Google is trying to force ALL indie artists to give up their rights...
Quite a spin there. What rights are the artists giving up?
...or else they will no longer be able to monetize their work on YT.
Or to it put correctly: "will no longer be able to monetize their work on a platform provided to them without for free."
This move is a massive pr disaster by Google but no surprise to all the people that have known they were evil all along.
How so? If they have successfully negotiated with 90% of the rightsholders, that only leave 10% who are disgruntled. How is that a bad PR move? Seriously, no one can please everyone all the time.
Can I ask you a question? I get the feeling you feel sense of entitlement about the services YouTube and Google provide you for free. Where does that come from? I'm serious, I really want to know. I use Gmail and Google search, but that doesn't make feel that Google owes me damn thing, why do you?
- the lack of negotiations with Merlin, while having negotiated with majors
I'm not Mike, but I can give you a plausible reason as to why YouTube would choose not to negotiate with Merlin:
The negotiations are between the rightholders and YouTube.
I am not a music biz insider, so I really have no clue, but I highly doubt that the Indie Labels have signed over the copyrights on their catalogs to Merlin. That would be a huge difference between Merlin and the major labels and one that wouldn't require YouTube to negotiate with Merlin at all, if they choose not to.
Speaking of banks...I was trying to come up with a suitable analogy for this situation and why the artists' reaction confuses me:
The situation is kind of like this:
I have money in a interest bearing savings account at a bank. They pay me interest on my money and I am smart enough to realize that the bank takes my money and loans it other people and makes a lot of interest. Now the bank comes to me and says: "Hey, if you put your money into this other account, where we loan it out at a much higher rate and we make a shit load of interest on your money, we will give you 2 times your current rate."
Why would I bitch about that? I don't get the artists' reaction here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More apologies and misdirection to protect GOOG
Why can't everyone else? If someone loser can't torrent something for free, everyone around here immediately cries, "CENSORSHIP". Sure, said loser could just go to Amazon and pay money for the same content, but no one around here cares. If you can't get it for free, someone is being CENSORED.
Really? Care to link to a single article where that was ever said by any of the writers at Techdirt?
Google will be making even more than under the old scheme and as a percentage of the total, the artists will get less.
So what? The artist still gets MORE than before. What the fuck does it really matter if Google earns more. You'd think you would WANT them to earn more so they can keep providing you a free platform so you can earn some money on your content.
Why don't you put up the cash to hire the programmers, buy the hardware, pay the bandwidth costs and build your own wildly popular video service? That way you can pay the content creators 100% of the profits and drive yourself into bankruptcy within a month.
Google is trying to force musicians into accepting its terms "or else"...
What is this "or else" you speak of? If you don't like the terms, remove your content from YouTube and receive nothing from them. Pretty simple.
... and the revenue they are offering these indie musicians is employing slave labor for...
Seriously? You are comparing it to slave labor? Who exactly is forcing you to use their platform that they provide, maintain and pay the bills for?
...where Google gets the majority of revenue and the indie artists get very little.
Once again, it's their platform. If you don't like it, remove your music from it and receive nothing from them. Not a hard concept. No one is forcing you to keep your music on their service.
Re: Re: Re: More apologies and misdirection to protect GOOG
Let's just use the word "CENSORSHIP".
Let's not, because you don't understand the meaning of that word.
If you ask me, this whole thing is like a deli who offers up free samples of ham everyday, then one day decides to start offering up filet mignon instead.
Would you complain about the deli bullying people into eating filet mignon? Would you bitch about a monopoly because that deli is the only one in town?
If YouTube was actually charging the content creators for the services YouTube provides them, maybe this would be a different scenario. But they don't. It's free. Quit bitching about the free lunch you are getting, sheesh.
Simply having "dirt" in the name of your website doesn't give you immunity from websites, which was what the court was saying. The website claimed that having "dirt" in its website name protected itself from lawsuits, which is not what section 230 says.
