"So you agree that jailing this guy should have been prioritized over the other crimes rife in South Africa, including rape and murder."
No. I don't and said nothing of the sort.
"It's no wonder your friends like bob enjoy paralleling copyright infringement to rape. Your brains actually think the former is just as bad as, if not worse than, the latter."
I am not bob. I don't think every Anonymous Coward is the same person and I think it quite obvious that we are different individuals with differing beliefs. There are many infractions of the law that are commercial in nature and are also criminal violations.
"Horrific doesn't even begin to describe the intellectual travesty."
I think the intellectual travesty occurring is linking my comment it to another's. If the movie was not released then the copy he received to upload was stolen. If he knew the movie was not released he was aware of receiving stolen goods. I must assume you think his actions were not criminal in nature.
"While the guy had his sentence suspended because he apologized and helped to remove the work from being accessed via the Pirate Bay, it's hard to see how this is even close to a proportionate or reasonable response to someone sharing your movie."
This statement is a disappointing on so many levels. The argument for piracy is generally access. I can't get the content in my country or it will come out maybe next year or never in my country. These are valid complaints. Here, A LOCAL film was placed on piratebay by someone in his country. What the author fails to note: the upload of the film occurred before the film was released. Two months before the producers where able to officially market and release the film, the local market was flooded with counterfeit dvds, decimating the commercial market for the film and ability of the producers to the opportunity to recoup their investment. This is not a case of a file-sharer downloading a movie. S 27(1)(f) of South African law explicitly states such behavior illegal. Perhaps it would be easier to justify his actions, and piracy in general, if it were simply " someone sharing your movie."
The Perfect 10 ruling also relied on the transformative nature of thumbnails(as they are not the same resolution as the original). I don't see the situations as comparable either. Gawker knew the content was being published against the wishes of the author and right holder and the right of first publication was thwarted.
This story has nothing to do with Prenda. Nor did my comment. But If I must.......the law is quite clear... if you infringe a copyright holder's copyright, they can sue you. Whether the Prenda attorneys were slimy and getting there just dessert is a given. Perhaps you do not agree with the law. You are entitled to beliefs, as am I. If you speed, you might get a ticket. If you pirate some porn without paying for it, you might get sued. Are speed traps a bummer? Yes. Are the Prenda lawyers a terrible representation of the legal profession? Yes. I don't sign in Anonymously because I have no problem with my beliefs and expressing them. I am sorry you do not feel the same.
"But copyright rents are the main/only income source for artists/authors/creators,"
I didn't say this. And I want you to realize that some of my views on copyright have changed and some have not(that is why I visit this site). If you continue to put words in my mouth you miss the points I express. I am not a so called "Maximalist" and I do not work for any AA. I never said musicians don't have other revenue streams and have been one of the first to admit the recording industries and movies industries are and have needed to change their business models. However, copyright is the law. And enforcement of it provides legitimate income for creators. Thus, I rail against the notion that breaking the law is and should be justified and piracy is a misnomer. My comment stated that both programmers and artist are authors. Without content Pandora does not exist. Whether they pay to much for content or not enough is debatable. Re-read exactly what I wrote in my comment and I believe you will see yours is reactionary and misguided.
"It’s an injustice that boggles the mind," says Booker T. & the MG's Steve Cropper. "Just like the programmers who deserve to be paid for their work, I deserve to be paid for mine.”
I really don't understand the backlash from this statement. He stated programmers DESERVE to be paid for their work and he believes he DESERVES to be paid for his. This statement is true. As long as both were not creating works for hire. The programmer and the songwriter are both authors. Sadly, either the author works for a salary, giving up their copyright interest in their works (programmer) or signs contracts that name the label as the owner of the copyright and stating their music is a work for hire (musician).
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.August 30, 1983 "The definition of 'literary works' in section 101 includes expression not only in words but also 'numbers, or other ... numerical symbols or indicia', thereby expanding the common usage of 'literary works.'" "Thus a computer program, whether in object code or source code, is a “literary work” and is protected from unauthorized copying, whether from its object or source code version."
