Prince Takes Down Another Video With His Music Playing In The Background
from the hasn't-quite-learned-his-lesson dept
Over the summer, there was a flurry of press coverage over the fact that, with the help of the EFF, a mother was suing Universal Music for forcing a short video she had made offline. The 29-second video was of her kid dancing to some Prince music that was playing in the background. We were a bit surprised by this, due to plenty of stories around that time about how Prince really "got" the internet. We had thought that maybe this was just a move by Universal Music, rather than having anything to do with Prince himself. Since then, of course, Prince has been much more aggressive in forcing fan sites to take down content -- though, it still seems pretty clear that the original video was fair use. You would think that all of the negative publicity surrounding that case would have made it over to the UK, but apparently not. The Agitator points us to a story that Prince's representatives have forced a UK taxi driver to take some videos off of YouTube. The taxi driver had filmed a few short videos while he was driving his cab and uploaded them to YouTube. During at least one of the videos, there was some Prince music playing in the background on the cab's radio. And, that, apparently, is enough for Prince's representatives to claim copyright infringement and get the video taken offline. Can anyone explain how a short clip like this, with the music playing on the radio in the background on an amateur film with no commercial connection at all, is not fair use? But, more importantly, can anyone explain how (even if it is Prince's right), this makes sense for Prince? He's clearly not losing any money from this video being online. The only thing that might happen is more people hear that song and perhaps get them interested in Prince's music.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The answer to your question
It's very simple. The clip was uploaded to an Internet site. Up until then, it was purely a personal exercise and it's repeat playing by the cabbie for purely personal enjoyment was fair use. Not so once on the Internet.
You are welcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong!!
=====
Not so. You don't know human nature, do you?
If that clip were allowed to stand unchallenged then a well-funded organization could make their own high-quality clip with Prince's music in the background and then use it as a lead-in to a new TV program or a block-buster movie and not pay Prince one cent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pauper
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
Legal issues aside, do you honestly think an artist should be able to exert this level of control over this kind of non-commercial usage of copyright-protected material?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong!!
Learn how to make an analogy. The cabbie example is a non-commercial use. Your example is a commercial use. That's the difference and that difference is key.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
I'd like a cite for the law which says that fair use does not exist on the internet. Thanks. I won't be holding my breath, so don't feel you need to rush.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obviously, (and I'm not kidding) Prince is insane. We're talking about a guy who renamed himself a made up unpronounceable symbol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
That's completely wrong. Fair use can and does exist on the internet. The problem is, it's much easier to just relent and take down the video than to fight the matter over in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
9th Circuit Court of appeals ruled in favor of Arriba. Reading over the points of the case, it's incredibly obvious that the online videos constitute fair use, and Prince & Co. are simply over-reacting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prince
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The answer to your question
Nothing I posted suggested that air use is exclusively to personal enjoyment. You're simply producing a straw man here.
"Legal issues aside, do you honestly think an artist should be able to exert this level of control over this kind of non-commercial usage of copyright-protected material?" - Hulser
"this kind"? Of course I do because unchallenged it would lead to widespread abuse of the artists' rights. In the end, that would lead to a drastically lowered quality of what artists produced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kinda a silly question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The answer to your question
Yet another straw man. I did not say that. However, once the clip was posted on the Internet WITHOUT Prince's permission and was shared with countless others on the Internet, it was no longer fair use.
Send the cabbie some money and urge him to challenge this in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wrong!!
=====
It makes no difference at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
HA if music quality were to get any lower I would be in the running for best vocalist. Most music today sucks and its all designed to have 1 hit so they can sell 10 other really crappy songs for $18.00. It makes me sick to watch these no talent ass clowns make crappy music then push them like candy to little kids on Nick Jr. If anyone has any kids between 2-12 you know what I am talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
Fair use does not require permission, by its very definition...hey I'm a poet and I didn't know it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong!!
Maybe in your mind, it doesn't. But under the law it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The wrong answer to mike's question
Why the double post?
Internet doesn't make things illegal.
In regards to your second and also incorrect response, making available is not a crime, even if the RIAA would like to bend laws to show otherwise. Remember that line very distinctly. Also, youtube downplays the quality of their songs. Are you going to tell me that even with the interference and background noise that a downsampled quality = higher quality? No amount of upsampling can make up for bad quality and background noise without it being completely professional and a waste of time.
It's easier to download the song than screw with a .flv audio. Trust me, I've done the latter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
Documenting POP Culture IS Fair Use.
There are most certainly other reasons which could make it Fair Use also, but as that example above is exactly what happened, that is the one I pointed out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF, does Prince sit around watching videos to see if his music is on them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong!!
I'm not sure about the driver's video. It doesn't seem transformative to me. Fair use is like pornography--the definition as it applies to a particular piece is pretty objective ("I know it when I see it.")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
I didn't say it did. You cannot make an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work and post it on the Internet without permission. The manner in which you do it matters zilch. In the Atlantic vs. Howell case, Howell is charged with placing the unauthorized copies he made in a shared folder which others on the Internet could readily access and download to their own computers. Howell is poised to lose big in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scorpiaux... You obviously have no understanding..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
Um....yes you did. and you just said it again. You are stating that something that is covered under fair use offline automatically becomes infringing on-line. That's simply not correct.
"Send the cabbie some money and urge him to challenge this in court."
...sigh...When you understand what fair use is, let me know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The answer to your question
Do not mix up the Howell case. Techdirt has had several articles about that. The copies were legit, what made them unauthorized was putting them in the shared folder. The copies themselves fall under fair use and do not need permission to be created.
Don't let things get mixed up, like copyright infringement and theft. That is how the RIAA is confusing you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prince
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prince
Hahahaha, agreed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Could" != infringement
===
There it is, the word **could** (as in its possible but there is no evidence that anyone made unauthorized downloads). The RIAA wants people to pay up to millions of dollars for "could" rather than "did." That has to stop.
Ever been to a record store? People **could** buy those CDs and rip them to their mp3 players or make back up copies on CD-Rs--both of which the RIAA says are illegal (they filed a report to that effect with the Registrar of Copyright in 2006) so record stores are just as guilty for "making available" and should be sued for infringement of all the music in their store, and all the music they have ever sold, because someone **could** copy it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong!!
On this Scorpiaux is incredibly wrong, and so are you.
