No. Microsoft USA, headquartered in Redmond, Washington, even if it wants to, *cannot* give the emails. The people sitting in the offices in Redmond cannot log into the servers in Ireland. At best, they can only send orders down the chain of management to Microsoft Europe, headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. Once the order arrives there, the employees there, who will be citizens of Ireland and subject to both Irish and EU data protection laws, will talk to their legal department. Legal will reply back, saying "No, we can't give Microsoft USA the data just because they ask, we'd be breaking our own laws if we do". At that point, Microsoft USA can just shrug its shoulders and reply back to the judge saying "Well, we tried, but it turns out we can't fulfill the order". The problem here is that all this could have been avoided if the US DoJ had gone through Interpol and worked with the Irish police to get at the data.
" I pointed out that I felt what this guy did specifically to be immoral." Okay, my apologies, but I'm still left wondering what exactly we know about this guy that is immoral. All the Torrentfreak article says is that after his initial run-in with the police, he continued to sell and distribute copies. Stupid yes, since he was clearly on the police radar, but morally in the wrong? From my point of view, it'd be like saying someone who parks on double yellow lines and has been caught by police is morally in the wrong (since you're a USian, double yellow lines over here in Ireland means you can't park).
Re: Re: Re: While I disagree with the investigation methods
So what you're arguing for is that as an action becomes easier and more widely done, to the point that it's ubiquitous...it should then be restricted by law ever more and more? Am I reading that correctly, or are you just reciting what has happened historically?
Re: While I disagree with the investigation methods
"This is counterfeiting"
Can't remember the last time a copyright infringer was dinged for counterfeiting. That's a completely separate law.
"However, in this instance he was making money off of another's work."
And? Why is that bad? The company I work for made money off of my labour. People who ride the bus to work are able to make money because of the transport provided by the bus. Let's not forget that before the Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, it was perfectly alright to copy, distribute and sell works authored by other people.
Wow, didn't expect that of you Mike. I have to say here that I disagree with you. Based on my own set of morals, this guy did nothing wrong. Copyright, as you well know, is not an actual right at all. Everyone is born with the right to free speech, the right to copy and distribute. What copyright is, is a restriction of everyone else for specific pieces of content. It was invented by the Statute of Anne so as to allow for the censorship of works critical of Queen Anne.
Copyright cannot be called moral, especially in today's society where everyone is an author. This makes the right of free speech next to useless, since so many technology companies, fearing court judgments against them, act by silencing speech immediately. You know this yourself, as it is what you've been reporting on for years (Youtube's ContentID, et al). Given that the purpose behind copyright, as laid out in the First Amendment (the creation and publication of new works and the spreading of knowledge) is actually being hindered by copyright...why do you call copyright moral? I remember you saying plenty of times copyright is an economic issue, rather than one of morality.
One does not necessarily automatically lead to the other. You can't just toss out that the rights holder suffered a loss without evidence. This isn't a zero sum game. It's very possible that some of the people who paid this guy for his copies went to see the movie in the cinema or bought it on (legit) DVD/Blu-ray.
Precisely what I was going to say. The problem we have here is the fact that the police and the army have effectively become one. What's the solution? Why, send in more soldiers!
So those first two photos...if it weren't for the word Police on their uniforms, I would have thought that those guys were US Army, and my first thought would have been "Isn't the US Army forbidden by law from being active within the US, outside of their bases?" But of course a single word can make all the difference...
Might this not be some kind of master plan? In Frank Herbert's Dune novels, Leto II, the God Emperor, sees a problem - his empire has stopped exploring space. He predicts an enemy will come in time to wipe out mankind, but humanity is feeling just comfy where they are. So what he does is repress humanity for over 1500 years by forbidding all space travel except by his direct command. Upon his death, humanity explodes outward in search of new homes. Imagine if someone had read Dune and is secretly manipulating the schools in the US in order to better strengthen democracy...
I would say no, since any question of copyright could only be asked about the moment in time the work in question was put into a fixed medium (i.e. the moment the photo was shot and saved as a file on the SD card).
"Also you are asking me to prove a negative. " No, I am asking you to prove a positive. You said that "there is no one else who can make a valid claim for it and thus if he were to show that virtually anything that he did to contribute to it's creation would validate his claim.""
