Re: Re: Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright aboli
You realize the same flowchart applies equally well to reporting a rape or mugging (with some minor edits), right?
There is a profound difference between rape and mugging (a clearly immoral and violent act that puts people in danger) than illegally uploading copyrighted content (technically illegal, but at most the only thing hurt is the copyright holder's bottom line). Furthermore, while anyone with knowledge at hand (and not just the victim) can report a mugger to the police, only the copyright holder has the legal authority to issue a DMCA takedown notice.
Plus, there are volumes of stories where the DMCA was abused (The H3H3 case, Oh the Places You'll Boldly Go, Lenz's dancing baby video, etc.). Yet, while there are a plethora of recourses for law enforcement to take against someone who files a false complaint, there is little to no recourse to those who file false DMCA takedown notices (ironically, in large part thanks to the Lenz case).
That being said, I have since come to regret making the original comment. I made it in rushed, bad taste, and I would have deleted it within hours of making it if there was an option. I don't mean to paint anyone and everyone who has ever sent a DMCA takedown notice as a "complete jerk", yet in countless cases (like in the original story above), filing a DMCA takedown notice is a very jerky way of going about criticism. So I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and regardless of my own personal views on the subject, consider this my retraction of the original comment above.
Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright abolitionist
Does the content in question actually contain copyrighted content that you own the rights to?
IF YES: Continue to next question.
IF NO: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
Does the uploader have a valid fair use case with regards to the copyrighted content?
IF YES: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
IF NO: Continue to the next question.
Are you a complete jerk?
IF YES: Reassess your life priorities, and once you’ve done that, go back to question #1.
IF NO: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
TL;DR: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice UNLESS you want to be seen as a complete jerk.
I was never going to vote for Biden in the primary, but the fact he helped create SOPA and doesn’t understand section 230 of the CDA really solidifies the fact that I won’t be voting for him! I pray to God he doesn’t get the nomination, because if he does, I’ll be forced to choose between the greatest threat to our democracy and the greatest threat to the free and open internet!!
But what about third party candidates?
If the greatest threat to our democracy wasn’t the incumbent President running for a second term, I might consider it, but I’d rather vote for the lesser of the two evils from the two biggest parties than throw away my vote and watch Trump get re-elected. Oh, how I wish we had a ranked voting system!
It’s a shame to see someone I look up to like Larry Lessig stoop so low as this. I really liked his work with Creative Commons and copyright reform. He is one of the few people who recognized that remixes and mashups of many kinds should be encouraged and welcomed, not pushed underground. So to see him do something just as chilling as filing a SLAPP suit because the New York Times said something about him that he didn’t like is disheartening, and it also is a reminder that our heroes shouldn’t be put on pedestals, as nobody is perfect.
Larry: don't let this be your legacy.
But if I may make a counterpoint, must we define someone by their faults and bad decisions instead of the good that they have done? I’m NOT excusing Larry’s recent behavior in the slightest, but we still shouldn’t forget all the good things he has done, such as pushes for copyright reform, helping establish the Creative Commons, etc. Perhaps a bigger philosophical argument than the one Lessig was making is if we should regard someone’s legacy as the bad or good things they do, and I’d argue that we remember the good.
But above all, it’s sad to see Larry Lessig file this lawsuit.
To me, this whole article highlights the massive tension between the first amendment right to free speech and copyright law. Here, we have elected representatives essentially telling a private entity that they can't say what they want to say about copyright law. We're not even talking about the fair use of a copyrighted work, but rather to express an interpretation of copyright law. Even if you're a copyright maximalist, you cannot deny that the state is essentially pressuring and intimidating someone to not say something they (or the copyright industry, which likely donates heavily to these politicians) don't like. This screams a first amendment violation if I ever saw one.
