Another Nail In The Coffin For Fair Use: TVEyes Agrees Not To Carry Fox News
from the disappointing dept
The saga of TVEyes and its battles for fair use is over, and unfortunately fair use has lost. Following the news that the Supreme Court had refused to hear its appeal of a weird and troubling ruling by the 2nd Circuit, the company has now ended its ongoing lawsuit with Fox by agreeing to no longer carry Fox News content on its service.
If you don't recall, TVEyes was a very useful media monitoring service used by tons of journalists and politicians to effectively search and find content that was airing on TV. Fox had sued, claiming that this was both infringement and a violation of the obsolete "hot news" doctrine. The court easily rejected the hot news claim, and the district court originally (and correctly) found in favor of TVEyes, saying that its service was clearly fair use (even as it was being used for profitable purposes). The key point: TVEyes was transformative. It wasn't offering a competing service, but rather (similar to Google books) helping people search and find content that they might not otherwise find.
A later ruling, however, found that only parts of TVEyes service was truly fair use. It could archive content -- but allowing downloading and sharing of clips failed the fair use test. Eventually, that resulted in an incredibly restrictive permanent injunction against the company, and an appeal that favored Fox News, again focusing on the feature that allowed users to download and share clips.
That's what was petitioned to the Supreme Court, and having lost that, TVEyes faced an expensive lower court process to determine how much it would need to pay in damages. This settlement, and an agreement to drop Fox News from its service entirely, avoids that.
From a "public good" perspective, however, this is a horrific result. It means that copyright will make it that much more difficult for the media and politicians to follow and report on what Fox News is doing. While anyone can watch and record Fox News itself, losing the useful features of TVEyes will surely make it that much more difficult for there to be effective media monitoring of the cable news network. That's not a good public policy result. Indeed, this case really has little to do with copyright at all. Again, TVEyes was not competing with Fox News in anyway, but copyright has now been used to make it that much more difficult for anyone to hold Fox News accountable.
And at a time when there is growing evidence of the role that Fox News in particular has played in today's societal mess, that seems like a huge loss for society.
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
Filed Under: commercial use, copyright, fair use, media monitoring, supreme court
Companies: fox, tveyes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Loss to the Commons
So this was no big surprise. As long as judges are buying the "Someone most own it" mentality fair use is dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loss to the Commons
**This is not fair use, this is continual commercial abuse.**
There's no "must" as you imply: it arises from the act of creation, the work and money that's put into it. That's why the Exclusive Right and Copyright Clause is in US Constitution. Who else could own it? What kind of communism do you advocate where those who put in zero work, risk, and money still get to gain income from content?
---
By the way, anyone reading over "Gary's" comments will find that more than half are simply gainsaying my comments, empty of any positions. This "Gary" -- whom I'm sure is actually Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet" astro-turfing -- makes a point to comment nearly every piece, blandly supportive of site, pointedly attacking me. It's now claiming to be an expert on Common Law, as proved by putting up Wikipedia link. Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
--- (Ominous punctiontion)
By the way, You seem unable to describe how your made up version of "Common Law" differs from the version accepted by everyone else. Law handed down by congress and expanded by judges.
And then there is blue common law, that only appears in yer head
I think it's pretty clear which version of common law is commonly accepted, eh mate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
Common law is only the law of judicial precedent, and is completely distinct from statutory or legislative law (law created by the legislature).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
Apologies for mis-stating the textbook definition - I'm rather busy at work and didn't bother to quote the Wiki like I normally would. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
The definition that nasch gave has only been in use for the last 150 years or so. From the earliest times until around the middle of the 19th century the term "common law" was actually defined similar to the way Blue uses it. From Wikipedia:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
So WHY SHOULD MIDDLEMEN GAIN INCOME FROM CONTENT THEY DID NOT PRODUCE? I see you agree with me that copyrights are not providing the desired result, and as such should be discarded as an obsolete concept (developed by the middlemen to screw the creators and customers together, I think his name was Barnum, "A Sucker is born every minute..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
Your 20 year inability to grasp this is why people slowly drift away. -- Of course, if you admitted the principle, the pirates would go quickly, leaving you with nothing but gleeful dissenters.
