Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Mar 2019 @ 11:15am
Re: Re: Double Dipping in the Copyright Era
"Anyone paying the rights prior to Rudin invoking the 1960 contract would have prior standing and could perform without (actual) legal threat."
Does Rudin realize that? Either he or his lawyers should. Do the community theaters know the date of Rudin's contract? A lot of copyright trolling incorporates some form of bluff and bluster, and Rudin contacting community theaters that paid their fee prior to Rudin's contract would be just that.
Then the question becomes, what is Rudin's liability for being an asshole and lying by omission?
Come to think of it, wouldn't Dramatic Publishing Company, and or their lawyers, have a responsibility to tell Rudin that they had received payment for X number of performances and from whom and where?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Mar 2019 @ 10:37am
Double Dipping in the Copyright Era
What liability does Dramatic Publishing Company have for accepting the payments from the community theaters for the rights to put on their shows when they had this contract with Rudin? Or are they returning those fees?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2019 @ 10:31am
Are the tax dollars lost as well?
I fail to see why the IRS hasn't taken Hollywood Accounting to task. Think of all the tax dollars left on the table by acquiescing to their perverted notions of profit. I suppose it is possible that the entities receiving those outrageous fees for doing little might pay some taxes, but I bet they have tax mitigation and profit recycling plans for those as well.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2019 @ 10:25am
Re:
No, until we find out what action they will actually take. There is so much action they have failed to take in the past that only showing what action they will take in the future well give us the story. Then we get to evaluate the actions they should have taken, but won't.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2019 @ 7:28am
Re: is a form of government failure
"Severe problems of regulatory-capture and constant counter-productive government market interventions are discussed but largely ignored as practical solutions."
You need to read more. Not only are regulatory capture and constant counter productive government market interventions discussed often, but with the exception of a few severely uniformed folk they are considered a significant part of the problem, not as part of any solution. In fact removing those is thought to be first steps toward solutions, and that more than just that is needed.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 7:54am
Re: Re: And the hoi polloi aren't invited
Now that would be an interesting mental exercise. The problem is that given the power of the party national committees, and the corruption, replacing them would be the equivalent of reinventing the problems with a new set of actors subject to the same disease.
"Like so many problems (like health care or broadband availability), you can't actually fix the problem until you address government corruption. And you can't fix government corruption until you address lobbying reform. And you can't fix lobbying reform thanks to... lobbying."
I think we should consider amending Shakespeare's admonition to 'First kill all the Lawyers' to 'First kill all the Lobbyists'. That many lobbyists are also lawyers isn't necessarily a bad thing. (I don't really hate lawyers, well not all of them, but lobbyists...)
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2019 @ 5:06pm
Re: Re: Oops
That could work, except that that should be all manufacturers, not just Tech, or any manufacturer with a presence. When they have cleared out, the courts will find that because a product is sold retail, that will create a sufficient nexus. Then things will finally become a bit safer when all retail has moved out and all online retailers refuse to deliver in their jurisdiction. After that, the only economic engine left, agriculture, will find that by using fertilizer x or hormone y they will have violated some troll's patent application and those manufacturers will no longer sell there. Not sure what grows in Eastern Texas without any assistance, but the likelihood that it would be worth trying to make a business out of it I think is kinda low. Oh, I know, some troll will patent rain and sunshine, because no one else has.
I also wonder at Facebook's contention that some 'valuable trade secrets' exist in their implementation of the Messenger app. Other than the actual encryption algorithm, just how many ways are there to implement encrypted messaging, and how could any of them be actual secrets?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 7:49am
Re: Re:
A free PACER system is likely competition for Lexus/Nexus and/or any other system that charges for access to the underlying information.
I haven't used Lexus/Nexus and don't know if they add some value, other than making the information searchable (it is likely that they digitized a bunch of dead tree information though), which might make their fees worthwhile. It is still competition and failing to make PACER free for everyone just might be a part of their regulatory capture agenda.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:58pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to current copyright laws, the great grandchildren of creators own the rights to creations of their great grand parents, at least until 70+ years (depending on something or other) after the death of the creator. Why wouldn't a contention in the other direction make sense? The great grand parents of the creator should be able to co-opt all the income from their great grand children, unless they are 70+ years older (depending on something or other) than their progeny's, progeny's, progeny.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:47pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So true, but we cannot figure out how to do that second step without any ability to do the first. Having some legitimate review process (see suggestions below) would go a long way, to start.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:14pm
Re: Re:
Except those videos did not violate Viacom's copyright, since they were the ones uploading those videos. The problem was that whatever said (was it Content ID) it was a violation did not have all the facts, including the one that the rights holder was the uploader.
