If the dictionary ever decides to define "insanity" as the often-cited "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results," perhaps they should include a photo of Richard Liebowitz on the same page!
What I want to know is how you would respond to someone who thinks Section 230 protections need to be stripped away from platforms (like Facebook) if they allow political ads to be run that contains misinformation. I don't think that's the case. In fact, I think that logic is very, very, VERY wrong. But my mom (who's a full-fledged Biden supporter) sides with Biden in his statements about Section 230 because she doesn't want misinformation to be run in ads placed by the Trump campaign. I've tried explaining what Section 230 actually does, and what it says and doesn't say, but she doesn't fully understand the big picture. Any ideas of what to say to target this logic directly?
As a musician, if one of my songs took off and became a "toy" for people to remix, mashup, parody, satirize, etc., I'd consider it the highest form of flattery. Musicians whining about there not being enough copyright are just wanting a bigger payday when it's the labels at fault for not valuing their artists, keeping both the rights to the music and pay from their sale largely to themselves as the sole beneficiary. And the labels parrot the same complaints about copyright, only to then complain when a Blurred Lines-styled decision comes down and say that copyright has gone too far. You can't weaken the law and strengthen it at the same time.
I don't condone it. I'm vehemently opposed to it. Not because I don't like parodies or satires of my work. But it's simply a violation of U.S. copyright law.
Uh... except its not. If it's truly a parody, it's likely fair use and not copyright infringement. The Supreme Court even quoted W. Somerset Maugham, "People ask...for criticism but only want praise," when they ruled that effective criticism cannot be considered market harm under the fourth factor, and THAT was in the ruling for a case about a COMMERCIAL PARODY (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music).
The senate's decision to call in a copyright maximalist musician is not surprising. If they continue down the DMCA 512 path, I suspect they'll call in Susan Wojcicki and call it a day, if the Copyright Office's recent report is any indication. The likelihood of calling in someone like Doug Walker is unlikely, as those people weren't mentioned as stakeholders of any DMCA reform according to the copyright office.
It's a shame, as I still fear Article 17 is going to be heavily lobbied to be reflected in US law by the copyright industry. And with the presumptive Democratic nominee liking SOPA and killing off the Internet with the removal of section 230 of the CDA, the two-party system means I'll have to choose between a wannabe dictator who throws temper tantrums on Twitter (while wanting to kill Twitter by gutting CDA 230 at the same time) or someone who, while mildly better for our democracy, still wants to undermine CDA 230 as well as DMCA 512.
Sorry, Techdirt only offers oatmeal raisin cookies... The flavor no one ever asks for but is always offered, just like the useless cookie notification that I had to dismiss twice!
As someone from Wisconsin, it’s disheartening to see Trump take advantage of the fact we have no Anti-SLAPP law. I’d say, at the very least, we should push for such a law in Wisconsin. However, seeing as the GOP seemed more interested in pushing the state Supreme Court to convene over teleconference to force voters to go out to the polls in person WHILE the world is in a pandemic, I don’t foresee them acting on such legislation anytime soon...
I don't know if you've made that number up to illustrate the copyright maximalists' nonsensical point, or if that number was actually raised in anti-piracy claims somewhere. But in 2017, the Worldwide GDP was $80 Trillion. Are you seriously telling me piracy is "costing" the economy almost 10 times what the actual economy itself is making? This doesn't even pass the laugh test!
For the record, I do know about Screen Junkies and I love their Honest Trailers series... It would be a shame if I found out the guy behind it was knowingly helping in this anti-piracy shakedown!
In a world where Internet piracy runs rampant, yet Hollywood is seeing its best returns in years, one lawyer sets out to boldly go where no trademark law has gone before: Stopping the pirates. But what happens when the fellow YouTuber assisting in this battle gets a bogus DMCA claim from a studio that the lawyer is blindly serving? Will the lawyer realize the error of his ways and stand down from his holier-than-thou mission? Or will he continue the trek until copyright maximalism has all but guaranteed the Internet itself is no more? Find out in... The Copyright Troll Under the Bridge! Coming (hopefully) soon to a reality check near you...
