... how much smoke the judicial system can create from a tiny fire.
If you blow all the smoke away, "copyright infringement" tends to be about kids downloading .mp3-songs. Digital copies with a retail value of a few cents.
The real world equivalent being the theft of chewing gum. A single piece, not a whole package or even a box. A single chewing gum worth 50 cents.
In the real world, would anybody think about suing cities (contributory infringement, for not policing the side walks enough). Taxi and bus drivers (contributory infringement, for helping the thieves to escape). Schools and churches (contributory infringement, for not educating the kids enough about schools being wrong). Clothes manufactures (contributory infringement, for sewing pockets into jeans used for hiding the loot)?
Anyone trying to bring those charges would be laughed out of the building. Possibly institutionalized. If shopkeepers want to protect their goods, they do it themselves.
Why can't we do the same in the brave new virtual world?
Are there any realistic estimates of the damages caused by the type of internet piracy Article 13 aims to stop?
The discussion had started with European newspaper publishers - notably Springer - claiming that Google needed to share some of their "massive" revenue made from stolen headlines. When that was debunked, Rightsholder wanted a share of Youtube "massive" profits made at the expense of musicians.
By now, Youtube's contentID system has magically transformed into a gold standard of content protection that everyone else should adopt.
Which raises the question: What problem are they actually trying to fix, and how big is said problem? Compared to the cost of fixing it?
... why not operate a cloud storage where people can (legally) store their own music on redigi's hardware - pretty much like Google, Apple and Amazon music used to work.
The sale of the music then becomes a simple transfer of ownership, with no files being copied. Just access rights change.
many countries require hotel guests to register with a passport, and hotels to share the registration information with the authorities.
If people don't have an issue with those Hotel requirements (even though they should, really!), then it is hard to blame authorities requesting similar information for digital platforms.
So far, it has been proven that Cisco spies on its customers.
Or rather installs NSA-spybugs in its equipment. And leaves a lot of security holes for any other spy agency to install their own eavesdropping technology.
While installing Huawei technology MAY bring a security risk, using Cisco guarantees it. Which, btw, might explain the US-government's enthusiasm for pushing Cisco technology at whatever cost. Even kidnapping chinese nationals under fluffy pretexts.
How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a change?
Before requiring that others respect copyright, how about the rights holders figure out who owns it? We have seen with "Happy Birthday" (Warner cashing in for a copyright they did not own) and "Peltham vs Kraftwerk" (two rightsholders and several courts arguing for two decades about the copyright for a 2-second music sample) that even the rights holders don't know who owns the rights to specific works.
As with Article 13, rights holders and collection societies are very happy with the situation - they collect the money, and, eh, look after it in case somebody comes along and claims it.
Before we even start talking about third parties respecting rights, somebody needs to work out what rights exist, who owns them, and exactly what is protected.
The current situation where anybody can come out of the woods and send demand letters claiming to own rights is bad enough; giving those letter senders the benefit of doubt, and putting the burden of proof on intermediaries is not only sheer madness, it is hard to see how it might serve the creatives or the public.
The safest places on earth were the old communist police states and military dictatorships with unlimited powers for secret police, the military and the police.
If that the the NYPD's vision for the future of America - go ahead with the efficiency drive at the expense of freedom and democracy. If not, we will need to have a debate about how to balance freedom and safety.
It took the courts and some powerful stakeholders ...
... several decades to figure out who owns the copyright to "Happy Birthday"! Just for the text, mind you, not specific performances where additional artists come into play.
Does anyone seriously believe that a might algorithm can sort this mess out for 60 hours of video uploaded to Youtube alone? Or that any company, even the ones with really deep pockets like Google or Facebook, can agree fair contracts with anybody queuing up with claims of rights to a few seconds of video or a few lines of texts uploaded anywhere on some platform?
the US of A finds out what it feels like to have their legal system bulldozed over by some other country that uses legal finickery (strictly on foreigners only!) to bulldoze away the legal protection their own country provides.
Enemy combatants sound familiar? Targeted Assassinations? NSA spy programs? Wars in Irak, Afganistan - all around the world?
All of these are illegal in the countries where people are targeted. And none of these would be possible without those journalists banging the war drums, cheering along the audience. Journalists who consider themselves as moral, with high integraty, ethical.
If America wants back Democracy, Human rights and the rule of law - start at home, please, and not by demanding things from others that you are not prepared to do yourselves!
The lack of tech experience indicated by the enquiry...
... about Faraday bags suggests an alternative option: Perhaps the phone wiped itself automatically after detectives entered a wrong password too often.
The request is a pretty good template to send to any business you have a grudge with. Should cost them a pretty penny to compile all this information.
And yes, while it is a pretty far-reaching interpretation, the GDPR does appear to provide a legal basis for requesting this information. Although it is not clear if a government office can blanket-request copies of these data without breaching data protection laws themselves. After all, the GDPR is about the relationship between individuals and businesses, with government agencies acting as referees or enforcers, but not data collection authorities.