Of course, if there was a database of all copyrighted material linked to the actual rights holders, and the uploaders were identified as the rights holders then this wouldn't be an issue. So, where are those databases and the crosschecking software that denotes A=A?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:08pm
Re:
Isn't the problem really that Content ID is not learning from its mistakes? One would think that each time Content ID makes an error, someone, or something (machine learning) would make some correction to the Content ID algorithm, which would lead someone else to believe that it would be getting better.
It isn't. So there is no someone, or something making corrections to the Content ID algorithm. Shame on Google. Then again, those corrections might make Content ID worse. Still shame on Google. That each and every request for review isn't sent to some third party with no vested interests to determine, at least initially (there could and should be follow up proceedings in courts of law), whether something nefarious has taken place is yet another, shame on Google.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:46pm
Re: Spin
What happens then when machine learning is incorporated into the artificial intelligence. In that case, not even the programmer is in control of the output as anything learned by the machine did not come, directly, from the program, let alone the operator of the machine.
When the AI has read all of known literature, both fiction and non fiction, and then makes a decision on what to write, how could the operator, who probably hasn't read all known literature, be the proximate cause of the output.
More interesting might be when the AI quotes something it read and does not properly cite the source. Just when would the AI become liable for plagiarism?
What if we included law, including all case law and reversals of previous opinions. Then add International Law, and the laws of all countries. Could the AI properly judge the content it produces as appropriate for the jurisdiction where its writings are published? Many humans have difficulty with this one.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:34am
Re: Re:
Felony interference with a business model, of course. Verizon encourages (ahem) Pai to get rid of Net Neutrality, but Pai is screwing that process up so badly that it is possible that Verizon will lose in the long run. Pai's screw-up is the felony that interfered with Verizon's business model that incorporates regulatory capture.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2019 @ 5:28pm
Full Disclosure is the issue
Isn't the real question whether those that bought the Nest Home Security Platform would have done so if they knew it would be voice activated in the future?
I wouldn't. I would view having that capability as being less secure, let alone thinking about how it might be used for surveillance. That it is potentially a part of Google Assistant would make my thoughts even more negative about the product.
Given the warrants for other voice activated systems with connections to outside databases for criminal acts, one could conclude that in the future those warrants/subpoenas could be for civil acts, whether any other evidence exists or not.
Privacy is a real thing, despite the direction big tech and the governments reluctance to protect privacy have gone recently. One can only hope that both of those groups have some consideration for us, rather than themselves, in the future. More than hope would mean that the electorate wakes up and does something about it. Then again, shiny seems to have more impact.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2019 @ 1:32pm
Add me to the list, here is my opinion of Facebook, in part
I haven't used Facebook. I don't use Facebook. I won't use Facebook. I haven't, won't, and don't do business with any business who's only access is Facebook. I block Facebook in my HOSTS file (whatever good that does) and in Umatrix. I think Facebook is pointless, scummy, dangerous, and sociopathic. I don't like Facebook, I don't like their attitude, I don't like their position or their ability to have the impacts they have. I don't like they way they spin serious accusations against them as being less nefarious than I think they actually are.
If Facebook HQ and all of it's servers everywhere in the world were destroyed, irrecoverably, my opinion would be that the world would be better off, and that in the long run the employees of Facebook would be better off as well, as they would likely find employment in an actually useful environment. It would be nice is Zuckerberg 's bank account was accidentally drained at the same time.
If I haven't yet fully expressed my opinion that the world could not only exist without Facebook, but that it would be a better world for its lack of existence it is due only to a lack of negative adjectives and adverbs at my current disposal. I could get out a thesaurus and go to town, but frankly, Facebook just isn't worth it. Better to just ignore it and pity those who have succumbed to the promise never delivered.
Other than pity which I express only here, I have nothing against any user of Facebook.
On the post: Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird
Re: Re: Double Dipping in the Copyright Era
Does Rudin realize that? Either he or his lawyers should. Do the community theaters know the date of Rudin's contract? A lot of copyright trolling incorporates some form of bluff and bluster, and Rudin contacting community theaters that paid their fee prior to Rudin's contract would be just that.
Then the question becomes, what is Rudin's liability for being an asshole and lying by omission?
Come to think of it, wouldn't Dramatic Publishing Company, and or their lawyers, have a responsibility to tell Rudin that they had received payment for X number of performances and from whom and where?
On the post: Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird
Double Dipping in the Copyright Era
What liability does Dramatic Publishing Company have for accepting the payments from the community theaters for the rights to put on their shows when they had this contract with Rudin? Or are they returning those fees?
On the post: Deception & Trust: A Deep Look At Deep Fakes
Re: Either we're going to start facing facts...
Or, we could demand multiple sources, and then vet those sources.
On the post: Mozilla Says Australia's Compelled Access Law Could Turn Staff There Into 'Insider Threats'
Re: Is there a law in Australia...