This isn't copyfraud... The original image doesn't have the CDC logo added as a watermark! If Getty doesn't sell licenses, how else would they be motivated to photoshop a government-made watermark onto a government-made photo? /s
Trump’s mentality is that of an undisciplined, out-of-control child. He’s literally saying, “It’s only wrong when someone else does it!” Even painting this in a light most favorable to the President, if this video is doctored by taking things out of context, then all of Trump’s doctored ads are even more egregious!
Even if he’s talking about the politicization of COVID-19, his base certainly didn’t see it that way! One of my Facebook friends who’s a major Trump supporter shared another Trump supporter’s post, literally positing how interesting it was that the coronavirus popped up right after impeachment failed... Not even true as the first case in China popped up in late November, well before the House even drafted the articles of impeachment.
According to Trump, if he does something wrong, either it’s not wrong at all or someone else is at fault. But if someone else even suggests doing something wrong in Trump’s eyes, they’re completely evil and must pay with their immortal soul for all they’ve done to him. What’s next? Is he going to blame Obama for the problems with our COVID-19 response? Oh, wait...
The same reason why "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go" is considered fair use. Star Trek elements in isolation would be infringing. The same goes for the Dr. Seuss elements. But in combination, you create a new work that is highly transformative, giving both works new character and insights. The same goes for fanvids. The video clips, in isolation, would be an infringing supercut of various show clips. The soundtrack, in isolation, would be just an infringing re-upload of the existing song. But together, the new work is highly transformative. I like to think of it as a mutual transformation. The song is transformed by the clips, and the clips are transformed by the song.
But I went much further in my dispute than that brief overview. I went over the four statutory fair use factors and explained why the use of the House of Anubis clips (I didn't dispute the claim on the song) qualifies as fair use. I could repost the dispute here, but instead, I'll advise you to look at this article from FairUseTube, and while it refers to AMVs, it reflects my own thoughts on the matter of fanvids as well: http://fairusetube.org/articles/amv-fair-use The only thing I think that's worth mentioning is there's part of this particular fanvid of mine where the audio from a video clip is heard over the music, which helps diminish the use of the song as a market substitute.
I uploaded a fanvid to YouTube yesterday, combining clips of the Nickelodeon show House of Anubis with the song "Don't You Worry Child" by Swedish House Mafia. Well within the realm of fair use. That didn't stop Content ID to put claims on behalf of the rights holder of each. I normally let music claims slide for this as long as they're not blocking the video worldwide. That said, Viacom's policy did block the video worldwide, which I immediately disputed. I'm just hoping that either they realize this video is in fact a fair use, or they let it slide because now is not the time to be filing DMCA takedown notices. But it's Viacom, so my hopes aren't that high.
My theory as to why Congress kisses up to Hollywood's demands is because of media and press coverage of their elections. Think about it: The same entity that owns NBC owns Universal Studios. The same goes for Warner Bros. and CNN. CBS recently acquired Viacom (again), which owns Paramount Pictures, and I don't need to remind you that ABC likes to always speak well of its parent company, Di$ney. At the end of the day, they need as much good press coverage as they possibly can to get re-elected, and if they dared stand up to them, that could quickly go away. No press/bad press does not bode well for re-election bids, so copyright maximalism is the future we have to look forward to. It might be another reason why the media seems to favor Biden over Sanders as the Democratic nominee. I'm not saying it's right at all. Heck, it's very corrupt if you think about it.
And this is one reason why I find it almost baffling that most copyright abolitionists (as well as those pushing for common-sense copyright reform) are libertarians. I've found most libertarians side with conservatives on how to solve corruption (i.e., the problem lies with the special interests, not on the government, anti-corruption regulation won't help, etc.). Yet, as a liberal, I see it as a liberal issue. By giving the voice of democracy back to the people, Di$ney-style lobbyists won't be able to have the same effect they once had. People won't want to have the Internet broken just to help legacy media industries make more money because they failed to adapt to the Internet. Di$ney's the reason we have very long copyright (Thanks for nothing, Mickey Mouse!), and these corporations are the ones pushing and lobbying for more draconian copyright enforcement efforts.