This is quite like the Google News / "link tax" piece last week, and the underlying principle is that those who make content get to control it. -- YES, even if Google or other sends "traffic" your way, it does not matter to the principle that if they don't wish you using THEIR content, they have first and final say.
Now, you kids can gainsay and ad hom the above to put in the Mutual Admiration Funnies on Sunday, but it won't make ANY difference: TVEyes has ZERO right to use Fox's content, and I'm supported in that by the US Supreme Court, so I have the LAST RIGHT WORD forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
If referring to Google, did you even read mine where I observe that Google prefers lose-lose to paying a pittance? Google is willing to harm those who provide it content (headlines for Google News) -- AND ITSELF if can't have total control without paying. It's apparently ready to harm all of Europe! That's not business / trading / commerce, it's going for monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
Google's "content" for the purposes of this discussion is the search results they provide to the public. If there is any content from the the parties they link to it's nothing more than a small snippet so the searcher can decide for themselves whether to click the link and visit the original source which would contain the entire article. This is all quite obviously fair use which, in fact, benefits the content owner far more than Google. Google's search results would be just as effective with no snippets included.
Fair Use trumps your "total control".
If the EU wants to change the rules then fine, go ahead. But I'm 100% behind Google showing snippet-less links or no links at all for those EU sites rather than having to pay them for the privilege of driving traffic to them.
Your anticorporate stance here is a little bizarre as this whole thing seeks to benefit some corporations at the expense of others. It has nothing to do with "the people". Maybe you simply hate Google more than others. I'd be interested in your write-up explaining the roots of your hatred for this one specific corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Propert
I was writing another point.
HUH? The point in contention is exactly that Google is stripping headlines from news sites!
See the exactly apposite US Meltwater case, in which headlines stripping was decided illegal.
There's your problem. Your premise is that Google is doing them a favor, when it's the opposite.
We're not going to settle this here "AC" who supports Google, so we'll just have to wait to see how turns out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Pro
somewhat inaccurate report of the meltwater case where they copied 4.5 - 60% of the article not just the headline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
A point I keep forgetting is that the news producers NEED the income to stay in business! News is a tough biz, always little profit if any. Google would have to pay a pittance on its scale -- of aggregating tens of thousands of news sites -- but to any given site, that can be significant.
And again, it's not that Google will go broke, it's that they're incorrigible thieves who if don't get their way and free content intend to use their leverage to harm producers -- because, again, it's a pittance to them, have many other sources of income. That intent to do harm is enoug reason to really bear down on Google, hope the Europeans do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
No, AC wasn't referring to Google. They were referring to the news sites, who already have the option (through use of the robots.txt file) to prevent Google from displaying the snippets if they wished. If the issue was really that Google was using content without permission, all they'd have to do is implement a robots.txt file and the problem would be solved. But the news sites don't want that to happen.
Getty Images provides a service where photographers can put their content in an effort to get increased knowledge/visibility of their material, leading to purchases. The photographer then pays Getty a fee in exchange for the service.
Apple iTunes provides a service where musicians can put their content in an effort to get increased knowledge/visibility of their material, leading to purchases. The musician then pays Apple a fee in exchange for the service.
Google News provides a service where news sites (through use of the robots.txt file) can put their content in an effort to get increased knowledge/visibility of their material, leading to purchases (or ad revenue). The news site then pays Google a fee in exchange for the service... oh wait, according to the news sites, it should be "Google then pays the news sites a fee..."
How does this make sense?