There is a four factor analysis to determine fair use:
1. Purpose and character of the use - i.e. commercial or non-commercial, transformative or not.
2. Nature of the copied work - published or not, fictional or non-fictional, etc.
3. Amount and substantiality of portion used. - I don't know if the whole song was used or not, but it was background music in the back of a cab in a youtube video. I'm willing to bet the audio quality was too high.
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. - I don't think Prince is going to go broke because of the cabbie, and Prince's reputation is suffering because he's abusing copyright law, not because of the cabbie.
Scorpiaux obviously has little to no idea what he/she is talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
Your arguement asserted that once it went from "personal enjoyment" to being posted on the internet, it was no longer considered fair use. Re-read what you wrote if you don't see it but since there's more than one person who has read that from your comment, you might consider that you need to clarify yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
Fair use doesn't distinguish whether something is for personal enjoyment or "shared with others on the Internet". Period. You need to read the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong!!
Of course, Fair Use only applies in America :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
=====
Post #10: "Nothing I posted suggested that air use is exclusively to personal enjoyment. You're simply producing a straw man here."
-> But you DID suggest that fair use is exclusive to personal enjoyment. You claim that because he let others see it (even in a non-commercial way) it is no longer fair use. You're wrong, both in claiming that it isn't fair use, and in your rebuttal to people that have a problem with what you have said here.
=====
Post #10: "Of course I do because unchallenged it would lead to widespread abuse of the artists' rights. In the end, that would lead to a drastically lowered quality of what artists produced."
-> How would it lead to widespread abuse of the artists' rights? The only way it could is if you profited financially from the use of their 'product' or 'image' and you didn't pay them for a 'license fee' or similar.
The goal of the two videos brought up in Mike's article is non-commercial, and the music itself isn't a main point to the videos. In the older video, the music is simply what the baby is dancing too and the only 'commercial' use that can be claimed is free advertising for Prince. Nothing is being taken away from him.
The second video, it is very unlikely that vast majority of people even knew that it was a Prince song playing as it wasn't a focus for the video. The fact it was in it was random chance.
=====
Post #12: "Yet another straw man. I did not say that. However, once the clip was posted on the Internet WITHOUT Prince's permission and was shared with countless others on the Internet, it was no longer fair use.
Send the cabbie some money and urge him to challenge this in court."
-> You did say that. Not verbatim, but if you read what you typed next, you ARE saying what Dan says you are saying. If this was a CD quality rip, a bootleg live version, or a copy of a concert (bootleg or DVD quality) then there would be a problem. However, that isn't what is happening.
What is happening that as the Taxi driver was shooting footage he was listening to the radio and a small portion of a Prince song happened to be caught on audio. It could have been anyone, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are OTHER songs by different artists caught on tape as well.
Laws are about *intent*. You can kill someone in most countries, and if it was self defense or in the defense of another you'll get off most of the time. It's called 'justifiable homicide'. If you kill a person because you hate them, that is unjustified. That is not a valid reason to kill someone, and you will pay the price (usually your own life though MANY nations are turning that around to life in prison).
As much as the RIAA would like it to be, stealing music isn't the same as killing someone. Either morally or legally. But look at the intent of the Cabbie.
- He did NOT intend to capture a song by Prince.
- He did NOT intend to sell his video, nor claim that Prince was involved.
- He did NOT intend to distribute an entire song by Prince and deprive the artist of his due.
- He did NOT even record the entire song!
I won't be surprised if a Judge throws this out as 'frivolous' because it is just that. Frivolous. A waste of the court's time. Prince was not hurt by this. Prince was hurt by his own actions in regards to it, but he has no one to blame but himself. The Taxi driver may have been a Prince fan, I'd doubt if he is now.
The video by all legal definitions falls under fair use.
=====
Post #13: "It makes no difference at all."
-> It makes all the difference in the world. According to the written law, one of the major keys to something being fair use is that it is non-commercial in nature. So obviously, you are outright wrong (either intentionally lying, or sadly very ignorant) in that there is no difference at all. Your analogy doesn't work simply because of this fact.
=====
Post #15: "There's nothing in copyright law that says an artistic work must be a quality product in order to receive copyright protection."
-> This is true, otherwise bootlegs would be legal. However, again the main key to 'fair use' is whether or not the video would be promoting a commercial product. That argument aside, you are free to record music from the radio anyways. Following that line of thinking brings you to interesting places in the RIAA vs Everyone Else fight on whether or not distributing radio edit versions of songs would be illegal or not, when they are available for free and you are legally allowed to record them and make mix tapes with them. But that's an argument for another time.
=====
Sorpiaux, I suggest you go to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html and learn what it is you are even trying to talk about. After that I sincerely suggest you enroll in some college level English classes that focus on comprehension. You apparently have no idea what you are saying, and not all of it is ignorance.
Since I don't know if you can click on links:
" 1.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.
the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
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."
According to this, it is fair use.
1) Its non-commercial. Despite your false claims, that matters.
2) The copyrighted work is music, though you can extend that to music-videos and concert recordings (visual and audio). The taxi driver's video is none of those.
3) Only a clip is used, which falls under fair use. Even though the song was recorded unintentionally from the radio, it is still not the entire song and apparently that matters for fair use as well.
4) The video, until Prince blindly sued the poor taxi driver frivolously, had absolutely no impact on Prince's commercial ventures, specifically his music and video sales. Given the clip-like nature of the song it is more likely that if it had any effect (unlikely) it would have been a POSITIVE one as people would have to go buy the CD with the song on it, thus putting money in Prince's pocket he otherwise wouldn't have.
Scorp, go back to school. Move past High School. I'm starting to suspect you were bored in your computer class in High School and feel like an intellectual. It is rapidly becoming apparent, you are not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The answer to your question
What a stupid comment. Lot's of people enjoying and using your work would cause you to produce a lower quality product in the future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An Open Letter to Prince's Mom.
Your son is behaving badly. Please do something about it.
Thank you.
Signed,
GeneralEmergency on behalf of the rest of the planet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong!! / The answer to yo
"whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes," has recently been deemphasized in some Circuits "since many, if not most, secondary uses seek at least some measure of commercial gain from their use." From the Wikipedia article. Well, it's a gray area.
I admit that I was thinking of samples in music, cartoons on the TV set in movies, and so forth, and those things actually are supposed to be licensed, right? But they are not always, at least in the case of sampling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In response to the name/symbol thing
Now here's where the genious comes in....if people can't pronounce your name, but have to refer to you somehow, you say "The artist formerly known as Prince." See? He actually kept using "Prince" even though it didn't belong to him.