With Gen Z and the generation that comes after it (which I like to call the post-meme generation, for reasons I'll explain) being regular internet people, they will quickly learn that everyday internet fun (i.e., creating memes, sharing them, etc.) is branded by these media corporations as the same kind of activity of those who want to profit off of selling content wholesale without authorization. As such, they will not exactly see these corporations in the most favorable light, and fight back against their copyright wish-list. And eventually, people who will be born into a world with the Internet and meme culture already in existence will be the oldest ones in power.
Copyright may very well look to the world as a bad idea to these people of the future, just as slavery of the 1800s pre-Civil War does to us today. And at the end of the day, when these people are the ones in power, copyright abolition could become a reality. Laws only can remain effective as long as people are willing to enforce them. No one in Virginia is charging people with the crime of having pre-marital sex (even though such a law is on the books), and the same thing can easily happen with copyright law, and eventually (as I believe is recently happening with the aforementioned Virginia law), it can be repealed.
First off, I was completely unaware that Chelsea Manning was back in prison after Obama commuted her sentence until I got an email from Demand Progress, well after she was in prison and the UN had already condemned the US's actions in her new case. That must speak volumes of the US must like to sweep stories like this under the rug. Yet, how can anyone point the DOJ in a positive light with this story? It shouldn't take a suicide attempt for a court to wake up and see that this treatment of Manning was clearly wrong.
I can see one might want to argue that a lawful subpoena must be obeyed (but in Chelsea's case, I don't think that it really was all that lawful), but I'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who would think a proportionate response would be torturing the subpoena dodger. And that's what it was: Torture. She wasn't just imprisoned, she was put in solitary confinement, which experts are now saying that if someone is in there for more than 30 days (or is it 14?), that it is equal to torture. Furthermore, the UN's top officials accused the US that their treatment of Manning was, in fact, torture, and that they need to release her immediately.
The DOJ's treatment of her wasn't just wrong, it's inhumane. It goes well beyond the cruel and unusual punishment standard under the Constitution, so how can anyone say that Chelsea Manning's actions that led to her imprisonment were proportionate with her "punishment"? Our country needs to do better!
"Respective... Discoveries" are for patents, not copyrights
What would be interesting is if the owner of the camera came forward and sued Junkin for copyright infringement. The only way I could see Junkin spin their defense is saying something like how the copyright clause in the constitution permits people to hold exclusive rights for a limited time to their discoveries: "The person discovered the camera and the footage. How else are people going to be incentivized to obtain footage that falls out of the sky?" The court would buy such a ludicrous argument when that person's pig starts to fly!
There is a Marketing/Anti-Piracy Alliance at CBS, which itself is an acronym for this Alliance's strategy: Claiming BullSh*t. After all, the Alliance's mission is to boldly go where no copyright maximalist has gone before!
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Benchslapped And Sanctioned AGAIN In A Massive Filing Detailing Pages Upon Pages Of Him Lying Under Oath
Insanity, thy name is Liebowitz
If the dictionary ever decides to define "insanity" as the often-cited "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results," perhaps they should include a photo of Richard Liebowitz on the same page!
On the post: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
Good post, but you missed a spot...
What I want to know is how you would respond to someone who thinks Section 230 protections need to be stripped away from platforms (like Facebook) if they allow political ads to be run that contains misinformation. I don't think that's the case. In fact, I think that logic is very, very, VERY wrong. But my mom (who's a full-fledged Biden supporter) sides with Biden in his statements about Section 230 because she doesn't want misinformation to be run in ads placed by the Trump campaign. I've tried explaining what Section 230 actually does, and what it says and doesn't say, but she doesn't fully understand the big picture. Any ideas of what to say to target this logic directly?
On the post: No, California Law Review, Food Plating Does Not Deserve Copyright Protection
Does this smell rotten to you?
This idea that food should be able to be copyrighted doesn't pass the smell test!
