Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:27am
Re: If Kate Bush had any gumption
If Kate Bush had any gumption she would have used the fricking soliloquy in the first place
Hmm because everybody deliberately invites a lawsuit, right? I know it would be my idea of fun to spend a year arguing with lawyers and almost certainly losing because of the way the law is written and spending a fortune doing so....
Perhaps the "gumption" in question would have been better aimed at spending the same money she'd have spent on a pointless lawsuit to lobby to have the stupid law changed... or maybe just use it to come up with an give-away album full of songs about what a bunch of asshats the rightsholders for James Joyce were?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:57am
While it may inspire creativity in that she has to come up with her own lyrics, couldn't the argument be made that using something like this in a song, a different medium than a book, showcase that work in a different light? Could it take on new life or even new meaning?
Except all that is irrelevant to the copyright holder. They are only usually interested in either a/ CASH (especially if the holder is a corporation) or b/ Some idea of "protecting" the thing in case "terrible things are done with it" (in the case of a family or the original creator). The idea of the new meaning of a derivative work doesn't seem to occur to most rightsholders, or the content probably wouldn't have been copyrighted in the first place and certainly has no meaning to a corporation unless they can make money out of it (usually yours for een thinking about something they "own".
It always seems to come down to "my idea not yours" for the creator or "my control and MONEY" not yours for other rightsholders. That's fine for a while I suppose but when you're talking about perhaps 130+ YEARS of that it seems a little excessive doesn't it?
Of course as medical technology gets exponentially better it's entirely possible that even without further extensions the copyright period will effectively be "As long as the United States of America has currently existed" After all, that's only doubling lifespan and it's already more than done that once since the US was founded. Sounds reasonable, no?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:01am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Joel should only have to pay up to the value of what he stole???
Nope, he should pay nothing because by the plaintiff's lawyers own argument what he downloaded was public domain or at least inherently valueless to the copyright holder. Fantastic argument from the lawyer there and you think it's the defendant that's making a mockery of the law?
Tell me, do you have better justification for thinking that $75,000 per song (I.e. I'm guessing about 2 years average wages) is a reasonable number? Something that, unlike the argument given, doesn't mean the song was already valueless when it was downloaded? I'll give you a start to cross some off;
"Because it's the law" isn't a justification
"Because he's a 'douchenozzle'" isn't a justification
"Because you're all a bunch of freetard thieves" isn't a justification
"Because he's the only one we can get so we may as well stick him with the whole amount we think me might ever hypothetically lose" isn't a justification
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 9:37am
Whoa! Headspin! Logic Loop.....,
Because the effect of putting this work up on peer-to-peer technology is essentially you take a copyrighted work, and put it in the public domain."
If he downloaded it, then it must by the lawyer's own argument have already been in the public domain as once the work has been uploaded "the copyright value is removed".
By that reasoning they can go after the original uploader (assuming they can track such a person down)for 2 Gazillion pounds, but any downloader who subsequently shares it is de-facto sharing public domain content and therefore not infringing.....
It's kinda funny (in a sick sort of way) watching the the tortuous knots these people seem to generate to try and steal money from anyone they can find
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 8:55am
Re: Re: The Government's Search Powers
However, this does not pertain to data. Data can be "imported" much easier via the internet than hand-carrying storage devices across borders. So what's the justification for the search without probable cause?
It does, however, have the really cool and neat effect of increasing "The Fear" in the general populace by using a horrible stretching of existing legislation under the guise of, "Think of all the raporists and kiddie fondlers and terrorists and seal clubbers and flag burners and bad things this stops! There's millions of them out there people it's not safe you know!"
Leave to simmer a while and you'll soon be able to justify another "completely necessary" extension of the "Patriot" Act. It's great isn't it?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 8:32am
Re:
Soon you inbox will be filled with threates like....
We know you are pirate and will be taking you to court to sue you for $50,000. Or you can settle now quickly for $2500.
Except then the **AA will probably sue for patent infringement on the business model. You are allowed to patent business process now aren't you? It's the one they seem to use so I wouldn't be surprised if they'd patented it....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 8:26am
Re: Missleading again little mikee
There's a standard internet acronym for "Too Long; Didn't Read". Perhaps there should be one for something akin to "Obvious Ad Hominem; Not Worth The Effort"?
Didn't really seem worth going past the title in this case.....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:31am
Logical really
If you can use already existing content to create new content without paying license fees then the barriers to create new stuff and make money off it are much lower and so more people do it. Seems obvious to me.
I'm not saying I don't think that copyright can't "incentivise" too if done correctly (after all a better chance of being paid at least for a while is almost certainly an incentive), but it strikes me that the "derivative works" portion of copyright especially in the massively broad definition it exists in UK/US now is a blatantly obvious disincentive to creation.
