99% of the population probably doesn't know or care what net neutrality is, and for half those people simply calling it "Obamacare for the internet" is all they'll ever need to know to be against it. It won't affect them until it's too late to change things anyway.
If the guy simply made a sound recording of the song, he could have paid a licensing fee and released it - no need for permission. The fact that he made a video of him playing the song means he has to ask for permission, and such permission is so ridiculously complicated that few others would even bother. Most people won't see the difference between a sound recording and a video recording, and find it ridiculous that you can cover any song you want to as long as you don't film yourself doing it.
It's not even that they don't feel obligated to follow the law, but that they feel superior to the law, and believe everything they do is best for America.
Apparently the masses don't care if the publishers or Amazon has the power. I doubt it even crosses their mind. All they know is they want to read a book right now.
But it's the jerk publishers that are causing the technology to be locked down to a few major players, so it doesn't matter if a few publishers play nice.
No, you're reading into it. Every TechDirt article starts with a summary background on the issues, including prior coverage or similar topics by Techdirt. The first paragraph of every Techdirt article is like that.
It doesn't get to the relevant topic until the second paragraph, where it never mentions that this particular case has anything to do with streaming infringing content, but merely legal content that is publicly available.
If the sources are illegal, then why aren't the sources being removed instead of the link to the sources? Why can't the people being infringed actually go after the people doing the infringing?
On the post: SiriusXM Loses For A Third Time On Public Performance Of Pre-1972 Works, This Time In New York
Re: Re: Re: Flo and Eddie
On the post: Amazon And Hachette Bury The Hatchet -- It's Just Not Clear In Whom
Why the future wins?
On the post: How Do You Have A Town Of 300 Residents... And 100 Police Officers? You Let Anyone 'Buy' A Job As A Cop
Re:
On the post: The Cable Industry Thinks Mindlessly Raising Rates Is A Good Idea In The Face Of Fleeing Subscribers
Re: Re: Let them merge
On the post: If You're Going To Complain About Spotify Payments, At Least Understand A Little Economics First
Re: Spotify
On the post: Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules
On the post: Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Universal Music Takes Down Fun Mashup Of Taylor Swift's 'Shake It Off' And 1989 Aerobics Video
Re:
On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back... But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Wyden Attacks CIA Redaction Demands As 'Unprecedented'
Re: Re: Re: Perhaps I am naive and obtuse, however...
On the post: Senator Wyden Attacks CIA Redaction Demands As 'Unprecedented'
Re:
On the post: How Publishers & Copyright Gave Amazon The Very Power That Publishers Now Hate
Re: Re: Re: No all Publishers are jerk bags
On the post: How Publishers & Copyright Gave Amazon The Very Power That Publishers Now Hate
Re: No all Publishers are jerk bags
On the post: When Even The New Yorker Is Doing Long Features On The Ridiculous State Of Copyright Law...
Re:
On the post: When Even The New Yorker Is Doing Long Features On The Ridiculous State Of Copyright Law...
Re:
On the post: 12 Nobel Peace Prize Winners Ask Nobel Peace Prize Winning President Obama To Release CIA Torture Report
Re: Obama himself
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't get to the relevant topic until the second paragraph, where it never mentions that this particular case has anything to do with streaming infringing content, but merely legal content that is publicly available.
The article is extremely clear.
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re:
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: @jupiterkansas
Youtube doesn't stream content. It actually hosts the content. This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with Youtube.
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: @jupiterkansas
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: Re: Re: A key part of the judgement intentionally ignored
Next >>