Maybe there's some evil plan going on that we simply don't know about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The story
"That was enough for the site (YouTube) to pull the film – called A Drive Around Meadow St, Preston – after pressure from Prince's NPG Records label who insisted it violated copyright."
YouTube acted correctly on this matter. The cab driver was wrong. Prince and NPG were right. Another blow against law-breaking and the anarchy that usually follows it when engaged in by mobs looking to get something for nothing and that applies to cyber mobs as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fair use would cover using a small portion of the music even IF the point of the video was something to do with the song, or the song was used on purpose for artistic merit; here it just happens to be in the background and there is no intent whatsoever to use the music for any kind of gain, artistic or monetary.
Prince would have to show that the artist stood to gain from his use of the music, which cannot be done.
He also would have to prove that this use of the music would impact legitimate sales, and that cannot be done. If anything, people hearing Prince's music as a side effect of watching this video might stick the song in their head and make them want to go out and buy it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
"Its non-commercial. Despite your false claims, that matters."
From the law:
"Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
=================================
Notice the words "to be considered." This is not an absolute! I doubt that you would contend that the clip was for nonprofit educational purposes since in this case the setting is hardly educational. That only leaves the non-binding phrase, "commercial nature" and a case could be made that it was used commercially. It isn't necessary for the profit motive to be present to state that an action is commercial and that if it isn't that it isn't commercial.
And let me point out that this happened in the UK and they are bound by UK laws. Whatever possessed you to cite US law on a UK case? That's dumb beyond words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The answer to your question
And let me point out that this happened in the UK and they are bound by UK laws. Whatever possessed you to cite US law on a UK case? That's dumb beyond words.
Well, it beats claiming (as you have) that you need permission for fair use or that putting it on the internet takes away a fair use defense, suggesting zero knowledge of fair use.
It is true that the US and UK definitions of fair use/fair dealing are slightly different -- but they're actually quite close, so it's hardly "dumb" to have looked at the US definitions.
As for the UK, you can see the details here:
http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
And I'll note that in the UK "incidental inclusion" is considered fair dealing, and the very description they use to describe "incidental inclusion" is: "A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music..."
Which would appear to be a nearly exact description of what happened here.
Once again, Scorpiaux, you have been shown to both be wrong in fact and in the spirit of your argument.
Will you admit it or will you ignore being caught factually wrong as you have repeatedly in the past week?
The case here is clearly covered by fair use. To argue it's not because it's on the internet is ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The answer to your question
Actually, Scorpiaux, again it seems that your ignorance of fair use shows through here. You only mention the first part of the four part test, and don't seem to recognize that you don't need to hit on all four points of the four point test. Those are just the four things to be considered. You are right that it's "not absolute" but you are wrong in the direction of where that non-absolute nature goes. It tends to side in favor of fair use, rather than against it, as you imply.
As for making the case that this is a commercial use, I think you'd find any judge would laugh you out of court trying to claim that putting up a video like this was "commercial use." There's both common sense and precedent to suggest it is not, in any way, commercial use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
all u-tube postings are commercial in nature
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real reason
My guess is that Prince doesn't care about the commercial/non-commercial aspects of any of the videos that incidentally contain his work. I doubt he sees these as a redistribution of his work, authorized or not. I am pretty sure he doesn't care a whit about any potential lost money - I believe he owns his label, so there wouldn't be record execs fighting 'on his behalf'.
Prince cares more for his own music than for the content of these videos, and probably feels that the videos aren't worthy of his soundtrack. They demean the music. What does Prince care about a cab ride or dancing toddler? This is the guy in the purple cape, remember - Mr. Ego. He made the world look at a silhouette of his guitar as a phallus at the Super Bowl. In my theory, his only concern is the complete control of the perception of his music, and those videos do not represent his music the way he wants it to be seen.
Even though the videos were accidental usage, they conflict with Prince's perception of his own glory, and I don't think he wants people to experience his music this way. So, he uses the copyright law, gray and [mis]interpretable as it is, to get the clips removed.
The intent of the intent of the law, or the need for the law in the first place - the discussion is interesting, but in this case, not relevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: all u-tube postings are commercial in nature
That is simply false and no court in the land would agree to that. You are confusing two separate parties: YouTube, the service provider, and the users. YouTube is a commercial offering. But people use it for non-commercial stuff.
By your definition *ANYTHING* online is a commercial offering, since wherever you host it is a commercial offering. You paid for your ISP connection (a commercial transaction) so anything you do online is now commercial, based on your reasoning.
Luckily, the courts know better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Long Live The RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Long Live The RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Long Live The RIAA
One thing I find interesting here is that so many of you are arguing against a fait accompli. The article even quotes the cabbie as acknowledging that Prince was within his rights to do as he did.
Why don't the majority of you simply come out and admit that you want something for nothing and that you feel it is your duty to try and convince others that your desire to break the law is justified.
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, once said of the Soviets of the former USSR that it was impossible to deal with someone who took the position, "What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable." That is pretty close to the position many of you here take. You own whatever you own but copyright holders' ownership of their intellectual property for a Congressional mandated maximum length of time is negotiable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Long Live The RIAA
The cabbie is wrong. Well, he's half right. It is within Prince's *rights* to ask for it, but the guy has every right to push back claiming fair use. He chose not to, knowing that it's an expensive proposition. However, for you to claim that just because the guy regretfully accepted it, it's somehow "right" is wrong.
Why don't the majority of you simply come out and admit that you want something for nothing and that you feel it is your duty to try and convince others that your desire to break the law is justified.
Because that's not true, no matter how many times you claim it is. I have been quite explicit that my purpose is to help make these musicians better off.
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, once said of the Soviets of the former USSR that it was impossible to deal with someone who took the position, "What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable." That is pretty close to the position many of you here take.
That is simply untrue. I have been quite clear again. Your inability to understand that, despite it being pointed out repeatedly, speaks wonders to the cognitive dissonance in your brain.
You own whatever you own but copyright holders' ownership of their intellectual property for a Congressional mandated maximum length of time is negotiable.
No. We are extremely consistent on this point. Again, I've already asked you to take some time and learn the difference between infinite goods and scarce goods. Your repeated refusal to understand them suggests you really have trouble understanding fairly basic concepts.
