"If our ideas are meritorious, we shouldn't have to rely on odd technicalities..."
The law is technical and there is nothing wrong or immoral about holding enforcement of are laws to the letter of the law.
So if sharing minuscule bits of data is not covered under copyright law, it should therefore not be illegal under copyright law. We're all in huge trouble when a chosen few in our country get to enforce laws that have never been written.
I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen this argued elsewhere as well
I've been saying this for years. Sure, the very first person who posts a file on bittorrent uploads the entire file, but everyone is able to get the entire file without uploading the entire file.
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they upload.
And here's the deal, are those bits of data that are being shared/uploaded even worthy of being considered infringement?
What I mean is that the data you share/upload is not sequential. Out of a three minute song, you're not sharing/uploading 30 sequential seconds of it, but nearly random bits and pieces of it. Heck, you're not even sharing individual notes or beats.
And even if you do somehow upload the entire song, you're not uploading it to a single person. You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
This is probably legitimate. Chapters/Indigo probably created psycho-acoustic simulation/remasters of these books which created new perpetual copyrights free from any fair use/fair dealing.
The Daily Show is not a comedy show, it's an actual news show that also happens to be funny. The news is real, it's merely presented in a funny and highly entertaining way.
I'm shocked that Walmart is not fighting for a DMCA safe harbor type immunity from printing pictures of the public. To me Walmart is merely doing what its customers are asking. It should not be Walmart's duty to arbitrarily enforce possible copyrights.
3 strikes is not working? People are not suddenly buying music and movies despite being kicked off the net? This what you've been saying all along Mike.
"it is a bit different that the record labels remastering a work they have the copyright to and then retaining copyright on the new work while the old one can be reclaimed by the original artist."
Certainly these situations are not completely analogous. However, in both situations Bluebeat and the labels are claiming a new copyright magically appearing out of either "psycho-acoustic simulations" or "remasterings."
The question is whether either "psycho-acoustic simulation" or "remastering" creates a new copyright?
Let's assume that Congress finally stops extending copyrights and the music of the Beatles is about to enter the public domain. Does merely increasing the bass and adjusting the mid-range give the Beatles an entirely new copyright that would last an additional X number of years?
To me whether you call it "psycho-acoustic simulation" or "remastering" you're not talking about a new copyrighted work.
However, if the labels are correct, then every time I adjust the bass while listening to the Beatles I'm creating new copyrights.
You're probably right. First the vast majority of judges do not understand copyright law because it's not required in law school. So they're as ignorant as everyone else and believe that copyright protects a property right and that such rights should be protected at all costs.
In the case of Bluebeat, a judge determined that the company was obviously "stealing" from the legitimate owners. And in the future case where a label makes the identical argument that Bluebeat made, the judge will believe that the "legitimate business interests" of the labels will need to be protected.
And that's why I seriously think that the people behind Bluebeat are the copyright equivalent to the Yes Men. Remember, these were the same guys who ridiculously sued a bunch of companies for not suing their DRM, because not using their DRM violated the DMCA.
"they are not misleading at all. They clearly state that it is 3G coverage and not all coverage"
That was AT&T's objection? That despite being clearly marked as 3G coverage, that some idiot might think it represents all coverage? I hope the fucktard who decided to bring this lawsuit, along with the additional attention it got, gets his arse fired real soon.
Hulu has the same problem Sony has. On one hand they both want to be really cool tech companies and provide useful products to their customers. On the other hand they feel a need to protect and maximize their content.
We saw how Apple surpassed Sony. I'm sure with all the meddling by the content industries, Hulu doesn't stand a chance either.
"I would have to disagree with Sam's Clubs, as the free sample concept is very different from ad supported distribution"
My point was not to analogize free samples to the business models behind broadcast radio and television. Free samples are merely just another example of giving away something for free to make more money somewhere else. Clearly Sams Club makes money on those free samples, so the example is valid.
"But the very worst mistake was to give the consuming public the idea that content should be free. As a result, hundreds of millions of people read the news for free"
But yet millions of people watch and listen to news on television and radio for free. Why should print be any different? Wait, it is not different. The quarters you pay to get a paper each day in no way pays for the reporters and columnists to write. That money comes from advertising.
This guy is a retard, he even contradicts himself:
"Wi-Fi service are commodities... No money, no commodity" "Google... recently announced free Wi-Fi... will recoup at least some of the cost by placing ads on the service."
Yes, that's how newspapers operate, that's how broadcast TV operates, that's how radio operates, that how Sam Clubs operates when it gives out free samples. You give it away for free and make money somewhere else. This has been going on since the beginning of time.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re: Nah...
