I seem to recall that either you said otherwise or someone else claimed to have seen the code and that you are using external libraries.
Then why in the world are you complaining about them?
That you choose not to use them doesn’t say anything about most developers or, really, disprove any of the claims being made about anyone else’s copyright, copyright infringement, or liability for copyright infringement.
No, before we go to that area, we need to handle the issue about standard template library.
Wait, when did anyone say anything about standard template libraries, and what does that have to do with what has been discussed? Weren’t we talking about the extra libraries that people have created beyond the standard libraries? Why do you keep changing the subject?
The problem is that the wise man on internet decided that everyone who use c++ must absolutely use the library. i.e. they forced it to everyone's projects.
Assuming for the sake of argument that that is actually a problem, no one’s forcing you to use C++ (and, by extension, the standard library for that language). There are many programming languages out there for you to use, you know. Plus, you could create your own version of the standard library yourself if you really wanted and use that instead. Hell, you could even create your own programming language, associated libraries, and compiler/parser for that language from scratch if you really wanted. No one’s really forcing you to use anything.
Of course, that’s assuming that this is actually a problem that needs to be solved, which it isn’t, which I’ll explain in my responses to other things you said.
Currently I would consider those forcing actions to be illegal pressurisation over internet.
There’s nothing illegal about it. You aren’t entitled or required to use C++ or any other languages for any given project. Furthermore, they aren’t actually forcing you to use the specific standard libraries. C++, like many programming languages, involves a set of standard rules that anyone implementing it is expected to follow (similar to an API). You can always create your own compiler and standard libraries for it that follow those rules, and I believe there are some other versions available, including some FOSS implementations, that you could use instead. Not that you need to, but there is no reason you couldn’t do so. As such, I’m not seeing any unlawful or illegal “forcing” or anti-trust issues at all here; you have other options available.
They didn't want to consider that some project leaders are against new dependencies, […]
This part kinda confuses me. I mean, I totally understand why you would want to minimize any dependencies, but I’m not sure how that applies here.
First of all, with regards to the specific implementations most people use for the standard library, you can, again, use other implementations or create your own if you really wanted to. There is no reason you couldn’t use some other implementation and thus control those dependencies. They also aren’t “new” dependencies because, if you started the project coding in C++ and weren’t using a custom version of the standard libraries, you already had those dependencies.
Then, regarding the API and standards that are implemented by the standard libraries, that’s kind of an integral part of how a programming language works. By using C++, you are coding based upon those rules. So, again, how are these “new” dependencies? If you don’t want to be confined to those rules, use another language. People decide which language to use based upon stuff like that.
So it’s less that they didn’t want to consider it and more of a thing where they would expect someone who doesn’t like those dependencies to use C++ or their implementations of the standard libraries to just choose some other option.
[…] and they didn't want to consider license terms to be not acceptable […]
Question: what specific part of the licensing terms do you find unacceptable? As I understand it, for any implementation of C++ (which often include their version of the standard library), you license the use of the standard library along with the compiler/parser and/or the programming language itself with no additional terms, conditions, fees, or other costs beyond the original license you acquired in order to use (or compile or whatever) C++ in the first place. There are also FOSS implementations of C++ and its standard libraries that impose very few terms or conditions on even commercial use, so you don’t even need to agree to any particular licensing agreement just to use C++. And, of course, you are allowed to create your own implementation that would require no license agreement (at least not beyond one for the API for C++ itself, if even that) for you to have to agree to.
All of this applies equally well to any publicly available and standardized programming language (not just C++).
For these reasons, whether or not you or anyone else considers the licensing terms unacceptable, I don’t see how that is a problem at all. Also, you haven’t specified what specific terms you find egregious or unacceptable, anyways, so I’m not even sure why you or anyone else has a problem here to begin with. Regardless, I’m not seeing any legal or ethical issues here.
[…] and they didn't consider issues like compile times.
Well, I’m not quite sure what that has to do with standard libraries, exactly, but there are other compilers for C++ and implementations of the standard libraries that can reduce those compile times (or you could create your own), and anything else about the compile times are pretty much an inherent aspect of using a programming language you didn’t create. (In fact, the same can be said about any programming language.) If that’s your problem, why are you even using C++ to begin with?
Also, I’m pretty sure that the people who decide the rules for C++ do consider compile times to some extent.
But everyone needed to use their standard template library.