If a programmer retained the rights, just like if the musician retained theirs they to would be entitled "royalties"(a licensing construct). Apple sued for this and I'm sure there are programmers that are still getting paid for the code they wrote as Apple is not an open platform.
Hmmm.....Walmart takes a photo of you leaving their store, tweets it, with your real first and last name attached, saying "______ _______just can't stay away from walmart." Am I to believe that, 1)It's not an advertisement? 2) If they did so you shouldn't be compensated? I go lots of places, but I don't think I want to be associated with them just cause I went there. Gotta get permission and pay me for it.
Youtube's Content ID system probably flagged it. I doubt Telemundo or Univision requested a takedown. I was able to view the video on two different platforms.
"Ease of use/access drives people to piracy, it doesn't matter if the content is available, if paying for and watching it involves signing up for a bunch of different services, and jumping through dozens of hoops before you can get to it, so they'd need to streamline that and make it easy to pay, and easy to watch/listen."
I totally agree and agree with the majority of your points. Most industries are slow to change and the movie industry will be forced to change and make content available globally as the internet has erased borders, just as the music business was forced to. How to determine the price for access to content transitioning from a model determined by regional licensing. That is the issue, not either piracy is the sole issue/reason for profit loss or that piracy great and nothing should be done about it.
I do not comment for you to take me seriously nor for your approval and personally could not care less. If you want to talk about Prenda, please find a forum to do so. I think the simplest solution for you would be, simply, buy some porn if you are upset or worried there may be legal repercussions from pirating it.
"Nobody has ever claimed that "piracy has had no effect on the movie business".
What is the title of this article?
"Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs."
It's the likes of you that " continually mis-frame the issue."
Mis-framing the issue is showing the revenue generated from ticket sales and trying to say piracy has had no effect or little on the movie business. So by the same logic, piracy has not effected the music business because of the number of people that go to concerts?
"What people take strong issue with is the loud and continuous claim that piracy is the sole cause of massive industry losses."
So industries that lose money to piracy should do nothing about it and not try to combat it? I don't understand the logic and no other industries would be inactive if a consumer could acquire product for free.
"Here's a tip, change the message because nobody believes you."
I didn't know I was the voice of the movie and movie business. But I will take your tip under consideration.
So... box office revenue has gone up as ticket prices have gone up and ....piracy has had no effect on the movie business. Piracy effects the sale of DVDs other platforms after release. Why continually mis-frame the issue. I can only assume you believe that more movies are released in 3-D because it is cool and not an effort to persuade patrons to go to the box office. In other techdirt news, piracy doesn't effect the music business either....
I don't claim Viacom's innocence. Their incredibly lazy execution and inaccurate interpretation of the law was what became apparent throughout out the litigation. However, I am sure there were those at Youtube that knew of specific infringement. Viacom just couldn't prove it. That is what I found so interesting.
"they can't just say 'There's infringing stuff on your site, it's your job to find it and take it down.'
Absolutely. I think that is why the litigation was so important for everyone especially innovators and copyright holders.
"In the end, the case is perhaps one of the most perfect examples of how old media reacts badly to new innovations and immediately reaches for the only real tool in its toolbox against disruptive innovation: flailing about angrily in the court system, hoping to kill the innovation."
I do not agree and find it disappointing you don't put the case filing into historical context. The suit was filed in 2007. Youtube had been in operation for 2 years and infringement of Viacom's content was rampant. Reading some of the emails between Walker, Karim, and Hurley, it was obvious they new infringing content was being uploaded. 512c is supposed to give you safe harbor if you are unaware of infringing content. They were aware. It is not as if Youtube was offering to license the material. The licensing agreement wasn't reached until 2008. Using the reasoning of the Grokster, Youtube was not made primarily for infringement purposes however, a reading of the emails makes it clear Youtube founders knew the popularity of the site, in the beginning, would be in large part from infringing content. Why Viacom didn't drop the suit after the licensing agreement? They wanted money from the site their content helped to build. Viacom wasn't trying to kill off innovation,they were trying to get paid for the use of their content.
I am not familiar with California divorce law but Robinson's argument about regaining rights seems spot on. "Smokey Robinson claiming his ex-wife isn't entitled to profits (but presumably his heirs are) -- is twisting the law to assert control." I don't think so. I he were to pass and they were still married, then she would have rights as well as his children. With the dissolution of marriage, she loses those rights.