On the post: In The Midst Of A Pandemic And Widespread Unrest, Senate Republicans Think It's Time To Use Copyright To Make The Richest Musicians Richer
As a musician, if one of my songs took off and became a "toy" for people to remix, mashup, parody, satirize, etc., I'd consider it the highest form of flattery. Musicians whining about there not being enough copyright are just wanting a bigger payday when it's the labels at fault for not valuing their artists, keeping both the rights to the music and pay from their sale largely to themselves as the sole beneficiary. And the labels parrot the same complaints about copyright, only to then complain when a Blurred Lines-styled decision comes down and say that copyright has gone too far. You can't weaken the law and strengthen it at the same time.
Uh... except its not. If it's truly a parody, it's likely fair use and not copyright infringement. The Supreme Court even quoted W. Somerset Maugham, "People ask...for criticism but only want praise," when they ruled that effective criticism cannot be considered market harm under the fourth factor, and THAT was in the ruling for a case about a COMMERCIAL PARODY (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music).
The senate's decision to call in a copyright maximalist musician is not surprising. If they continue down the DMCA 512 path, I suspect they'll call in Susan Wojcicki and call it a day, if the Copyright Office's recent report is any indication. The likelihood of calling in someone like Doug Walker is unlikely, as those people weren't mentioned as stakeholders of any DMCA reform according to the copyright office.
It's a shame, as I still fear Article 17 is going to be heavily lobbied to be reflected in US law by the copyright industry. And with the presumptive Democratic nominee liking SOPA and killing off the Internet with the removal of section 230 of the CDA, the two-party system means I'll have to choose between a wannabe dictator who throws temper tantrums on Twitter (while wanting to kill Twitter by gutting CDA 230 at the same time) or someone who, while mildly better for our democracy, still wants to undermine CDA 230 as well as DMCA 512.
On the post: The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless
Not that he could do so anyway, but this is also true!
On the post: Yes, This Site Uses Cookies, Because Nearly All Sites Use Cookies, And We're Notifying You Because We're Told We Have To
Re: Cookie Preferences
Sorry, Techdirt only offers oatmeal raisin cookies... The flavor no one ever asks for but is always offered, just like the useless cookie notification that I had to dismiss twice!
On the post: Trump Campaign Actually Sues TV Station Over Anti-Trump Ad
As someone from Wisconsin, it’s disheartening to see Trump take advantage of the fact we have no Anti-SLAPP law. I’d say, at the very least, we should push for such a law in Wisconsin. However, seeing as the GOP seemed more interested in pushing the state Supreme Court to convene over teleconference to force voters to go out to the polls in person WHILE the world is in a pandemic, I don’t foresee them acting on such legislation anytime soon...
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: Re:
I don't know if you've made that number up to illustrate the copyright maximalists' nonsensical point, or if that number was actually raised in anti-piracy claims somewhere. But in 2017, the Worldwide GDP was $80 Trillion. Are you seriously telling me piracy is "costing" the economy almost 10 times what the actual economy itself is making? This doesn't even pass the laugh test!
On the post: Anti-Piracy Copyright Lawyer Decides To Abuse Trademarks To Shut Down Pirates
Re: Honest Trailers?
For the record, I do know about Screen Junkies and I love their Honest Trailers series... It would be a shame if I found out the guy behind it was knowingly helping in this anti-piracy shakedown!
On the post: Anti-Piracy Copyright Lawyer Decides To Abuse Trademarks To Shut Down Pirates
Honest Trailers?
In a world where Internet piracy runs rampant, yet Hollywood is seeing its best returns in years, one lawyer sets out to boldly go where no trademark law has gone before: Stopping the pirates. But what happens when the fellow YouTuber assisting in this battle gets a bogus DMCA claim from a studio that the lawyer is blindly serving? Will the lawyer realize the error of his ways and stand down from his holier-than-thou mission? Or will he continue the trek until copyright maximalism has all but guaranteed the Internet itself is no more? Find out in... The Copyright Troll Under the Bridge! Coming (hopefully) soon to a reality check near you...