No, they did not, nor would they really be an insurmountable problem.
Basically internet keeps pushing certain libraries to all projects...
I’m not sure how the internet is doing so, but to the extent it does anything that could be described that way, those libraries are generally for very common tasks used in many applications and are usually FOSS or come standard with the compiler; as such, there are generally no additional terms, costs, or conditions to follow. You are also free to disregard such advice if you want to. It also doesn’t really have anything to do with that whole “standard template libraries” are thing you were just talking about.
Now if someone else decided that your project needs to absolutely have a library, […]
Unless that person is your boss or supervisor or something, they can’t really make that decision for you. They can certainly state their belief or opinion that that’s the case, but they can’t actually force you to do anything.
[…] who is responsible for the copyright infringements?
Huh? What copyright infringements? If we again exclude bosses or supervisors, unless they tell you to use those libraries or whatever that need separate licensing or payment and specifically to not properly license it or follow the terms of the licensing agreement or whatever (which, for many publicly available libraries, doesn’t really involve anything to onerous or restrictive), and it doesn’t fall under fair use (such as for personal or academic use that is noncommercial), nothing that they are saying involves copyright infringement that anyone but you. Further, under no circumstances are you (the developer) absolved of any responsibility for infringing use of any libraries in your software based solely on the fact that someone else outside of the project told you to do so, even if they too are liable.
But, again, many libraries—including standard libraries—that are made publicly available online don’t really require any additional costs or onerous terms; many either fall under a licensing agreement you already agreed to in order to use the specific programming language or compiler/parser or are free, royalty-free, and really only ask for credit to be given to the author(s) of the library (though some also require the use to be noncommercial, in which case don’t use it for commercial software unless you’re willing to pay a licensing fee or something). As such, it generally isn’t too hard to use a number of publicly available libraries without paying additional costs or agreeing to onerous or unacceptable licensing terms or conditions while not infringing on anyone’s copyright(s). As such, I’m not entirely certain what copyright infringement is involved here. Even if you take someone’s advice to use a certain, specific library, that person doesn’t specifically tell you to ignore any licensing issues or the use doesn’t fall under one of the exceptions to copyright (such as fair use) and the other person was given the relevant information that would make the use infringing, and you fail to agree to and follow the licensing agreement, then you are the only one responsible for the copyright infringement.
As long as either you don’t use the library, you agree to and follow the terms of the licensing agreement for that library, or the use and/or copied content (the library) fall under one of the exceptions to copyright law, there is no copyright infringement going on.
Basically, I have no idea what you’re so concerned about or what is unreasonable or unacceptable about anything mentioned (with the possible exception of some claims you made that are simply false). I also don’t understand what the first paragraph has to do with either the last paragraph or anything that was discussed previously.
And the thing is that none of the reasons why YouTube has remained dominant in its area has anything to do with buyouts or mergers. To my knowledge, other than Google’s purchase of YouTube itself (at a time when there weren’t any major competitors then, either), nothing Google has purchased involved YouTube’s business.
Wait, you, of all people, are calling the DMCA safe harbor limitations “draconian”? I mean, you’re not completely wrong there, but compared to what you’ve been claiming and advocating with regards to copyright law, they’re incredibly permissive.
Given that you have provided no proof that you are willing or able to follow those limitations
I’m sorry, but where the hell did you get that from? What proof do you have that any of us are unable or unwilling to follow the limitations of the DMCA? Seriously, the burden of proof is on you here in that regard.
Do I like every aspect of the DMCA? No. But I am able and willing to comply with it regardless of my personal opinions.
With regards to third-party liability for copyright infringement by software developers (as opposed to IAPs), the safe-harbor provisions’ limitations only apply to hosting or transmitting content submitted by end users, and they only require being able to receive DMCA notices and complying with them by taking down the content specified in the notice. Additionally, failure to comply with a DMCA notice can only ever create liabilities for the particular infringing content specified in the ignored notice, and only to the entity asserting copyright ownership; it does not create liability for any other content or to any other entities. And if your software does not involve a machine under the developer’s control hosting or transmitting the content or something (e.g. a text editor or software that doesn’t require an internet connection to use, then those limitations don’t even apply. DMCA notices make no differences. In those cases, then as long as the software (or hardware) is capable of substantial noninfringing uses and you don’t actively encourage users to commit copyright infringement, then there’s no liability for user-created copyright-infringing content. (This also applies to the other kind of software when the allegedly infringing content (nor a link to the content) is not actually being hosted by a machine under the developer’s control.)