I feel for the modern day professional photographer. I was at a conference recently and a gentleman that represents photographers says they are getting killed. They post an image and people just rip it and don't pay them anything. He was actually lamenting that they would have more power to collect monies if they had something akin to the performing rights organizations that music has. Getty sues because they run a business based on licensing. If they don't sue, why would anyone license use of their images or videos, especially businesses that can afford to/need to use their services. I find this pretty smart and it seems they are looking towards the future trying to strike a balance between revenue and reality.
Then they are joint authors? That agreement must be explicit and decided at the onset.... Then perhaps she gave an implied non exclusive license to use her performance and she has decided to rescind that license? Or she saw them filming and didn't realize her image would be used. She must have wandered on set.
On the post: Criminal Conviction In South Africa For Posting A Movie To The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Good job SA police and governemnt
No. I don't and said nothing of the sort.
"It's no wonder your friends like bob enjoy paralleling copyright infringement to rape. Your brains actually think the former is just as bad as, if not worse than, the latter."
I am not bob. I don't think every Anonymous Coward is the same person and I think it quite obvious that we are different individuals with differing beliefs. There are many infractions of the law that are commercial in nature and are also criminal violations.
"Horrific doesn't even begin to describe the intellectual travesty."
I think the intellectual travesty occurring is linking my comment it to another's. If the movie was not released then the copy he received to upload was stolen. If he knew the movie was not released he was aware of receiving stolen goods. I must assume you think his actions were not criminal in nature.
On the post: Criminal Conviction In South Africa For Posting A Movie To The Pirate Bay
Re: Good job SA police and governemnt
This statement is a disappointing on so many levels. The argument for piracy is generally access. I can't get the content in my country or it will come out maybe next year or never in my country. These are valid complaints. Here, A LOCAL film was placed on piratebay by someone in his country. What the author fails to note: the upload of the film occurred before the film was released. Two months before the producers where able to officially market and release the film, the local market was flooded with counterfeit dvds, decimating the commercial market for the film and ability of the producers to the opportunity to recoup their investment. This is not a case of a file-sharer downloading a movie. S 27(1)(f) of South African law explicitly states such behavior illegal. Perhaps it would be easier to justify his actions, and piracy in general, if it were simply " someone sharing your movie."
On the post: Quentin Tarantino Loses Big In Trying To Paint Gawker As A Copyright Infringer
Re: Re:
Gawker knew the content was being published against the wishes of the author and right holder and the right of first publication was thwarted.
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
Re: Re:
I didn't say this. And I want you to realize that some of my views on copyright have changed and some have not(that is why I visit this site). If you continue to put words in my mouth you miss the points I express. I am not a so called "Maximalist" and I do not work for any AA. I never said musicians don't have other revenue streams and have been one of the first to admit the recording industries and movies industries are and have needed to change their business models. However, copyright is the law. And enforcement of it provides legitimate income for creators. Thus, I rail against the notion that breaking the law is and should be justified and piracy is a misnomer. My comment stated that both programmers and artist are authors. Without content Pandora does not exist. Whether they pay to much for content or not enough is debatable. Re-read exactly what I wrote in my comment and I believe you will see yours is reactionary and misguided.
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
Re:
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
I really don't understand the backlash from this statement. He stated programmers DESERVE to be paid for their work and he believes he DESERVES to be paid for his. This statement is true. As long as both were not creating works for hire. The programmer and the songwriter are both authors. Sadly, either the author works for a salary, giving up their copyright interest in their works (programmer) or signs contracts that name the label as the owner of the copyright and stating their music is a work for hire (musician).
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.August 30, 1983
"The definition of 'literary works' in section 101 includes expression not only in words but also 'numbers, or other ... numerical symbols or indicia', thereby expanding the common usage of 'literary works.'"
"Thus a computer program, whether in object code or source code, is a “literary work” and is protected from unauthorized copying, whether from its object or source code version."
If a programmer retained the rights, just like if the musician retained theirs they to would be entitled "royalties"(a licensing construct). Apple sued for this and I'm sure there are programmers that are still getting paid for the code they wrote as Apple is not an open platform.