Upton Sinclair
Is the best explanation I have found for why elected officials do the stupid things they do.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Rears Its Ugly Head Again: Fox's 'False Testimony' And 'Aversion For The Truth' Leads To $179M Fine
Are the tax dollars lost as well?
I fail to see why the IRS hasn't taken Hollywood Accounting to task. Think of all the tax dollars left on the table by acquiescing to their perverted notions of profit. I suppose it is possible that the entities receiving those outrageous fees for doing little might pay some taxes, but I bet they have tax mitigation and profit recycling plans for those as well.
On the post: The FTC Probably Doesn't Need A New 'Big Tech' Task Force. It Just Needs To Do Its Job
Re:
No, until we find out what action they will actually take. There is so much action they have failed to take in the past that only showing what action they will take in the future well give us the story. Then we get to evaluate the actions they should have taken, but won't.
On the post: FCC Uses Cherry-Picked Stats To Justify Giving Consumers A Giant Middle Finger
Re: is a form of government failure
You need to read more. Not only are regulatory capture and constant counter productive government market interventions discussed often, but with the exception of a few severely uniformed folk they are considered a significant part of the problem, not as part of any solution. In fact removing those is thought to be first steps toward solutions, and that more than just that is needed.
On the post: AT&T Throwing FundRaiser For Senate Chair Ahead Of Privacy Hearings
Re: Re: And the hoi polloi aren't invited
Now that would be an interesting mental exercise. The problem is that given the power of the party national committees, and the corruption, replacing them would be the equivalent of reinventing the problems with a new set of actors subject to the same disease.
On the post: AT&T Throwing FundRaiser For Senate Chair Ahead Of Privacy Hearings
And the hoi polloi aren't invited
Hearings are good. They are designed to collect information from appropriate sources. Of course the design of the hearing matters. When only those who (like AT&T in the article above) will economically benefit from the results of the discussion going their way are, with their like brethren, are the only ones invited to testify, there is a fault in the design. I suspect that the Chair of the meeting is the lead designer, and given the article above, there is good reason only half the story gets told in the hearings.
I think we should consider amending Shakespeare's admonition to 'First kill all the Lawyers' to 'First kill all the Lobbyists'. That many lobbyists are also lawyers isn't necessarily a bad thing. (I don't really hate lawyers, well not all of them, but lobbyists...)
On the post: Apple Shutting Down Stores In East Texas To Avoid Patent Trolling Cases In The Troll's Favorite Docket
Re: Re: Oops
That could work, except that that should be all manufacturers, not just Tech, or any manufacturer with a presence. When they have cleared out, the courts will find that because a product is sold retail, that will create a sufficient nexus. Then things will finally become a bit safer when all retail has moved out and all online retailers refuse to deliver in their jurisdiction. After that, the only economic engine left, agriculture, will find that by using fertilizer x or hormone y they will have violated some troll's patent application and those manufacturers will no longer sell there. Not sure what grows in Eastern Texas without any assistance, but the likelihood that it would be worth trying to make a business out of it I think is kinda low. Oh, I know, some troll will patent rain and sunshine, because no one else has.
On the post: Court Says DOJ's Attempt To Force Facebook To Break Encryption Can Remain Under Seal
Re:
That is the same argument that Racine Wisconsin Sheriff’s Dept. Lt. Cary Madrigal used when describing how their new Cellebrite tool could help innocent people prove their innocence.. It seems that both U.S. District Judge Lawrence O’Neill in Fresno California, and Lt. Cary Madrigal have forgotten that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that even law enforcement agencies work for the people, not the government.
I also wonder at Facebook's contention that some 'valuable trade secrets' exist in their implementation of the Messenger app. Other than the actual encryption algorithm, just how many ways are there to implement encrypted messaging, and how could any of them be actual secrets?
On the post: Legislators Take Another Stab At Eliminating Fees For PACER Access
Re: Re:
A free PACER system is likely competition for Lexus/Nexus and/or any other system that charges for access to the underlying information.
I haven't used Lexus/Nexus and don't know if they add some value, other than making the information searchable (it is likely that they digitized a bunch of dead tree information though), which might make their fees worthwhile. It is still competition and failing to make PACER free for everyone just might be a part of their regulatory capture agenda.
On the post: AI Writes Article About AI: Does The Newspaper Hold The Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to current copyright laws, the great grandchildren of creators own the rights to creations of their great grand parents, at least until 70+ years (depending on something or other) after the death of the creator. Why wouldn't a contention in the other direction make sense? The great grand parents of the creator should be able to co-opt all the income from their great grand children, unless they are 70+ years older (depending on something or other) than their progeny's, progeny's, progeny.
Of course, both contentions are ridiculous.
