Yes to all of the above. Public Domain is Public Domain. You can do anything with a book from the 1800s that you could do with a book by Homer or Aristotle.
Re: Re: 'One of these things is not like the others...'
Again I will remind you that you brought all this up, apropos of absolutely nothing, on a post highlighting popular comments that are almost all about the geeky minutiae of copyright law.
I think you might be the one trapped in a bubble and imposing a very narrow viewpoint on everything you see...
Can I just bring us back down to earth for a moment and note that the subjects of the six top-voted comments featured in this post are (1) copyright (2) copyright (3) copyright (4) copyright (5) copyright+trademark and (6) movies.
Now as it happens I do strongly suspect (happily) that we have a lot fewer white supremacist fans than Fox News - but if we're talking about "the Techdirt bubble" well... personally the only issue I've ever had is occasionally forgetting that most people don't know anything about copyright.
I totally get that it's easy to forget this in our present moment, but: everything isn't always only about the next election or America's culture war.
We don't base our decisions about our weekly community posts on some vague goal of being competitive with and/or opening a dialogue with Fox News. I don't think that's ever crossed my mind and really it strikes me as a pretty weird suggestion - why is America's largest cable news network the counterpart to Techdirt for this comparison?
The idea has come up from time to time, but yeah, ultimately it just provides bad incentives and validates the wrong people. We don't even actually have the Report tallies in our standard backend interface that shows the top-voted comments (though we could of course check if we really wanted to)
Heh yeah sorry I see that now. Somehow my brain skipped that portion of the previous comment when I was looking, and I was just thinking about Ring issues and not copyright at all. Well played ;) (I was also distracted because it felt weirdly like a Robert Burns poem)
The very first email notification from Teespring said the campaign "has been terminated early due to content concerns. It appears your campaign may be using content owned by a third party." It then had a link to their IP guidelines page.
It also said that if the email notification had an attached takedown notice, that meant the takedown was based on a third-party complaint (followed by instructions on filing a counterclaim) - but that if it didn't (which it didn't) then it was not based on a complaint, and I should contact Teespring's own internal IP department if "you believe the campaign was removed as a result of a mistake or you can show you have the right to reproduce the content in your campaign"
That's what I did (explaining it was a mistake, since I made the shirt design myself), and the remainder of the exchange is with said IP department - but they never responded to my statement that the design contains no third party content, and instead just started saying it was in violation of their Acceptable Use policies.
Re: I'm not so sure it's theft of jokes he's worried about
yeah he's gotta be careful - if the wrong person complains about one of his jokes, he might end up with a netflix special and an invitation to the joe rogan show
If you already grabbed the print-and-play version, you may have gotten incomplete files! This has now been fixed, so please re-download the files from https://copia.itch.io/cia
As far as I know, there aren't many critics offering up the "be consistent, either-or" position you outline. There are some critics saying "fact-check everything, be a publisher" and other critics saying "fact-check nothing, be a platform" - and some facetiously saying "choose" as a way of actually demanding the one they prefer - but few if any critics legitimately saying they'd be fine with either so just choose one.
Re: Re: Re: I'm tired of "hypocrisy" complaints for pr
I want to look at 2 a bit more. If we take that as his position, that also means that Salesforce would/will engage in sex trafficing.... if they think the law will let them get away with it.
Yeah, precisely. And that's obviously not what he's saying.
The only even potentially internally consistent argument would be that he's calling for changes to 230 that would exempt Facebook but still immunize Salesforce. But to make that argument he'd have to actually explore and define the distinction - which is something 230 attackers never seem to do, because when you try, you realize it's not so simple and that your hatred of 230 might be a bit confused. So they tend to just throw their hands up and go "well it's obvious! someone else figure out how to make it law!"
Re: I'm tired of "hypocrisy" complaints for proposed law changes
I understand what you mean generally but, let's think this through...
I agree one can use the law and operate within the law while seeking to change it. It's not automatically hypocritical to fail to "lead by example". But if you are calling for repeal of a law that is currently protecting you for actions you took, you must kinda necessarily be saying one of two things: we deserve to be punished but won't be, OR we would have done things differently had this law not existed and that would be better (generally I imagine the latter is how people would put it. And that could often be fair enough!)
So... Salesforce is being sued for facilitating human trafficking because Backpage used its service. Their legal and public response is they had nothing to do with that - they just offer an online service that any company can use, and they cannot be held liable (legally or morally) for Backpage's actions.
So what is Benioff saying? Is he saying that, in fact, Salesforce would have not allowed Backpage to use its services had section 230 not existed? That they knew they could be accused of facilitating sex trafficking but were comfortable in the knowledge that they had a legal shield - and that next time, if Section 230 were repealed, they would do things differently?
Somehow I doubt it.
So I would say that in this case, yes, an accusation of hypocrisy is warranted, at least until he clarifies how his own company's use of 230 protections factors into his opinion here.