Now, if your counterargument to that is that the photographers/musicians are permitting their content to be posted, that's an easy fix. Google can just remove any snippets from their aggregator for sites that don't want to be there. Problem solved. Except, again, news sites don't want that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Propert
Comparnies are free to not hire illegal aliens, but if their competition continues to do so, they won't be able to compete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Propert
Google News doesn't compete with the news sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Pro
Bad analogy, as advertising is a cost to drive traffic to a companies site. Not using robots.txt to keep Google out means that they recognize the value of the advertising. So the question becomes if they are not in Google news for free, how much will they have to spend on advertising to create the same amount of traffic, and that is the value of being in Google news to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Pro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Pro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
Yes. Did you read where I completely pwned that line of "reasoning" by pointing out that the traffic Google News delivers to news organizations is indisputably valuable to them, and therefore it's insane to expect Google to pay them for the privilege of giving them something of value, and that the news publishers ought to be happy Google isn't charging them for it instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
Wrong as usual, "Rocky".
By the way, for hypothetical new readers: this is probably one of the re-writers astro-turfing -- and OFF-TOPIC ad hom, simply pretending that "Rocky" could respond but it's me who's the problem. This is the usual run-around OFF-TOPIC. Don't waste your time here is good advice, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible for you post a comment without sounding like the kind of condescending asshole that you think everyone else is, or does one of your psychological issues prevent you from doing that?
(And before you whine about insults: You tossed ’em out first, so I don’t need to be nice.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
Yes, no.
Now, you field a much tougher one: do you have any ON-TOPIC substance? If so, show it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
Oooh, burn. Now you can't put it up at all, or I'll read it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
And why would anyone take advice from you? The solutions you propose and support is akin to Let them eat cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not weird or troubling. Other. People's. Property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fox News said in open court they had the right to lie and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This is just another part of them covering their tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually no, they didn't. First, it wasn't Fox News, but rather the news department of a Fox-affiliated local TV station. Second, that wasn't even the argument that the news department (that was not Fox News) actually made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to be forgotten!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And when Techdirt can't answer, they CENSOR dissent.
Stumbled over handy boilerplate on that, here it is:
YOU need to roll back YOUR insanity and tolerate dissent. It's a discussion forum open to everyone by the form contract, NOT your walled garden.
Here's what USED TO BE IN PLACE, I'm not asking for anything new or special: the "Report" button is only for those comments which are either commercial or outside common law.
"Hiding" of my comments used to be NEVER DONE, now it's automatic by all regulars soon as see don't like a comment. YOU are ruining the site, kids. NOT ME. YOU. -- I'm LAUGHING at you who can't handle even a little bit of dissent in text!
By the way: I've not changed my views nor how stated (except as topics have), but my comments stand out far more these days among the VERY FEW since everyone reasonable LEFT. You / the site are losing in all ways. And yet will not change! -- Except for some new cosmetics.
The underlying cause of your inability to tolerate dissent is that your piratey notions have failed, and Masnick is ever more openly a corporatist / globalist. You're simply trying to keep the internet from working as should.
So long as the "hiding" continues I'll protest it, besides write what I think substantive disagreement with Masnick's views. You will of course claim that I only "troll" and ad hom, but I'm well within the "ignorant motherfucker" standard (written by Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet") which Masnick himself set when called that a "joke", at least when directed at me.
Masnick could end the undue "hiding" in five minutes. -- INDEED DID last year for a while, just like turning a switch. -- It's not "the community", there's an Admin / Mod who decides. -- It's also helpful for my case here that Masnick has to LIE about a "voting system" that has no up votes even possible.
Ruining the site is entirely Masnick's choice, and I choose to take it as a positive. The few prospective new readers will click on a few hidden comments and see that ALL dissent is suppressed, the regulars clearly too childish to either ignore or refute, so they leave. As should when a site betrays its stated principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And when Techdirt can't answer, they CENSOR dissent.
It never said that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you ever applied to work at Fox News? You would probably be a wonderful fit there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your 3 day paych hold finally over?
You sound like a three year old who didn’t get his way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your 3 day paych hold finally over?
Or Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your 3 day paych hold finally over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your 3 day paych hold finally over?
Masnick shouldn't allow that type of speech since it's cyberbullying, even a hate crime if directed at people in some states. I'm surprised his sponsors allow it, or have they not been made aware of it?