If people in Congress were telling someone to not write an interpretation of copyright law that copyright maximalists agreed with, there would be a massive outcry from the MPAA, RIAA, and the like. But since there's a slight chance this could even be slightly balanced, they riot and applaud Congress's support. We're now at the point where we're not even talking about how to harmonize the first amendment with copyright law; simply talking about copyright law in a way the copyright industry doesn't like is enough to get state actors involved and attempt to silence them. But go on, anonymous copyright maximalist, tell me how copyright has nothing to do with censorship.
Re: Agreed. Genius owns nothing. The publishers do!
But in all seriousness, if two parties licensing the same rights from the same copyright holder(s) are deemed to be infringing each other, it goes to show how backward copyright has become. First, how does a win for Genius constitute a win for the promotion of the "progress of science"? If anything, it hinders it as that lowers the number of parties where you can receive licensed views of lyrics.
Second, copyright infringement only concerns the "protected" elements that were allegedly copied. Because Genius doesn't own the copyright of the lyrics, at most, they own the copyright of the special way they formatted apostrophes and/or spaces to spell out "red-handed" or "Genius". Even though the way they spell out the simple words are clever, I'd argue it isn't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Genius can't own the copyright to a phrase and a word that's been used before for a super long time. It's crazy that this is what copyright infringement lawsuits have been reduced to.
For years, I've argued that since patents and copyrights are government granted monopolies, it seems pretty straightforward to me that abusing those laws to stifle speech, innovation, or competition should be viewed as an antitrust violation. It's taken a while, but earlier this decade, the Supreme Court actually agreed with regards to patents (it's not there yet on copyright...).
One thing that I've been thinking about for a while with regards to antitrust violations and copyright, especially when it comes to major movie studios, could this new age of streaming platforms being owned by every single studio be a violation of antitrust law?
The main reason why this could be a possibility is because of a similar decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1948: United States v. Paramount Pictures. This case dealt with the old Hollywood system, which mainly was the block booking of films by the studios that owned both the theaters and the copyrights on the film. Essentially, if you wanted to see a Paramount movie, you had to go to a Paramount-owned theater.
Similarly today, every studio wants to cut the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon middleman and create their own streaming service (HBO Max, Disney+, etc.). The end result, if taken too far, could mean that every streaming service would only consist of exclusive titles by the said studio. As a result, studios won't be competing with each other in the streaming market, while simultaneously driving potential consumers to piracy because of the cost involved in gaining access to certain content they want from dozens of different streaming services whose total cost just as much as cable. It's essentially the digital equivalent of block booking.
The only difference I see so far is that block booking theaters resulted in showing movies at certain times as to not compete with another theater, but with streaming services, you can watch the content at any time from nearly anywhere with an Internet connection, regardless of exclusivity. And it's ironic that the advent of online streaming is one of the reasons the DOJ just announced they're terminating the Paramount Consent Decrees that resulted from that lawsuit. But if Hollywood's desire for copyright maximalism and cash has taught us anything, another antitrust lawsuit could be on the horizon. As to whether courts will do something about it in the 21st century is another story!
I used to think the same way about the extreme of copyright abolition. In all honesty, if the case of someone selling copies of someone else's copyrighted work was the ONLY thing copyright was able to curtail, I might be on board with leaving some level of copyright in place. However, as Stephen said before me, abolition would also open the doors for an immense more amount of creativity that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
Another thing worth considering is the problem of a creator being paid for their work (or even the reason they created the work in the first place) has NOTHING to do with copyright. I guarantee you your favorite band doesn't write songs because of copyright. Furthermore, consider the fact that if you buy a CD (using the same music example), it's often because you wish to support that band financially. So, even without copyright, chances are you would seek out chains of commerce that pay the members of the band when you buy the CD. A bootlegger, big or small, wouldn't be making money long-term because eventually, the fact that the band is not getting paid when you buy from this source will be outed, and therefore demand for their CDs would go down.
See, it's not a matter of whether or not a work is copyrighted, but the source of acquiring the copyrightable good in question. This is similar to the reasoning behind Nina Paley's creator-endorsed mark. If you wanted to, you could create some sort of false advertising tort for claiming that a source of a creative work is a chain of first sale that benefits the artist when it really doesn't. I'll admit this solution isn't perfect, but it shows that copyright law isn't strictly needed to solve this problem.