Either way, this particular case has absolutely nothing to do with "ownership." It has to do with fair use rights, something you appear to have almost zero knowledge about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joke
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Long Live The RIAA
You sure it's not angry dude behind all this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unwanted philanthropy
=====
And they don't appreciate it, nor do they pay you the slightest bit of attention! Fancy that!
I once read what I took to be an ad about a programmer. The ad stated, more or less,:
"Bill Gates says 'There are five world class programmers and four of them work for me. The other one is ___________." I can't recall the name, but I was impressed about the named programmer. I noted his independence. I could only guess that Microsoft could have offered him more money than he could possibly make for himself in the short term. But I suspect I know why he didn't work for Microsoft and Gates. He valued his freedom and control over his own time and his own creations. Forget the money. At some point in the life of the successful and the life of the dedicated, more money is not an enticement. You, Mike, should understand that. Emotionally, you may, but intellectually you don't. Prince seems to be doing fine without your help and without your theories on economics.
I have asked myself what drives you to defend your hocus pocus mumbo jumbo ooga booga and have begun to think that you probably derive income from site ads and the more hits the more you rake in. You might note that sustained and intense posting on a controversial topic brings in more hits and thus more revenue. Stoke the fires. That's your business model. And it isn't a bad one. Makes for a more interesting site than one filled with "me too" sycophants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Long Live The RIAA
It is incredibly obvious that you have no grasp of fair use in either the United States or the UK. It has been shown repeatedly, with references, that you are wrong, and you haven't been able to defend your position in the least.
"I guess someone who has been defeated in this discussion has to resort to such sophomorish tricks."
While the impostor post was uncalled for, the only person who has been soundly defeated at every turn has been you. You apparently haven't realized it yet, but it's true.
"That was enough for the site (YouTube) to pull the film"
It doesn't take much to get YouTube to pull down a video. They unfortunately seem to have a knee jerk reaction to removing works cited without investigating the claim.
And because you were apparently too lazy to look up the UK specifics covering incidental inclusion (which would cover the cabbie):
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unwanted philanthropy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unwanted philanthropy
And they don't appreciate it, nor do they pay you the slightest bit of attention! Fancy that!
I'm sorry, when did you suddenly become the person to represent all musicians? Oh right, never.
I never said that anyone needed to appreciate it, so if they don't that's not really my problem. But, the fact of the matter is that many do appreciate it. We hear from plenty of musicians all the time who are happy with the advice we gave, and the business side of Techdirt does quite well advising companies how to put these types of strategies in place.
I can't recall the name, but I was impressed about the named programmer. I noted his independence.
If this is the story I remember (and I remember it a bit differently), I think the person he was referring to was Ray Ozzie. The same Ray Ozzie who has now taken over Gates job. Which sorta throws off your story, but alas...
Prince seems to be doing fine without your help and without your theories on economics.
Actually, Prince has embraced many of our theories, which has helped his career greatly. He's done a few things against those theories which have actually hurt him. So far, he's been a perfect example of both what works and what does not.
I have asked myself what drives you to defend your hocus pocus mumbo jumbo ooga booga and have begun to think that you probably derive income from site ads and the more hits the more you rake in.
And, as per usual, you are quite incorrect. We actually don't get as many hits on these types of posts, and ad revenue is not our business model, so it really makes no difference to me.
What drives me is that this is a key point that actually has much broader implications -- and it's important to the economic well being of our country.
That's your business model.
But it's not. You might try actually looking at our site to understand the business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong!!
I believe the proper term would be "it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scorpiaux
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is easy
As for Prince, time to stop listening to his music, too. We wouldn't want anyone to "accidentally " hear it without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From someone who shares with friends
There are people who care deeply about the law, and tear up whenever they think how many lives are saved every day by good, wholesome, men and women who obey them to the letter. Who thank G-d in heaven for the process which converts greed, religious fervor, and political passion into a set of rules that others MUST follow with the threat of loss of life, freedom or money.
Of course, there are some others, like me - who look at the law as the end product of many different forces that I may or may not agree with. Every law I find is passed through an extra-legal filter unique to me.
The extra-legal filter I apply has various components:
1. Does it make sense?
2. Is it fair?
3. Does it matter?
4. How much harm would be inflicted if is broken?
a. Is it egregious harm or an annoyance?
i. Is it harm to a person’s body?
ii. Is it harm to a person's freedom?
iii. Is it harm to a person's family?
iv. Is it harm to a person's survival?
Of course number 4 doesn't occur to people who follow the law to the letter. They aren't concerned with WHY laws are created, but rather simply that they ARE laws, and MUST be obeyed.
This extra-legal filter of mine helps me speed on an empty straight stretch of road in the desert with my radar detector on. It lets me piss on the ground when there are no rest stops nearby. It lets me keep something that I find in the basket when I leave the grocery store that they didn't ring up. It lets me smoke marijuana when someone offers me a toke at a concert.
...AND it lets me share music that I purchased, with friends who come to my house, or visit me online.
I realize that there are people who want to see me suffer as much because I don't think I am doing egregious harm, as for the harm they imagine I am doing. They would like to have me suffer for ALL the profit that all the artists think they have lost (at least repay more profit they feel they lost than they lost by my sharing) by file sharing.
I don't think egregious harm is being done by me. I don't think "they" can "catch" people doing it (sort of like "catching people" saying they would kill the president if they had a chance, and could get away with it (did you know it's against the law to say that casually?) I don't think they can scare us (sort of like crucifying a cat for wandering in your yard as an example to other cats - it has no effect) And I think the laws will change because my view is the prevailing view.
It's just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation of Idea
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."
Ideas cannot be patented nor copyrighted. It is the expression that can be. As such, patent and copyright holders have limited rights concerning those expressions. Those rights are trumped in law by the passage of time. Inventors and creators know this and therefore have incentives to invent and create. If those rights are removed or ignored, ideas would still get expressed but the knowledge that makes them work would be hoarded to such a degree that new ideas and the means to express them would be closely guarded secrets without limitations of any kind over time. The free exchange of knowledge would essentially slow to a snail's pace and the knowledge of how to make an idea work would be locked in closely guarded vaults accessible to only a few privileged people. Even the verbalization of an idea would receive this fate lest others learn what you are thinking. Thus, patents and copyrights are emancipators of ideas and their expressions. Rather than creating the utopia you envision with your wacked-out notion of how to increase value, you would create a world where nothing had value -- in short, anarchy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong!!