On the post: YouTube Filters At It Again: Pokemon YouTubers Have Accounts Nuked Over Child Porn Discussions That Weren't Occurring
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So true, but we cannot figure out how to do that second step without any ability to do the first. Having some legitimate review process (see suggestions below) would go a long way, to start.
On the post: YouTube Filters At It Again: Pokemon YouTubers Have Accounts Nuked Over Child Porn Discussions That Weren't Occurring
Re: Re:
Except those videos did not violate Viacom's copyright, since they were the ones uploading those videos. The problem was that whatever said (was it Content ID) it was a violation did not have all the facts, including the one that the rights holder was the uploader.
Of course, if there was a database of all copyrighted material linked to the actual rights holders, and the uploaders were identified as the rights holders then this wouldn't be an issue. So, where are those databases and the crosschecking software that denotes A=A?
On the post: YouTube Filters At It Again: Pokemon YouTubers Have Accounts Nuked Over Child Porn Discussions That Weren't Occurring
Re:
Isn't the problem really that Content ID is not learning from its mistakes? One would think that each time Content ID makes an error, someone, or something (machine learning) would make some correction to the Content ID algorithm, which would lead someone else to believe that it would be getting better.
It isn't. So there is no someone, or something making corrections to the Content ID algorithm. Shame on Google. Then again, those corrections might make Content ID worse. Still shame on Google. That each and every request for review isn't sent to some third party with no vested interests to determine, at least initially (there could and should be follow up proceedings in courts of law), whether something nefarious has taken place is yet another, shame on Google.
On the post: AI Writes Article About AI: Does The Newspaper Hold The Copyright?
Re: Spin
What happens then when machine learning is incorporated into the artificial intelligence. In that case, not even the programmer is in control of the output as anything learned by the machine did not come, directly, from the program, let alone the operator of the machine.
When the AI has read all of known literature, both fiction and non fiction, and then makes a decision on what to write, how could the operator, who probably hasn't read all known literature, be the proximate cause of the output.
More interesting might be when the AI quotes something it read and does not properly cite the source. Just when would the AI become liable for plagiarism?
What if we included law, including all case law and reversals of previous opinions. Then add International Law, and the laws of all countries. Could the AI properly judge the content it produces as appropriate for the jurisdiction where its writings are published? Many humans have difficulty with this one.
On the post: Investigators, Reporters Close In On The Origins Of Those Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re:
Felony interference with a business model, of course. Verizon encourages (ahem) Pai to get rid of Net Neutrality, but Pai is screwing that process up so badly that it is possible that Verizon will lose in the long run. Pai's screw-up is the felony that interfered with Verizon's business model that incorporates regulatory capture.
/s
On the post: Google Fesses Up To Hidden Microphone In Nest Home Security Platform
Full Disclosure is the issue
Isn't the real question whether those that bought the Nest Home Security Platform would have done so if they knew it would be voice activated in the future?
I wouldn't. I would view having that capability as being less secure, let alone thinking about how it might be used for surveillance. That it is potentially a part of Google Assistant would make my thoughts even more negative about the product.
Given the warrants for other voice activated systems with connections to outside databases for criminal acts, one could conclude that in the future those warrants/subpoenas could be for civil acts, whether any other evidence exists or not.
Privacy is a real thing, despite the direction big tech and the governments reluctance to protect privacy have gone recently. One can only hope that both of those groups have some consideration for us, rather than themselves, in the future. More than hope would mean that the electorate wakes up and does something about it. Then again, shiny seems to have more impact.
On the post: Facebook Ups Surveillance Of Users To Keep Tabs On People Who Don't Like Facebook
Add me to the list, here is my opinion of Facebook, in part
I haven't used Facebook. I don't use Facebook. I won't use Facebook. I haven't, won't, and don't do business with any business who's only access is Facebook. I block Facebook in my HOSTS file (whatever good that does) and in Umatrix. I think Facebook is pointless, scummy, dangerous, and sociopathic. I don't like Facebook, I don't like their attitude, I don't like their position or their ability to have the impacts they have. I don't like they way they spin serious accusations against them as being less nefarious than I think they actually are.
If Facebook HQ and all of it's servers everywhere in the world were destroyed, irrecoverably, my opinion would be that the world would be better off, and that in the long run the employees of Facebook would be better off as well, as they would likely find employment in an actually useful environment. It would be nice is Zuckerberg 's bank account was accidentally drained at the same time.
If I haven't yet fully expressed my opinion that the world could not only exist without Facebook, but that it would be a better world for its lack of existence it is due only to a lack of negative adjectives and adverbs at my current disposal. I could get out a thesaurus and go to town, but frankly, Facebook just isn't worth it. Better to just ignore it and pity those who have succumbed to the promise never delivered.
Other than pity which I express only here, I have nothing against any user of Facebook.
Next >>