You have that backwards, kenichi (as usual). The judge in initial ruling said that because the site had "dirt" in it's name it no longer was protected via Section 230's safe harbors. And that ruling was incorrect and overturned on appeal.
For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt can be held liable for the messages posted by its users.
That's not correct either. Section 230 protects Techdirt against liability arising from messages posted by users. Period. Full stop. There's nothing in Section 230 (afaik) about a requirement to remove anything.
Once something has been found to be defamatory by a court of law, then the court can issue an order to the website to remove it, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Section 230.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, clearly not an authorized connection
Because the access point does not have the legal authority to grant permission. Only the owner has that authority.
That really doesn't make very much sense to me. There are tons of systems these days that grant or deny access automatically. By granting access they are giving the permission of the owner.
By your reasoning, every website on the web that doesn't have a login requirement would not actually be granting you permission to view the contents. That's kind of silly.
If I (stupidly) leave my front house door open when I go out, that is NOT authorisation for someone to enter my home.
That's right. But if you do, there's no law keeping me from standing on the street and watching your TV through the door that was stupidly left open. That's closer to using someone's open WiFi. No trespassing onto your property is involved.
We've gone over this multiple times on this comment page already and I'm beginning to feel like a broken record. *sigh*
Re: Re: Re: Well, clearly not an authorized connection
But an internet connection is a two-way transmission, and required a broadcast back to the router, which was on private property.
At that point, there is in fact trespass.
I disagree with this too.
Yes, using the WiFi does require it being broadcast back to the router. But, at that point I have already received permission to use the connection (IMHO). Permission is granted with the initial broadcasting of the SSID name and the fact that it's unsecured. The router is basically shouting to all devices in range "Hey, open WiFi here!"
If you really don't want anyone connecting to your open WiFi, set the router so it doesn't broadcast the SSID name to everyone. You can still connect without a password, but you have to manually type in the SSID name to do it.
If I leave my front door unlocked, it's still residential burglary for someone to help themselves to my TV.
Yes. But using someone's open WiFi doesn't' involve trespassing. BIG difference.
If my niece leaves her ball on the grass of her front yard, it's not free for anyone to take.
What if your niece leaves her ball in my yard? I have every right to be a dickhead neighbor and throw it in the trash. Using someone's open WiFi doesn't involve trespassing onto someone else's property, it's broadcast onto my property.
It may be possible to take unsecured Wi-Fi without breaking into anything, but that's not the same thing as putting a table on the sidewalk with a sign saying "free stuff".
Please explain the difference. Your router is sending out a signal saying "Unsecured WiFi here!", why is that different than a physical sign saying "Free stuff here!"?
I do secure my Wi-Fi but even if I didn't, If I wanted people to use my Wi-Fi, I'd name my router something like "Free Internet Connection" not "MyName's Wireless".
What does the SSID name have to do with anything? Most of the AT&T DSL connections around my house are the default "2WIRExxx" names. It's just an arbitrary name.
Why not extend your analogy to leaving a window open being equal to you giving permission to enter your home, have sex with your pets, and eat all the cookies in the kitchen? Where does the authority come from to do anything on or with private property?
No one is talking about trespassing here. That's always been illegal.
Question: Is it illegal to listen to my neighbor's loud stereo from my property? How is this different?
Authorized access requires permission from an authority (i.e. the owner or an agent of the owner). Leaving wifi networks unencrypted is not permission, it is simply a vulnerability.
I disagree. Open access is not the default setting for routers these days. You have to conscientiously set your router to open. Add in the fact that the router is basically screaming "I'm an open WiFi!" to every device within range when it broadcasts the SSID, how is that not permission? I don't need explicit permission to receive unencrypted television signals that enter my house, do I?
Open wifi access points don't have signs on them that say "The owner of this network gives permission for anyone to connect."
