You will, but how? There does not seem to be any legitimate defense, unless the DMCAers actually own the copyright on the 'errant' photograph or have a documented right to protect it, neither of which appears to be forthcoming.
On the other hand, did the actual copyright owners do the right thing? Are their copyrights registered? Is Paper/Mag the owner of the copyrights in question or are they licensees? That might make a difference when the court gets into it. And if licensees, where are the actual copyright owners and did they register their works?
Copyright maximalists created the rules (unfortunately) now we can only follow them, to the max, until they get changed (hopefully).
Gatekeeper/silo, what's the difference? I am waiting to see how copyright maximalists respond to this situation. They will want in, and in no small terms. The question is how they will go about it?
Appropriation bills tend to pass, and get signed by the President. Whether this particular provision makes it to the end is the real question. There is also the thought that Trump may no longer have the support in Congress he once had.
Any sane (a loosely defined state) American would register their address @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20500 and their phone number as something like 1-202-456-1414 or maybe 1-800-555-1212. I have some inkling that EU persons would have their own, similar, addresses and phone numbers that would be appropriate, though they might want to use a country other than their own, just for grins and giggles. What's the address and phone number of the MPAA anyway?
The question remains, was the original wording of the directive faulty (likely but not just for this reason) or is this court delivering a snide response to the whole damned thing?
First of all, if these are stolen records, the why the hell isn't law enforcement using the access to these files as leads to arrest those offering them.
Secondly, given that these cases are likely to lead to parallel construction, what case number do they assign the cost to? I have some doubt that there is a line item in the budget for 'buying illicit stolen information'. I am not sure an illegal data broker could qualify as a CI.
The best thing about copyright is the public domain
While it is obvious that Sean O'Connor wants not only for authors to get enormous incomes, forever, and wants to protect whatever is written from anything that might be a discredit either real or imagined, he leaves out the most important thing about copyright. It's end and the product entering the public domain where authors of merit are enjoyed and discussed for decades and centuries while the meritless are soon forgotten, if they haven't already been forgotten after the first five to seven years, let alone the life of the author plus a century.
The worst thing for any content creator is to be ignored or forgotten. They want people talking about them, it makes for more sales. O'Conner's attitude about 'cancel culture' is weird because it would inherently shut down discussion of authors works.
To that end, here is yet another source of some good writing and in this case the publishers have taken some extra steps to make quality publications. They do use Project Gutenberg as a source, but go a bit further.
Why oh why do Attorneys' General feel the need to 'negotiate' with a plaintiff when they have them cold? Why does the judge (not sure if it is merely allowed or insisted upon) accept such a weak settlement when they know how a continued case might turn out?
Sorry, I don't see racism in the actions of the police in the case stated in the article. That doesn't mean that the Detroit PD isn't racist, nor that the software is not racist. Members of the Detroit PD might be stupid and/or lazy, as there were clues as to who the perpetrator was and they did not follow them nor include them when ID'ing the 'culprit'. They brought in the wrong man when they could have easily eliminated him.
The fact is that the person who did the crime was black. It isn't racist to go after a black person when a black person actually did the crime. Nor is going after the wrong black person. Wrong, yes, but not racist.
The problem is that there is no self-test for emotion vs rationality or for logical fallacy positions (then could we get people to use them?) (might be nice though, maybe AI could come up with something after we figure out how to remove bias from AI's (that's a joke folks)).
Once some people put their feet in their mouths, they then tend to dig their heels in.
"I have never really understood why the big corporations are more at fault for giving out bribes than the politicians are for accepting them."
That the situation exists is deplorable, and each should be equally culpable. But it is in fact easier to decry the corporations than the politicians as the politicians have their elections to support them (no matter how many 1st Amendment protected lies they told to get into office, nor how much they received in bribes a.k.a. campaign contributions, nor how much they then favor the corporations rather than their constituents). Whereas the corporations have only the support of their stockholders who are more interested in the profits and growth they can produce, no matter how they are achieve, rather than their morality or integrity.
This might change when the screaming minority (a.k.a. mob rule even if it is minority mob, if they are loud enough) engages upon some slight or another they perceive. But until that screaming minority focuses on the problem rather than the symptoms, and the non screaming majority wakes up and realizes the downside to those 'contributions' (a.k.a. take money out of politics) will any effective change take place.
The publisher has the opportunity to read what the writer wrote and then decide whether to publish it or not. The teacher would have to rely on references, and the new employer might actually contact the previous employer to find out what the issues were. The new school might not want the same treatment the previous school got preventing the re-employment.
So yeah, they are different. Besides, these days self publishing is an option, though one then has to provide their own editing and marketing. The teacher doesn't have that opportunity.
Those publisher have the option to not publish any work that has ideas they disagree with, as the creators have the option to go to another publisher. Where does the teacher fired for quoting literature accurately go to? Are we now going to burn books along with tearing down statues?
I didn't say anything about law, I am talking about sensibility. If I don't express some unpopular opinion (and here I am not talking about racist, or misogynistic, or homophobic but possibly a political opinion that is not the same as someone else's, or quoting some historical literature that was less than 'woke' at the time it was written but quoting it accurately) at work, but do so in my own time, what business is it of my employer?
That some yahoo's associate me and my employer and claim that my employer endorses my private opinion is another thing entirely. They probably don't, which means those claims are false, but then they still need defend themselves? That is crazy. That I have to be concerned about what my employer might think of opinions that I express entirely on my own time and away from work. That is also crazy.