The court does have a few points that lawmakers should work on
1. It is indeed not clear what Twitter may do with the content. While it would be reasonable that Twitter gets some rights, it does not seem fair that Twitter would, for example, get any and all royalties of, say, the video of an event of global importance that somebody happens to post on Twitter. Right now, journalists ask if the poster they may reproduce the content. The process appears to work, and it appears to be fair to both the poster and to Twitter. Even though, technical, Twitter's T&C would allow Twitter to re-sell the content.
2. It is not always clear if the poster actually owns any rights to content they post. If Twitter automatically gets a world wide license for any and all uses, this may put the original rights holder at a serious disadvantage. An example - Facebook, not Twitter: Users are encouraged to upload address books. Which may contain information that the contacts in the address book may not want to share with Facebook (confidential email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses). It appears that Facebook will not even inform people that Facebook has this information about them, let alone delete it. Both on the grounds that they acquired it legally through third parties (who had no right to share it in the first place). The only recourse would be to sue the person who shared the data. Which would be difficult as long as both Facebook and the sharer refuse to confirm that data have been shared.
authors, musicians, journalists&content creators cheered this on
They may wake up with a had hangover after the party. When they realize that the bad guys are not the pirates. It is the publishers that rob them blind.
The very publishers that have expanded and cemented their position with the new law.
Case in point: The European court of justice recently declared it illegal to channel a (large) part of their revenue to publishers - it should belong to the creators. For books, that meant several hundred million extra Euros for authors in Germany. Not much longer: the new law reversed the decision, that money will go to the publishers in the future.
After you purchase something, it is yours. You decide what to do with it, not Apple. If they want it back, they can make you offers and hope you'll accept. Helping themselves to your property is a criminal offense, no different from a vendor stealing back a washing machine they sold you.
Imagine the roles were reversed and you were to help yourselves to money you paid Apple for a product - without Apples consent and without returning the product. You'd find yourself in jail in no time. Why should it be different if Apple is the stealing party?
The current voluntary agreement already covers anything from terrorism to hate speech, child porn, counterfeit products and, of course, copyright infringement.
Germany and France, the puppet masters of the current EU-Initiative, have already made clear that the law has to cover at least as much. Someone with enough money doesn't like it - they'll have their personal red button to zap it, no questions asked.
We used to get upset about evil dictators censoring internet and media - now they seem to serve as inspiration.
Why would a court think first amendment rights do not apply unless a higher court has established they do?
And why would it matter why the police broke the law? Rogue cops, wrong policies - the authorities are responsible for the actions of the officers working for them.
Google's first commandment (though shalt not distribute other Androids next to mine) will likely cause problems for asian device manufacturers if the trade wars expand - Android being the product of an American company, the US Government can stop Chinese manufacturers from using it. This may be the EU taking sides against the US.
On the post: County Agrees To Pay $390,000 To Students Arrested By A Sheriff 'Just To Prove A Point'
#metoo
On the post: Magistrate Judge Says Grande Shouldn't Be Able To Use The DMCA Safe Harbors Because It Didn't Really Terminate Infringers
Amazing ...
If you blow all the smoke away, "copyright infringement" tends to be about kids downloading .mp3-songs. Digital copies with a retail value of a few cents.
The real world equivalent being the theft of chewing gum. A single piece, not a whole package or even a box. A single chewing gum worth 50 cents.
In the real world, would anybody think about suing cities (contributory infringement, for not policing the side walks enough). Taxi and bus drivers (contributory infringement, for helping the thieves to escape). Schools and churches (contributory infringement, for not educating the kids enough about schools being wrong). Clothes manufactures (contributory infringement, for sewing pockets into jeans used for hiding the loot)?
Anyone trying to bring those charges would be laughed out of the building. Possibly institutionalized. If shopkeepers want to protect their goods, they do it themselves.
Why can't we do the same in the brave new virtual world?
On the post: Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
Just out of curiosity
The discussion had started with European newspaper publishers - notably Springer - claiming that Google needed to share some of their "massive" revenue made from stolen headlines. When that was debunked, Rightsholder wanted a share of Youtube "massive" profits made at the expense of musicians.
By now, Youtube's contentID system has magically transformed into a gold standard of content protection that everyone else should adopt.
Which raises the question: What problem are they actually trying to fix, and how big is said problem? Compared to the cost of fixing it?
On the post: Appeals Court Hands ReDigi Another Loss; Says Reselling Mp3s Violates Copyright Law
If the copying process is problematic ...
The sale of the music then becomes a simple transfer of ownership, with no files being copied. Just access rights change.
On the post: German City Wants Names And Addresses Of Airbnb Hosts; Chinese Province Demands Full Details Of Every Guest Too
Tempting as it may be to bash the snoopers,
If people don't have an issue with those Hotel requirements (even though they should, really!), then it is hard to blame authorities requesting similar information for digital platforms.
On the post: Mystery Lobbying Group Using Huawei Security Hysteria To Target Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
So far, it has been proven that Cisco spies on its customers.
