Did you not watch how the sale of music and its delivery has changed over the years? Bandwidth is now big enough to download movies in minutes. Adapt, give the people what they want or perish......
"The only reason you keep bringing it up is to make them look bad."
They didn't try to license the song first. If they had, this would have been avoided. They would have learned of the dead group member's will stating "no commercial use." They wouldn't have had to spend money on lawyers to file for Declaratory Judgment. What is fair about forcing the Beastie Boys to fight a legal battle to honor the wishes of their dead group member. They do look bad. Sorry many people thought, and still think, the wishes of a dead man are important.
"Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming "They sued first!", instead of pointing out that it's a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy."
People like me.... screaming....sure...You file for declaratory judgment when you know you are going to get sued. That is what a lawyer advises when asked "what should we do? we are pretty sure we are going to get sued." If they had even communicated with the group the whole nonsense would have been avoided.
"You're not very convincing on that point."
Sorry you feel what I right is not indicative of what I believe.
"so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run."
You would rather they have a long protracted legal action instead of a settlement and money going to charity? Just to prove it's fair use? Quite telling. I guess this IS an unfortunate outcome. The Beastie boys liked the use of the song. They continued legal action to honor MCA's will. In almost every infringement case the defense of fair use is used. The law is very clear on its definition. There is no need to strengthen it. It is to be used on a case by case basis. The Beastie Boys would have sued regardless. And if I was in a group, and one of us died, and it was in his will not to use our music in commercials....I would sue too. Even if we lost and it was fair use, I would have been respectful of a passed group member's wishes. I suppose if the roles were reversed and you were in the group, you would say" I know what his will says but we shouldn't fight it, it's fair use.....
"As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment"
Who took legal action first? Lawyers must be hired, lawyer costs money. I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No
"They stole the song..."
Listen, I know we disagree a lot but please read what I wrote. I didn't say I thought this, I said that was public perception. you asked me to explain how the ad campaign could hurt them that's all I did.
"It's bad enough when you claim infringement is theft"
Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.
Ask yourself these questions. Is it against the law? Does it belong to me? Does it belong to someone else? Did they give it to me as a gift? Did I take it? You can call it whatever you want. All infringement is not theft. Some is. Piracy would seem to satisfy the above definition. Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view.
Did you not see where I said they didn't need permission if it was fair use? This is what I wrote:
"This might very well have been fair uses."
"I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song."
The Beastie boys agreed with you and so do I, that's why I said I didn't see why the outcome of the case was all that bad. Instead of the group getting the money, its going to charity. Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?
"Just another big bad company that does what it wants..."
Again, public perception. I don't think this. You asked why I thought the ad campaign could hurt sales and I told you how some people could see it. What is the point of advertising? To get people to buy your product and to make the company look good. When they started getting bad press for using a song, it made them look like the bad company and made the Beastie Boys into two guys trying to honor the wishes of their dead band member, who died from cancer, and not some guys just trying to get paid.(public perception). That is how it could have a negative effect on sales
"The people who were getting so pissy about it are not exactly the products' target market."
It was not the ad itself more the reaction to it. Adults buy toys for children. So the target market is truly adults. The company uses a Beastie boys song but does not attempt to license it(I'm not saying they legally need to presuming it's fair use). The they sue the Beasties first. Then the Beasties say they are all for what GoldiBlox stands for but one of the dead members has, in his will, not to use their songs for commercials. Public perception of the company? They stole the song, didn't try to get permission to use it, and would ignore the wishes of a dead group member all for a commercial for kids toys.......terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker. Tag line ...Just another big bad company that does what it wants......
This might very well have been fair use. How this "seems like an unfortunate result," doesn't make that much sense to me. What is the purpose of advertisement? To convince customers to buy your product. Was this ad doing that? Quite the opposite. I doesn't matter if it was fair use or not. The ad they spent $$ on was doing the opposite of its intended purpose. The company wants to further science ed for girls, and what are they doing instead of paying the Beasties? Donating $$ for science ed for girls. In what world is this a bad outcome? Most suits settle regardless if you are "right" or "wrong"
"If you actually paid direct to (say) Level3 or he.net for bandwidth, your 10 meg home connection would cost you somewhere between $200 and $1000 a month. Are you ready to pay for what you really use?"
Using your hypothetical numbers, I could sell to a group of people the use of said connection and bring my cost back down to $50. I probably would be able to turn a profit because I could get enough people and throttle use so we all aren't using the connection at the same time. The real problem is without competition there is no incentive to upgrade the hardware. If google fiber were everywhere the monopolies would be forced to lower prices because they would lose business. If municipalities were allowed to provide service the competition would lower prices. Upgrading hardware would be forced. That is outcome of competition in the market place
"I can't believe you brought pizza into this discussion. Comparing scarce goods to infinitely copyable digital files is just stupid and ignorant. Any shred of an argument you might have is completely undermined by this apples and orangoutangs comparison."