On the post: That Coronavirus Image Is Public Domain, But That Won't Stop Getty From Trying To Sell You A $500 License To Use It
This isn't copyfraud... The original image doesn't have the CDC logo added as a watermark! If Getty doesn't sell licenses, how else would they be motivated to photoshop a government-made watermark onto a government-made photo? /s
On the post: President Trump Is So Upset About This Ad Showing His Failed Handling Of COVID-19 That He's Demanding It Be Taken Down
Hail to the chief, who is acting like a baby!
Trump’s mentality is that of an undisciplined, out-of-control child. He’s literally saying, “It’s only wrong when someone else does it!” Even painting this in a light most favorable to the President, if this video is doctored by taking things out of context, then all of Trump’s doctored ads are even more egregious!
Even if he’s talking about the politicization of COVID-19, his base certainly didn’t see it that way! One of my Facebook friends who’s a major Trump supporter shared another Trump supporter’s post, literally positing how interesting it was that the coronavirus popped up right after impeachment failed... Not even true as the first case in China popped up in late November, well before the House even drafted the articles of impeachment.
According to Trump, if he does something wrong, either it’s not wrong at all or someone else is at fault. But if someone else even suggests doing something wrong in Trump’s eyes, they’re completely evil and must pay with their immortal soul for all they’ve done to him. What’s next? Is he going to blame Obama for the problems with our COVID-19 response? Oh, wait...
On the post: Do Your Part, Rights Holders: Open The Vaults!
Re: Re: Viacom's already losing this battle!
The same reason why "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go" is considered fair use. Star Trek elements in isolation would be infringing. The same goes for the Dr. Seuss elements. But in combination, you create a new work that is highly transformative, giving both works new character and insights. The same goes for fanvids. The video clips, in isolation, would be an infringing supercut of various show clips. The soundtrack, in isolation, would be just an infringing re-upload of the existing song. But together, the new work is highly transformative. I like to think of it as a mutual transformation. The song is transformed by the clips, and the clips are transformed by the song.
But I went much further in my dispute than that brief overview. I went over the four statutory fair use factors and explained why the use of the House of Anubis clips (I didn't dispute the claim on the song) qualifies as fair use. I could repost the dispute here, but instead, I'll advise you to look at this article from FairUseTube, and while it refers to AMVs, it reflects my own thoughts on the matter of fanvids as well: http://fairusetube.org/articles/amv-fair-use The only thing I think that's worth mentioning is there's part of this particular fanvid of mine where the audio from a video clip is heard over the music, which helps diminish the use of the song as a market substitute.
On the post: Do Your Part, Rights Holders: Open The Vaults!
Viacom's already losing this battle!
I uploaded a fanvid to YouTube yesterday, combining clips of the Nickelodeon show House of Anubis with the song "Don't You Worry Child" by Swedish House Mafia. Well within the realm of fair use. That didn't stop Content ID to put claims on behalf of the rights holder of each. I normally let music claims slide for this as long as they're not blocking the video worldwide. That said, Viacom's policy did block the video worldwide, which I immediately disputed. I'm just hoping that either they realize this video is in fact a fair use, or they let it slide because now is not the time to be filing DMCA takedown notices. But it's Viacom, so my hopes aren't that high.
On the post: As Congress Explore New Awful Copyright Plans, Maximalists Look To Rewrite The History Of SOPA/PIPA
Re:
My theory as to why Congress kisses up to Hollywood's demands is because of media and press coverage of their elections. Think about it: The same entity that owns NBC owns Universal Studios. The same goes for Warner Bros. and CNN. CBS recently acquired Viacom (again), which owns Paramount Pictures, and I don't need to remind you that ABC likes to always speak well of its parent company, Di$ney. At the end of the day, they need as much good press coverage as they possibly can to get re-elected, and if they dared stand up to them, that could quickly go away. No press/bad press does not bode well for re-election bids, so copyright maximalism is the future we have to look forward to. It might be another reason why the media seems to favor Biden over Sanders as the Democratic nominee. I'm not saying it's right at all. Heck, it's very corrupt if you think about it.
