I hate arguing semantics, but can you give a citation for that? I only ask because "innocent unless proven guilty" yields 186,000 google hits, yet "innocent until proven guilty" yields 449,000. Also, wikipedia links to a few (admittedly, non-us) government documents that explicitly use "until" vs "unless".
Ah, good ol' guilty until proven innocent mixed in with a fair helping of stifling free speech!
You can't issue a DCMA takedown on something you don't control the copyrights to. Further, even if that was allowed, as more and more companies use youtube as a legitimate communication platform you can't just assume everything on youtube is infringing. (That's why you're supposed to be the copyright holder to issue the takedown!)
So, yes, it is quite fair in a society where you still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.
So, you're saying that just because it was fair use for a 20/20 show broadcast over the airwaves, it might not be fair use for a 20/20 show broadcast over the internet? It's the *same* 20/20 show, so if it was fair use then, it is fair use now.
Off topic. Have you been hitting the refresh button like crazy on this story? I know I get an email sent to me when someone comments, but since you're not logged in... well?
So, you think that it's *not* clear fair use when a news show uses a clip of something when discussing it?
So, every news show on the planet *might* be committing copyright infringement and no one has noticed until now and they chose to bring down a 20 year old 20/20 episode first?
Several people have already answered your question, Light-blue-square-with-phalanges AC, so gracefully admit you didn't understand and let's move on, shall we?
I can see your argument if you're talking about 20/20 using the clips
You missed the most important part of Hulser's comment. Universal didn't make the 20/20 episode, but it issued the DCMA takedown. Since the only thing Universal would be able to legitimately issue the notice for would be the music videos used in the 20/20 episode, the statement "clearly fair use" refers to the music videos, not the 20/20 episode.
Maybe I'm wrong, but humor me and read this. What you described above is *not* a net neutrality issue. It is a [bad] business decision. For the life of me I can't understand why you insist otherwise, so please elaborate. I am certainly no expert, so if you can point out an error (besides "you clearly haven't understood the issues yet") please make your case.
Easy there, Purple Princess AC. It's not net neutrality if it's not an ISP giving priority to one bit of data over another. This is a company deciding (not very smartly) to block customers. Unless it's one of the few things that you *can't* block customer's for (race, religion, etc) then it's completely legal, on or off the internet.
Your favorite theater will tell you you're not allowed to bring your Starbuck's coffee inside. That's their decision. So, Hulu says you can't use their services from a Cablevision IP address. That's also their decision. Granted, it's a bad decision, but that's the beauty of a free market.
You make an excellent point. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not anti-copyright, I am anti-extremist. It sure seems that the pro-IP crowd is trying its damnedest to strip the entire world of privacy rights in an effort to keep their outdated gravy train going, and chilling effects be damned.
I would easily get behind a system that actually gives people (not just a lucky few) a reason not only to create (the carrot) but a reason to *continue* creating (the stick) by having a very short monopoly. I would like to think many people who comment here against Big Media would get behind that.
I can appreciate why the incumbent IP people wouldn't want to restore sanity to IP laws: for years they have been making the carrot bigger and the stick smaller, anyone who doesn't see (or care) about the bigger picture would want the very same thing.
My (rambling) point is that we all need to look at the bigger picture, as you seem to be, and make decisions, not based on the good of any one industry, but instead based on the good of society as a whole.
It's simple, really. If you can't make money in the business you are in, change businesses.
If the RIAA is going to bitch and moan about how much money Google is "making" from "pirated goods", they should start a search engine/Ad service and wait for all that money to start flowing in.
Unless, of course, they're really making money hand over fist right now and are just greed personified-- then, yeah, they should keep doing what they're doing: Lying through their collective teeth and buying the laws they need to patch up their broken business model.
Maybe you should tell us "what copyright is all about" as it is today and then tell us what it was "all about" at its creation from your point of view. We will start there.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re:
You can't issue a DCMA takedown on something you don't control the copyrights to. Further, even if that was allowed, as more and more companies use youtube as a legitimate communication platform you can't just assume everything on youtube is infringing. (That's why you're supposed to be the copyright holder to issue the takedown!)
So, yes, it is quite fair in a society where you still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Analysis of Fair Use?
So, you're saying that just because it was fair use for a 20/20 show broadcast over the airwaves, it might not be fair use for a 20/20 show broadcast over the internet? It's the *same* 20/20 show, so if it was fair use then, it is fair use now.
Off topic. Have you been hitting the refresh button like crazy on this story? I know I get an email sent to me when someone comments, but since you're not logged in... well?
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Analysis of Fair Use?
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, every news show on the planet *might* be committing copyright infringement and no one has noticed until now and they chose to bring down a 20 year old 20/20 episode first?
Does that really seem likely to you?
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re:
You missed the most important part of Hulser's comment. Universal didn't make the 20/20 episode, but it issued the DCMA takedown. Since the only thing Universal would be able to legitimately issue the notice for would be the music videos used in the 20/20 episode, the statement "clearly fair use" refers to the music videos, not the 20/20 episode.
On the post: Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality
On the post: Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily
Re: Re: Net Neutrality
Your favorite theater will tell you you're not allowed to bring your Starbuck's coffee inside. That's their decision. So, Hulu says you can't use their services from a Cablevision IP address. That's also their decision. Granted, it's a bad decision, but that's the beauty of a free market.
On the post: Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily
Obvious.
On the post: Could The Enterprise D Replica In Minecraft Be A Copyright Minefield?
Re: Re: Re:
I would easily get behind a system that actually gives people (not just a lucky few) a reason not only to create (the carrot) but a reason to *continue* creating (the stick) by having a very short monopoly. I would like to think many people who comment here against Big Media would get behind that.
I can appreciate why the incumbent IP people wouldn't want to restore sanity to IP laws: for years they have been making the carrot bigger and the stick smaller, anyone who doesn't see (or care) about the bigger picture would want the very same thing.
My (rambling) point is that we all need to look at the bigger picture, as you seem to be, and make decisions, not based on the good of any one industry, but instead based on the good of society as a whole.
On the post: Could The Enterprise D Replica In Minecraft Be A Copyright Minefield?
Re: Re:
Our culture is being taken from us, and you seem okay with it. Sad.
On the post: Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?
Odd.
If the RIAA is going to bitch and moan about how much money Google is "making" from "pirated goods", they should start a search engine/Ad service and wait for all that money to start flowing in.
Unless, of course, they're really making money hand over fist right now and are just greed personified-- then, yeah, they should keep doing what they're doing: Lying through their collective teeth and buying the laws they need to patch up their broken business model.
On the post: Could The Enterprise D Replica In Minecraft Be A Copyright Minefield?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Could The Enterprise D Replica In Minecraft Be A Copyright Minefield?
Re: Re: Re: So is Minecraft an ISP now?
On the post: Telco Opposition To Anti-Bill Shock Plans Doesn't Pass The Laugh Test
Re:
However, those of us who embrace technology, we're tired of being screwed.
On the post: Sesame Street Recognizes That Advertising Is Content... On A Horse... Cow
Re: Re: Re: Does Mikey Like?
..and mine would have been "I'm on a Linux Box." ;)
On the post: How ACTA Turns Private, Non-Commercial File Sharing Into 'Commercial Scale' Criminal Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sesame Street Recognizes That Advertising Is Content... On A Horse... Cow
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie Monster
I don't see that message anymore. Now I miss it.
Next >>