Jingoism Run Amok

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the Pentagon has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

(This space reserved for a legally correct snark dump.) It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: The city of Columbus, GA is going to use $880 grand of stimulus funds to build a new gateway to connect Ft. Benning with the local interstate. Four 50 foot monuments topped by 12 foot bronze statues and 20 water fountains spraying water 20 feet in the air seems to be a bit much.




The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reports the gateway will include four 50-foot monuments. On each monument, a 12-foot high bronze statue will rest, representing the Trooper on the Plains, the Follow Me Soldier and two American eagles.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/ap-fort-benning-gateway-funds-090210/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Dude, seriously, how many days are you going to repeat this?

I keep telling you the Pentagon doesn't own the Army Times etc

These papers are privately owned by the Gannett News service which owns USA Today:

http://www.gannett.com/about/map/armytimes.htm

The Pentagon--whether good, bad or indifferent---isn't censoring you. A private corporation--whether good, bad or indifferent--wants to enforce its side of the Fair Use clause which is rather vague:

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

So it comes down to how much they want to complain vs how much the person quoting wants to risk.

[Obamanaut]

2. I didn't know that (ownership of the various '-Times') Thanks. nt

[unhappycamper]

3. The email I received said the Army Times 'requested'.

I understand the difference between Gannett and the Pentagon. I'm having a copyright expert look at the request and will change my leading comment after I get feedback.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Yes, but Army Times = Gannett

In the interest of fair reporting wouldn't it at least be appropriate to withhold criticizing one party until you are certain as to whether or not they are actually responsible?

[unhappycamper]

7. All I am trying to do is to post stuff from the military rags.

In their own words. With their own numbers.

If they prefer I not do that, they should expect me to take issue AND I'll tell the story in my own words with my own headline. When my copyright expert nails the request down and gives me legally correct language, I will change my opening comment.

[SpiralHawk]

4. "Hey, that kinda shit didn't work out so great for me." - Saddam's Evil Ghost

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Well at least some construction workers will get a job for a couple of months.