No it really isn't and it was just an example to illustrate a lost sale. Infinitely copyable digital files have value,not in production cost but in the content of the file. You would not want that particular file if it had no worth. Is a printed poster of a Monet painting only worth the ink and the paper it is printed on? Of course not. They sell for 1000x the production cost because the value is in the image. An image or music has no value or monetary worth because it is not a scarce good? I do not agree.
"Nobody have ever claimed there's no such thing as a lost sale."
That is the whole point. How do you define a lost sale? How do you calculate damages if you can't quantify a lost sale.
"But the simple fact is that a pirated copy of something you had no intention of buying is not a lost sale.
Of course, but why is the assumption, you had no intention of buying it? The opposite argument is that you had every intention of buying it because you now have it. If you didn't want it why do you have it? And expanding that thought, if you wanted it and now have then is it a lost sale?
"And a sale made directly because of a pirated copy is a gained sale."
A sale because of an advertisement, because of word of mouth, because of a coupon, because of buy one get one etc...are all sales but they are of no help in calculating damages and that is the discussion. If statutory damages were abolished what factors would be used to calculate actual damages.
"Can you be honest enough with yourself to admit this?"
I pose the same question to you. How would you quantify a lost sale? If you were hungry and buying a pizza from a specific pizza parlor and someone gave you a one of their pizzas for free(they took it, they didn't pay for it), you'd be less likely to buy said pizza at that moment. Did the pizza parlor lose a sale? Yes, because you were planning on buying it. If you enjoyed the pizza you might come back and get one some other time but in that instant in time, the pizza parlor lost a sale because your are enjoying their product and you didn't buy it and you were planning to. Of course you could like it so much you tell all of your friends how great their pizza is an the parlor becomes popular. But the pizza parlor could say they are popular not because of you but because they have good pizza. I think there is such a thing as a lost sale. And in that regard, if the product was taken and the law was broken why should it be so difficult to calculate damages. That is why they were written into the statute.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is only so much money
"No one is complaining about libraries not serving their purpose. We're complaining about copy protection laws not serving their purpose. See the difference?"
Yes but if the argument is that the availability of content is placed out of reach to many because of cost and because of this piracy is a reflection and therefore copyright laws are not serving there purpose. Then the library would seem to make this argument invalid.
"The fact that libraries exist and serve their purpose is a good thing but that doesn't mean that copy protection laws should exist for anything other than to serve the public interest and expand the public domain."
Many would argue that copyright exists in part to expand the amount of works created. The conflict has always been how much/long of a monopoly should be given so that more works are created (a financial incentive does this), contrasted with placing works into the public domain to be used by all.
"Punishment for breaking the law has a number of strictly punitive aspects for said behavior."
You're conflating two things."
I do not believe that they are conflated because I think they are intrinsically linked. If a business infringes another's copyright they have caused damage and they have violated the law. There are not two separate awards one to make the victim whole and the other to punish. The calculation of damages is the decision of the plaintiff in that they may request actual calculated damages OR statutory damages. Yes the purpose of the damages is to make the victim whole but future sales are extremely speculative. The damages in copyright are both to make the victim whole and to punish, serving as a deterrent. If the plaintiff has not registered the copyright before infringement occurred, statutory damages are not even available, only actual. I will again point out statutory damages start at $750.
I appreciate your analogy and yes we did discuss my example before. I believe what is missing from your analogy is that writing a bad review is within your rights and not against the law. Punishment for breaking the law has a number of strictly punitive aspects for said behavior. In a commercial context, a business that proceeds to violate a law should be punished so that other commercial entities will not attempt the same behavior. There are fines for violating many laws and I view the statutory damages as such. They are not always $150,000. They start at $750.
Using the same logic. Everyone speeds so speed limits laws should be reformed. No one desires the full enforcement of speed limits either. Obviously there is a difference criminal infractions and civil causes of action. Most of the ways people potentially violate copyright everyday are arguably fair use. More importantly, they are not commercial in nature. I do agree reform is necessary. I believe copyright term lengths need to be adjusted. And I definitely believe statutory damages in non-commercial contexts need to be reigned in.