No what you say is wrong, if a TV show or a movie try to use ANY singers song for profit in ANY way they have to pay. If a person is making a film clip of anything and not advertising anything of sorts then it is fair use, the reason is, there is no profit for a film clip on YouTube as long as the film clip is not gaining profit. This is not right Prince has no right to fight such a minor incident that has no relevance to his sales.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyway, none of the comments before could explain this irrational behaviour. The only one is that he´s insane, but what about his lawyers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation of
Yet, as per usual, the attack is weak and easily proven wrong, so let's get on to proving this one wrong.
Mike, you are familiar with this Jefferson quote; you used it:
Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. You do realize that it supports my position rather than yours? Apparently not. Again with the reading comprehension.
Ideas cannot be patented nor copyrighted. It is the expression that can be.
Again, you appear to have little understanding of the actual law, though I'm guessing you're trying to catch up. The expression of an idea is what can be copyrighted. It's a process or a method that can be patented. Not quite the same thing, but to be charitable to you, we'll allow it.
As such, patent and copyright holders have limited rights concerning those expressions. Those rights are trumped in law by the passage of time.
I have no idea what "trumped in law by the passage of time" means. Could you please explain?
Inventors and creators know this and therefore have incentives to invent and create.
Yes, but you are making an implicit (and incorrect) assumption in this statement that this is the ONLY incentive to invent and create. That is, simply, factually and historically false.
If those rights are removed or ignored, ideas would still get expressed but the knowledge that makes them work would be hoarded to such a degree that new ideas and the means to express them would be closely guarded secrets without limitations of any kind over time. The free exchange of knowledge would essentially slow to a snail's pace and the knowledge of how to make an idea work would be locked in closely guarded vaults accessible to only a few privileged people.
Now, that's a common claim from people who appear to know nothing of either history or human nature. However, it's simply untrue.
Please, go read Eric Schiff's research on how Switzerland and the Netherlands industrialized without a patent system. The lack of a patent system increased the sharing of information and helped speed up the process.
Please go read Petra Moser's research on innovations that came out of countries that had no patent system, where she shows that the pace of innovation was not slowed.
Please go read David Levine and Michele Boldrin's research into the pace of innovation in the pharma industry in Italy, which showed the exact opposite of what you claim: that when there was no pharma patent protection, there was more activity and more innovation. Once the laws changed, innovation DECREASED, the number of firms in the market DECREASED and the size of the industry DECREASED.
There are some very basic reasons for this, and it has to do with a few things. The first is that without the monopoly incentive, you learn that the REAL incentive to create is that there is market demand. So you create for the market, not for the monopoly. On top of that, you now have incentive to continually improve (continually innovate) to stay ahead of the competition, rather than being able to rest on your laurels and assume that the single new thing you did last year should remain preserved permanently for 20 years (or more with copyright).
As for the claim that people would hoard info and that patents "disclose" them, that's an old myth that's easily disproven:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070321/021508.shtml
Most of these ideas aren't so easily hidden, as you imply would happen. And, if they were, there would be no incentive to patent them anyway. The ONLY reason you would patent the idea is if you knew that the knowledge would get out into the open anyway.
As for the fear that things would be immediately copied, that's easily proven false also. It's no so easy to just copy an entire business -- and you ignore the factors that go into helping people decide what to buy. People have copied the iPod, and even made better iPods, but many people still want Apple's original product in part because of the Apple prestige and in part because Apple has done a good job connecting it to iTunes (note the importance of bundlign product and services).
So, basically, you are making assertions about what would happen which are easily proven as false through multiple historical examples. In fact, history has shown that when you compare two identical situations where one has protection and one does not, the one without will innovate faster.
So, once again you are wrong, and once again I imagine you will fail to admit it, but will come back with another baseless and incorrect attack.
Could you at least skip ahead beyond chapter one of the RIAA's "unauthorized use is theft" playbook. I mean... seriously. These ideas have been debunked years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation of
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation of
Let me offer a website for your reading pleasure.
http://www.respectcopyrights.com/content.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation
It should be noted that the site, as far as I can tell, makes no reference to fair use, which I guess explains why you haven't been able to defend yourself.
On top of that, the site makes the assumption that all peer-to-peer traffic is used for piracy, which is simply untrue.
The site offers no case studies, and no proof of their statements, such as "Without the protection of copyrights, creators would not be able to survive..."
Please come up with some real proof of your arguments, instead of relying on MPAA propaganda?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
=========
How about
http://www.grokster.com/
http://www.morpheus.com/
http://www.kazaa.com/us/index.htm
http://www.napster.com
Of course, I really don't expect you or Mike or the other like-minded posters here to "get it" as you and your cohorts are so fond of saying, but I try to get the point across without exhibiting the arrogance of my opponents here who post as if they are the only ones with the necessary knowledge and insights about the problem of copyright infringement.
Notice that I did not post web sites with opinions. Those are just a few of the websites that have been brought down to reality by the courts. Individuals who have been successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement don't usually have web sites telling their viewers not to violate copyrights, but if there were enough of them the problem would be dealt with a lot quicker.
So be my guest and blast away about fair use, scarce goods and infinite goods, high tech, my supposedly poor reading skills, my supposed lack of knowledge of computing and the Internet, new business models, the big bad RIAA and the big bad MPAA, and on and on and on. Just take note, though, that this is not academic and that real people are getting hurt on all sides of this discussion. Go ahead and affect a macho pose and declare the laws as nonsense and unenforceable. If you are frustrated that you can't get something for nothing, that is your problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not at all frustrated:
http://thepiratebay.org/
http://www.torrentspy.com/
http://www.newzleech.com/
http ://www.binaries.nl/
I guess getting something for free is alive and well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Go ahead and affect a macho pose and declare the laws as nonsense and unenforceable. If you are frustrated that you can't get something for nothing, that is your problem, not mine."
You really are incredibly dense. Fair use is protected by law, including UK law, and the cabbies' youtube video is covered by the incidental inclusion clause in the UK law. So your argument that uploading the video violated copyright is wrong, plain and simple. Everything you've posted concerning the youtube video has been unsubstantiated nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The New Media
Stephen Colbert gave big kudos to Prince last week in his segment "National Treasure. Portrait of Stephen, Part I."