Even more perplexing is how the author of insults like this actually seem to think they aren't the ones giving offg the impression of serious mental illness, or think they are accomplishing something. They obviously know their limitations though since they never talk like that to people's faces. The consequences for the4m would be way too dire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your 3 day paych hold finally over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your 3 day paych hold finally over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, that’s a step too far!
They’re masochists, not power bottoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And when Techdirt can't answer, they CENSOR dissent.
You're simply trying to keep the internet from working as should.
Actually if the Internet was working like it should then governments would long ago have stopped trying to regulate something that is borderless and beyond their ability to correctly and consistently control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search engines argue that they have an "implied license" to put the entire contents of the internet into their search engines until someone "opts out" via robots.txt. One court actually ruled that the implied license can be revoked, but the case ended in settlement and no one has challenged them since.
In this case, TVEyes wanted implied license to be applied to offline content and the courts said no. If this ruling were applied to internet content it would be the end of search engines, which would explain why many on the internet are against it.
robots.txt is an opt-out protocol that requires technical skill to implement. Copyright is NOT opt-out. Those who register their works "opt out" when they register them, and many more think that just by creating the work they are opting out. Whta's to stop 100 other companies from also archiving the content? Thre's obvious value in doing so.
Does Lexis/Nexis pay for its content? If not, this ruling would seem to say they might have problems.
Techdirt's position has consistently been that those who once relied on copyright protection need to find new business models to accommodate the internet. I say again that the internet needs to find a new business model to accommodate copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The “technical skill” required to implement robots.txt — which is a mere text file put in the top-level directory of a web server — is minimal in comparison to other skills needed for running a website/web server. Even a Google search (how’s that for irony?) can find a website that tells you how to put the text file where it needs to go and what text it needs to properly work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only ruling on this in the US said that implied license can be revoked. The case never made it higher than the district court and no one has since pushed the issue. Implied license does NOT apply to the offline world, which is why TVEyes didn't have a leg on which to stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes it's opt-out, because they very nature of the Internet is opt-in. The nature of the Internet shouldn't change because rightsholders want it to. I do agree with you that the offline world doesn't work like the Internet does. As a result, it must be approached differently.
No. The horse-and-buggy industry does not get to decide how fast cars can go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Governments and the courts are siding against you. I'd imagine you find that very annoying, given how powerless you are to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every form of digital restriction management to ever exist has been broken, including every so-called “unbreakable” Denuvo system. Every time a filesharing service such as Napster or a torrent tracker such as The Pirate Bay goes down, two more take its place. The DMCA, Content ID, and other such systems are flawed to the core and often, by design, refuse to take context (e.g., Fair Use) into account. The nature of copyright protection should change because the Internet itself has disproven the proposition that copyright protection can be effective in the long-term scheme of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a very effective method of copyright protection: lock up the pirates, and shut down any internt company which enables them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd imagine that if Comcast, AT&T, Centurylink and Charter Communications would be shutdown I'd imagine that USA would implode within a week...
A corollary would be that any company transporting goods deemed to be illegal should also be shutdown plus they would have to close down the roads. Oh, lest not we forget, the manufacturers of said vehicles - they would have to be shutdown too.
Someone sold some drugs via the telephone, lets shutdown that phone company too. What, they used a cellphone - we better shutdown the manufacturer of that brand too.
Does any of this seem reasonable to you?
When you start to pick and choose what tools and services should be punished by how users use them for comparable actions you create a legal swamp where the only winners are the lawyers and everyone else loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The nature of copyright protection has changed in the past as new technologies have become available. The Internet is no different. It's not about what "people on the internet" want, it's about what should and should not be legally protected. There are fair uses made possible by the Internet that simply weren't possible in a physical world. Like I said, the horse-and-buggy of legacy copyright doesn't get to decide how fast the Internet can go, although they are certainly trying. They might even succeed for a while if they buy a few more politicians.
Government is just as technologically inept and fearful of change as the copyright industry, if not moreso. They'll figure it out eventually, although it might take them another 50 years.