Re: Someone strip it and convert to PDF, put it on torrent sites
All the stories are under Creative Commons licenses and several have been placed in the public domain. So putting this on torrent sites would not, in fact, be "piracy" - it would be a perfectly legal and indeed encouraged way of sharing the book.
Nope, Amazon's DRM is not activated on the book! I understand Kindle files aren't always the most easily portable/convertible in and of themselves, but there are no special restrictions.
No need for the hostility towards Allen. According to her, a deluge of attacks was what pushed her away from the conversation and prevented the actual teaching moment that could have happened.
And while I'm a bit dubious about this and I still believe, as I did then, that she was somewhat unduly focusing on a minority of attacks while ignoring the many more thoughtful and polite comments flooding in on her blog, given the way online harassment - especially of women in the public eye - has developed in the intervening decade (this was three years before <i>Tropes vs. Women</i>, and five before Gamergate) I now also wonder if I underestimated at least some aspects of what she was facing.
And either way, more attacks don't help. She's not the first artist to be deeply misled about copyright, and she won't be the last. Plus she has some good tunes - even if I still like Dan Bull's version best
Does the First amendment say you cant be Sue'd for your opinion??
I dont think it does.
You can only be sued for your opinion if Congress hath made a law abridging the freedom of speech, and the first amendment does indeed have something to say about that.
On the post: George Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue Is In The Public Domain And Gerswhin's Nephew Is Worried Someone Might Turn It Into Hip Hop
Re: How free is the PD?
(Oh except "no" to the part about citing the author - you can if you want but you don't have to. There are no restrictions on what you can do.)
On the post: George Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue Is In The Public Domain And Gerswhin's Nephew Is Worried Someone Might Turn It Into Hip Hop
Re: How free is the PD?
Yes to all of the above. Public Domain is Public Domain. You can do anything with a book from the 1800s that you could do with a book by Homer or Aristotle.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Year At Techdirt
Re: Re: 'One of these things is not like the others...'
Again I will remind you that you brought all this up, apropos of absolutely nothing, on a post highlighting popular comments that are almost all about the geeky minutiae of copyright law.
I think you might be the one trapped in a bubble and imposing a very narrow viewpoint on everything you see...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Year At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Can I just bring us back down to earth for a moment and note that the subjects of the six top-voted comments featured in this post are (1) copyright (2) copyright (3) copyright (4) copyright (5) copyright+trademark and (6) movies.
Now as it happens I do strongly suspect (happily) that we have a lot fewer white supremacist fans than Fox News - but if we're talking about "the Techdirt bubble" well... personally the only issue I've ever had is occasionally forgetting that most people don't know anything about copyright.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Year At Techdirt
Re: Curated audience
I totally get that it's easy to forget this in our present moment, but: everything isn't always only about the next election or America's culture war.
We don't base our decisions about our weekly community posts on some vague goal of being competitive with and/or opening a dialogue with Fox News. I don't think that's ever crossed my mind and really it strikes me as a pretty weird suggestion - why is America's largest cable news network the counterpart to Techdirt for this comparison?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Year At Techdirt
Re: Most flagged comment award
The idea has come up from time to time, but yeah, ultimately it just provides bad incentives and validates the wrong people. We don't even actually have the Report tallies in our standard backend interface that shows the top-voted comments (though we could of course check if we really wanted to)
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 29th - January 4th
Re:
That's good to know, thanks! Sometimes I wonder just how many people are really reading it :)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Heh yeah sorry I see that now. Somehow my brain skipped that portion of the previous comment when I was looking, and I was just thinking about Ring issues and not copyright at all. Well played ;) (I was also distracted because it felt weirdly like a Robert Burns poem)
On the post: Teespring Takes Down Our Copying Is Not Theft Gear, Refuses To Say Why
Re: Re: Re: re: copyright is not theft
Ah, let me clarify:
The very first email notification from Teespring said the campaign "has been terminated early due to content concerns. It appears your campaign may be using content owned by a third party." It then had a link to their IP guidelines page.
It also said that if the email notification had an attached takedown notice, that meant the takedown was based on a third-party complaint (followed by instructions on filing a counterclaim) - but that if it didn't (which it didn't) then it was not based on a complaint, and I should contact Teespring's own internal IP department if "you believe the campaign was removed as a result of a mistake or you can show you have the right to reproduce the content in your campaign"
That's what I did (explaining it was a mistake, since I made the shirt design myself), and the remainder of the exchange is with said IP department - but they never responded to my statement that the design contains no third party content, and instead just started saying it was in violation of their Acceptable Use policies.
On the post: Teespring Takes Down Our Copying Is Not Theft Gear, Refuses To Say Why
Re: re: copyright is not theft
The takedown was not a DMCA notice. And you didn't manage to quote the phrase correctly...