Also, remember the Prohibition period in the United States? No one here will say that prohibiting the purchase and sale of alcohol was done with ill intent. However, after about a decade, it became clear that Prohibition wasn't having its intended effect. Rather than stopping most crimes, organized crime rings sprang up prolifically financed mainly by bootleg purchases of alcohol, thus making the problem worse. So, we literally passed and ratified a new Constitutional amendment to overturn the previous one that prohibited the sale of alcohol.
So my question is this: Is stopping this one type of copyright infringement (selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted works) worth the countless problems that is current copyright law, especially with the Internet making such bootlegging operations increasingly rare? I'd argue it's not, and while I don't foresee the repeal of all copyright laws within my lifetime, I do believe it is possible that it could be repealed in the not-too-distant future.
As a regular Lawful Masses viewer (I even support Leonard on Patreon), I still strongly disagree with the CASE Act, regardless of whether or not there were changes made since then. (Based on the article, I'm inclined to say a little or nothing has changed, but that's not my point.) Here are some of my problems with the law as written:
In California (where a majority of Hollywood studios are), the maximum amount you can sue in regular small claims court is $10,000 for individuals and $5000 for businesses, with even lower limits if you file more than one case in a given calendar year. That's a far cry from the CASE Act's limit of $30,000, with no lowering of the limit if you file more than one case.
As affirmed by the Supreme Court and even copyright maximalist RBG (and I'm saying that as someone politically liberal), if you file in "big boy court", you are required to have registered the copyright on the work and wait for the certificate to come in the mail BEFORE you can sue. Yet, in the CASE Act, there is a mechanism that allows you to sue WITHOUT the work being properly registered. Meaning, cases can be brought under the CASE Act that would be dismissed in regular court for failure to state a claim (due to the work not being registered). If Congress wants to reverse course and allow you to bring claims without registration (which it shouldn't), it should modify the rules for regular court and not set up a new tribunal for those who don't meet the requirements to file a lawsuit.
Many people who support the CASE Act as an "Access to Justice issue" with regards to fair use and false DMCA takedowns are missing the point: The CASE Act sets up the tribunal at the US Copyright Office. If recent history indicates anything, the Copyright Office sees copyright owners as customers and cater to their needs. Every time Public Knowledge tries to push for a DMCA exception to allow format and space shift video content on DVDs and Blu-rays, it's denied for various reasons, despite the DRM-free equivalent in music CDs being considered fair use. When they asked for public comments and held hearings over the effectiveness of DMCA Safe Harbor laws, those hearings showed they were leaning towards the industry's demands and even considered notice-and-staydown procedures as opposed to the current notice-and-takedown procedure. And also, they have come against the right of digital first sale, despite the fact that consumers are only increasing the consumption of digital-only goods. Why would we trust the Copyright Office to handle fair use online well?
Copyright law does need to be reformed, but THIS isn't how it should be reformed. Copyright trolling is going to increase if the CASE Act becomes law, and it's also going to result in worse consequences. Copyright law should be updated to curb the trend of copyright trolling. Other problems in copyright law need to be addressed as well.
The positive elements outlined by Lawful Masses are outweighed by the negatives. So, no, I'm not on board with the CASE Act.
Re: Since NOT a fact, it's protected by copyright!
That’s not what the Supreme Court said in Feist (which you would have known if you clicked the link in the article). And just because something isn’t real doesn’t necessarily make it copyright protected. A talking time machine doesn’t exist, but if you were to create a story about one, that doesn’t mean you infringed on my copyright. It’s the idea/expression dichotomy, not the truth/myth dichotomy, sheesh! Maybe, after 20 years, you STILL don’t understand copyright, frequent troller!!
The penultimate embedded tweet in this article now has ALSO been taken down due to a DMCA Notice.
When I say, “Be kind to one another,” I don’t mean only the people who think the same way you do. I mean, “Be kind to everyone.”