Look, when it comes to cases where you lack specific knowledge of the existence of or allegedly infringing nature of some specific user-created or -submitted content that is allegedly infringing, you (the developer, publisher, or author of the software or physical device used to host, create, edit, send, receive, or submit the allegedly infringing content) are never liable for copyright infringement on the basis of that content except where the software/device in question is not capable of substantial noninfringing use, you actively encourage infringing use, specifically, or you actually created the content itself. General knowledge of the possibility, likelihood, or general existence of infringing content using your software/device is alone insufficient to make you liable for all of that content. Even if you have specific knowledge (such as through a DMCA notice or court order), you only are liable for that specific content that you have the necessary knowledge of, and only if you both ignore or refuse to abide by the notice/order or do anything about it and you are able to remove that specific content.
IAPs (but not software developers) also can become liable for infringing activity by users if and only if they have specific knowledge of one or more users who are alleged to have committed multiple instances of infringement and fail to kick them off their connection (though there is some question regarding specifics and whether that provision is necessarily constitutional).
At any rate, those are all the ways one can be held liable for copyright infringement over content created, submitted, or received by a user (rather than content they themselves created) and the extent of the limitations on the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions and their applicability. I should also mention that you are never, ever liable for infringement based solely on content that can be viewed (but not created, submitted, hosted, edited, or anything else) using a specific software or device that you created. You would also have to—at a minimum and among other requirements already mentioned—be able to use the software/device to download, create, transmit between devices, modify, host, submit, or find the allegedly infringing content. And, again, failure to comply with the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions doesn’t generally make you liable for copyright infringing users except for the specific cases you fail to comply regarding and are capable of doing so.
In fact, inability to comply with the provisions because you lack any means of controlling the content at all nor own any devices that contain the content is actually a pretty good defense against potential liability.
Finally, again, the license.txt file(s) would not change the question of either liability or safe harbor. At most, they could be used as evidence to defend yourself in a case where you fail to comply with a DMCA notice, but that’s it. In that case, you could simply ask the user for any licensing information upon receiving a DMCA notification. Regardless, there is no legal necessity for such measures, nor are the legally sufficient to remove liability in most cases.
If you cannot accept the terms of the licensing agreement, that’s on you. Many shared libraries are available for free, royalty-free use, and many don’t have any exceptions for commercial use. Most don’t have any particularly onerous terms of use, either. If you’re willing to abide by the terms of the license, then there’s nothing illegal going on.
Here’s the thing: they won’t be asking you for a license anyway because you aren’t responsible for the content provided by users! Seriously, we’ve said this over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread. Third parties are not responsible for infringing content outside of very specific circumstances that don’t apply here, and in those circumstances, having a license.txt won’t help at all.
Additionally, what criminal organizations are you talking about that give people license.txt files? And why is the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that they didn’t receive them from a criminal organization? Generally, the burden would be on the plaintiff in such a situation.
First, by placing negative consequences for unlawful behavior, that inherently gives plenty of people reason to find lawful behavior more appealing. The problem comes from placing too many negative consequences on lawful actions so that the negative consequences for unlawful actions no longer outweigh the difficulties of following the law.
At any rate, you have provided no evidence for your claims. For one thing, I don’t think most pirates spend much time or resources on marketing at all, and most don’t receive compensation anyways. Furthermore, most pirates lack the amount of money that most companies spend on marketing, anyway.
Well, first of all, as we’ve stated multiple times here, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, and correlation does not prove causation. This doesn’t constitute proof that vaccines cause deaths in infants at all, let alone the uncontested fact that vaccines—at least on very rare occasions—cause deaths. It certainly doesn’t constitute proof that death-by-vaccine is sufficiently common to avoid vaccinations without more.
Second, none of those infants’ deaths constitute a reason for a religious exemption from vaccines. It shows nothing about religious beliefs at all. If vaccines are so dangerous, why does someone’s religion matter? The implied premise does not demonstrate the conclusion.
Look, children die, sometimes soon after a vaccine. That does not prove that they died from the vaccine, that vaccine-caused deaths are sufficiently common and nonmitigateable to make their risks outweigh their benefits, or that there is a good reason to allow for religious exemptions from vaccines. Nothing about this story is remotely persuasive. Honestly, while I feel bad for these parents’ losses, I also think that they are being incredibly ignorant, and I find their stories are insufficient to change my claims or beliefs in the slightest or to support the legislation they want.
