No doubt. I do understand where he was coming from, to a point. My wife loves to take videos of our kids, and she creates montages which she sets to copyrighted music (which we've purchased/licensed from iTunes). We watch these from the comfort of our living room, but she knows better than to post them on YouTube. We have hundreds of videos on YouTube, but none with copyrighted music. My wife knows next to nothing about copyright, but she knows you can't just take tracks you bought off of iTunes and upload them to YouTube. She doesn't have to be a "professional" or read the details of the iTunes license to know this. It's basic, common knowledge, and Mike pretends like it's the hardest thing in the world. It's "insanity!" LOL!
That's for sure about personal/fair use rights. And good point about the four factors being illustrative and not exhaustive. I'm not sure I've seen a court actually identify and apply any other factors though.
Ouch. Right in the kidney.... Wonder if he'll reply.
"It's obviously fair use!" Uh-huh, obviously...
I would primarily argue de minimis, with fair use in the alternative.
"If the allegedly infringing work makes such a qualitatively insubstantial use of the copyrighted work . . . it makes more sense to . . . find no infringement, rather than undertake an elaborate fair use analysis." Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, 126 F.3d 70, 76 (2d Cir. 1997).
It's hilarious how you guys want this to be infringement. LMAO!
Stop using an "Officially licensed Dodgeball Average Joe's Gym" image as your icon. I'm pretty sure you don't have the rights to do that either.
LOL! I love how you copyright abolitionists suddenly become maximalists when it comes to my avatar. Bring on the lawsuit--I'd enjoy the opportunity to clarify personal/fair use rights. De minimis non curat lex.
Which uncertainty led to this "professional" into thinking his license for singing songs at camp also allowed him to post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet? This isn't a problem of uncertainty, it's a problem of a "professional" acting unprofessionally. And more likely, it's another example of Mike stretching the truth in a desperate attempt to make copyright seem difficult. Sure, copyright at times is complicated, but this isn't one of those times. If this "professional" was smart enough to secure a license for singing songs at camp, then surely he was sophisticated enough to know that he just can't post whatever he wants on the internet.
The average_joe knows only that they have purchased the song. They have no idea about what rights they did or did not purchase.
He's a "professional" but he couldn't grasp that his license was (presumably) for singing songs at camp and not for posting professionally recorded music on the internet? Yeah, right.
Of course, this is all Mike's take on it. And given his admission that he has no journalistic integrity and the fact that he often leaves out inconvenient truths, we can rightly assume we're only get part of the story in another effort to manipulate and to slam IP law.
And, frankly, they shouldn't have to worry.
Yeah, because "professionals" just get licenses and don't worry about the details. Right.
LOL! Don't put songs you don't have the rights to in your videos that you upload to YouTube. It's not that hard. Give me a break with the FUD. That said, I agree that personal use and fair use rights should be expanded.
Again, Mike knows the reasons behind the CTEA, and he knows they don't include the impossibility of influencing things that happened in the past. What you should be wondering is why he misleads and lies so much. That's a topic worth investigating.
You seem to have an inkling of why it was done. Why don't you enlighten us?
If we're talking about the Copyright Term Extension Act, there were lots of reasons why Congress enacted it. If you really want to learn about it, look up the history of the CTEA. Look up the Eldred case that went to the Supreme Court. Read the briefs submitted that go over all the reasons.
My point was that if Mike really wants to know why it was extended retroactively, he could actually and simply look it up. Instead, he just pretends like it's all stupid and doesn't make sense. I just don't understand why he constantly does this: If I wanted to declare that something was stupid, I would take the time to learn what was actually going on. Not Mike. He can't be bothered. I guess when you're hell-bent on dissing copyright, there's no time to let facts get in the way.
I hear ya, but I just don't see the problem. As I said, Time Warner (or whoever) can already cut people off without liability if they have a good faith belief that that person is engaging in illegal activity using their service. In fact, I'd be surprised if this sort of thing wasn't already happening. Do you really think Time Warner (or whoever) should have judicial oversight over every single decision like this they make? That's not reasonable, IMO.
Of course there are people who dislike SOPA for reasons not having to do with piracy. I don't believe for one second that Mike is one of those people. Mike is one of the biggest piracy apologists on the planet. It's weird you don't see that since you seem like a smart person.
And how does my noise ordinance example show I speak without thinking? That's an example of a government regulation of speech that Mike would call censorship, but I don't think most people would agree. I thought the example made the point well. Sorry you disagree. How should I properly have made that point?
And, sorry, I'll exercise my right to speak freely on Techdirt if I please. (What, are you trying to censor me?) I can tell that you don't like it when people say things you disagree with. Sorry, but that's your problem. If you disagree with me, then explain your reasons and have a debate. Telling me to leave is a silly way to deal with opinions that are contra to your own.
So they didn't really remove the bad section they just reworded it and hid it a bit better. Did you realize that when you told me it was removed? Are you really as sneaky and disingenuous as they say?
LOL! Sneaky and disingenuous? You must be thinking of Masnick--that's his bag, not mine.
It provides immunity for those providers who act in good faith. Of course, those providers who cut off rogue actors based on a good faith belief would already not be liable for those actions. If Google Ads or Visa think I'm using their service for criminal deeds, they can already cut me off. It's right there in their terms of service.
Your right to free speech exists because of the First Amendment, so I don't really follow you.