I'm arguing that broadcasting an unsecured SSID is exactly that message. It's saying "Hi. I'm a unsecured WiFi connection."
If you want a private, closed WiFi that doesn't require a password, then don't broadcast the SSID (you can turn that off on most routers, by the way). Or better yet, turn on WPA/WEP and use a password.
The other day, I pulled up to my office parking lot, and the car parked next to me was a Mercedes with the doors unlocked and the keys sitting out in the open. Does very nature of the car's owner's setup effectively say, "Welcome, feel free to steal my car."
Actually, there's another problem with your analogy. To compare with using my neighbor's open WiFi your analogy would have to be revised to consider the fact that the WiFi signal is being transmitted onto my property. More like if that Mercedes of yours was left with the key in it in my driveway. And there is even existing case law to support that I would then have the right to use that Mercedes. Here in Michigan we have an abandoned vehicle law, if someone abandons their vehicle on your property for x amount (I don't remember the length of time offhand) of time, you can then apply for a title from the State and the vehicle belongs to you.
Let's put it into a different context. Suppose one of my next door neighbors is sneaking in through my doggie door to make international phone calls.
Incorrect analogy. With open WiFi it's more like you running your phone line and placing an extension into your neighbors' house that they make international calls with. Remember, your WiFi signal doesn't stop at your property line, you are transmitting into their house all the time. There is no trespassing of your physical property when someone connects to your open WiFi signal from within their own house.
Did the owners of the apartment authorize him to connect? If not, then it is clearly an unauthorized connection. Analogy: If I leave my hose connected in my yard, is it ok for my neighbor to drag it into their house to fill their fish tank? Almost every house has electric plugs somewhere on the outside- is it acceptable for anyone to roll up and plug in to them? Clearly not. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's there for anyone to use. These are obvious cases of unauthorized use.
Yes, but more importantly, both of those examples have to have someone trespass onto your property to engage in them. Not so with WiFi, you are transmitting that signal into your neighbor's house. Kind of more like turning on your hose and tossing it over the fence into your neighbor's yard. If my neighbor did that, then I would naturally assume it's permission to water my garden with his hose.
On the post: More On Indie Labels And YouTube: Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
Quite a spin there. What rights are the artists giving up?
...or else they will no longer be able to monetize their work on YT.
Or to it put correctly: "will no longer be able to monetize their work on a platform provided to them without for free."
This move is a massive pr disaster by Google but no surprise to all the people that have known they were evil all along.
How so? If they have successfully negotiated with 90% of the rightsholders, that only leave 10% who are disgruntled. How is that a bad PR move? Seriously, no one can please everyone all the time.
Can I ask you a question? I get the feeling you feel sense of entitlement about the services YouTube and Google provide you for free. Where does that come from? I'm serious, I really want to know. I use Gmail and Google search, but that doesn't make feel that Google owes me damn thing, why do you?
On the post: More On Indie Labels And YouTube: Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger
Re: indie disadvantages
I'm not Mike, but I can give you a plausible reason as to why YouTube would choose not to negotiate with Merlin:
The negotiations are between the rightholders and YouTube.
I am not a music biz insider, so I really have no clue, but I highly doubt that the Indie Labels have signed over the copyrights on their catalogs to Merlin. That would be a huge difference between Merlin and the major labels and one that wouldn't require YouTube to negotiate with Merlin at all, if they choose not to.
On the post: That Story You've Read About YouTube 'Blocking' Indie Artists... Yeah, That's Not Accurate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The situation is kind of like this:
I have money in a interest bearing savings account at a bank. They pay me interest on my money and I am smart enough to realize that the bank takes my money and loans it other people and makes a lot of interest. Now the bank comes to me and says: "Hey, if you put your money into this other account, where we loan it out at a much higher rate and we make a shit load of interest on your money, we will give you 2 times your current rate."
Why would I bitch about that? I don't get the artists' reaction here.