Tell me how taking down a transformative video with copyright because you don’t like it’s message doesn’t fly in the face of this message? Ellen DeGeneres, you’ve got some explaining to do!
Interestingly, if a manga series is a completed finished product with no more issues being produced, antipiracy efforts show positive sales effects for that series. On the other hand, for ongoing series, antipiracy efforts actually reduce future sales of that series.
One thing that some copyright nutjob might take away from this story is that it only makes sense to stop "piracy" if the series is 100% complete, with no new episodes/issues being released. In the realm of select TV shows, this couldn't be further from the truth.
There are many TV shows, like my childhood favorite TV show, Zoom (1999-2005) that has NO official DVD release. This could be for a handful of reasons, depending on the show. Zoom, in particular, had a few specials released on VHS, but other than that, it's had no home video market. Not on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime. Not in DVD box sets. Not even being shown on TV in reruns. But you know where you can still watch the episodes? YouTube! A handful of fans digitized their own collection of episodes recorded off-the-air and then uploaded the episodes to YouTube.
Is it copyright infringement? Yes. Is the series releasing new episodes? No. Does that mean anti-piracy efforts need to be directed towards the show? Of course not! Even though it would be within the copyright holders' (WGBH) rights to do so, I believe they recognize that this fan preservation is the only way that Zoom lives on today. If they start issuing DMCA takedown notices, then there is no option for watch Zoom, barring an official release from WGBH.
Zoom is not just an isolated incident. Many shows have no official releases online or elsewhere. That could be because of music or other licensing issues that can even throw copyright maximalists for a loop. It's only through fan preservation that the show lives on. Even TV Tropes created a trivia page for this phenomenon: Keep Circulating The Tapes, which gets its name from Mystery Science Theater 3000. Shout! Factory had to clear a lot of rights due to the same licensing issues mentioned above just to release episodes of MST3K on DVD.
So at the end of the day, as Techdirt points out, piracy is not always black and white. It's a lot more nuanced, and in certain circumstances, it's the only way to enjoy a show from the past.
Thanks to Techdirt’s report on this story, my shred of respect I had for Spectrum just got even smaller!
I said "shred of respect" for a reason. It was already pretty low. It's not that I was singing Spectrum's praises until this story. They've skyrocketed prices, and our price is about to go up as well. I can't say that I've had as many tech support/customer service issues as others have complained about, but that doesn't mean that those complaints aren't valid. And of course, Spectrum says they "support" net neutrality, when it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they're against it. So, overall, there are some pros and cons to Spectrum, but the cons (especially here) definitely outweigh the pros.
(And to be perfectly clear, we had Charter in my area, so I never had to deal with Time Warner Cable's shenanigans until after the merger.)
Every studio each has their own streaming service with their own exclusive content
Absolutely no piracy!
With this list, every Hollywood executive must think everyone has the same salary as them, and therefore, everyone can afford paying for every little piece of content they consume. Not only is this not true and completely unrealistic, data shows that #1-4 on the list only pushes people to piracy, and without piracy, they wouldn’t be consuming the content at all. Some Techdirt troll will probably attack me/them/everyone else who agrees with me that this is being sympathetic to pirates, when it’s simple supply and demand and other simple economic principles.
And what’s worse, stories like this make me want to leave Spectrum and take my business elsewhere, but thanks to Cable, ISP, and telecom monopolies, there is no elsewhere for me to take it. I would have to pay about the same price (or even more) for Cable TV alternatives, and I have essentially 0 options for an alternate ISP. (cue South Park Cable Company scene)
Thanks to Techdirt’s report on this story, my shred of respect I had for Spectrum just got even smaller!
Hawley's straw-man proves he's as insane as his bills
Reporter: Your bill doesn't make any sense. Tell me how this doesn't make you the "product manager of the internet"? Hawley: Let me tell you a little something about the problem with the way big tech is raising our kids today... Me, facepalming: That's not what he asked you! That's not what's happening, and your bill doesn't even say anything about parental controls!!
like everything you write, almost without exception, is to protect the interests of big corporate ass-ets.
