Sneeje
Sneeje
Sneeje

Yeah, that's totally valid. And of course it varies from person to person—some focus on themselves, others minimize, and others outright victim-blame.

Interesting thought. And I think I can see your point, but I just give those that weren't directly involved the benefit of the doubt. Meaning, I assume (perhaps wrongly) that they do believe the victim was horribly wronged—they just don't see themselves as having any influence or part in it whatsoever. It is

I don't read that as victim blaming, I read that as deflection and denial. Someone said it above—the lack of introspection is staggering.

If you're trying to be funny, apologies, but otherwise, your analogy makes no sense. The refs weren't incapacitated by alcohol or anything else and leaving your house is a general need, not a specific situational choice (hike/spike ball or kick a field goal from where you are).

And yet, they still lost. I suppose they can feel good about losing when it wasn't their fault, but that wouldn't be my choice.

Rrrring, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding

Well, since we're fantasizing, perhaps into the Sun instead? Into a brick wall and we all have to clean up afterwards, you know?

Wow. This makes me wonder if Pellman is really spelled M-E-N-G-E-L-E.

"Accomplice" is a concept in criminal law, not tort (civil) law. But regardless, the only way third-party liability makes sense is if the third-party is both knowledgeable of the risk (not just that it "could" be distracting, but that it "will" be distracting to that particular individual) and willfully ignores that

Well, that's your opinion. The judge made no such qualifications. Personally, I think any kind of third-party liability is fundamentally wrong, regardless of the rationale.

Can't argue with that...

Okay, so if we follow this to its logical conclusion, the following could also be held liable:

Exactly. So does that mean that people talking to the driver in the car can be held liable? How about radio stations? Both of those KNOW they are potentially distracting the driver. How about the sign spinners? What about them?

Thanks. BTW, sentences end with a period and you may want to consider proper capitalization.

Yeah, I can see that being true. I didn't hear him in Phoenix, but did hear O and Dukes here. On air now, he knows his stuff and runs his show pretty well—but for all I know he may still be a douche behind the scenes.

I'm really curious about the settings and rating scale embedded in your idiot meter, because I listen to Lavar and Dukes every day (along with alot of other radio) and while I'm sure there are things to criticize about their show, idiot doesn't really come to mind.

It is not illegal. Infringement is a tort, and copying of a copyrighted work is not infringment on its face. If you are going to raise concerns, please try to remain intellectually honest about the issues at play.

I'm very concerned when I see commenters trying very hard to sound authoritative, talking about what is and is not infringement.

Although the amount copied does is a part for the four factor test for fair use, copying more than a "small amount" as you put it, is not per se infringement. In fact, there have been cases where the use of the entire work has been found to be fair use. And, you've said "illegal", but infringement, at least the kind

I have exactly the same question, unfortunately I didn't see your post first.