Why does copyright seem to allow you to "own" an idea when, for example, patent doesn't?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:15am
Re: USB record decks
What about all those USB record decks that openly advertise in the UK their use for copying your vinyl collection to mp3 or CD?
consistent - NOT
Ah this to my knowledge (IANAL) is where UK law gets a little odd. Hopefully (what am I saying??) there's a UK lawyer around to clarify...
Prior to our version of DCMA (which I think came in about '97 or '98) it was completely legal under UK law to hold a backup copy of media that you owned. When the 1997(?) act became law it essentially made that illegal, though the law original wasn't removed.
AFAIK the limitation of the "fair use backup" only applies for stuff published after the new law came into effect so "Record to MP3" is likely to be outside this limitation for most content (how much vinyl is made after 1997?).
Of course, if I'm right about that then a lot of CDs are also legal to rip for personal "backup" use, so a portion of CD to MP3 functionality would also be legal so it's still inconsistent.
My other question is why this device when every single iPhone/Pod/Pad/Pwhatever device for example also comes with exactly the same functionality in iTunes?? I can't see Apple devices being quite so popular if the "illegality" of ripping a CD to MP3 was suddenly enforced with the usual draconian pointless brutality can you?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 3:50am
Re: George Orwell prophesied this kind of shite
and the vapidity of the royals-worshipping general populace
Uh, I'm more or less with you on the rest, but in my experience Americans often seem more enamored of our Royal Family than Brits do, and Americans seem the same if not worse about their President and (slightly more bizarrely to my mind) their flag.
Besides, the IP laws here are mostly the US's fault anyway we just don't have a constitution to hide in to slow the manic removal of common sense in this area :-)
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:50am
Blackadder moment
It's seems former RIAA lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell's recent decision that it's fine to lump together a bunch of totally unrelated copyright infringement lawsuits into a single lawsuit is increasingly looking like an outlier
Her and Redbeard Rum:
" "Well, opinion on the matter is divided m'Lord. All the other captains say it is. I say it isn't!"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:42am
Dammit Mike!!!!
You posting that article made me think about all my DVDs and I'm not at home. I guess I owe a gazillion pounds in streaming licensing fees now... It's all your fault Mike! I'm sending you the bill when it comes....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:14am
Re: They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.
What if I set up my own streaming server at home that did the same thing (just for me and I wouldn't give the password out)?
By their logic I should pay for the music again.
Although that does seem to be their ultimate aim - to have you pay them every time you move/store/retrieve/listen to/think about music - in this case it's actually completely without logic...
Setup UPnP music server on home wireless for streaming to your media player - WEP protected so you're not technically inviting people in but anyone who wants can probably get to everything you've got in about 5 seconds.... well that's absolutely fine (currently!).
Store music on secure server that only you can easily get to unless you specifically give someone the password... oh well you'll need a license for that.Totally barmy.. but hten when was the last time a claim from these people made any kind of logical sense?
Hmm sudden thought... by RIAA "logic", if I do the UPnP/WEP thing and someone "steals" all my music I should be able to have them arrested for theft and sue them for a whole bunch of damages for having deprived me of all that music... right?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:29am
Re: Yale paper
Nonetheless, we claim that this assumption is incorrect.
Which I think is a valid thing to challenge. Whether it is still true or not I think the point at which the nature of a "copy" has fundamentally changed - i.e. from a cost-laden endeavor to a fundamentally cost-free one in many cases - is the point at which it is worth examining the original assumptions to see if they are still valid.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Apr 2011 @ 11:07am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation?
Oooo extra points for the Calvinball reference.... I'll get the anti-lawyer pugil sticks that can only be used on Wednesdays with a z in them and you set up the Zone-of-Conformity where you have to turn thrice widdershins before watching each film or it's illegal. :-)
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Apr 2011 @ 8:05am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation?
If I correctly understand what you are saying that was kind of my point, capitalism itself is as you say self-organizing and chaotic (but I'd maintain only within the bounds of the system rules - a neural network as an analogy if you will) but each individual element will naturally seek to "perfect" itself, i.e. maximise its own size (worth) as that is the measure within the system of efficiency. It will do this as far as possible within the bounds of the "system rules" and monopolies are inherently the best outcome for an individual element (though of course not for the "network" as a whole). Where you get problems is when you allow one (or more) of the individual elements of the system to start changing the rules on which the self-organising system is based. A bit like in a computer system individual processes must share CPU cycles with other processes and can request extra CPU for a task from the system, but you don't generally allow a process to set the rules by which those cycles are shared out. This is what seems to me to be happening a lot - the individual "processes" (read corporations or industries) being allowed to re-write the system rules to allocate them more "CPU cycles".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Apr 2011 @ 6:29am
Re: Re: Translation?