Colbert was trying to convince Smithsonian Director Brent Glass that his portrait above the fireplace deserves to be in the Smithsonian. It was classic! So Steven was busting a move, dancing at the Smithsonian to "When Doves Cry."
Point is, maybe Prince should go after Colbert using background music too.
http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=2957
On Monday, we'll find out, hypothetically, if someone values Dorothy's Ruby Slippers over the Colbert Painting... I wonder if Colbert should have asked to replace Prince's entire exhibit, as Prince hasn't really contributed to the arts for a few years. Colbert, on the other hand... Wrist Strong, Getting pegged by Richard Branson... Overall, Good Times...
On an absolutely different tangent, have you seen the Fake Steve Ballmer Blog? I seem to have new respect for Bill...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the field of psychology there is a defense mechanism labeled projection. This defense mechanism comes into play when someone possesses a trait that is considered by most people to be negative. The insecure person with the negative trait then psychologically projects that trait onto someone else as if they possessed it rather than the person in question. Is that your problem -- along with your desire to get something for nothing, that is?
This site is great material for an article I intend to write and publish in the near future. There is an interesting phenomenon at work here, one that I have seen elsewhere covering similar topics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mine, too
I had traveled to Germany, and had a great night in one of the fame "beer tents". They had live musicians, and at one point they did a german rendering of the YMCA song by the village people.
It was a great example of how much fun we were having, so I took a short video of it (27 seconds) to show our friends and family back home how much fun we were having on our vacation.
The video didn't even include the "chorus" from the song, just lyrics (mostly in German, mind you), and everyone dancing on tables around us.
I'd hope that artists would realize that it's free advertising for how much fun their music is, but I've come to find out it's not usually the artists themselves sending the take-down notices.
If anyone knows how to get in touch with the village people, I'd be glad to know if they really care about my clip of video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mine, too
Obviously, the Prince incident was not an isolated case. There are probably a lot of others that have not made the news.
The problem, missed completely on this site, is not that you have a recording of your great time in Germany. The problem is that you put it on the Internet. I am certain that a bunch of groupies here will make it sound as if I am trying to make the case that fair use does not and cannot exist on the Internet, but that is not true at all. If you want to make up your own jingle, sing it from the Acropolis in Athens, record it and then post it on the Internet for all the world to see and hear, you have that right. You do not have the right to do that with someone else's creation who is still enjoying copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mine, too
They probably do care. EEJ, you might find the following web site helpful:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Village-People-To-Sue-YouTube-65844.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mine, too
Youtube does not usually go through the trouble of investigating copyright claims; they typically pull the video down as soon as a complaint is received. Having a video pulled down off of Youtube doesn't mean it was infringing anyone's copyright.
"In the field of psychology there is a defense mechanism labeled projection. This defense mechanism comes into play when someone possesses a trait that is considered by most people to be negative. The insecure person with the negative trait then psychologically projects that trait onto someone else as if they possessed it rather than the person in question. Is that your problem -- along with your desire to get something for nothing, that is?"
What do they call it when a person in an argument continually refuses to address specific points of the opposing viewpoint? You dismissed all of Mike's points as "hocus pocus mumbo jumbo ooga booga" without actually addressing any of them. You haven't responded to legitimate questions from me and other posters with anything other than propaganda from the MPAA and a weak claim that we "want something for nothing."
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the cabbie's video wouldn't fall under the incidental inclusion clause under UK law. You have continually refused to address this point.
"If you want to make up your own jingle, sing it from the Acropolis in Athens, record it and then post it on the Internet for all the world to see and hear"
True, but that isn't an example of fair use, since the person invented the 'jingle'. Out of curiosity, what would constitute fair use of music in your opinion? I'm assuming you're ok with parody at least?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
I am in accord with this web page.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
One artist that I admire is Weird Al. I have read where he usually (if not always) gets permission from those artists that he parodies once he has produced the parody. He isn't required to do this, but he does it anyway.
I practice fair use for my own purposes. I buy original CDs and DVDs from authorized distributors, 99% are retail establishments. 1% are downloads from pay sites such as Walmart. I make 1 exact copy of the original and then put the original away. I use the copies solely for my own enjoyment and my family's enjoyment in my own home. I do not loan them to friends or others. I do not make copies for others. If the copy gets damaged, I make another copy from the original and destroy the previous copy. If I wish to give someone a CD or DVD with something I like and have purchased, I buy another original. One such recent item was the Planet Earth disc set. It cost me another $79 but I paid it without hesitation. I hope to see future undertakings like this in the future. I feel sure that there will be others so long as the producers and artists are not ripped off by large numbers of people who think that they need not pay anything for their efforts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
Scorpiaux, you forgot to answer this one.....again.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing Message
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
3. Typical free uses of work include:
* Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.
4. What is incidental inclusion?
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included.
=======================
It could probably be successfully argued that the music in the background in the cab was intentional since the cab driver put it in his cab and played it while he was recording the sights and sites with his recorder. He had control over it at the time.
=========================
Allow me to make another comment. No matter what you or anyone else thinks of the various arguments and positions here or whether or not you and others judge the arguments to be won or lost by given posters, it will not make a bit of difference in the courts. Only the litigants and their attorneys, judges, and juries will decide the outcomes. I would not expect anyone directly involved in a given legal fight to say, "Gee. Scorpiaux makes excellent points at TechDirt so his point of view prevails," or "Gee. Scorpiaux is just a stupid ball of words as shown on TechDirt, so the case does not go to the side he favors."
Even if 100 of you oppose my arguments and 1 or 2 others agree with me, it will not make a bit of difference. Besides, I could easily find friendlier venues than this one to sound off on and the numbers would be reversed. Cases are decided in the legal system, not on Internet sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation
Fascinating. I tell you to get past chapter one in the RIAA's playbook, and you go back to the preface and offer up MPAA propaganda that is both misleading and inaccurate. You're not helping your case.
And, once again, I'll note that you have not responded to a single point we've made against you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm not sure what point you are making. Listing a bunch of sites that were pressured out of business by the RIAA and the MPAA is hardly proof. All it's shown is how the industry can bully some sites into submission. What do you seem to think that it proves?
We all know that the entertainment industry helped shut those sites down, but I'm not sure how that shows that abusing copyrights to protect an old business model is a good thing. If anything, the fact that all those sites have been shut down supports my argument. It shows how the industry is negatively reacting to companies who have created innovative and efficient distribution mechanisms -- and were shut down by an industry too afraid to understand how it could benefit from them.