On the post: That Story You've Read About YouTube 'Blocking' Indie Artists... Yeah, That's Not Accurate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More apologies and misdirection to protect GOOG
Really? Care to link to a single article where that was ever said by any of the writers at Techdirt?
I'm waiting.....
On the post: That Story You've Read About YouTube 'Blocking' Indie Artists... Yeah, That's Not Accurate
Re: Re:
So what? The artist still gets MORE than before. What the fuck does it really matter if Google earns more. You'd think you would WANT them to earn more so they can keep providing you a free platform so you can earn some money on your content.
Why don't you put up the cash to hire the programmers, buy the hardware, pay the bandwidth costs and build your own wildly popular video service? That way you can pay the content creators 100% of the profits and drive yourself into bankruptcy within a month.
On the post: That Story You've Read About YouTube 'Blocking' Indie Artists... Yeah, That's Not Accurate
Re:
What is this "or else" you speak of? If you don't like the terms, remove your content from YouTube and receive nothing from them. Pretty simple.
... and the revenue they are offering these indie musicians is employing slave labor for...
Seriously? You are comparing it to slave labor? Who exactly is forcing you to use their platform that they provide, maintain and pay the bills for?
...where Google gets the majority of revenue and the indie artists get very little.
Once again, it's their platform. If you don't like it, remove your music from it and receive nothing from them. Not a hard concept. No one is forcing you to keep your music on their service.
On the post: That Story You've Read About YouTube 'Blocking' Indie Artists... Yeah, That's Not Accurate
Re: Re: Re: More apologies and misdirection to protect GOOG
Let's not, because you don't understand the meaning of that word.
If you ask me, this whole thing is like a deli who offers up free samples of ham everyday, then one day decides to start offering up filet mignon instead.
Would you complain about the deli bullying people into eating filet mignon? Would you bitch about a monopoly because that deli is the only one in town?
If YouTube was actually charging the content creators for the services YouTube provides them, maybe this would be a different scenario. But they don't. It's free. Quit bitching about the free lunch you are getting, sheesh.
On the post: Disrupting The Misinterpretation Of Disruptive Innovation
The real question
Did you actually draw the horse & buggy and the cars on that whiteboard in the video?
Every time I try to draw a horse freehand it ends up looking like a cross between a overweight dog and a Three Mile Island fish.
On the post: Phew: Appeals Court Says Having 'Dirt' In Your Domain Name Doesn't Remove Safe Harbor Protections
Re:
You have that backwards, kenichi (as usual). The judge in initial ruling said that because the site had "dirt" in it's name it no longer was protected via Section 230's safe harbors. And that ruling was incorrect and overturned on appeal.
For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt can be held liable for the messages posted by its users.
That's not correct either. Section 230 protects Techdirt against liability arising from messages posted by users. Period. Full stop. There's nothing in Section 230 (afaik) about a requirement to remove anything.
Once something has been found to be defamatory by a court of law, then the court can issue an order to the website to remove it, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Section 230.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, clearly not an authorized connection
That really doesn't make very much sense to me. There are tons of systems these days that grant or deny access automatically. By granting access they are giving the permission of the owner.
By your reasoning, every website on the web that doesn't have a login requirement would not actually be granting you permission to view the contents. That's kind of silly.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Vehemently disagree
That's right. But if you do, there's no law keeping me from standing on the street and watching your TV through the door that was stupidly left open. That's closer to using someone's open WiFi. No trespassing onto your property is involved.
We've gone over this multiple times on this comment page already and I'm beginning to feel like a broken record. *sigh*
On the post: Watch Dogs Now Proactively Being Blamed For Traffic Sign Hacking By Apparent Pre-Crime Division
Re: They could blame LA Story
But, the signs in L.A. Story were changed by some sort of ethereal force or being.
Maybe they will now combine all of this and bring us back full circle so Slender Man could be blamed for this too.