On the post: Katherine Heigl Wants Six Mil-Do After Drugstore Tweets Picture Of Her Shopping There
1)It's not an advertisement?
2) If they did so you shouldn't be compensated?
I go lots of places, but I don't think I want to be associated with them just cause I went there. Gotta get permission and pay me for it.
On the post: Telemundo & Univision Copyright Claim On YouTube Takes Down US Congressional Appropriations Hearing
http://appropriations.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=373130
http://www.ustream.tv/embed/ recorded/45385180
On the post: Exasperation Shines Through As Google Angrily Responds To Contempt Motion Over Innocence Of Muslims
Re:
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I totally agree and agree with the majority of your points. Most industries are slow to change and the movie industry will be forced to change and make content available globally as the internet has erased borders, just as the music business was forced to. How to determine the price for access to content transitioning from a model determined by regional licensing. That is the issue, not either piracy is the sole issue/reason for profit loss or that piracy great and nothing should be done about it.
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: Re:
What is the title of this article?
"Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs."
It's the likes of you that " continually mis-frame the issue."
Mis-framing the issue is showing the revenue generated from ticket sales and trying to say piracy has had no effect or little on the movie business. So by the same logic, piracy has not effected the music business because of the number of people that go to concerts?
"What people take strong issue with is the loud and continuous claim that piracy is the sole cause of massive industry losses."
So industries that lose money to piracy should do nothing about it and not try to combat it? I don't understand the logic and no other industries would be inactive if a consumer could acquire product for free.
"Here's a tip, change the message because nobody believes you."
I didn't know I was the voice of the movie and movie business. But I will take your tip under consideration.
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
On the post: Rap Artists Wu-Tang Clan Fight Infinite Goods By Selling One Copy Of Their Next Album... For $1 Million
Re:
On the post: Google And Viacom Finally Settle The Big YouTube Lawsuit
I don't claim Viacom's innocence. Their incredibly lazy execution and inaccurate interpretation of the law was what became apparent throughout out the litigation. However, I am sure there were those at Youtube that knew of specific infringement. Viacom just couldn't prove it. That is what I found so interesting.
"they can't just say 'There's infringing stuff on your site, it's your job to find it and take it down.'
Absolutely. I think that is why the litigation was so important for everyone especially innovators and copyright holders.
On the post: Google And Viacom Finally Settle The Big YouTube Lawsuit
I do not agree and find it disappointing you don't put the case filing into historical context. The suit was filed in 2007. Youtube had been in operation for 2 years and infringement of Viacom's content was rampant. Reading some of the emails between Walker, Karim, and Hurley, it was obvious they new infringing content was being uploaded. 512c
is supposed to give you safe harbor if you are unaware of infringing content. They were aware. It is not as if Youtube was offering to license the material. The licensing agreement wasn't reached until 2008. Using the reasoning of the Grokster, Youtube was not made primarily for infringement purposes however, a reading of the emails makes it clear Youtube founders knew the popularity of the site, in the beginning, would be in large part from infringing content. Why Viacom didn't drop the suit after the licensing agreement? They wanted money from the site their content helped to build. Viacom wasn't trying to kill off innovation,they were trying to get paid for the use of their content.
On the post: Smokey Robinson Sues Ex-Wife To Prevent Her From Claiming 50% Of His Recaptured Motown Hits
"Smokey Robinson claiming his ex-wife isn't entitled to profits (but presumably his heirs are) -- is twisting the law to assert control."
I don't think so. I he were to pass and they were still married, then she would have rights as well as his children. With the dissolution of marriage, she loses those rights.
On the post: Getty Images Decides It's Mostly Better To Compete Than Sue, Frees Up Millions Of Images
Getty sues because they run a business based on licensing. If they don't sue, why would anyone license use of their images or videos, especially businesses that can afford to/need to use their services. I find this pretty smart and it seems they are looking towards the future trying to strike a balance between revenue and reality.
On the post: Judge Kozinski Refuses To Even Consider That His Ruling To Censor 'Innocence Of Muslims' On Copyright Grounds May Go Too Far
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>