That is a positive claim. I'm asking you where in the law it says that in the case of a dispute over copyright, the author (and thus copyright holder) shall be identified as being the person who contributed even the tiniest bit towards the photo.
"In your example with the acorn, it is possible that you could make that assertion that he copyright belongs to you and I don't see where there would be a problem with that."
How so? I have no intention of taking a photo at that time. Perhaps I'm there intending to take a photo of a rare bird. When I put down the camera (because it's heavy), I am not making any effort towards any type of creativity. I merely put it down (coincidentally enough with the camera switched on). I have made no moves towards framing, lighting, subject, anything at all. When the acorn falls, that is due to gravity. Nature has acted and caused something to hit the shutter button, thus causing an image to be recorded on a fixed medium. I have nothing whatsoever to do with this photo. I am behind a tree relieving myself. It is nature that has taken the photo, not me, and since nature is not ever considered a legal person, it cannot be counted as an author. Since there is no author for this photo, there can be no copyright applied to it. (Same here with the monkey, it's a thing from nature that is not considered a person in legal terms) I am of course free to do whatsoever I want with the photo, since it is public domain (including charge for it), but I cannot take someone to court when they use it without my permission.
Your assistant in that case would typically be working under a work-for-hire contract, where he would have, prior to the photo shoot, waived any claims he could possibly have had over any photos taken during the shoot. Not so here.
"but as there is not, there is no one else who can make a valid claim for it and thus if he were to show that virtually anything that he did to contribute to it's creation would validate his claim." So you're essentially saying that copyright falls to the closest person (in terms of both spatial location and in terms of any involvement (if any) they had with the work) to the photo if the photo was "caused" by some non-human agent? Can you cite where that is in the law?
So let's say I'm out and about with my camera. I put down my camera for a moment, walk behind a tree to take a piss, and an acorn falls off a tree and hits the shutter button. Do I get the copyrights over those photos, even though this scenario is essentially the same as the guy in this article?
Again, by this photographer's own account he had no intention of taking those photos at that specific time. He put down the camera, and turned his back. If he had had any intention of taking a photo at that precise point in time, he would either have been holding it, or had the photo set on timer or something. Also, no, not setup the lighting itself, but how you use what light is there. As in, what position are you and the camera in, where is the light source, what angle is it, how bright is it? Is the light shining directly vertically down on the subject and am I and the camera in the shade?
On the post: No, Microsoft Is Not Suddenly 'Defying' A Court Order To Turn Over Emails
Re: Can Microsoft actually turn over the emails?
At that point, Microsoft USA can just shrug its shoulders and reply back to the judge saying "Well, we tried, but it turns out we can't fulfill the order".
The problem here is that all this could have been avoided if the US DoJ had gone through Interpol and worked with the Irish police to get at the data.
On the post: George Lucas Wants Desperately To Preserve Old Movies... Unless They're His; So Fans Are Trying To Do It Instead
Thing is though, I've been looking and can't find a clip. Any help guys?
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, my apologies, but I'm still left wondering what exactly we know about this guy that is immoral. All the Torrentfreak article says is that after his initial run-in with the police, he continued to sell and distribute copies.
Stupid yes, since he was clearly on the police radar, but morally in the wrong? From my point of view, it'd be like saying someone who parks on double yellow lines and has been caught by police is morally in the wrong (since you're a USian, double yellow lines over here in Ireland means you can't park).
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: While I disagree with the investigation methods
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: While I disagree with the investigation methods
Can't remember the last time a copyright infringer was dinged for counterfeiting. That's a completely separate law.
"However, in this instance he was making money off of another's work."
And? Why is that bad? The company I work for made money off of my labour. People who ride the bus to work are able to make money because of the transport provided by the bus.
Let's not forget that before the Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, it was perfectly alright to copy, distribute and sell works authored by other people.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re:
Copyright, as you well know, is not an actual right at all. Everyone is born with the right to free speech, the right to copy and distribute. What copyright is, is a restriction of everyone else for specific pieces of content. It was invented by the Statute of Anne so as to allow for the censorship of works critical of Queen Anne.