You mean the assets Article 17/13 are supposed to protect the interest of? Many big corporations want upload filters to stop copyright infringement, and even to bring the language of Article 17 stateside. But I'd be hard-pressed if you'll find any of those talking points here on Techdirt, apart from quotes from politicians in the EU that are as clueless as Hawley is when it comes to technology!
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Gun Rights Advocate Gets Video Taken Down With Bogus Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright aboli
There is a profound difference between rape and mugging (a clearly immoral and violent act that puts people in danger) than illegally uploading copyrighted content (technically illegal, but at most the only thing hurt is the copyright holder's bottom line). Furthermore, while anyone with knowledge at hand (and not just the victim) can report a mugger to the police, only the copyright holder has the legal authority to issue a DMCA takedown notice.
Plus, there are volumes of stories where the DMCA was abused (The H3H3 case, Oh the Places You'll Boldly Go, Lenz's dancing baby video, etc.). Yet, while there are a plethora of recourses for law enforcement to take against someone who files a false complaint, there is little to no recourse to those who file false DMCA takedown notices (ironically, in large part thanks to the Lenz case).
That being said, I have since come to regret making the original comment. I made it in rushed, bad taste, and I would have deleted it within hours of making it if there was an option. I don't mean to paint anyone and everyone who has ever sent a DMCA takedown notice as a "complete jerk", yet in countless cases (like in the original story above), filing a DMCA takedown notice is a very jerky way of going about criticism. So I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and regardless of my own personal views on the subject, consider this my retraction of the original comment above.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Gun Rights Advocate Gets Video Taken Down With Bogus Copyright Claim
Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright abolitionist
Does the content in question actually contain copyrighted content that you own the rights to?
IF YES: Continue to next question.
IF NO: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
Does the uploader have a valid fair use case with regards to the copyrighted content?
IF YES: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
IF NO: Continue to the next question.
IF YES: Reassess your life priorities, and once you’ve done that, go back to question #1.
IF NO: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
TL;DR: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice UNLESS you want to be seen as a complete jerk.
On the post: Joe Biden Can't Tell The Difference Between The 1st Amendment & Section 230; Still Thinks Video Games Cause Violence
I was never going to vote for Biden in the primary, but the fact he helped create SOPA and doesn’t understand section 230 of the CDA really solidifies the fact that I won’t be voting for him! I pray to God he doesn’t get the nomination, because if he does, I’ll be forced to choose between the greatest threat to our democracy and the greatest threat to the free and open internet!!
If the greatest threat to our democracy wasn’t the incumbent President running for a second term, I might consider it, but I’d rather vote for the lesser of the two evils from the two biggest parties than throw away my vote and watch Trump get re-elected. Oh, how I wish we had a ranked voting system!
On the post: Dear Larry Lessig: Please Don't File SLAPP Suits
A chilling reminder that no one is infallible
It’s a shame to see someone I look up to like Larry Lessig stoop so low as this. I really liked his work with Creative Commons and copyright reform. He is one of the few people who recognized that remixes and mashups of many kinds should be encouraged and welcomed, not pushed underground. So to see him do something just as chilling as filing a SLAPP suit because the New York Times said something about him that he didn’t like is disheartening, and it also is a reminder that our heroes shouldn’t be put on pedestals, as nobody is perfect.
But if I may make a counterpoint, must we define someone by their faults and bad decisions instead of the good that they have done? I’m NOT excusing Larry’s recent behavior in the slightest, but we still shouldn’t forget all the good things he has done, such as pushes for copyright reform, helping establish the Creative Commons, etc. Perhaps a bigger philosophical argument than the one Lessig was making is if we should regard someone’s legacy as the bad or good things they do, and I’d argue that we remember the good.
But above all, it’s sad to see Larry Lessig file this lawsuit.
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
Re: Re:
"Quintessential", you say? My mind immediately went here (from Lawful Masses's video on H3H3 winning in court)!