Finally, can you just let it go!? This comment section is already ridiculously long, this discussion has already gone on for far too long a period of time, and absolutely no one here who wasn’t already part of the anti-vaxxer movement has ever found any of the anti-vaccine arguments made here to be remotely persuasive or convincing in the slightest.
I know this is spam, but it’s still hilarious that this guy thought he could make it blend in by saying, “Google is a good search engine!”, which doesn’t have much to do with the article anyways.
How about the rules that you have to give devs and publishers a reason to put their games on your platform? That’s pretty basic if you want to succeed.
Re: Re: A tenfold increase of one is still only ten
I think customers see more ownership in something they download to their computer—even if it can still be made useless—than in something you stream from a remote server. It’s like how consumers feel they have more ownership in music or videos downloaded from iTunes than they do in music streamed using Apple Music or videos streamed using Netflix. Whether or not there is any actual difference in the amount of ownership or the end result, what matters in this regard is just as much about how actual and potential consumers feel as it is about the actual or legal stuff.
Here’s the thing: that’s not what I meant, it is also impossible to prevent 100% of accidental infringement, death is far, far worse than infringement, and there is no legal liability to be had, here.
There is no legal requirement for any software to implement any copyright checks or protection at all, nor does failure to include any open the developers to liability for copyright infringement by end users of the software. The only requirement is for ISPs which host and/or publish user-submitted content to comply with DMCA notices. That’s it. No legal liability for misuse of technology by end users or third parties exists.
And, again, it is fundamentally impossible to prevent all piracy/copyright infringement by users of your software/service without compromising its core, noninfringing uses to the point of uselessness, nonfunctionality, or nonexistence.
You have still not proven the existence, possibility, or necessity of what you’re asking for.
Also, in case you missed it, I meant that each of the so-called “features” you mentioned are nonexistent; are not intentional features of the specified software; do nothing to stop, detect, prevent, deter, or reduce copyright infringement done using the specified software; and/or were not implemented with copyright in mind at all, which contradicts what you were asserting. In other words, none of what you said actually addresses what I said as opposed to a strawman.
I didn’t say anything there about stopping or reducing all piracy everywhere, though I do believe that it is important to consider that when considering making changes to the existing law regarding liability for copyright infringement: if adding liability to more entities that weren’t previously liable won’t do anything to reduce piracy as a whole, why bother? It only adds additional burdens to entities that do not infringe and discourages noninfringing uses as well. But that is about making changes to the current policy to better conform to what you think copyright law should be; it doesn’t relate to that particular statement of mine that you quoted from, doesn’t change the fact that what you think makes someone potentially liable for copyright infringement is completely wrong under current US copyright law, and wasn’t really my main problem with your examples or proposals, anyway.
Furthermore, that specific statement was regarding web browsers and text editors. And you expect them to prevent any and all copyright infringement from being done using their software, which is impossible to do without compromising virtually all clearly noninfringing uses.
Finally, copyright law has nothing whatsoever to do with laws regarding product safety. That involves a user causing physical injury or death to themselves or others. It also involves the existence of some duty of care between the makers/sellers and the users, and no one owes anyone a duty of care involving copyright at all. As for a duty of care involving one’s legal liability for one’s own actions or for copyright infringement, that only exists between a lawyer and their client or for something like doing taxes or handling money; the kind of software we’ve been discussing doesn’t involve any similar relationships between the developers of the software and either end users or other copyright holders. For these reasons, there is no relevant duty of care owed here at all by the developers to the end user or other copyright holders, and since there are also no physical or health-based injuries or deaths stemming directly from use of the software either involving the copyright holders or involving both copyright and the end users, that means that there are no similarities between laws, regulations, and/or liabilities involving product safety and those involving copyright or piracy.
I believe it’s pretty clear that Content ID is actually pretty bad at distinguishing between misuse and legitimate use, which is what was being talked about. It also can’t tell the difference between material that is copyrighted or not. And robots.txt have nothing to do with preventing users from infringing on copyright.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I seem to recall that either you said otherwise or someone else claimed to have seen the code and that you are using external libraries.
Then why in the world are you complaining about them?
