the web pointing out his perceived errors left and right.  I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be harassment or some weird knew legal theory he’s pushing, since “He does it to” is generally not a great legal defense.

But let’s revisit the twits.  Bill has complained that Hoge is using entire twits, which is in the world of Schmaldfeldt, exactly the same thing that Hoge is accusing him of.  Only it isn’t. (I’d love to show you an example, but the last known (by me) Twitter account for Schmaldfeldt has been suspended.)  However, he is wrong.  By posting a twit, Bill gave Twitter and the rest of the world permission to share his twits.

This is from the terms of service on Twitter.

5. Your Rights

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.

From Twitter’s Terms of Service, Term #5

So under your use of Twitter, you give both Twitter and the rest of the world permission to use your twits.

So how does Hoge get to complain about Bill’s twits?  Because Bill doesn’t just use Twittter, he attaches complete or significant portions of blog posts as images.  The fact that Bill can’t see the difference is pretty telling.

Now apparently Bill has also been bothering the copyright holders of YouTube about Paul Krendler embedding a YouTube Video on his webpage.  I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m working on that assumption here.

Yet again…

4. General Use of the Service—Permissions and Restrictions

YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that:

  1. You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube’s prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).

YouTube Terms Of Service, Term #4.1

Once again, if the embed option is on at a YouTube Video, then anyone can embed it wherever they like.  Perhaps Bill should spend less time worrying about other people’s actions and spend more time worrying about his own.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Terms of Service and the lies of Bill Schmalfeldt.

  1. I’m pretty sure Bill actually does understand these distinctions and only pretends not to. He knows it won’t fool people who are familiar with them, though it may troll them into wasting their time arguing about copyright technicalities instead of talking about BS’s very bad behavior. It is therefore predictable that BS will *ALWAYS* play cute “games” with the truth and offer up a bunch of different fallacious versions of events, resulting in a flurry of responses that are further and further removed from the core issue that his harassment is lawless, filthy, disgusting, and inexcusable.

    I think it is hoped that the many excuses will fool onlookers who are new to the situation. Plus, the excuses give cover for certain unethical fringe “journalists” (those familiar with BS know who I am talking about) to make writeups that are sympathetic to BS.

    They have been using this strategy for years.

    • This seems very plausible.

      I have said until I am blue in the face that BS’s ability to write seemingly cogent arguments shows that he is not the idiot that many call him. In fact, given that his arguments are so often fallacious, his ability to give them a veneer of plausibility shows a modicum of intelligence.

      Like any competent writer, he writes for his intended audience, which is the blissfully ignorant and himself.

    • his “cute games” with the truth may mislead casual viewers online, but once he’s before a judge, they aren’t going to amount to anything more than complete irrelevancy to the case at hand, which I’m sure the judge will point out to him…

      • Yes, you are quite right. The smoke screen currently being erected is full of stuff that no judge will allow inside the courtroom. And if he tries to bring it into the courtroom, it will be laughed at. But I guess we will see what happens.

      • The 27 8″x10″ glossies? He tried to bring a whole bunch of exhibits to (I believe it was) the hearing for the extension of the peace order, and the court wouldn’t let him use any of them. He has a problem with coming to court and trying to fight the previous court battle. I wonder how much of his current “fair use” defense is based on “well, he’s doing it too! and he’s accused me of being mean!”.

      • looks like all of it…
        which means after the judge tells him his “evidence” is irrelevant and refuses to admit it he’ll have no defense to speak of…

  2. There is nothing more distressing to smell in a courtroom than the fear-pee of a convicted snitch who realizes that he is going to reside in a state penitentiary for a long, long time, even though he or she turned state’s evidence in hopes of a free pass. Our friend BS, aka Snitch, is beginning to realize that his “crusade” is not being too well received, hence the massive amounts of fear-pee now emanating from his hovel. All excuses, alibis and defenses cut away, Snitch is nothing more than a relatively uneducated bully who has run out of places or excuses to hide behind. His days of reckoning start on Thursday. I predict a prolonged stay in confinement courtesy of the Maryland taxpayer in due course.

  3. Birds collectively twitter. A single bird tweets. Neither collectively nor singly do birds twit, a verb that has a meaning far removed from any observable activity of birds.

    Explanation supplied. (That sounds disparaging, but is not intended to be so. You asked for an explanation, and I presumed that the question was not purely rhetorical.)

    • He was using that one back in May. He claims he forgot which one was the current one and gave the old twitter addy to his new radio station provider.

  4. I will copy and paste what I put on Hoge blog on this , and I am going expand further here;

    There has been actual cases on this(no I will not list them) I can 100% guarantee you that embedding the HTML of youtube clip(s), single twitter “tweets” and or facebook posts from their pages/communities is not a copyright infringement. In one the cases(the video one) they(the federal courts) ruled embedding or sharing is not the same as copying,and does not fall under copyright laws. I believe they ruled like that because the end user on Youtube has the option to disable “Embed Code” on their videos.

    The other cases out there, they’ve ruled that embedding html like on twitter or facebook. That it’s no different as sharing/copy pasting a url, hyperlinking ,linking to another via the web. Granted the display of it is and can be different but the actually end use is that you sharing it. Which again, doesn’t fall under the copyright laws.

    • It really doesn’t matter that a court as approved what is already a term of service for using the sites. If you post a video on YouTube, and have embed turned on, under the TOS, anyone can embed it anywhere. The courts are simply supporting their TOS.

      Same for Twitter. You put it on Twitter, you are giving permission for other people to use it. Period.

Comments are closed.