Let's see... on Monday I proved that there is no right to jury nullification by quoting a variety of sources including the Supreme Court. While everybody else was disagreeing based on their own belief of how things should be, I explained in detail how things actually are. I also explained the free speech and jury tampering issues that were raised in that article. Some people appreciated my research and explanation.
If you don't value my posts, don't read them. From the looks of it to me, you're the one with the ego. You're the elitist.
I'm here to understand the law as it applies to things that I'm interested in, like IP, privacy, free speech, etc. I do my best to add meaningful input to the conversation. I do research on issues and share that research with others. What do you do?
I also enjoy calling Mike out for being a two-faced liar. He states that piracy is not OK, but then he defends piracy every single possible chance he gets. His hypocrisy amuses me, and I point it out from time to time. If you don't think he's a hypocrite, then fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.
So, say I'm a student at UCLA (I'm not) and I get a CC licensed work that requires attribution. I decide to reproduce it for educational purposes with no attribution. According to this, that'll be fair use, and I can safely ignore the CC license, right? I mean, if this argument holds... which may not be the case.
I believe that would be a breach of contract, but not copyright infringement.
In Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Vault contended that Quaid breached its license agreement by decompiling or disassembling the program in violation of the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act. Louisiana’s License Act permitted a software producer to impose a number of contractual terms upon software purchasers such as prohibition of copying, and modifying and/or adapting the program in any way. The Fifth Circuit held that the License Act conflicts with the Copyright Act: (1) the Copyright Act allows archival copies to be made while the License Act authorizes a total prohibition on copying, (2) the Copyright Act grants protection for a period of time while the License Act is perpetual, and (3) under the License Act all programs may be protected while under the Copyright Act only original works of authorship can be protected. As such, the License Act is preempted by the Copyright Act and the license agreement is unenforceable.
But that's not the end of the story...
In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit held that rights created by contract are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright. They explained that while copyright is a right against the world, contracts only affect their parties and they do not create exclusive rights. For example, if someone who found a copy of a copyrighted program on the street, they would not be affected by the license agreement of the parties, though federal copyright laws would limit the finder’s ability to copy or transmit the application program. Courts usually read preemption clauses to leave private contracts unaffected. Section 301 does not interfere with private transactions in intellectual property, and it does not prevent states from respecting those transactions. Contracts between private parties takes nothing from the public domain. Since a contract is not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright, therefore the contract may be enforced.
Note that Section 301 of the Copyright Act prevents states from passing or enforcing laws equivalent to copyright.
If you read the notes to Section 109 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the first sale doctrine, it states that a contract limiting a user's first sale rights may be enforceable by an action for breach of contract, but not by an action for copyright infringement.
In Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware, 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit held that to succeed in a copyright action, the source of the copyright holder's complaint must be grounded in a right protected by the Copyright Act. However, rights granted by contract can be much broader. For example, say a copyright holder grants a licensee a license to make exactly one copy or a book and to read all but the last ten pages. If that licensee makes 100 copies, that is copyright infringement. But if that licensee reads the last ten pages, that is breach of contract.
What does all this mean? I believe that a contract whereby the parties agreed that the licensee would not make particular use of material would be enforceable as a breach of contract, but not copyright infringement.
"If I thought it was "OK" I would do it myself. I don't, because I don't think it's ok for me, but I am happy to base my business models and assumptions around it. I also happily encourage torrent sites, come down on their side legally in all cases, and generally support the pirating community. But pirating is bad".
That is where AJ is going with this - while Mike may say "Pirating isn't okay" in this particular post, the rest of TD is about how to profit from piracy, how to use piracy, how piracy is changing everything, and why piracy is legal. Not exactly a solid condemnation of the concept.
It's amusing that he thinks that saying piracy is not OK somehow erases every single thing other thing he does to promote piracy.
Suit yourself hypocrite. I expected that. Maybe liar's the right word. I don't know, but I find it hard to believe with as much time as you spend here criticizing Mike and others who disagree with you, plus running your own website (so you say) that you also have time for... law school? Seems to me that would require many hours of class time and studying, not leaving all the free time you seem to possess. Seems more to fit the profile of some unemployed kid living in mom's basement who has no friends, no girlfriend, and no life. I know when I was in college I was out living it up with friends and getting laid when not studying or in class, not spending every free moment I had sitting at a keyboard.
I don't go out with my friends because I'm too busy with my kids, as I've posted elsewhere. My two oldest are at school, I'm feeding my toddler breakfast, and my infant is sitting in my lap drinking a bottle. Somehow I can manage this and do all of my homework with a full class schedule. I get very little sleep, but I don't care. Not that this is any of your business, but I'm happy to share.
I'll give you couple hints. It's a message board. It's not about law, although occasionally law is the topic. There's about 100 regular posters who check in every day or so, and plenty more who read it or post irregularly. I've had the board for about 6-7 years. It's not facebook. Not even close. :)
I meant say so in his articles. His articles are too busy focusing on how everything is the victims' fault to point any blame whatsoever at those who intentionally violate those victims' rights. He says in the comments that he doesn't think piracy is OK, sure, but that's an obvious attempt to save face. Why is there never an indicia of blame on the pirates in his articles? I'm not talking about saying the Anonymous shouldn't DDOS people. I'm talking about blaming those who intentionally walk all over others' rights. If he really thinks piracy is not OK, his articles would indicate this. They don't. It's article after article about how dumb the rights holders. This article we're commenting on is a good example.
