This is the problem with "innocent until proven guilty" and why Fair Use should be made more than just a "defense" against copyright infringement claims. The entire point is that her use is almost assuredly fair, but the costs of proving her innocence outweighs the gain from doing so. The fact that you're okay with this setup, as always, shows just what kind of person you are. (Especially ironic since you're always ranting about morality!)
..and it *is* censorship. It might be legal, but it's still censorship.
Well said. (Minus the condecending tone you can't seem to let go of.) The crux of the question is whether limiting, or eliminating, copyright protections, would cause more creation or not.
Since creativity seems flourish in sectors without copyright protections, e.g., fashion and culinary sectors, there is a strong possibility that ratcheting up the length and bredth of copyright protections is actually decreasing the amount of creative works.
Would you, AJ, be for eliminating copyright protections if it were proven that doing so would increase the creation of creative works? (Understanding that such a thing would be difficult to prove, of course.)
Copyright can violate the right to free speech. In fact, it does all the time. I don't see how the renaming of the article title changes the content within, nor does it have an effect on Mike's stance.
Allow me to quote that dashing fellow higher up in the comments:
Further, if you actually think about the actions monopolized by copyright, which one was violated? No copy was made by a link. It's just a pointer to a location; an address.
When I link to something, I have not created any new copies. What exclusive right is being violated? Do copyright holders have an exclusive right to advertize their work, too?
Say there's a copyrighted video that I want to help others infringe upon
This is the crux of your argument, and, it so happens, where it fails. How do you differentiate between a blog merely informing people that a noteworthy copyrighted work is leaked, versus that they wanted to "help others infringe"?
Further, if you actually think about the actions monopolized by copyright, which one was violated? No copy was made by a link. It's just a pointer to a location; an address.
In the end, though, people really don't care about copyright, and it's people like you that were the cause; just ask Newton.
This, of course, ignores the fact that there has to be intent.
So, you think that copyrighted images should be off limits, even in the situation of the press? Tell, oh, every source of the news that's ever existed, because this is no different. A blog that says "Hey, someone leaked these photos! See? We're not lying, here's a link. (link)" isn't guilty of copyright infringement. Hint: think of how this could easily be used to stifle free speech, if you're weren't wrong.
Google blah blah blah Google, links, Google.
Google is a search engine, not a blog. In related news, oranges aren't apples.
Ad Hom, baseless statement, baseless statement, scary words, scary words.
If the "threats" of Section 501 were worth anything, we wouldn't be here discussing this, because copyright infringement would be no more. No one cares.
On the post: How A Drone Might Save Your Life
Stay focused.
Note: Taco, not missile. Taco.
On the post: Marc Randazza Goes To War Against Revenge Porn Site Over Alleged 'Takedown Lawyer' Business Model
?
Probably? How could it possibly cause a legal issue? "Sure, we'll take down that picture, it will simply cost a $250 processing fee."
Not that I condone this, but it seems like they went out of their way to make this sketchy, a legal sense.
On the post: Supreme Court Puzzles: How There Can Be Oversight Concerning Warrantless Wiretapping If No One Can Sue?
Re: Gosh, Mike, you've reversed on "no evidence of real harm"!
On the post: Being Online Has Become So Common That Some People No Longer Identify It As Being Online
Re: Re: "it is not a conscience"
On the post: Economist's Defense Of Perpetual Copyright: It's Best To Just Ignore The Economics
Uh.
What if I want the freedom to just give away, without generating revenues?
On the post: Law Enforcement Looking To Create A Searchable Database Of Everywhere Your Vehicle Has Been
Re: Re: Re: More replies than here, and actual discussion too.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re: Re:
..and it *is* censorship. It might be legal, but it's still censorship.
On the post: Come Celebrate 15 Years Of Techdirt (And 50,000 Posts)!
Subject
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re:
Since creativity seems flourish in sectors without copyright protections, e.g., fashion and culinary sectors, there is a strong possibility that ratcheting up the length and bredth of copyright protections is actually decreasing the amount of creative works.
Would you, AJ, be for eliminating copyright protections if it were proven that doing so would increase the creation of creative works? (Understanding that such a thing would be difficult to prove, of course.)
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re:
Maybe I'm missing your point?
On the post: White House Goes Too Far In Asking Google To Pull Controversial Video
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Demanding A Student's Facebook Password A Violation Of First Amendment Rights, Judge Says
Kidding.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Demanding A Student's Facebook Password A Violation Of First Amendment Rights, Judge Says
Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the crux of your argument, and, it so happens, where it fails. How do you differentiate between a blog merely informing people that a noteworthy copyrighted work is leaked, versus that they wanted to "help others infringe"?
Further, if you actually think about the actions monopolized by copyright, which one was violated? No copy was made by a link. It's just a pointer to a location; an address.
In the end, though, people really don't care about copyright, and it's people like you that were the cause; just ask Newton.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
We know.
This, of course, ignores the fact that there has to be intent.
So, you think that copyrighted images should be off limits, even in the situation of the press? Tell, oh, every source of the news that's ever existed, because this is no different. A blog that says "Hey, someone leaked these photos! See? We're not lying, here's a link. (link)" isn't guilty of copyright infringement. Hint: think of how this could easily be used to stifle free speech, if you're weren't wrong.
Google blah blah blah Google, links, Google.
Google is a search engine, not a blog. In related news, oranges aren't apples.
Ad Hom, baseless statement, baseless statement, scary words, scary words.
If the "threats" of Section 501 were worth anything, we wouldn't be here discussing this, because copyright infringement would be no more. No one cares.
Next >>