So be my guest and blast away about fair use, scarce goods and infinite goods, high tech, my supposedly poor reading skills, my supposed lack of knowledge of computing and the Internet, new business models, the big bad RIAA and the big bad MPAA, and on and on and on.
We're not blasting away, we're actually making points, backed up with data. You, however, seem to just be posting things that have little to do with the conversation the rest of us are having.
Just take note, though, that this is not academic and that real people are getting hurt on all sides of this discussion. Go ahead and affect a macho pose and declare the laws as nonsense and unenforceable. If you are frustrated that you can't get something for nothing, that is your problem, not mine.
Huh? Again, you are making these ridiculous assertions that make no sense and have little bearing on what we're talking about. Who is "getting hurt on all sides of this discussion?" So far, all I've seen are plenty of musicians being able to be much better off by embracing the principles we discuss here. So far, the only ones getting "hurt" are the ones who are blindly relying on copyright as a crutch to try to protect their old and obsolete business model.
It has nothing to do with "getting something for nothing." In fact, it's the opposite. I've already explained this to you, but despite that, you seem to keep repeating it like a mantra. It has nothing to do with getting something for nothing -- it's about building business models where you can INCREASE value and therefore INCREASE revenue making everyone better off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mine, too
Scorpiaux, please, do not make ridiculous assertions. We have not "ignored" the fact that it was put on the internet. Instead, we explained to you (who apparently never heard of and still does not understand) fair use. Putting it on the internet can be fair use.
I am certain that a bunch of groupies here will make it sound as if I am trying to make the case that fair use does not and cannot exist on the Internet, but that is not true at all.
Then why did you say the problem was that he put it on the internet? If fair use can exist on the internet, why isn't this fair use?
If you want to make up your own jingle, sing it from the Acropolis in Athens, record it and then post it on the Internet for all the world to see and hear, you have that right.
But that's not fair use. That's something entirely different.
You do not have the right to do that with someone else's creation who is still enjoying copyright protection.
But you do, if it is used within the definitions of fair use.
You appear to be confusing two separate concepts (it's not the first time you've done this). Fair use is what you can do with SOMEONE ELSE's copyrighted offerings WITHOUT asking for permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
If he's asking permission, then it's not fair use. That's the whole point of fair use, Scorpiaux. That you don't need to ask for permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
It could probably be successfully argued that the music in the background in the cab was intentional since the cab driver put it in his cab and played it while he was recording the sights and sites with his recorder. He had control over it at the time.
I like how you carefully cut out the rest of the sentence about incidental inclusion that specifically says "A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music."
By the way, you cut and paste a whole section from that website. You do realize that material is covered by copyright. Did you just infringe on their copyright?
Allow me to make another comment. No matter what you or anyone else thinks of the various arguments and positions here or whether or not you and others judge the arguments to be won or lost by given posters, it will not make a bit of difference in the courts.
Indeed. Nor do we claim otherwise (nice straw man, Scorpiaux). However, we do have precedent on our side, as other attempts to takedown content that had music playing in the background *was* seen as fair use.
Even if 100 of you oppose my arguments and 1 or 2 others agree with me, it will not make a bit of difference.
Indeed, but do you not realize this has never been about numbers. It's been about pointing out to you why you have been consistently factually incorrect. We're not trying to outnumber you. We're trying to show you why you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mine, too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mine, too
No, because I gave them credit for the material. Additionally, it was not a whole section but a small part of one. You don't understand copyright law, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mine, too
All you've done is convince me that I struck a nerve and that you and your groupies have managed to look foolish by your failure to actually comprehend much of what gets posted here by those who take you to task.
Keep trying. You might get it right one of these years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mine, too
No, because I gave them credit for the material. Additionally, it was not a whole section but a small part of one. You don't understand copyright law, do you?
Ha! Actually, it appears to be you who has no clue about copyright law. Copyright law has NOTHING to do with "credit." Attribution is meaningless and unrelated to copyright law.
As for it being "a small section" you appear to be claiming fair use -- even though you put it on the internet. I'm confused. I thought once you put even a small section it wasn't fair use according to you.
Please. Seriously. Go learn something about copyright law before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mine, too
All you've done is convince me that I struck a nerve and that you and your groupies have managed to look foolish by your failure to actually comprehend much of what gets posted here by those who take you to task.
Scorpiaux, it has been pointed out, repeatedly and in great detail, all of the factual points you have gotten wrong. You have yet to admit that you have gotten each of these things wrong. I have pointed you to the law. I have pointed you to actual detailed historical research on why you are wrong. Did you look at any of it? You certainly didn't respond to it.
I'm curious as to how you think that I am the one who doesn't comprehend stuff, especially when right before this you posted something thinking that copyright law has something to do with whether or not someone gets credit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Very funny
Prince: the artist formerly had a brain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The wrong answer to mike's question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Be fair
"Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too by Mike on Jan 13th, 2008 @ 3:31pm
One artist that I admire is Weird Al. I have read where he usually (if not always) gets permission from those artists that he parodies once he has produced the parody. He isn't required to do this, but he does it anyway.
If he's asking permission, then it's not fair use. That's the whole point of fair use, Scorpiaux. That you don't need to ask for permission."
Please note that he said "He isn't required to do this,..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation of
> rights concerning those expressions. Those
> rights are trumped in law by the passage of
> time.
Well, unless you're Disney, in which case you pay Congress to continually extend your "limited" rights every time they get close to expiring, thereby effectively turning a limited system into an unlimited one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
Here is a direct quote of your posted comment:
"Ha! Actually, it appears to be you who has no clue about copyright law. Copyright law has NOTHING to do with 'credit.' Attribution is meaningless and unrelated to copyright law."
And yet here is a copy and paste from the government website http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: 'quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; ... ' "
My cut and paste of the material with attribution was "for purposes of illustration or comment" and it definitely was for a review of your posts and a criticism of them. I am right. You are flat wrong.
Consider this your first lesson in copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation of
> rights concerning those expressions. Those
> rights are trumped in law by the passage of
> time.
Well, unless you're Disney, in which case you pay Congress to continually extend your "limited" rights every time they get close to expiring, thereby effectively turning a limited system into an unlimited one. - BTR1701
====================================
You might take note that the US Supreme Court ruled that the additional time provided by Congress was Constitutional. Did you not know that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipation
> ruled that the additional time provided by
> Congress was Constitutional. Did you not know
> that?