I must vehemently disagree and that is why the statutory damages are in place. In order to have the option of not having to calculate damages. Perfect example. A movie is produced and a copy of it is stolen. That stolen copy is taken to a business that burns dvd of the film and sells them. The stolen copy has also been uploaded to Piratesbay. All of this occurs before the movie is set to release. So how do you calculate damages of future sales? REAL money has surely been lost.
"It doesn't prevent copyright infringement (except the technical/casual kind which probably shouldn't be stopped anyway)"
But doesn't it by the casual user? I am not a computer guy by any means but as much as a pain it is I would love to hear the alternative. What are the options to protect investment? If company (A) has invested $$ into creating a program/product and wants to sell it to make back its investment, to say they shouldn't use some form of DRM seems unrealistic.
I agree that statutory damages should be adjusted. They were designed to address commercial infringement and not an individual downloader. However, I believe an up-loader is more culpable.
"Wild Turkey acting the absolute fool and stomping on the little guy (classic abuser behavior)."
Am I sure I can not be the only person thinking there could easily be brand confusion between two whiskeys, one "Wild Geese" and the other "Wild Turkey."
His was "copy zero," if you will. All of the infringement was traced back to him and the way the law is written in South Africa, his actions incurred criminal culpability. His sentence was suspended and he is not currently in jail. Apparently he received his copy from someone working on the project and the suspension of his sentence was do to him identifying where he got his copy. I do think his actions were quite serious and potentially caused thousands upon thousands of dollars of damage.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History
Did you not watch how the sale of music and its delivery has changed over the years? Bandwidth is now big enough to download movies in minutes. Adapt, give the people what they want or perish......
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
They didn't try to license the song first. If they had, this would have been avoided. They would have learned of the dead group member's will stating "no commercial use." They wouldn't have had to spend money on lawyers to file for Declaratory Judgment. What is fair about forcing the Beastie Boys to fight a legal battle to honor the wishes of their dead group member. They do look bad. Sorry many people thought, and still think, the wishes of a dead man are important.
"Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming "They sued first!", instead of pointing out that it's a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy."
People like me.... screaming....sure...You file for declaratory judgment when you know you are going to get sued. That is what a lawyer advises when asked "what should we do? we are pretty sure we are going to get sued." If they had even communicated with the group the whole nonsense would have been avoided.
"You're not very convincing on that point."
Sorry you feel what I right is not indicative of what I believe.
"so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run."
You would rather they have a long protracted legal action instead of a settlement and money going to charity? Just to prove it's fair use? Quite telling. I guess this IS an unfortunate outcome. The Beastie boys liked the use of the song. They continued legal action to honor MCA's will. In almost every infringement case the defense of fair use is used. The law is very clear on its definition. There is no need to strengthen it. It is to be used on a case by case basis. The Beastie Boys would have sued regardless. And if I was in a group, and one of us died, and it was in his will not to use our music in commercials....I would sue too. Even if we lost and it was fair use, I would have been respectful of a passed group member's wishes. I suppose if the roles were reversed and you were in the group, you would say" I know what his will says but we shouldn't fight it, it's fair use.....
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
"As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment"
Who took legal action first? Lawyers must be hired, lawyer costs money. I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No
"They stole the song..."
Listen, I know we disagree a lot but please read what I wrote. I didn't say I thought this, I said that was public perception. you asked me to explain how the ad campaign could hurt them that's all I did.
"It's bad enough when you claim infringement is theft"
Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.
Ask yourself these questions. Is it against the law? Does it belong to me? Does it belong to someone else? Did they give it to me as a gift? Did I take it? You can call it whatever you want. All infringement is not theft. Some is. Piracy would seem to satisfy the above definition. Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view.
Did you not see where I said they didn't need permission if it was fair use? This is what I wrote:
"This might very well have been fair uses."
"I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song."
The Beastie boys agreed with you and so do I, that's why I said I didn't see why the outcome of the case was all that bad. Instead of the group getting the money, its going to charity. Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?
"Just another big bad company that does what it wants..."
Again, public perception. I don't think this. You asked why I thought the ad campaign could hurt sales and I told you how some people could see it. What is the point of advertising? To get people to buy your product and to make the company look good. When they started getting bad press for using a song, it made them look like the bad company and made the Beastie Boys into two guys trying to honor the wishes of their dead band member, who died from cancer, and not some guys just trying to get paid.(public perception).
That is how it could have a negative effect on sales
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
It was not the ad itself more the reaction to it. Adults buy toys for children. So the target market is truly adults. The company uses a Beastie boys song but does not attempt to license it(I'm not saying they legally need to presuming it's fair use). The they sue the Beasties first. Then the Beasties say they are all for what GoldiBlox stands for but one of the dead members has, in his will, not to use their songs for commercials. Public perception of the company? They stole the song, didn't try to get permission to use it, and would ignore the wishes of a dead group member all for a commercial for kids toys.......terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker. Tag line ...Just another big bad company that does what it wants......