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
To me, this whole article highlights the massive tension between the first amendment right to free speech and copyright law. Here, we have elected representatives essentially telling a private entity that they can't say what they want to say about copyright law. We're not even talking about the fair use of a copyrighted work, but rather to express an interpretation of copyright law. Even if you're a copyright maximalist, you cannot deny that the state is essentially pressuring and intimidating someone to not say something they (or the copyright industry, which likely donates heavily to these politicians) don't like. This screams a first amendment violation if I ever saw one.
If people in Congress were telling someone to not write an interpretation of copyright law that copyright maximalists agreed with, there would be a massive outcry from the MPAA, RIAA, and the like. But since there's a slight chance this could even be slightly balanced, they riot and applaud Congress's support. We're now at the point where we're not even talking about how to harmonize the first amendment with copyright law; simply talking about copyright law in a way the copyright industry doesn't like is enough to get state actors involved and attempt to silence them. But go on, anonymous copyright maximalist, tell me how copyright has nothing to do with censorship.
On the post: It Doesn't Take A Genius To Recognize How Dumb Genius' Lawsuit Against Google Is Over 'Stolen' Lyrics
Re: Agreed. Genius owns nothing. The publishers do!
But in all seriousness, if two parties licensing the same rights from the same copyright holder(s) are deemed to be infringing each other, it goes to show how backward copyright has become. First, how does a win for Genius constitute a win for the promotion of the "progress of science"? If anything, it hinders it as that lowers the number of parties where you can receive licensed views of lyrics.
Second, copyright infringement only concerns the "protected" elements that were allegedly copied. Because Genius doesn't own the copyright of the lyrics, at most, they own the copyright of the special way they formatted apostrophes and/or spaces to spell out "red-handed" or "Genius". Even though the way they spell out the simple words are clever, I'd argue it isn't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Genius can't own the copyright to a phrase and a word that's been used before for a super long time. It's crazy that this is what copyright infringement lawsuits have been reduced to.
On the post: It Doesn't Take A Genius To Recognize How Dumb Genius' Lawsuit Against Google Is Over 'Stolen' Lyrics
Agreed. Genius owns nothing. The publishers do!
You wouldn't steal a copyright infringement claim.
On the post: Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Funded Patent Troll, Claiming Antitrust Violations For Patent Trolling
Antitrust and IP
One thing that I've been thinking about for a while with regards to antitrust violations and copyright, especially when it comes to major movie studios, could this new age of streaming platforms being owned by every single studio be a violation of antitrust law?
The main reason why this could be a possibility is because of a similar decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1948: United States v. Paramount Pictures. This case dealt with the old Hollywood system, which mainly was the block booking of films by the studios that owned both the theaters and the copyrights on the film. Essentially, if you wanted to see a Paramount movie, you had to go to a Paramount-owned theater.
Similarly today, every studio wants to cut the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon middleman and create their own streaming service (HBO Max, Disney+, etc.). The end result, if taken too far, could mean that every streaming service would only consist of exclusive titles by the said studio. As a result, studios won't be competing with each other in the streaming market, while simultaneously driving potential consumers to piracy because of the cost involved in gaining access to certain content they want from dozens of different streaming services whose total cost just as much as cable. It's essentially the digital equivalent of block booking.
The only difference I see so far is that block booking theaters resulted in showing movies at certain times as to not compete with another theater, but with streaming services, you can watch the content at any time from nearly anywhere with an Internet connection, regardless of exclusivity. And it's ironic that the advent of online streaming is one of the reasons the DOJ just announced they're terminating the Paramount Consent Decrees that resulted from that lawsuit. But if Hollywood's desire for copyright maximalism and cash has taught us anything, another antitrust lawsuit could be on the horizon. As to whether courts will do something about it in the 21st century is another story!
On the post: The Color Magenta, Or How T-Mobile Thinks It Owns A General Color
Trademark Infringement: Don't try this at home, kids!
And now, I'll be waiting for Nickelodeon to be sued by T-Mobile for having a character both named and colored Magenta on Blue's Clues!