The law is technical and there is nothing wrong or immoral about holding enforcement of are laws to the letter of the law.
So if sharing minuscule bits of data is not covered under copyright law, it should therefore not be illegal under copyright law. We're all in huge trouble when a chosen few in our country get to enforce laws that have never been written.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
I've been saying this for years. Sure, the very first person who posts a file on bittorrent uploads the entire file, but everyone is able to get the entire file without uploading the entire file.
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they upload.
And here's the deal, are those bits of data that are being shared/uploaded even worthy of being considered infringement?
What I mean is that the data you share/upload is not sequential. Out of a three minute song, you're not sharing/uploading 30 sequential seconds of it, but nearly random bits and pieces of it. Heck, you're not even sharing individual notes or beats.
And even if you do somehow upload the entire song, you're not uploading it to a single person. You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
On the post: UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support
On the post: Canadian Ebook Store Offers 'Free' Public Domain Ebooks -- Claims Copyright Says You Can Only Make 1 Copy
On the post: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
The Daily Show is not a comedy show, it's an actual news show that also happens to be funny. The news is real, it's merely presented in a funny and highly entertaining way.
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
On the post: Kicking People Off The Internet Not Enough In South Korea, Copyright Lobbyists Demand More
On the post: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?
Re: I can see some logic
Certainly these situations are not completely analogous. However, in both situations Bluebeat and the labels are claiming a new copyright magically appearing out of either "psycho-acoustic simulations" or "remasterings."
The question is whether either "psycho-acoustic simulation" or "remastering" creates a new copyright?
Let's assume that Congress finally stops extending copyrights and the music of the Beatles is about to enter the public domain. Does merely increasing the bass and adjusting the mid-range give the Beatles an entirely new copyright that would last an additional X number of years?
To me whether you call it "psycho-acoustic simulation" or "remastering" you're not talking about a new copyrighted work.
However, if the labels are correct, then every time I adjust the bass while listening to the Beatles I'm creating new copyrights.
On the post: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?
Re: Re: Made their bed, now they can lay in it
In the case of Bluebeat, a judge determined that the company was obviously "stealing" from the legitimate owners. And in the future case where a label makes the identical argument that Bluebeat made, the judge will believe that the "legitimate business interests" of the labels will need to be protected.
On the post: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?
There is simply no way these guys are serious.
On the post: Judge Says 'There's An Ad For That...' And It's Ok For Now
Re: The ads are awesome...
That was AT&T's objection? That despite being clearly marked as 3G coverage, that some idiot might think it represents all coverage? I hope the fucktard who decided to bring this lawsuit, along with the additional attention it got, gets his arse fired real soon.
On the post: Larry Magid Calls For News Tax To Fund Failing Newspapers
Note to Larry, TAXES ARE NOT BUSINESS MODELS!!!!!
On the post: Netherlands The Latest To Propose Mileage Tax That Requires GPS For Tracking Driving
Governments want another tax on top of the gas tax. There no law against duplicative taxes.
On the post: Poet's Son Says No One Can Quote Father Without Paying Up... Even Academic Dissertations...
Wow. Just fricken wow!
On the post: The Trouble With Hulu... Too Many Competing Interests
Re:
Agreed, I really hope the feds step in and block this.
On the post: The Trouble With Hulu... Too Many Competing Interests
Re: Re:
Exactly.
"it doesn't have the leverage so it will end up twisting on the vine and dying"
Yep.
On the post: The Trouble With Hulu... Too Many Competing Interests
We saw how Apple surpassed Sony. I'm sure with all the meddling by the content industries, Hulu doesn't stand a chance either.
On the post: Information Should Not Be Free... Says InfoWorld Columnist That You Can Read For Free
Re: Re:
My point was not to analogize free samples to the business models behind broadcast radio and television. Free samples are merely just another example of giving away something for free to make more money somewhere else. Clearly Sams Club makes money on those free samples, so the example is valid.
On the post: Information Should Not Be Free... Says InfoWorld Columnist That You Can Read For Free
But yet millions of people watch and listen to news on television and radio for free. Why should print be any different? Wait, it is not different. The quarters you pay to get a paper each day in no way pays for the reporters and columnists to write. That money comes from advertising.
This guy is a retard, he even contradicts himself:
"Wi-Fi service are commodities... No money, no commodity" "Google... recently announced free Wi-Fi... will recoup at least some of the cost by placing ads on the service."
Yes, that's how newspapers operate, that's how broadcast TV operates, that's how radio operates, that how Sam Clubs operates when it gives out free samples. You give it away for free and make money somewhere else. This has been going on since the beginning of time.
Next >>