Not at all, and I'm disappointed that you went for the personal jab. I'm actually pro-copyright - people should be paid for their work, and they should have some protections against improper use of that work for the limited time that a copyright gives them. I'm just against the current implementation of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The funny thing is, a good number of us regular commenters probably feel the same way — I know I do — but the trolls immediately assume we’re all “GRR ABOLISH COPYRIGHT FREE SHIT FOR EVERYONE” types because we happen to think “life plus 70 years” is an excessive length of time for a copyright to last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'If you're not my enemy yet... give me five minutes.'
Adding to the humor, their extremist 'If you're not with me and agree with everything I say then you're my enemy' stance does more to push people away from respecting copyright law than any amount of infringement.
By portraying it as entirely binary, where you either agree with them on everything or you simply must want to see copyright destroyed, and making their side so toxic and unreasonable that people have no interest in siding with them they make people more likely to take a more moderate approach, which they then flail against, resulting in people going even further, to the point that those that agreed with them took a neutral stance, and then when they were railed against became active opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that a large percentage of Techdirt readers (well, at least a large percentage of those who comment and vote on comments) are "Copyright Minimalists" using the definitions put forth by long-time commentor Karl:
https://tritonester.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/normative-views-on-copyright/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I personally would classify myself as a reformer/abolitionist in that I would prefer that copyright be seriously reformed so that it's sane again, with the focus being on serving the public, but if given a choice between copyright as it currently stands and no copyright I'd choose the latter as less detrimental to society, as I'm of the opinion that copyright as it is now does more harm than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is worth repeating. Either you're online or you're not. If you're online, then your site implicitly agrees to operate via the standards in place. Standards you depend on in order to have any visitors at all. If you've opted in to the web, it's not hard to opt out of some parts of it.
"I do agree with you that the offline world doesn't work like the Internet does"
Indeed. In this case, Google gives you explicit instructions on how to stop them doing business with you via its crawlers. How many online providers give you such a think, willingly and without being forced to by court orders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, people are simply asking the people who administer the web servers to put that file there.
Why do you believe that the people who run newspaper websites are so incompetent they can't edit a text file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have an example of where their position was actually wrong? If they're right all the time, the turn actually is not partisan. If Google says the sky is blue and grass is green, there's nothing suspicious about TD agreeing with them.
"robots.txt is an opt-out protocol that requires technical skill to implement"
Far less than building the website or providing the servers they run on.
You seem to think this is an argument against Google, but all you're saying is that newspaper IT providers are so incompetent they can't even edit a basic text file with the help of documentation that's as old as the web itself.
"Techdirt's position has consistently been that those who once relied on copyright protection need to find new business models to accommodate the internet"
Yes, and if they were around in the early 1900s they would have been saying that the telegraph industry had better adapt their business models to the existence of the telephone. So?
"I say again that the internet needs to find a new business model to accommodate copyright."
Then, you understand the fundamental aspects of neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
robots.txt is an opt-out protocol that requires technical skill to implement.
No it is not. In any case, the companies we're discussing have (or should have) IT departments to take care of that kind of thing.
Honestly, if you can't manage a website properly, get the hell off the internet.
Full disclosure: I learned what I know about implementing robots.txt from online tutorials. Believe me, it's as easy as pie. Easier still if you're using CMS such as WordPress or an online host like Blogger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And Tech "dirt" is Stupid! so Stupid! Not "smart" like Me. You can Tell that "Techdirt" is Stupid because they knee "jerk" Side with "Google" on every thing, and you can Tell that I am SMART because I Kneejerk "side" AGAINST Google on every thing. Which makes me Smart! I am very Smart.
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It could archive content -- but allowing downloading and sharing of clips failed the fair use test."
Try making that argument with any high school student working on their senior project.
In the majority of cases, They will not let you use newer sources. Many schools also now require both online and offline sources. They also require a variety of different types of sources.