On the post: Congress Looks To Rush Through Unconstitutional Pro-Copyright Trolls Bill, Despite Promising To Explore Alternatives
Re: A clause to, hopefully, reduce trolling
Yeah, it seems about as effective as Article 13's "Nerd harder to avoid all mistakes" measure.
On the post: House Overwhelmingly Votes To Empower Copyright Trolls And To Bankrupt Americans For Sharing Photos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech vs Copyright
I used to think the same way about the extreme of copyright abolition. In all honesty, if the case of someone selling copies of someone else's copyrighted work was the ONLY thing copyright was able to curtail, I might be on board with leaving some level of copyright in place. However, as Stephen said before me, abolition would also open the doors for an immense more amount of creativity that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
Another thing worth considering is the problem of a creator being paid for their work (or even the reason they created the work in the first place) has NOTHING to do with copyright. I guarantee you your favorite band doesn't write songs because of copyright. Furthermore, consider the fact that if you buy a CD (using the same music example), it's often because you wish to support that band financially. So, even without copyright, chances are you would seek out chains of commerce that pay the members of the band when you buy the CD. A bootlegger, big or small, wouldn't be making money long-term because eventually, the fact that the band is not getting paid when you buy from this source will be outed, and therefore demand for their CDs would go down.
See, it's not a matter of whether or not a work is copyrighted, but the source of acquiring the copyrightable good in question. This is similar to the reasoning behind Nina Paley's creator-endorsed mark. If you wanted to, you could create some sort of false advertising tort for claiming that a source of a creative work is a chain of first sale that benefits the artist when it really doesn't. I'll admit this solution isn't perfect, but it shows that copyright law isn't strictly needed to solve this problem.
Also, remember the Prohibition period in the United States? No one here will say that prohibiting the purchase and sale of alcohol was done with ill intent. However, after about a decade, it became clear that Prohibition wasn't having its intended effect. Rather than stopping most crimes, organized crime rings sprang up prolifically financed mainly by bootleg purchases of alcohol, thus making the problem worse. So, we literally passed and ratified a new Constitutional amendment to overturn the previous one that prohibited the sale of alcohol.
So my question is this: Is stopping this one type of copyright infringement (selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted works) worth the countless problems that is current copyright law, especially with the Internet making such bootlegging operations increasingly rare? I'd argue it's not, and while I don't foresee the repeal of all copyright laws within my lifetime, I do believe it is possible that it could be repealed in the not-too-distant future.
On the post: Congress Looks To Rush Through Unconstitutional Pro-Copyright Trolls Bill, Despite Promising To Explore Alternatives
Re: Re: Is it really unconstitutional?
As a regular Lawful Masses viewer (I even support Leonard on Patreon), I still strongly disagree with the CASE Act, regardless of whether or not there were changes made since then. (Based on the article, I'm inclined to say a little or nothing has changed, but that's not my point.) Here are some of my problems with the law as written:
The positive elements outlined by Lawful Masses are outweighed by the negatives. So, no, I'm not on board with the CASE Act.
On the post: How A Key Story About The 1919 Black Sox Scandal Was Completely Made Up... Due To A Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Since NOT a fact, it's protected by copyright!
That’s not what the Supreme Court said in Feist (which you would have known if you clicked the link in the article). And just because something isn’t real doesn’t necessarily make it copyright protected. A talking time machine doesn’t exist, but if you were to create a story about one, that doesn’t mean you infringed on my copyright. It’s the idea/expression dichotomy, not the truth/myth dichotomy, sheesh! Maybe, after 20 years, you STILL don’t understand copyright, frequent troller!!
On the post: The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush
The penultimate embedded tweet in this article now has ALSO been taken down due to a DMCA Notice.
Tell me how taking down a transformative video with copyright because you don’t like it’s message doesn’t fly in the face of this message? Ellen DeGeneres, you’ve got some explaining to do!
On the post: New Study On Effects Of Manga Piracy Show Piracy's Effects Are More Nuanced Than Good Or Bad
More nuanced than this study lets on...