The fact is, the law takes into consideration the fact that First Amendment free speech rights exist, and this is why laws are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. An otherwise valid law can be struck down on First Amendment grounds.
What the law doesn't do is pretend like some rights are OK to violate. It's never OK to violate someone's rights, no matter what the source of those rights is. So it makes no sense, legally speaking, to pretend like some rights can be violated. It doesn't work that way.
The thing is, with the list of works from 1955 above, when they were all created, the maximum term of copyright of 56 years was a perfectly acceptable trade-off for those creators. They got their monopoly, and they created their works. What I can't understand is what the logic is in extending those rights retroactively. Clearly the incentive to create was fine as it was. Why should it change after the work was created?
LOL @ Mike. Obviously, the retroactive extension is not for the purpose of incentivizing the creation of works that have already been created. That clearly does not make any sense whatsoever. That should lead you to suspect that some other reasons exist for the retroactive extensions. Perhaps you could even do a little research to determine what those reasons were. I know, I know. You're not a real journalist. But still, if you want to pretend like you're making an argument about how stupid it is, it only makes sense that you address the actual reasons for the extension. Too much to ask? I suppose. This is Techdirt after all...
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re:
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Re:
"It's obviously fair use!" Uh-huh, obviously...
I would primarily argue de minimis, with fair use in the alternative.
"If the allegedly infringing work makes such a qualitatively insubstantial use of the copyrighted work . . . it makes more sense to . . . find no infringement, rather than undertake an elaborate fair use analysis." Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, 126 F.3d 70, 76 (2d Cir. 1997).
It's hilarious how you guys want this to be infringement. LMAO!
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re:
LOL! I love how you copyright abolitionists suddenly become maximalists when it comes to my avatar. Bring on the lawsuit--I'd enjoy the opportunity to clarify personal/fair use rights. De minimis non curat lex.
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re:
He's a "professional" but he couldn't grasp that his license was (presumably) for singing songs at camp and not for posting professionally recorded music on the internet? Yeah, right.
Of course, this is all Mike's take on it. And given his admission that he has no journalistic integrity and the fact that he often leaves out inconvenient truths, we can rightly assume we're only get part of the story in another effort to manipulate and to slam IP law.
And, frankly, they shouldn't have to worry.
Yeah, because "professionals" just get licenses and don't worry about the details. Right.
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: Professionals should know
Ding, Ding, Ding! Winner!
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually provide a real argument for once, with citations and quotes to back up your points, insult free.
Sigh. You seem to miss the point. Mike ALREADY KNOWS the reasons the CTEA was passed. He's just PLAYING DUMB like it all doesn't make sense. Sheesh.
It's just ANOTHER example of Mike lying and manipulating his readers to diss IP law.
But if you're actually interested in the reasons, you can start here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:S483:
On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain
Re: Re:
If we're talking about the Copyright Term Extension Act, there were lots of reasons why Congress enacted it. If you really want to learn about it, look up the history of the CTEA. Look up the Eldred case that went to the Supreme Court. Read the briefs submitted that go over all the reasons.
My point was that if Mike really wants to know why it was extended retroactively, he could actually and simply look it up. Instead, he just pretends like it's all stupid and doesn't make sense. I just don't understand why he constantly does this: If I wanted to declare that something was stupid, I would take the time to learn what was actually going on. Not Mike. He can't be bothered. I guess when you're hell-bent on dissing copyright, there's no time to let facts get in the way.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how does my noise ordinance example show I speak without thinking? That's an example of a government regulation of speech that Mike would call censorship, but I don't think most people would agree. I thought the example made the point well. Sorry you disagree. How should I properly have made that point?
And, sorry, I'll exercise my right to speak freely on Techdirt if I please. (What, are you trying to censor me?) I can tell that you don't like it when people say things you disagree with. Sorry, but that's your problem. If you disagree with me, then explain your reasons and have a debate. Telling me to leave is a silly way to deal with opinions that are contra to your own.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Sneaky and disingenuous? You must be thinking of Masnick--that's his bag, not mine.
If you're referring to Section 105, that provision exists in both versions of SOPA, though it was expanded a bit in SOPA 2.0. See it for yourself in the original draft: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
It provides immunity for those providers who act in good faith. Of course, those providers who cut off rogue actors based on a good faith belief would already not be liable for those actions. If Google Ads or Visa think I'm using their service for criminal deeds, they can already cut me off. It's right there in their terms of service.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact is, the law takes into consideration the fact that First Amendment free speech rights exist, and this is why laws are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. An otherwise valid law can be struck down on First Amendment grounds.
What the law doesn't do is pretend like some rights are OK to violate. It's never OK to violate someone's rights, no matter what the source of those rights is. So it makes no sense, legally speaking, to pretend like some rights can be violated. It doesn't work that way.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? I do not it's ever OK to violate someone's rights, nor would I ever say that it is. Not sure what you're talking about...
On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain
LOL @ Mike. Obviously, the retroactive extension is not for the purpose of incentivizing the creation of works that have already been created. That clearly does not make any sense whatsoever. That should lead you to suspect that some other reasons exist for the retroactive extensions. Perhaps you could even do a little research to determine what those reasons were. I know, I know. You're not a real journalist. But still, if you want to pretend like you're making an argument about how stupid it is, it only makes sense that you address the actual reasons for the extension. Too much to ask? I suppose. This is Techdirt after all...
Next >>