Which is an insane stance to take - pay for cultural norms?
That's the problem - it only sounds insane when you write it all at once it like that. Though it seems to me that it is the ultimate aim of these businesses you just don't notice that's where it's going as little by little, pieces of culture are locked behind various kinds of paywall for longer and longer periods.
To be slightly fair, corporations trying to do that doesn't especially surprise or worry me - it's an inevitable product of capitalism that they will (and perhaps even should) try an maximise their profits. The bit that troubles me is that it ought to be the duty of governments to bound and limit how far this is acceptable as a democratic government is supposed to consider the protection and enhancement of culture and society as (one of) its primary purpose(s).
To me capitalism and democracy are essentially opposing forces and neither work properly though together they make the best solution anyone has come up with so far as long as they are balanced correctly. However, for whatever reason supposedly democratic governments increasingly side with and indeed encourage capitalist forces (corporations) over democracy (culture and society).
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: After 22 Years, Joyce Estate Finally Lets Kate Bush Use Lyrics She Wanted
Re: If Kate Bush had any gumption
Hmm because everybody deliberately invites a lawsuit, right? I know it would be my idea of fun to spend a year arguing with lawyers and almost certainly losing because of the way the law is written and spending a fortune doing so....
Perhaps the "gumption" in question would have been better aimed at spending the same money she'd have spent on a pointless lawsuit to lobby to have the stupid law changed... or maybe just use it to come up with an give-away album full of songs about what a bunch of asshats the rightsholders for James Joyce were?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: After 22 Years, Joyce Estate Finally Lets Kate Bush Use Lyrics She Wanted
Re: Re: Star Trek
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: After 22 Years, Joyce Estate Finally Lets Kate Bush Use Lyrics She Wanted
It always seems to come down to "my idea not yours" for the creator or "my control and MONEY" not yours for other rightsholders. That's fine for a while I suppose but when you're talking about perhaps 130+ YEARS of that it seems a little excessive doesn't it?
Of course as medical technology gets exponentially better it's entirely possible that even without further extensions the copyright period will effectively be "As long as the United States of America has currently existed" After all, that's only doubling lifespan and it's already more than done that once since the US was founded. Sounds reasonable, no?
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, he should pay nothing because by the plaintiff's lawyers own argument what he downloaded was public domain or at least inherently valueless to the copyright holder. Fantastic argument from the lawyer there and you think it's the defendant that's making a mockery of the law?
Tell me, do you have better justification for thinking that $75,000 per song (I.e. I'm guessing about 2 years average wages) is a reasonable number? Something that, unlike the argument given, doesn't mean the song was already valueless when it was downloaded? I'll give you a start to cross some off;
"Because it's the law" isn't a justification
"Because he's a 'douchenozzle'" isn't a justification
"Because you're all a bunch of freetard thieves" isn't a justification
"Because he's the only one we can get so we may as well stick him with the whole amount we think me might ever hypothetically lose" isn't a justification
What else have you got?
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Whoa! Headspin! Logic Loop.....,
If he downloaded it, then it must by the lawyer's own argument have already been in the public domain as once the work has been uploaded "the copyright value is removed".
By that reasoning they can go after the original uploader (assuming they can track such a person down)for 2 Gazillion pounds, but any downloader who subsequently shares it is de-facto sharing public domain content and therefore not infringing.....
It's kinda funny (in a sick sort of way) watching the the tortuous knots these people seem to generate to try and steal money from anyone they can find
On the post: Once Again, Court Says Homeland Security Is Free To Seize & Search Your Computer Without A Warrant At The Border
Re: Re: The Government's Search Powers
It does, however, have the really cool and neat effect of increasing "The Fear" in the general populace by using a horrible stretching of existing legislation under the guise of, "Think of all the raporists and kiddie fondlers and terrorists and seal clubbers and flag burners and bad things this stops! There's millions of them out there people it's not safe you know!"
Leave to simmer a while and you'll soon be able to justify another "completely necessary" extension of the "Patriot" Act. It's great isn't it?
On the post: Nigerians Looking To Crack Down On Movie Piracy, Despite Thriving Nollywood Movie Industry
Re:
Except then the **AA will probably sue for patent infringement on the business model. You are allowed to patent business process now aren't you? It's the one they seem to use so I wouldn't be surprised if they'd patented it....
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
Re: Missleading again little mikee
Didn't really seem worth going past the title in this case.....
On the post: Nigerians Looking To Crack Down On Movie Piracy, Despite Thriving Nollywood Movie Industry
Re: Re:
Think you failed your "Spot Sarcasm" check there. Certainly either you or I need a detector overhaul and I think mine's working just fine.....