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, when did anyone say anything about standard template libraries, and what does that have to do with what has been discussed? Weren’t we talking about the extra libraries that people have created beyond the standard libraries? Why do you keep changing the subject?
Assuming for the sake of argument that that is actually a problem, no one’s forcing you to use C++ (and, by extension, the standard library for that language). There are many programming languages out there for you to use, you know. Plus, you could create your own version of the standard library yourself if you really wanted and use that instead. Hell, you could even create your own programming language, associated libraries, and compiler/parser for that language from scratch if you really wanted. No one’s really forcing you to use anything.
Of course, that’s assuming that this is actually a problem that needs to be solved, which it isn’t, which I’ll explain in my responses to other things you said.
There’s nothing illegal about it. You aren’t entitled or required to use C++ or any other languages for any given project. Furthermore, they aren’t actually forcing you to use the specific standard libraries. C++, like many programming languages, involves a set of standard rules that anyone implementing it is expected to follow (similar to an API). You can always create your own compiler and standard libraries for it that follow those rules, and I believe there are some other versions available, including some FOSS implementations, that you could use instead. Not that you need to, but there is no reason you couldn’t do so. As such, I’m not seeing any unlawful or illegal “forcing” or anti-trust issues at all here; you have other options available.
This part kinda confuses me. I mean, I totally understand why you would want to minimize any dependencies, but I’m not sure how that applies here.
First of all, with regards to the specific implementations most people use for the standard library, you can, again, use other implementations or create your own if you really wanted to. There is no reason you couldn’t use some other implementation and thus control those dependencies. They also aren’t “new” dependencies because, if you started the project coding in C++ and weren’t using a custom version of the standard libraries, you already had those dependencies.
Then, regarding the API and standards that are implemented by the standard libraries, that’s kind of an integral part of how a programming language works. By using C++, you are coding based upon those rules. So, again, how are these “new” dependencies? If you don’t want to be confined to those rules, use another language. People decide which language to use based upon stuff like that.
So it’s less that they didn’t want to consider it and more of a thing where they would expect someone who doesn’t like those dependencies to use C++ or their implementations of the standard libraries to just choose some other option.
Question: what specific part of the licensing terms do you find unacceptable? As I understand it, for any implementation of C++ (which often include their version of the standard library), you license the use of the standard library along with the compiler/parser and/or the programming language itself with no additional terms, conditions, fees, or other costs beyond the original license you acquired in order to use (or compile or whatever) C++ in the first place. There are also FOSS implementations of C++ and its standard libraries that impose very few terms or conditions on even commercial use, so you don’t even need to agree to any particular licensing agreement just to use C++. And, of course, you are allowed to create your own implementation that would require no license agreement (at least not beyond one for the API for C++ itself, if even that) for you to have to agree to.
All of this applies equally well to any publicly available and standardized programming language (not just C++).
For these reasons, whether or not you or anyone else considers the licensing terms unacceptable, I don’t see how that is a problem at all. Also, you haven’t specified what specific terms you find egregious or unacceptable, anyways, so I’m not even sure why you or anyone else has a problem here to begin with. Regardless, I’m not seeing any legal or ethical issues here.
Well, I’m not quite sure what that has to do with standard libraries, exactly, but there are other compilers for C++ and implementations of the standard libraries that can reduce those compile times (or you could create your own), and anything else about the compile times are pretty much an inherent aspect of using a programming language you didn’t create. (In fact, the same can be said about any programming language.) If that’s your problem, why are you even using C++ to begin with?
Also, I’m pretty sure that the people who decide the rules for C++ do consider compile times to some extent.
No, they did not, nor would they really be an insurmountable problem.
I’m not sure how the internet is doing so, but to the extent it does anything that could be described that way, those libraries are generally for very common tasks used in many applications and are usually FOSS or come standard with the compiler; as such, there are generally no additional terms, costs, or conditions to follow. You are also free to disregard such advice if you want to. It also doesn’t really have anything to do with that whole “standard template libraries” are thing you were just talking about.
Unless that person is your boss or supervisor or something, they can’t really make that decision for you. They can certainly state their belief or opinion that that’s the case, but they can’t actually force you to do anything.