And this is one reason why I find it almost baffling that most copyright abolitionists (as well as those pushing for common-sense copyright reform) are libertarians. I've found most libertarians side with conservatives on how to solve corruption (i.e., the problem lies with the special interests, not on the government, anti-corruption regulation won't help, etc.). Yet, as a liberal, I see it as a liberal issue. By giving the voice of democracy back to the people, Di$ney-style lobbyists won't be able to have the same effect they once had. People won't want to have the Internet broken just to help legacy media industries make more money because they failed to adapt to the Internet. Di$ney's the reason we have very long copyright (Thanks for nothing, Mickey Mouse!), and these corporations are the ones pushing and lobbying for more draconian copyright enforcement efforts.
With Gen Z and the generation that comes after it (which I like to call the post-meme generation, for reasons I'll explain) being regular internet people, they will quickly learn that everyday internet fun (i.e., creating memes, sharing them, etc.) is branded by these media corporations as the same kind of activity of those who want to profit off of selling content wholesale without authorization. As such, they will not exactly see these corporations in the most favorable light, and fight back against their copyright wish-list. And eventually, people who will be born into a world with the Internet and meme culture already in existence will be the oldest ones in power.
Copyright may very well look to the world as a bad idea to these people of the future, just as slavery of the 1800s pre-Civil War does to us today. And at the end of the day, when these people are the ones in power, copyright abolition could become a reality. Laws only can remain effective as long as people are willing to enforce them. No one in Virginia is charging people with the crime of having pre-marital sex (even though such a law is on the books), and the same thing can easily happen with copyright law, and eventually (as I believe is recently happening with the aforementioned Virginia law), it can be repealed.
On the post: Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'
How can anyone side with the DOJ here?
First off, I was completely unaware that Chelsea Manning was back in prison after Obama commuted her sentence until I got an email from Demand Progress, well after she was in prison and the UN had already condemned the US's actions in her new case. That must speak volumes of the US must like to sweep stories like this under the rug. Yet, how can anyone point the DOJ in a positive light with this story? It shouldn't take a suicide attempt for a court to wake up and see that this treatment of Manning was clearly wrong.
I can see one might want to argue that a lawful subpoena must be obeyed (but in Chelsea's case, I don't think that it really was all that lawful), but I'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who would think a proportionate response would be torturing the subpoena dodger. And that's what it was: Torture. She wasn't just imprisoned, she was put in solitary confinement, which experts are now saying that if someone is in there for more than 30 days (or is it 14?), that it is equal to torture. Furthermore, the UN's top officials accused the US that their treatment of Manning was, in fact, torture, and that they need to release her immediately.
The DOJ's treatment of her wasn't just wrong, it's inhumane. It goes well beyond the cruel and unusual punishment standard under the Constitution, so how can anyone say that Chelsea Manning's actions that led to her imprisonment were proportionate with her "punishment"? Our country needs to do better!
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition
At least dogs can breathe a sigh of relief with this news; they’re no longer being framed for eating homework the kids didn’t do!
On the post: Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post
We need a Trumpian dictionary to understand POTUS's terms!
Defamation, noun. Any written piece that is negative towards the President of the United States. See also, Fake News.
On the post: Can You License A Video You Don't Hold The Copyright Over?
"Respective... Discoveries" are for patents, not copyrights
What would be interesting is if the owner of the camera came forward and sued Junkin for copyright infringement. The only way I could see Junkin spin their defense is saying something like how the copyright clause in the constitution permits people to hold exclusive rights for a limited time to their discoveries: "The person discovered the camera and the footage. How else are people going to be incentivized to obtain footage that falls out of the sky?" The court would buy such a ludicrous argument when that person's pig starts to fly!
On the post: CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer
There is a Marketing/Anti-Piracy Alliance at CBS, which itself is an acronym for this Alliance's strategy: Claiming BullSh*t. After all, the Alliance's mission is to boldly go where no copyright maximalist has gone before!
Next >>