Copyright cannot be called moral, especially in today's society where everyone is an author. This makes the right of free speech next to useless, since so many technology companies, fearing court judgments against them, act by silencing speech immediately.
You know this yourself, as it is what you've been reporting on for years (Youtube's ContentID, et al).
Given that the purpose behind copyright, as laid out in the First Amendment (the creation and publication of new works and the spreading of knowledge) is actually being hindered by copyright...why do you call copyright moral? I remember you saying plenty of times copyright is an economic issue, rather than one of morality.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Police In Suburban St. Louis Have More Powerful Weapons Than Marines In Afghanistan?
Re: Re: A good reason not to visit the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#Armed_Garda.C3.AD
On the post: Thomson Reuters Thinks Not Responding To Their Email Means You've Freely Licensed All Your Content
Re: Where was it sent?
On the post: Police In Ferguson Back To Threatening And Arresting Reporters: Tells Them To 'Get The Fuck Out Of Here'
Re:
On the post: Police In Ferguson Back To Threatening And Arresting Reporters: Tells Them To 'Get The Fuck Out Of Here'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That didn't last long
On the post: SWAT Team Shows Up In Ferguson, Detains Reporters Live Tweeting Their Actions
But of course a single word can make all the difference...
On the post: Germany's Latest Half-Hearted Response To Snowden's Revelations: Asking Officially For The Names Of All Spies Working At Foreign Embassies
Re: Re: And our breaking story of the hour...
On the post: NYPD Officer Chokes Man To Death; Cops Blame Cellphone Recordings And People 'Feeling They Have More Rights'
On the post: 4th Grader Suspended For Properly Completing Assignment With A Nerf Gun
Re: Teaching contempt for authority
Imagine if someone had read Dune and is secretly manipulating the schools in the US in order to better strengthen democracy...
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Devils Advocate
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I am asking you to prove a positive. You said that "there is no one else who can make a valid claim for it and thus if he were to show that virtually anything that he did to contribute to it's creation would validate his claim.""
That is a positive claim. I'm asking you where in the law it says that in the case of a dispute over copyright, the author (and thus copyright holder) shall be identified as being the person who contributed even the tiniest bit towards the photo.
"In your example with the acorn, it is possible that you could make that assertion that he copyright belongs to you and I don't see where there would be a problem with that."
How so? I have no intention of taking a photo at that time. Perhaps I'm there intending to take a photo of a rare bird. When I put down the camera (because it's heavy), I am not making any effort towards any type of creativity. I merely put it down (coincidentally enough with the camera switched on). I have made no moves towards framing, lighting, subject, anything at all. When the acorn falls, that is due to gravity. Nature has acted and caused something to hit the shutter button, thus causing an image to be recorded on a fixed medium.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with this photo. I am behind a tree relieving myself. It is nature that has taken the photo, not me, and since nature is not ever considered a legal person, it cannot be counted as an author. Since there is no author for this photo, there can be no copyright applied to it. (Same here with the monkey, it's a thing from nature that is not considered a person in legal terms)
I am of course free to do whatsoever I want with the photo, since it is public domain (including charge for it), but I cannot take someone to court when they use it without my permission.
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not so here.
"but as there is not, there is no one else who can make a valid claim for it and thus if he were to show that virtually anything that he did to contribute to it's creation would validate his claim."
So you're essentially saying that copyright falls to the closest person (in terms of both spatial location and in terms of any involvement (if any) they had with the work) to the photo if the photo was "caused" by some non-human agent?
Can you cite where that is in the law?
So let's say I'm out and about with my camera. I put down my camera for a moment, walk behind a tree to take a piss, and an acorn falls off a tree and hits the shutter button. Do I get the copyrights over those photos, even though this scenario is essentially the same as the guy in this article?
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Only for some photographers.
Might want to tell the NY Port authority that
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140730/06563228056/ny-port-authority-claims-to-own-nyc-skyli ne-tells-store-to-destroy-skyline-themed-plates.shtml
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, no, not setup the lighting itself, but how you use what light is there. As in, what position are you and the camera in, where is the light source, what angle is it, how bright is it? Is the light shining directly vertically down on the subject and am I and the camera in the shade?
Next >>