On the post: Nigerians Looking To Crack Down On Movie Piracy, Despite Thriving Nollywood Movie Industry
Logical really
I'm not saying I don't think that copyright can't "incentivise" too if done correctly (after all a better chance of being paid at least for a while is almost certainly an incentive), but it strikes me that the "derivative works" portion of copyright especially in the massively broad definition it exists in UK/US now is a blatantly obvious disincentive to creation.
Why does copyright seem to allow you to "own" an idea when, for example, patent doesn't?
On the post: UK Advertising Board Says CD Jukebox With Hard Drive Can't Advertise That It Copies Music, Since That's Infringement
Re: USB record decks
Ah this to my knowledge (IANAL) is where UK law gets a little odd. Hopefully (what am I saying??) there's a UK lawyer around to clarify...
Prior to our version of DCMA (which I think came in about '97 or '98) it was completely legal under UK law to hold a backup copy of media that you owned. When the 1997(?) act became law it essentially made that illegal, though the law original wasn't removed.
AFAIK the limitation of the "fair use backup" only applies for stuff published after the new law came into effect so "Record to MP3" is likely to be outside this limitation for most content (how much vinyl is made after 1997?).
Of course, if I'm right about that then a lot of CDs are also legal to rip for personal "backup" use, so a portion of CD to MP3 functionality would also be legal so it's still inconsistent.
My other question is why this device when every single iPhone/Pod/Pad/Pwhatever device for example also comes with exactly the same functionality in iTunes?? I can't see Apple devices being quite so popular if the "illegality" of ripping a CD to MP3 was suddenly enforced with the usual draconian pointless brutality can you?
On the post: UK Advertising Board Says CD Jukebox With Hard Drive Can't Advertise That It Copies Music, Since That's Infringement
Re: George Orwell prophesied this kind of shite
Besides, the IP laws here are mostly the US's fault anyway we just don't have a constitution to hide in to slow the manic removal of common sense in this area :-)
On the post: Yet Another Judge Says No To Mass Infringement Lawsuits
Blackadder moment
Her and Redbeard Rum:
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
Dammit Mike!!!!
On the post: Will Amazon Cave In And Get Licenses For Its Streaming Player?
Re: They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.
Although that does seem to be their ultimate aim - to have you pay them every time you move/store/retrieve/listen to/think about music - in this case it's actually completely without logic...
Setup UPnP music server on home wireless for streaming to your media player - WEP protected so you're not technically inviting people in but anyone who wants can probably get to everything you've got in about 5 seconds.... well that's absolutely fine (currently!).
Store music on secure server that only you can easily get to unless you specifically give someone the password... oh well you'll need a license for that.Totally barmy.. but hten when was the last time a claim from these people made any kind of logical sense?
Hmm sudden thought... by RIAA "logic", if I do the UPnP/WEP thing and someone "steals" all my music I should be able to have them arrested for theft and sue them for a whole bunch of damages for having deprived me of all that music... right?
On the post: Focusing On The Copy Part Of Copyright Doesn't Make Much Sense In Today's World
Re: Yale paper
Which I think is a valid thing to challenge. Whether it is still true or not I think the point at which the nature of a "copy" has fundamentally changed - i.e. from a cost-laden endeavor to a fundamentally cost-free one in many cases - is the point at which it is worth examining the original assumptions to see if they are still valid.
On the post: Questions Asked About EU Appointing IFPI Lobbyist To Copyright Role
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation?
On the post: Greek Site That Links To Legal Videos By Rightsholders... Sued For Infringement
Re:
On the post: Questions Asked About EU Appointing IFPI Lobbyist To Copyright Role
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation?
On the post: Questions Asked About EU Appointing IFPI Lobbyist To Copyright Role
Re: Re: Translation?
That's the problem - it only sounds insane when you write it all at once it like that. Though it seems to me that it is the ultimate aim of these businesses you just don't notice that's where it's going as little by little, pieces of culture are locked behind various kinds of paywall for longer and longer periods.
To be slightly fair, corporations trying to do that doesn't especially surprise or worry me - it's an inevitable product of capitalism that they will (and perhaps even should) try an maximise their profits. The bit that troubles me is that it ought to be the duty of governments to bound and limit how far this is acceptable as a democratic government is supposed to consider the protection and enhancement of culture and society as (one of) its primary purpose(s).
To me capitalism and democracy are essentially opposing forces and neither work properly though together they make the best solution anyone has come up with so far as long as they are balanced correctly. However, for whatever reason supposedly democratic governments increasingly side with and indeed encourage capitalist forces (corporations) over democracy (culture and society).
Next >>