While installing Huawei technology MAY bring a security risk, using Cisco guarantees it. Which, btw, might explain the US-government's enthusiasm for pushing Cisco technology at whatever cost. Even kidnapping chinese nationals under fluffy pretexts.
On the post: No Agreement Made On EU Copyright Directive, As Recording Industry Freaks Out About Safe Harbors Too
How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a change?
As with Article 13, rights holders and collection societies are very happy with the situation - they collect the money, and, eh, look after it in case somebody comes along and claims it.
Before we even start talking about third parties respecting rights, somebody needs to work out what rights exist, who owns them, and exactly what is protected.
The current situation where anybody can come out of the woods and send demand letters claiming to own rights is bad enough; giving those letter senders the benefit of doubt, and putting the burden of proof on intermediaries is not only sheer madness, it is hard to see how it might serve the creatives or the public.
On the post: New York Police Union Says More Reporting On Stops/Frisks Will Hurt The NYPD's Effectiveness
The NYPD is correct
If that the the NYPD's vision for the future of America - go ahead with the efficiency drive at the expense of freedom and democracy. If not, we will need to have a debate about how to balance freedom and safety.
On the post: Latest On EU Copyright Directive: No One's Happy With Article 13, So Maybe Let's Drop It?
It took the courts and some powerful stakeholders ...
Does anyone seriously believe that a might algorithm can sort this mess out for 60 hours of video uploaded to Youtube alone? Or that any company, even the ones with really deep pockets like Google or Facebook, can agree fair contracts with anybody queuing up with claims of rights to a few seconds of video or a few lines of texts uploaded anywhere on some platform?
On the post: Exec Who Had Sealed US Court Docs Seized By UK Parliament Suggests UK Journalist Tipped Off Parliament
About time ...
Enemy combatants sound familiar? Targeted Assassinations? NSA spy programs? Wars in Irak, Afganistan - all around the world?
All of these are illegal in the countries where people are targeted. And none of these would be possible without those journalists banging the war drums, cheering along the audience. Journalists who consider themselves as moral, with high integraty, ethical.
If America wants back Democracy, Human rights and the rule of law - start at home, please, and not by demanding things from others that you are not prepared to do yourselves!
On the post: Prosecutors Charge Suspect With Evidence Tampering After A Seized iPhone Is Wiped Remotely
The lack of tech experience indicated by the enquiry...
On the post: Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law
On a separate note ...
And yes, while it is a pretty far-reaching interpretation, the GDPR does appear to provide a legal basis for requesting this information. Although it is not clear if a government office can blanket-request copies of these data without breaching data protection laws themselves. After all, the GDPR is about the relationship between individuals and businesses, with government agencies acting as referees or enforcers, but not data collection authorities.
On the post: Did France Just Make It Effectively Impossible To Use Twitter?
The court does have a few points that lawmakers should work on
2. It is not always clear if the poster actually owns any rights to content they post. If Twitter automatically gets a world wide license for any and all uses, this may put the original rights holder at a serious disadvantage. An example - Facebook, not Twitter: Users are encouraged to upload address books. Which may contain information that the contacts in the address book may not want to share with Facebook (confidential email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses). It appears that Facebook will not even inform people that Facebook has this information about them, let alone delete it. Both on the grounds that they acquired it legally through third parties (who had no right to share it in the first place).
The only recourse would be to sue the person who shared the data. Which would be difficult as long as both Facebook and the sharer refuse to confirm that data have been shared.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
authors, musicians, journalists&content creators cheered this on
The very publishers that have expanded and cemented their position with the new law.
Case in point: The European court of justice recently declared it illegal to channel a (large) part of their revenue to publishers - it should belong to the creators. For books, that meant several hundred million extra Euros for authors in Germany.
Not much longer: the new law reversed the decision, that money will go to the publishers in the future.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft
Imagine the roles were reversed and you were to help yourselves to money you paid Apple for a product - without Apples consent and without returning the product. You'd find yourself in jail in no time. Why should it be different if Apple is the stealing party?
On the post: EU Commission Moving Forward With Legislation Demanding One Hour Removal Of 'Terrorist Content'
Not just terrorism
Germany and France, the puppet masters of the current EU-Initiative, have already made clear that the law has to cover at least as much. Someone with enough money doesn't like it - they'll have their personal red button to zap it, no questions asked.
We used to get upset about evil dictators censoring internet and media - now they seem to serve as inspiration.
On the post: You Caught A Bullshit 'Photographing The Police' Arrest Too Soon, Federal Judge Tells Plaintiff
What a cowardly ruling!
And why would it matter why the police broke the law? Rogue cops, wrong policies - the authorities are responsible for the actions of the officers working for them.
On the post: Some Thoughts On The EU's Latest $5 Billion Google Antitrust Fine
Trade wars
On the post: Axel Voss, MEP Behind Awful Internet Destroying EU Copyright Directive, Tries To Defend His Plan
The "creative" industries claim to generate 4.5 % of EU's GDP
How then can they claim that the internet threatens their existence?
On the post: Probable Cause Doesn't Excuse Retaliatory Arrest, Supreme Court Rules
Next >>