Well, I think there is a difference between posting ones opinion about a cop and posting their address.
I'm sorry, I simply can't agree. What if you posted where the cop worked? Where he eats dinner? Where he plays basketball? (Hang on, it's about to get tricky) What if you posted his next door neighbor's address and said the cop lived one even number higher?
The judge ruled correctly. The address of this officer in and of itself is not a threat and since no law was broken by finding out the address, printing it in a comment (or, I suppose, anywhere else) is not illegal.
Maybe Viacom should google "who owns the copyright on the daily show", but then again, only two semi-useful results show. Following those links leads to a 404 page and a link that doesn't work.
That's probably what's causing all the confusion-- no one knows. :)
That's the entire point. Even worse, (better?) as more and more companies (including Viacom!) make use of youtube for legitimate means, the ability for Google to determine infringing from non-infringing becomes nigh impossible.
It's about $10/month. The cost of a VPN service to encrypt your data. That right there proves people *are* willing to pay for content, because even those people pirating are willing to pay a monthly fee to continue to do it.
So, if the content creators were smart, they'd offer an all-you-can-eat service for that price.
Longer copyright duration encourage new works because longer copyright durations increase the NPV of copyrightable works.
The logic flaw in this statement is that you assume that the only reason people *don't* create is because they don't feel there is money in it. Phrased differently, you are assuming that anyone can *decide* to be creative. This is obviously not true, or we would all be MegaSuper Stars, wouldn't we?
Now, if we remove this logic flaw, it's much easier to see that we don't want the few people capable of creating great works doing so only once, we need to give them incentive to create multiple works in the short time they live. Thus, shorter copyright lengths, so that they must continue to create, are best for everyone.
No more this if its published its its automatically copyrighted. Because that leads to a sense of entitlement.
Copyright itself leads to a sense of entitlement. The real argument against automatic copyright is that it creates "orphaned works" which, no matter how you spin it, goes directly opposite of "promoting the progress" because in that case, someone did create, sees no return for it *and* we can't use it.
I ran into something like this recently. I was attempting to legally change my name and was required by the courts to post a legal blurb about it in the paper of their choosing-- the small, local city paper. (Oddly enough, the city the courthouse was in, not the city I reside in.)
So I call the paper and make arrangements to post the blurb and come to find it will cost me $140. Now, that's not a lot of money, except that I *couldn't* shop around for a better price. The paper could have charged me $1,400. If I wanted to go through with the process, I had to put the blurb in the paper.
As soon as I was told I had to use a newspaper, I immediately wondered what would happen when there is no newspaper. It was the first time I've ever given money to a newspaper, and hopefully it will be the last.
..and the crazy thing: The paper had dozens of similar legal blurbs in it.. I imagine it's how they stay out of the red.
Now, I like FUD just as much as the next guy, but when I think of concerns about data mining and aggregation, Techdirt falls *way* below, oh, I dunno, Google.
If you don't like the stories on Techdirt, just go away. Really. If you're not here to actually *discuss* the topics, why are you here? I mean, the only way you could get me to go to a site that I didn't like-- that I refused to even discuss topics with-- would be if I were... paid to.
On the post: Cop-Rating Website Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re:
I'm sorry, I simply can't agree. What if you posted where the cop worked? Where he eats dinner? Where he plays basketball? (Hang on, it's about to get tricky) What if you posted his next door neighbor's address and said the cop lived one even number higher?
The judge ruled correctly. The address of this officer in and of itself is not a threat and since no law was broken by finding out the address, printing it in a comment (or, I suppose, anywhere else) is not illegal.
On the post: Why Do People Keep Insisting That Google Has A Better Idea What's Infringing Than Viacom?
Re: pretty obvious to me
That's probably what's causing all the confusion-- no one knows. :)
On the post: Post Semi-Nude Photos Of Celebs Doing Drugs... Get Hit With C&D That You Can't Show Anyone
Re:
On the post: Facebook Abusing Computer Crime Law To Block Useful Service
Re: Re: Ummmm
On the post: Why Do People Keep Insisting That Google Has A Better Idea What's Infringing Than Viacom?
Re: Question for Viacom and Cass
But hey, their lawyers are getting paid.
On the post: Copyright Defenders Don't Realize That New 'Fair Use' Report Mocks Their Own Study
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That Blog Commenter Was Not A Journalist
Re: Re: Er...
On the post: Justice Dept. Boosts Number Of FBI Agents, Attorneys Focusing On Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Labour Party Claims 'Innocent Error' Absolves It Of Infringement -- But Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: More...
On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's about $10/month. The cost of a VPN service to encrypt your data. That right there proves people *are* willing to pay for content, because even those people pirating are willing to pay a monthly fee to continue to do it.
So, if the content creators were smart, they'd offer an all-you-can-eat service for that price.
Of course we both know they aren't smart.
On the post: Band Says: If You Want To File Share Our Music, Cool, But Please Share It Widely
Re: Makes sense to me
On the post: Reed Elsevier Sues Punk Band Over Parody Logo That Was Discontinued Years Ago
Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
You should really learn to read, pal.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
I usually don't bother to read posts from either type of person. :)
On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!
Re: Re: *Very* Annoying.
Also annoying.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
The logic flaw in this statement is that you assume that the only reason people *don't* create is because they don't feel there is money in it. Phrased differently, you are assuming that anyone can *decide* to be creative. This is obviously not true, or we would all be MegaSuper Stars, wouldn't we?
Now, if we remove this logic flaw, it's much easier to see that we don't want the few people capable of creating great works doing so only once, we need to give them incentive to create multiple works in the short time they live. Thus, shorter copyright lengths, so that they must continue to create, are best for everyone.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Copyright itself leads to a sense of entitlement. The real argument against automatic copyright is that it creates "orphaned works" which, no matter how you spin it, goes directly opposite of "promoting the progress" because in that case, someone did create, sees no return for it *and* we can't use it.
On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!
*Very* Annoying.
So I call the paper and make arrangements to post the blurb and come to find it will cost me $140. Now, that's not a lot of money, except that I *couldn't* shop around for a better price. The paper could have charged me $1,400. If I wanted to go through with the process, I had to put the blurb in the paper.
As soon as I was told I had to use a newspaper, I immediately wondered what would happen when there is no newspaper. It was the first time I've ever given money to a newspaper, and hopefully it will be the last.
..and the crazy thing: The paper had dozens of similar legal blurbs in it.. I imagine it's how they stay out of the red.
On the post: Dungeons And Dragons Players Revolt, Storm Super Rewards Castle
Re:
If you don't like the stories on Techdirt, just go away. Really. If you're not here to actually *discuss* the topics, why are you here? I mean, the only way you could get me to go to a site that I didn't like-- that I refused to even discuss topics with-- would be if I were... paid to.
Hm..
Next >>