Huh? What copyright infringements? If we again exclude bosses or supervisors, unless they tell you to use those libraries or whatever that need separate licensing or payment and specifically to not properly license it or follow the terms of the licensing agreement or whatever (which, for many publicly available libraries, doesn’t really involve anything to onerous or restrictive), and it doesn’t fall under fair use (such as for personal or academic use that is noncommercial), nothing that they are saying involves copyright infringement that anyone but you. Further, under no circumstances are you (the developer) absolved of any responsibility for infringing use of any libraries in your software based solely on the fact that someone else outside of the project told you to do so, even if they too are liable.
But, again, many libraries—including standard libraries—that are made publicly available online don’t really require any additional costs or onerous terms; many either fall under a licensing agreement you already agreed to in order to use the specific programming language or compiler/parser or are free, royalty-free, and really only ask for credit to be given to the author(s) of the library (though some also require the use to be noncommercial, in which case don’t use it for commercial software unless you’re willing to pay a licensing fee or something). As such, it generally isn’t too hard to use a number of publicly available libraries without paying additional costs or agreeing to onerous or unacceptable licensing terms or conditions while not infringing on anyone’s copyright(s). As such, I’m not entirely certain what copyright infringement is involved here. Even if you take someone’s advice to use a certain, specific library, that person doesn’t specifically tell you to ignore any licensing issues or the use doesn’t fall under one of the exceptions to copyright (such as fair use) and the other person was given the relevant information that would make the use infringing, and you fail to agree to and follow the licensing agreement, then you are the only one responsible for the copyright infringement.
As long as either you don’t use the library, you agree to and follow the terms of the licensing agreement for that library, or the use and/or copied content (the library) fall under one of the exceptions to copyright law, there is no copyright infringement going on.
Basically, I have no idea what you’re so concerned about or what is unreasonable or unacceptable about anything mentioned (with the possible exception of some claims you made that are simply false). I also don’t understand what the first paragraph has to do with either the last paragraph or anything that was discussed previously.
On the post: NYU Law School's Video Teaching Copyright Completely Flummoxed YouTube's Copyright Filters
Re: Re: Re: No other options
And the thing is that none of the reasons why YouTube has remained dominant in its area has anything to do with buyouts or mergers. To my knowledge, other than Google’s purchase of YouTube itself (at a time when there weren’t any major competitors then, either), nothing Google has purchased involved YouTube’s business.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, weren’t we talking about the fact that you yourself do in fact use shared libraries?
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, you, of all people, are calling the DMCA safe harbor limitations “draconian”? I mean, you’re not completely wrong there, but compared to what you’ve been claiming and advocating with regards to copyright law, they’re incredibly permissive.
I’m sorry, but where the hell did you get that from? What proof do you have that any of us are unable or unwilling to follow the limitations of the DMCA? Seriously, the burden of proof is on you here in that regard.
Do I like every aspect of the DMCA? No. But I am able and willing to comply with it regardless of my personal opinions.
With regards to third-party liability for copyright infringement by software developers (as opposed to IAPs), the safe-harbor provisions’ limitations only apply to hosting or transmitting content submitted by end users, and they only require being able to receive DMCA notices and complying with them by taking down the content specified in the notice. Additionally, failure to comply with a DMCA notice can only ever create liabilities for the particular infringing content specified in the ignored notice, and only to the entity asserting copyright ownership; it does not create liability for any other content or to any other entities. And if your software does not involve a machine under the developer’s control hosting or transmitting the content or something (e.g. a text editor or software that doesn’t require an internet connection to use, then those limitations don’t even apply. DMCA notices make no differences. In those cases, then as long as the software (or hardware) is capable of substantial noninfringing uses and you don’t actively encourage users to commit copyright infringement, then there’s no liability for user-created copyright-infringing content. (This also applies to the other kind of software when the allegedly infringing content (nor a link to the content) is not actually being hosted by a machine under the developer’s control.)
Look, when it comes to cases where you lack specific knowledge of the existence of or allegedly infringing nature of some specific user-created or -submitted content that is allegedly infringing, you (the developer, publisher, or author of the software or physical device used to host, create, edit, send, receive, or submit the allegedly infringing content) are never liable for copyright infringement on the basis of that content except where the software/device in question is not capable of substantial noninfringing use, you actively encourage infringing use, specifically, or you actually created the content itself. General knowledge of the possibility, likelihood, or general existence of infringing content using your software/device is alone insufficient to make you liable for all of that content. Even if you have specific knowledge (such as through a DMCA notice or court order), you only are liable for that specific content that you have the necessary knowledge of, and only if you both ignore or refuse to abide by the notice/order or do anything about it and you are able to remove that specific content.