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
On the post: Over 100 Internet Companies Call On FCC To Protect The Open Internet
Re: Re: Re: 100 companies...
Using your hypothetical numbers, I could sell to a group of people the use of said connection and bring my cost back down to $50. I probably would be able to turn a profit because I could get enough people and throttle use so we all aren't using the connection at the same time. The real problem is without competition there is no incentive to upgrade the hardware. If google fiber were everywhere the monopolies would be forced to lower prices because they would lose business. If municipalities were allowed to provide service the competition would lower prices. Upgrading hardware would be forced. That is outcome of competition in the market place
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it really isn't and it was just an example to illustrate a lost sale. Infinitely copyable digital files have value,not in production cost but in the content of the file. You would not want that particular file if it had no worth. Is a printed poster of a Monet painting only worth the ink and the paper it is printed on? Of course not. They sell for 1000x the production cost because the value is in the image. An image or music has no value or monetary worth because it is not a scarce good? I do not agree.
"Nobody have ever claimed there's no such thing as a lost sale."
That is the whole point. How do you define a lost sale? How do you calculate damages if you can't quantify a lost sale.
"But the simple fact is that a pirated copy of something you had no intention of buying is not a lost sale.
Of course, but why is the assumption, you had no intention of buying it? The opposite argument is that you had every intention of buying it because you now have it. If you didn't want it why do you have it? And expanding that thought, if you wanted it and now have then is it a lost sale?
"And a sale made directly because of a pirated copy is a gained sale."
A sale because of an advertisement, because of word of mouth, because of a coupon, because of buy one get one etc...are all sales but they are of no help in calculating damages and that is the discussion. If statutory damages were abolished what factors would be used to calculate actual damages.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I pose the same question to you. How would you quantify a lost sale? If you were hungry and buying a pizza from a specific pizza parlor and someone gave you a one of their pizzas for free(they took it, they didn't pay for it), you'd be less likely to buy said pizza at that moment. Did the pizza parlor lose a sale? Yes, because you were planning on buying it. If you enjoyed the pizza you might come back and get one some other time but in that instant in time, the pizza parlor lost a sale because your are enjoying their product and you didn't buy it and you were planning to. Of course you could like it so much you tell all of your friends how great their pizza is an the parlor becomes popular. But the pizza parlor could say they are popular not because of you but because they have good pizza. I think there is such a thing as a lost sale. And in that regard, if the product was taken and the law was broken why should it be so difficult to calculate damages. That is why they were written into the statute.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is only so much money
Yes but if the argument is that the availability of content is placed out of reach to many because of cost and because of this piracy is a reflection and therefore copyright laws are not serving there purpose. Then the library would seem to make this argument invalid.
"The fact that libraries exist and serve their purpose is a good thing but that doesn't mean that copy protection laws should exist for anything other than to serve the public interest and expand the public domain."
Many would argue that copyright exists in part to expand the amount of works created. The conflict has always been how much/long of a monopoly should be given so that more works are created (a financial incentive does this), contrasted with placing works into the public domain to be used by all.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're conflating two things."
I do not believe that they are conflated because I think they are intrinsically linked. If a business infringes another's copyright they have caused damage and they have violated the law. There are not two separate awards one to make the victim whole and the other to punish. The calculation of damages is the decision of the plaintiff in that they may request actual calculated damages OR statutory damages. Yes the purpose of the damages is to make the victim whole but future sales are extremely speculative. The damages in copyright are both to make the victim whole and to punish, serving as a deterrent. If the plaintiff has not registered the copyright before infringement occurred, statutory damages are not even available, only actual. I will again point out statutory damages start at $750.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is only so much money
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Many Times A Day Do You Violate Copyright Laws Without Even Realizing It
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re:
On the post: How DRM Makes Us All Less Safe
But doesn't it by the casual user? I am not a computer guy by any means but as much as a pain it is I would love to hear the alternative. What are the options to protect investment? If company (A) has invested $$ into creating a program/product and wants to sell it to make back its investment, to say they shouldn't use some form of DRM seems unrealistic.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
On the post: Vicious Cycle: When Those Abused By Trademark Abuse Others With Trademark
Am I sure I can not be the only person thinking there could easily be brand confusion between two whiskeys, one "Wild Geese" and the other "Wild Turkey."
On the post: 'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts
On the post: Criminal Conviction In South Africa For Posting A Movie To The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Good job SA police and governemnt
Next >>