Yes, I do know that. And it wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court got it wrong. For example, the Supreme Court ruled once upon a time that it was constitutional for one person to own another person as property. Did that make slavery right?
The Court ruled that interning thousands of Japanese in camps during World War II was constitutional, despite the fact that over half of the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits exactly those actions. Weird, huh?
The Supreme Court has a long and colorful history of doing what it wants to do regardless of what the Constitution actually says.
So despite what the Supreme Court says, the real-world effect of Congress's actions has turned a limited copyright system into an unlimited one and it gives lie to your claim that a creator's limited rights are "trumped by time". If you believe that Disney will *ever* let Mickey Mouse (and all their other characters) fall into the public domain, I have a bridge to sell you.
The only artists whose rights are "trumped by time" are the artists who aren't rich enough to buy themselves a Congressman or two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Be fair
"If he's asking permission, then it's not fair use. That's the whole point of fair use, Scorpiaux. That you don't need to ask for permission." - Mike
"Please note that he said 'He isn't required to do this,...' " - Debunked
This is just one instance of many where this has happened and is the reason behind my assertion in a prior post of mine. Part of that post is in the next paragraph.
"All you've done is convince me that I struck a nerve and that you and your groupies have managed to look foolish by your failure to actually comprehend much of what gets posted here by those who take you to task." - Scorpiaux
Mike obviously did not comprehend my post, which is one of my main criticisms of his retorts. There are many examples of this not only in this thread but in others as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Emancipa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents and Copyrights as the Eman
> and the emancipation of the interred Japanese
> with the emancipation of Mickey Mouse's image.
I didn't equate them, either. I offered them as examples of how the Supreme Court often acts extra-constitutionally in order to serve other interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Be fair
Yes, I saw that, but he was using it as an example of what he thought was "fair use." And I was simply pointing out that it's not fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
My cut and paste of the material with attribution was "for purposes of illustration or comment" and it definitely was for a review of your posts and a criticism of them. I am right. You are flat wrong.
Again, Scorpiaux, I'm afraid your reading comprehension skills have gotten you into trouble. The operative phrase in the part you quoted was "for purposes of illustration or comment; ... ' " It has nothing to do with whether or not you cite where it is from, which you claimed was the point of copyright. I wasn't claiming that your use wasn't "fair use." I was saying that under YOUR OWN definition that it wouldn't be. But I see that you have changed your definition. The problem is that your definition is still wrong.
It has nothing to do with attribution, as you claimed -- and nowhere in what you quote does it say that attribution is the key factor. And nowhere in the case law is attribution the key factor.
Again, copyright has nothing to do with whether or not the source is cited. You are thinking of plagiarism, which is a different issue.
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that you are wrong, but you are flat out wrong. Your continued misreading of the statute doesn't help your case, it just shows how clueless you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mine, too
I hardly think you're in any position to be giving lessons on copyright law. You seem to have a particularly skewed idea of what constitutes fair use, and have drawn some incredibly ludicrous conclusions based on faulty reasoning, such as this gem:
"If that clip were allowed to stand unchallenged then a well-funded organization could make their own high-quality clip with Prince's music in the background and then use it as a lead-in to a new TV program or a block-buster movie and not pay Prince one cent."
In one statement you've completely disregarded that the situations are completely different between your hypothetical scenario and what the taxi driver posted on youtube. The leap in logic here is astounding and simply doesn't make sense.
"All you've done is convince me that I struck a nerve and that you and your groupies have managed to look foolish by your failure to actually comprehend much of what gets posted here by those who take you to task." - Scorpiaux
I love this defense...because it's almost impossible to argue against. It's the classic "I'm right because you don't understand what I'm saying" defense. Throw in a 'groupie' insult and you're all set. The only thing missing is the "something for nothing" line, that insinuates that everyone disagreeing with you is engaged in rampant copyright violations or piracy of some kind.
"This is just one instance of many where this has happened and is the reason behind my assertion in a prior post of mine. Part of that post is in the next paragraph."
It's a bit hypocritical of you to throw this comment out in the open when you dismissed all of Mike's statements with the "mumbo jumbo" line. Using this as "proof" that your judgement of Mike is correct is simply asinine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mine, too
Face it, you two. Both of you are so biased that you cannot read simple sentences or phrases without making monumental efforts to spin and skew them to try and deflect attention to the absurdities in your reasoning. It must be an overwhelming experience to discover that you cannot dismiss facts and the law as inconveniences that stand in stark opposition to your pet theories of how the laws should be.
There is no journalism here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mine, too
The meaning of "quotation of excerpts" is exactly what it says. It's quoting a piece of the content. It still has NOTHING to do with whether or not you give credit to the original author, as you claim. That's an issue of plagiarism, not copyright. Copyright law has nothing to do with who gets credit. It has one purpose: to provide a monopoly for the sole purpose of providing incentive for the creation of new content. It has nothing to do with getting credit, and whether or not you credit the original author is not one of the tests used in determining fair use.
I have been studying this stuff for well over a decade. I am not twisting. I am not spinning. I am simply stating a fact.
Here is a simple explanation of the difference between plagiarism and copyright:
http://www.plagiarismchecker.com/plagiarism-vs-copyright.php
Note that plagiarism is about credit. Copyright is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To say that Italy's drug industry took a hit because of patent protection is just plain wrong. Price limits because of socialized medicine had a much greater effect on Italy's market (and the rest of Europe as well)than patent protection did.
In fact, the EU is looking at doing away with some of those issues currently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mine, too
You haven't presented any facts, and . And both Mike and I have been pointing out the exceptions made for fair use in copyright law. You've been towing the typical MPAA and RIAA line, and even used the MPAA's propaganda site as 'evidence'. Your leap in logic that a personal, amateur youtube video with copyrighted background music automatically leads to the commercial use of the background music in a professionally developed broadcast is inherently flawed.
"Now it looks like I will have to educate you and Dan on the meaning of "quotation of excerpts"."
Again, if your posts on this article are any example of your 'expertise', you are in no position to educate anyone on copyright law or fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer to your question
"Johnny be sure to turn off your boom box before recording your sister's birthday party, I don't want to get sued again!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Windows 7 Themes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RedSn0w 0.9.7b4
[ link to this | view in thread ]