On the post: The Real Blame For The 'Slender Man' Killings Is The Media Blaming Slender Man For The Killings
Re: Re: Re:
Wear a pumpkin on your head.
Endermen are kind of like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall, if you are wearing a pumpkin they don't get all pissed off and teleport at you.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Re: Re: Well, clearly not an authorized connection
At that point, there is in fact trespass.
I disagree with this too.
Yes, using the WiFi does require it being broadcast back to the router. But, at that point I have already received permission to use the connection (IMHO). Permission is granted with the initial broadcasting of the SSID name and the fact that it's unsecured. The router is basically shouting to all devices in range "Hey, open WiFi here!"
If you really don't want anyone connecting to your open WiFi, set the router so it doesn't broadcast the SSID name to everyone. You can still connect without a password, but you have to manually type in the SSID name to do it.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: It's not problematic at all at the end
Yes. But using someone's open WiFi doesn't' involve trespassing. BIG difference.
If my niece leaves her ball on the grass of her front yard, it's not free for anyone to take.
What if your niece leaves her ball in my yard? I have every right to be a dickhead neighbor and throw it in the trash. Using someone's open WiFi doesn't involve trespassing onto someone else's property, it's broadcast onto my property.
It may be possible to take unsecured Wi-Fi without breaking into anything, but that's not the same thing as putting a table on the sidewalk with a sign saying "free stuff".
Please explain the difference. Your router is sending out a signal saying "Unsecured WiFi here!", why is that different than a physical sign saying "Free stuff here!"?
I do secure my Wi-Fi but even if I didn't, If I wanted people to use my Wi-Fi, I'd name my router something like "Free Internet Connection" not "MyName's Wireless".
What does the SSID name have to do with anything? Most of the AT&T DSL connections around my house are the default "2WIRExxx" names. It's just an arbitrary name.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Re: Re: Agree with the court
No one is talking about trespassing here. That's always been illegal.
Question: Is it illegal to listen to my neighbor's loud stereo from my property? How is this different?
Authorized access requires permission from an authority (i.e. the owner or an agent of the owner). Leaving wifi networks unencrypted is not permission, it is simply a vulnerability.
I disagree. Open access is not the default setting for routers these days. You have to conscientiously set your router to open. Add in the fact that the router is basically screaming "I'm an open WiFi!" to every device within range when it broadcasts the SSID, how is that not permission? I don't need explicit permission to receive unencrypted television signals that enter my house, do I?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Re: Re:
I'm arguing that broadcasting an unsecured SSID is exactly that message. It's saying "Hi. I'm a unsecured WiFi connection."
If you want a private, closed WiFi that doesn't require a password, then don't broadcast the SSID (you can turn that off on most routers, by the way). Or better yet, turn on WPA/WEP and use a password.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Re:
Actually, there's another problem with your analogy. To compare with using my neighbor's open WiFi your analogy would have to be revised to consider the fact that the WiFi signal is being transmitted onto my property. More like if that Mercedes of yours was left with the key in it in my driveway. And there is even existing case law to support that I would then have the right to use that Mercedes. Here in Michigan we have an abandoned vehicle law, if someone abandons their vehicle on your property for x amount (I don't remember the length of time offhand) of time, you can then apply for a title from the State and the vehicle belongs to you.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Agree with the court
Incorrect analogy. With open WiFi it's more like you running your phone line and placing an extension into your neighbors' house that they make international calls with. Remember, your WiFi signal doesn't stop at your property line, you are transmitting into their house all the time. There is no trespassing of your physical property when someone connects to your open WiFi signal from within their own house.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: Well, clearly not an authorized connection
Yes, but more importantly, both of those examples have to have someone trespass onto your property to engage in them. Not so with WiFi, you are transmitting that signal into your neighbor's house. Kind of more like turning on your hose and tossing it over the fence into your neighbor's yard. If my neighbor did that, then I would naturally assume it's permission to water my garden with his hose.
Next >>