One thing that some copyright nutjob might take away from this story is that it only makes sense to stop "piracy" if the series is 100% complete, with no new episodes/issues being released. In the realm of select TV shows, this couldn't be further from the truth.
There are many TV shows, like my childhood favorite TV show, Zoom (1999-2005) that has NO official DVD release. This could be for a handful of reasons, depending on the show. Zoom, in particular, had a few specials released on VHS, but other than that, it's had no home video market. Not on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime. Not in DVD box sets. Not even being shown on TV in reruns. But you know where you can still watch the episodes? YouTube! A handful of fans digitized their own collection of episodes recorded off-the-air and then uploaded the episodes to YouTube.
Is it copyright infringement? Yes. Is the series releasing new episodes? No. Does that mean anti-piracy efforts need to be directed towards the show? Of course not! Even though it would be within the copyright holders' (WGBH) rights to do so, I believe they recognize that this fan preservation is the only way that Zoom lives on today. If they start issuing DMCA takedown notices, then there is no option for watch Zoom, barring an official release from WGBH.
Zoom is not just an isolated incident. Many shows have no official releases online or elsewhere. That could be because of music or other licensing issues that can even throw copyright maximalists for a loop. It's only through fan preservation that the show lives on. Even TV Tropes created a trivia page for this phenomenon: Keep Circulating The Tapes, which gets its name from Mystery Science Theater 3000. Shout! Factory had to clear a lot of rights due to the same licensing issues mentioned above just to release episodes of MST3K on DVD.
So at the end of the day, as Techdirt points out, piracy is not always black and white. It's a lot more nuanced, and in certain circumstances, it's the only way to enjoy a show from the past.
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing
Re: Re: Hollywood’s Wishlist
I said "shred of respect" for a reason. It was already pretty low. It's not that I was singing Spectrum's praises until this story. They've skyrocketed prices, and our price is about to go up as well. I can't say that I've had as many tech support/customer service issues as others have complained about, but that doesn't mean that those complaints aren't valid. And of course, Spectrum says they "support" net neutrality, when it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they're against it. So, overall, there are some pros and cons to Spectrum, but the cons (especially here) definitely outweigh the pros.
(And to be perfectly clear, we had Charter in my area, so I never had to deal with Time Warner Cable's shenanigans until after the merger.)
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing
Hollywood’s Wishlist
With this list, every Hollywood executive must think everyone has the same salary as them, and therefore, everyone can afford paying for every little piece of content they consume. Not only is this not true and completely unrealistic, data shows that #1-4 on the list only pushes people to piracy, and without piracy, they wouldn’t be consuming the content at all. Some Techdirt troll will probably attack me/them/everyone else who agrees with me that this is being sympathetic to pirates, when it’s simple supply and demand and other simple economic principles.
And what’s worse, stories like this make me want to leave Spectrum and take my business elsewhere, but thanks to Cable, ISP, and telecom monopolies, there is no elsewhere for me to take it. I would have to pay about the same price (or even more) for Cable TV alternatives, and I have essentially 0 options for an alternate ISP. (cue South Park Cable Company scene)
Thanks to Techdirt’s report on this story, my shred of respect I had for Spectrum just got even smaller!
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
Hawley's straw-man proves he's as insane as his bills
Reporter: Your bill doesn't make any sense. Tell me how this doesn't make you the "product manager of the internet"?
Hawley: Let me tell you a little something about the problem with the way big tech is raising our kids today...
Me, facepalming: That's not what he asked you! That's not what's happening, and your bill doesn't even say anything about parental controls!!
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
Re: me thinks you doeth protest too much.....
You mean the assets Article 17/13 are supposed to protect the interest of? Many big corporations want upload filters to stop copyright infringement, and even to bring the language of Article 17 stateside. But I'd be hard-pressed if you'll find any of those talking points here on Techdirt, apart from quotes from politicians in the EU that are as clueless as Hawley is when it comes to technology!
Next >>