Citation Needed. A link to a recent comment or article would be very helpful. Thanks!
You won't get one, don't worry. You'd think with his super-open mind there'd be plenty. The fact is, he only admits he's wrong if there's just no possible way to continue standing his ground--and even then, he usually just remains silent rather than admit fault. If there's the least bit of gray area, he exploits it. He's rather good at being crafty, I'll give him that.
If you really didn't think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't. You are too busy pointing out who this is all the victim's fault. You put no blame where it's actually due.
Get more people to "do the right thing"? Funny how you aren't talking about the people violating other people's rights. God forbid you should ever think they should "do the right thing." You think the onus is on the victim to "do the right thing."
You're more than just the messenger, Mike. You're the mouthpiece.
God, I'm starting to get the feeling that everyone who disagrees with Mike's opinion and/or his childish attitude is accused of "misrepresenting" him. After monitoring this site for some time, it's alarming how much he misuses that word. And, despite his claims to the contrary, I have never seen Mike admit a mistake or recognize a valid point from a commentator who disagrees with his stance.
That's exactly right. Mike doesn't want to be called out or corrected, and the last thing he ever wants to do is admit that a view contrary to his own has merit. Yet, he claims to have an open mind. It's rather quite amusing.
I get the difference. It's clear to me that Mike pretends to merely be pointing out that "they will," while it's readily apparent that he thinks it's "OK."
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't value my posts, don't read them. From the looks of it to me, you're the one with the ego. You're the elitist.
I'm here to understand the law as it applies to things that I'm interested in, like IP, privacy, free speech, etc. I do my best to add meaningful input to the conversation. I do research on issues and share that research with others. What do you do?
I also enjoy calling Mike out for being a two-faced liar. He states that piracy is not OK, but then he defends piracy every single possible chance he gets. His hypocrisy amuses me, and I point it out from time to time. If you don't think he's a hypocrite, then fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re:
I believe that would be a breach of contract, but not copyright infringement.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
In Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Vault contended that Quaid breached its license agreement by decompiling or disassembling the program in violation of the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act. Louisiana’s License Act permitted a software producer to impose a number of contractual terms upon software purchasers such as prohibition of copying, and modifying and/or adapting the program in any way. The Fifth Circuit held that the License Act conflicts with the Copyright Act: (1) the Copyright Act allows archival copies to be made while the License Act authorizes a total prohibition on copying, (2) the Copyright Act grants protection for a period of time while the License Act is perpetual, and (3) under the License Act all programs may be protected while under the Copyright Act only original works of authorship can be protected. As such, the License Act is preempted by the Copyright Act and the license agreement is unenforceable.
But that's not the end of the story...
In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit held that rights created by contract are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright. They explained that while copyright is a right against the world, contracts only affect their parties and they do not create exclusive rights. For example, if someone who found a copy of a copyrighted program on the street, they would not be affected by the license agreement of the parties, though federal copyright laws would limit the finder’s ability to copy or transmit the application program. Courts usually read preemption clauses to leave private contracts unaffected. Section 301 does not interfere with private transactions in intellectual property, and it does not prevent states from respecting those transactions. Contracts between private parties takes nothing from the public domain. Since a contract is not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright, therefore the contract may be enforced.
Note that Section 301 of the Copyright Act prevents states from passing or enforcing laws equivalent to copyright.
If you read the notes to Section 109 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the first sale doctrine, it states that a contract limiting a user's first sale rights may be enforceable by an action for breach of contract, but not by an action for copyright infringement.
In Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware, 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit held that to succeed in a copyright action, the source of the copyright holder's complaint must be grounded in a right protected by the Copyright Act. However, rights granted by contract can be much broader. For example, say a copyright holder grants a licensee a license to make exactly one copy or a book and to read all but the last ten pages. If that licensee makes 100 copies, that is copyright infringement. But if that licensee reads the last ten pages, that is breach of contract.
What does all this mean? I believe that a contract whereby the parties agreed that the licensee would not make particular use of material would be enforceable as a breach of contract, but not copyright infringement.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is where AJ is going with this - while Mike may say "Pirating isn't okay" in this particular post, the rest of TD is about how to profit from piracy, how to use piracy, how piracy is changing everything, and why piracy is legal. Not exactly a solid condemnation of the concept.
It's amusing that he thinks that saying piracy is not OK somehow erases every single thing other thing he does to promote piracy.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't go out with my friends because I'm too busy with my kids, as I've posted elsewhere. My two oldest are at school, I'm feeding my toddler breakfast, and my infant is sitting in my lap drinking a bottle. Somehow I can manage this and do all of my homework with a full class schedule. I get very little sleep, but I don't care. Not that this is any of your business, but I'm happy to share.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Case Study: Leah Day Brings Free To The Quilting World
Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You won't get one, don't worry. You'd think with his super-open mind there'd be plenty. The fact is, he only admits he's wrong if there's just no possible way to continue standing his ground--and even then, he usually just remains silent rather than admit fault. If there's the least bit of gray area, he exploits it. He's rather good at being crafty, I'll give him that.
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why lie?
Oh, really? No such thing? Nothing like it at all? LOL! Yeah, right.
Why don't you explain what you actually think? It would be more productive than this stupid exchange we're having.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're more than just the messenger, Mike. You're the mouthpiece.
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's exactly right. Mike doesn't want to be called out or corrected, and the last thing he ever wants to do is admit that a view contrary to his own has merit. Yet, he claims to have an open mind. It's rather quite amusing.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re:
Next >>