IAPs (but not software developers) also can become liable for infringing activity by users if and only if they have specific knowledge of one or more users who are alleged to have committed multiple instances of infringement and fail to kick them off their connection (though there is some question regarding specifics and whether that provision is necessarily constitutional).
At any rate, those are all the ways one can be held liable for copyright infringement over content created, submitted, or received by a user (rather than content they themselves created) and the extent of the limitations on the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions and their applicability. I should also mention that you are never, ever liable for infringement based solely on content that can be viewed (but not created, submitted, hosted, edited, or anything else) using a specific software or device that you created. You would also have to—at a minimum and among other requirements already mentioned—be able to use the software/device to download, create, transmit between devices, modify, host, submit, or find the allegedly infringing content. And, again, failure to comply with the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions doesn’t generally make you liable for copyright infringing users except for the specific cases you fail to comply regarding and are capable of doing so.
In fact, inability to comply with the provisions because you lack any means of controlling the content at all nor own any devices that contain the content is actually a pretty good defense against potential liability.
Finally, again, the license.txt file(s) would not change the question of either liability or safe harbor. At most, they could be used as evidence to defend yourself in a case where you fail to comply with a DMCA notice, but that’s it. In that case, you could simply ask the user for any licensing information upon receiving a DMCA notification. Regardless, there is no legal necessity for such measures, nor are the legally sufficient to remove liability in most cases.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you cannot accept the terms of the licensing agreement, that’s on you. Many shared libraries are available for free, royalty-free use, and many don’t have any exceptions for commercial use. Most don’t have any particularly onerous terms of use, either. If you’re willing to abide by the terms of the license, then there’s nothing illegal going on.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I fail to see how that’s a broken position. L
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here’s the thing: they won’t be asking you for a license anyway because you aren’t responsible for the content provided by users! Seriously, we’ve said this over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread. Third parties are not responsible for infringing content outside of very specific circumstances that don’t apply here, and in those circumstances, having a license.txt won’t help at all.
Additionally, what criminal organizations are you talking about that give people license.txt files? And why is the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that they didn’t receive them from a criminal organization? Generally, the burden would be on the plaintiff in such a situation.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only one who has declared that broken is you, and you haven’t demonstrated that it leads to copyright infringement, either.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me rephrase that: the people who provide pirated games or other software online for others to download generally don’t receive compensation.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, by placing negative consequences for unlawful behavior, that inherently gives plenty of people reason to find lawful behavior more appealing. The problem comes from placing too many negative consequences on lawful actions so that the negative consequences for unlawful actions no longer outweigh the difficulties of following the law.
At any rate, you have provided no evidence for your claims. For one thing, I don’t think most pirates spend much time or resources on marketing at all, and most don’t receive compensation anyways. Furthermore, most pirates lack the amount of money that most companies spend on marketing, anyway.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: Empty Stroller Memorial
Oh dear Lord… Where do I start?
Well, first of all, as we’ve stated multiple times here, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, and correlation does not prove causation. This doesn’t constitute proof that vaccines cause deaths in infants at all, let alone the uncontested fact that vaccines—at least on very rare occasions—cause deaths. It certainly doesn’t constitute proof that death-by-vaccine is sufficiently common to avoid vaccinations without more.
Second, none of those infants’ deaths constitute a reason for a religious exemption from vaccines. It shows nothing about religious beliefs at all. If vaccines are so dangerous, why does someone’s religion matter? The implied premise does not demonstrate the conclusion.
Look, children die, sometimes soon after a vaccine. That does not prove that they died from the vaccine, that vaccine-caused deaths are sufficiently common and nonmitigateable to make their risks outweigh their benefits, or that there is a good reason to allow for religious exemptions from vaccines. Nothing about this story is remotely persuasive. Honestly, while I feel bad for these parents’ losses, I also think that they are being incredibly ignorant, and I find their stories are insufficient to change my claims or beliefs in the slightest or to support the legislation they want.
Finally, can you just let it go!? This comment section is already ridiculously long, this discussion has already gone on for far too long a period of time, and absolutely no one here who wasn’t already part of the anti-vaxxer movement has ever found any of the anti-vaccine arguments made here to be remotely persuasive or convincing in the slightest.
On the post: Google Stadia Lacks Games In Its Library, Isn't Shelling Out For New Games
Re: It's a proof-of-concept
30 games isn’t “a crapload of IP”.