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re: I'm not so sure it's theft of jokes he's worried about
yeah he's gotta be careful - if the wrong person complains about one of his jokes, he might end up with a netflix special and an invitation to the joe rogan show
On the post: CIA: Collect It All Is Now 25% Off, And The Print-And-Play Version Is Free!
If you already grabbed the print-and-play version, you may have gotten incomplete files! This has now been fixed, so please re-download the files from https://copia.itch.io/cia
Apologies for the error!
On the post: Sometimes The Cost Of Revenue Is Too High: Twitter Bans Political Ads As Facebook Deals With Ongoing Shitshow
Re:
As far as I know, there aren't many critics offering up the "be consistent, either-or" position you outline. There are some critics saying "fact-check everything, be a publisher" and other critics saying "fact-check nothing, be a platform" - and some facetiously saying "choose" as a way of actually demanding the one they prefer - but few if any critics legitimately saying they'd be fine with either so just choose one.
On the post: Marc Benioff Calls For Section 230 To Be Abolished At The Same Time His Company Is Relying On 230 To Get Out Of A Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: I'm tired of "hypocrisy" complaints for pr
I want to look at 2 a bit more. If we take that as his position, that also means that Salesforce would/will engage in sex trafficing.... if they think the law will let them get away with it.
Yeah, precisely. And that's obviously not what he's saying.
The only even potentially internally consistent argument would be that he's calling for changes to 230 that would exempt Facebook but still immunize Salesforce. But to make that argument he'd have to actually explore and define the distinction - which is something 230 attackers never seem to do, because when you try, you realize it's not so simple and that your hatred of 230 might be a bit confused. So they tend to just throw their hands up and go "well it's obvious! someone else figure out how to make it law!"
On the post: Marc Benioff Calls For Section 230 To Be Abolished At The Same Time His Company Is Relying On 230 To Get Out Of A Lawsuit
Re: I'm tired of "hypocrisy" complaints for proposed law changes
I understand what you mean generally but, let's think this through...
I agree one can use the law and operate within the law while seeking to change it. It's not automatically hypocritical to fail to "lead by example". But if you are calling for repeal of a law that is currently protecting you for actions you took, you must kinda necessarily be saying one of two things: we deserve to be punished but won't be, OR we would have done things differently had this law not existed and that would be better (generally I imagine the latter is how people would put it. And that could often be fair enough!)
So... Salesforce is being sued for facilitating human trafficking because Backpage used its service. Their legal and public response is they had nothing to do with that - they just offer an online service that any company can use, and they cannot be held liable (legally or morally) for Backpage's actions.
So what is Benioff saying? Is he saying that, in fact, Salesforce would have not allowed Backpage to use its services had section 230 not existed? That they knew they could be accused of facilitating sex trafficking but were comfortable in the knowledge that they had a legal shield - and that next time, if Section 230 were repealed, they would do things differently?
Somehow I doubt it.
So I would say that in this case, yes, an accusation of hypocrisy is warranted, at least until he clarifies how his own company's use of 230 protections factors into his opinion here.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Weird, I don't know what happened there, must have saved over an edit or something when working on the post. Fixed, thanks!
On the post: Welcome To Working Futures: 14 Speculative Fiction Stories About The Future Of Work
Re: Someone strip it and convert to PDF, put it on torrent sites
All the stories are under Creative Commons licenses and several have been placed in the public domain. So putting this on torrent sites would not, in fact, be "piracy" - it would be a perfectly legal and indeed encouraged way of sharing the book.
Have at it, folks!
On the post: Welcome To Working Futures: 14 Speculative Fiction Stories About The Future Of Work
Re: Re: Re: Why no EPUB?
Nope, Amazon's DRM is not activated on the book! I understand Kindle files aren't always the most easily portable/convertible in and of themselves, but there are no special restrictions.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 22nd - 28th
Re:
No need for the hostility towards Allen. According to her, a deluge of attacks was what pushed her away from the conversation and prevented the actual teaching moment that could have happened.
And while I'm a bit dubious about this and I still believe, as I did then, that she was somewhat unduly focusing on a minority of attacks while ignoring the many more thoughtful and polite comments flooding in on her blog, given the way online harassment - especially of women in the public eye - has developed in the intervening decade (this was three years before <i>Tropes vs. Women</i>, and five before Gamergate) I now also wonder if I underestimated at least some aspects of what she was facing.
And either way, more attacks don't help. She's not the first artist to be deeply misled about copyright, and she won't be the last. Plus she has some good tunes - even if I still like Dan Bull's version best
On the post: Being Designated A 'Hate Group' By The SPLC Isn't Defamation, Says Federal Court
Re: 1st
Does the First amendment say you cant be Sue'd for your opinion??
I dont think it does.
You can only be sued for your opinion if Congress hath made a law abridging the freedom of speech, and the first amendment does indeed have something to say about that.
Next >>