Many news sites don't keep their content archived long enough to do this. This leads to a lot of trouble as students may not be able to find enough sources and unable to simply make a new thesis, as the thesis is usually created early on in high school and expanded on through each year.
In my case I ran into this issue and got through due to a gray area formed by my chosen topic. Unfortunately, that gray area caused a problem I'm still not sure I solved correctly. This problem came in the form of "How the hell do I cite multiple VM installations?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I knew a guy who made good money printing up public-domain works and selling them in paperbacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As to your first point, if you take issue with schools taking a cheaper route to education, I’d say place the blame on those who set the budgets before those who supply the material
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
India's Top B2B Online Jewellery Shopping store | BuymyJewel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems reasonable enough
It could archive content -- but allowing downloading and sharing of clips failed the fair use test.
Both of these seem fair enough, and as such make for a sensible and sane ruling.
Regarding the first one, it's not like content ever just up and disappears online, such that if you didn't have a downloaded copy of it it's gone for good(unless you want to break out the eyepatch and parrot anyway). No, as anyone with any real experience knows if something is on the internet it's up for good, so it's positively absurd to argue that there might be a need to keep on offline copy.
As for the second, well, yeah. If someone else wants to see something you don't share your copy, you tell them to get/find it themselves, and if that requires a second payment then that's just how it works. It's not like you can just share a copy of a text excerpt or a picture with someone without them paying for it offline, why would it be any different online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems reasonable enough
This is only as good a rule as "i before e". It's deceiving and weird, neither worth its weight in counterfeit caffeine nor foreign kaleidoscopes.
I have had many experiences in the past several years looking up (among other things) past versions of software and add-ons for outdated programs. These were freely and legally available for download by their creators, to sidestep any copyright-protection questions regarding other content that vanishes without a trace.
While caches and archives could find many of these past versions, a large number left only dead links after their host shut down, and it's quite possible they are gone forever, unless they are painstakingly recreated from related evidence with internet archaeology.
Some of these files were over fifteen years old, others less than three years old. A lot of related files were saved in some way, and could be found from places as reliable as the Internet Archive or Google Caches or places far less reliable, but despite days upon days of searching, only mentions and dead links could be found. These were, in all likelihood, truly lost.
"If someone else wants to see something you don't share your copy, you tell them to get/find it themselves. It's not like you can just share a copy of a text excerpt or a picture with someone without them paying for it offline"
There are over 100,000 institutions in the United States alone, usually government-funded, whose entire purpose is to completely disregard, discredit, and disprove this statement.
Let alone the countless individuals like, say, myself, giving friends photocopies of my artwork, or copies of my mixtape, or handing out recipes, or sending copies of old family photos, let alone the whole concept of "lending" or "borrowing" content that the giver did not create but still owns, such as video games, books, DVDs, magazines, paintings, or other physical goods such as tools, clothes, vehicles...
Or the myriad writers, journalists, scholars, or even judges who use quotes from copywritten books, even in books, shows, movies, articles, studies, or legal cases not directly related to the book.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons as to why it's not a black and white situation, and why there should be limits as to what TVEyes can be legally allowed disseminate.
The reasons you gave are not included among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems reasonable enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seems reasonable enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2014/07/westlawlexis/
Case is White v. West Publishing Corp.
Though I don't support this logic, it would seem TVEyes does the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps not. There really are many fine people on both sides of this debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
230 wouldn't be necessary if intermediaries didn't face defamation actions without it, just like the DMCA wouldn't be necessary if ISPs weren't facing infringement lawsuits.
The need to immunize is prima facie evidence that they would otherwise face liability, which itself is prima facie evidence of damages.
Prosecution rests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See also: Ayyadurai vs Floor64, Inc. et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Fair Use Copyright Infringement - Freedom of Speech
By FOX suing TV EYES what they have done is they have gone against the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and dramatically limiting the free flow of information in a Free Society. TV Eyes is not redistributing or selling the entire program - which is against Copyrights, but providing only chunks of data for study research, which is Fair Use. My feeling is this was never argued correctly by TV Eyes attornies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]