On the post: Google Stadia Lacks Games In Its Library, Isn't Shelling Out For New Games
Re:
I know this is spam, but it’s still hilarious that this guy thought he could make it blend in by saying, “Google is a good search engine!”, which doesn’t have much to do with the article anyways.
On the post: Google Stadia Lacks Games In Its Library, Isn't Shelling Out For New Games
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about the rules that you have to give devs and publishers a reason to put their games on your platform? That’s pretty basic if you want to succeed.
On the post: Google Stadia Lacks Games In Its Library, Isn't Shelling Out For New Games
Re: Re: A tenfold increase of one is still only ten
I think customers see more ownership in something they download to their computer—even if it can still be made useless—than in something you stream from a remote server. It’s like how consumers feel they have more ownership in music or videos downloaded from iTunes than they do in music streamed using Apple Music or videos streamed using Netflix. Whether or not there is any actual difference in the amount of ownership or the end result, what matters in this regard is just as much about how actual and potential consumers feel as it is about the actual or legal stuff.
On the post: Court Tells Cop That A Person Invoking Their Rights Isn't Suspicious Behavior
Re:
I think it’s more of a Fifth Amendment issue than a First Amendment issue.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, copyright law is not meant to prevent any sort of accidents at all from being allowed by anything or anyone at all.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here’s the thing: that’s not what I meant, it is also impossible to prevent 100% of accidental infringement, death is far, far worse than infringement, and there is no legal liability to be had, here.
There is no legal requirement for any software to implement any copyright checks or protection at all, nor does failure to include any open the developers to liability for copyright infringement by end users of the software. The only requirement is for ISPs which host and/or publish user-submitted content to comply with DMCA notices. That’s it. No legal liability for misuse of technology by end users or third parties exists.
And, again, it is fundamentally impossible to prevent all piracy/copyright infringement by users of your software/service without compromising its core, noninfringing uses to the point of uselessness, nonfunctionality, or nonexistence.
You have still not proven the existence, possibility, or necessity of what you’re asking for.
Also, in case you missed it, I meant that each of the so-called “features” you mentioned are nonexistent; are not intentional features of the specified software; do nothing to stop, detect, prevent, deter, or reduce copyright infringement done using the specified software; and/or were not implemented with copyright in mind at all, which contradicts what you were asserting. In other words, none of what you said actually addresses what I said as opposed to a strawman.
I didn’t say anything there about stopping or reducing all piracy everywhere, though I do believe that it is important to consider that when considering making changes to the existing law regarding liability for copyright infringement: if adding liability to more entities that weren’t previously liable won’t do anything to reduce piracy as a whole, why bother? It only adds additional burdens to entities that do not infringe and discourages noninfringing uses as well. But that is about making changes to the current policy to better conform to what you think copyright law should be; it doesn’t relate to that particular statement of mine that you quoted from, doesn’t change the fact that what you think makes someone potentially liable for copyright infringement is completely wrong under current US copyright law, and wasn’t really my main problem with your examples or proposals, anyway.
Furthermore, that specific statement was regarding web browsers and text editors. And you expect them to prevent any and all copyright infringement from being done using their software, which is impossible to do without compromising virtually all clearly noninfringing uses.
Finally, copyright law has nothing whatsoever to do with laws regarding product safety. That involves a user causing physical injury or death to themselves or others. It also involves the existence of some duty of care between the makers/sellers and the users, and no one owes anyone a duty of care involving copyright at all. As for a duty of care involving one’s legal liability for one’s own actions or for copyright infringement, that only exists between a lawyer and their client or for something like doing taxes or handling money; the kind of software we’ve been discussing doesn’t involve any similar relationships between the developers of the software and either end users or other copyright holders. For these reasons, there is no relevant duty of care owed here at all by the developers to the end user or other copyright holders, and since there are also no physical or health-based injuries or deaths stemming directly from use of the software either involving the copyright holders or involving both copyright and the end users, that means that there are no similarities between laws, regulations, and/or liabilities involving product safety and those involving copyright or piracy.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe it’s pretty clear that Content ID is actually pretty bad at distinguishing between misuse and legitimate use, which is what was being talked about. It also can’t tell the difference between material that is copyrighted or not. And robots.txt have nothing to do with preventing users from infringing on copyright.
Next >>