Come after me, with more speech, like is happening here, fine. But going after my employer (too late, I'm retired) is crazy.
This will lead to employers (which may or may not be businesses) bending to the will of, well let's call them the vocal minority (as apposed to the many pejorative names) rather than the marketplace (however that marketplace is defined for non-businesses) which is how things should work.
"Threats and violence aren't ok in these debates, so that certainly needs to be a line..."
Neither are other real world consequences (like losing ones job) for mere speech that is not in the name of ones employer. If this one gets by no one will be 'allowed' to have private opinions, or at least not be able to express them whether one is on the clock or not. If one is speaking for their employer and is insulting to whomever then one deserves the consequence. But if one is at home and speaking on social media (for example) there should be no work related consequence. If it is known where that person works, and the haters go after that employer because of what some employee did on their own time, the employer should tell them where to get off, in no uncertain terms.
Now that might have some real world consequences for that employer, boycotts or whatever, but if employers don't stand up to the vocal minority in a big way, they will all become controlled by that vocal minority. That will not turn out well for any, and in the long run all employers.
As to the speaker who says something someone else does not like, there is the more speech argument. More speech is fine, but bringing harm to ones livelihood (which has a tendency to impact more than just the speaker) should be a no brainer NOT OK.
Re: Define National Security (anyone).... [sound of crickets]
Near as I can tell, anything that might embarrass even the most lowly in the government. That our (supposed) enemies already know about it is inconsequential. Allowing Americans to talk about it is (to them) felonious. It would be better named 'Security of the Bureaucratic Ego', but that gives away too much.
It has been argued that the current batch of Telecom/Broadband providers have been given enough 'incentive' (cough, cough) to have laid down fiber to the home for almost everyone already, and they haven't. If this is true, and the fiber to the home doesn't exist (which is true) then who the hell are they going to get to run all this new fiber? Giving more money to the current batch of Telecom/Broadband providers doesn't make any sense, but then where does it say that government spending should make sense? What are the provisions in the bill that say the fiber layers get money on completion, rather than up front for failure?
How many of the behaviors that the DoJ is alleging Assange is supposedly guilty of are committed by 'US entities' in the name of 'National Security'? What is the difference between 'US entities' (a.k.a. three initialed 'intelligence' agencies) committing these acts and someone else? They will argue that those 'US entities' don't do these things domestically. The reality is that as part of the 5 Eyes conspiracy (erm coalition) they just get a partner to do it for them, that is when they can't find a way to do it themselves and cover up with 'National Security Letters'.
There is one other major difference. When 'US entities' do it, they (at least try, often not very hard) to not let it leak out to the public. When others do it, they do it in order to leak it. So what those others are actually guilty of is letting the public know how incredibly two faced our government really is (in the name of 'National Security'), and aren't at all ashamed. But they should be. The government that is, not the others.
On the post: Copyright Trolling Evolved: Okularity Accused Of DMCAing Social Media Accounts, Then Demanding MILLIONS To Reinstate
Re:
You will, but how? There does not seem to be any legitimate defense, unless the DMCAers actually own the copyright on the 'errant' photograph or have a documented right to protect it, neither of which appears to be forthcoming.
On the other hand, did the actual copyright owners do the right thing? Are their copyrights registered? Is Paper/Mag the owner of the copyrights in question or are they licensees? That might make a difference when the court gets into it. And if licensees, where are the actual copyright owners and did they register their works?
Copyright maximalists created the rules (unfortunately) now we can only follow them, to the max, until they get changed (hopefully).
On the post: We Shouldn't Call Michelle Obama's (And Joe Rogan's) Proprietary Exclusive Audio From Spotify A 'Podcast' Any More
Re:
Gatekeeper/silo, what's the difference? I am waiting to see how copyright maximalists respond to this situation. They will want in, and in no small terms. The question is how they will go about it?
On the post: House Government Appropriations Bill Would Bar FTC & FCC From Doing Anything Related To Trump's Inane Anti-230 Executive Order
Re: Re: Re: Serious question
Are you suggesting that politicians might be two-faced, self aggrandizing, self serving pieces of lying fecal matter? If so, well put.
On the post: House Government Appropriations Bill Would Bar FTC & FCC From Doing Anything Related To Trump's Inane Anti-230 Executive Order
Re: Serious question
Appropriation bills tend to pass, and get signed by the President. Whether this particular provision makes it to the end is the real question. There is also the thought that Trump may no longer have the support in Congress he once had.
On the post: UK Buckles, Joins The Evidence-Optional Huawei Blacklist Party
Re: Whahahahahaha!
Either you forgot the /s or you have been drinking way too much 5G koolaid. 5G just isn't as important that the proponents make it out to be.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Online Platforms Must Only Provide Postal Addresses Of People Who Upload Unauthorized Copies Of Copyright Material
Re:
Any sane (a loosely defined state) American would register their address @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20500 and their phone number as something like 1-202-456-1414 or maybe 1-800-555-1212. I have some inkling that EU persons would have their own, similar, addresses and phone numbers that would be appropriate, though they might want to use a country other than their own, just for grins and giggles. What's the address and phone number of the MPAA anyway?
The question remains, was the original wording of the directive faulty (likely but not just for this reason) or is this court delivering a snide response to the whole damned thing?
On the post: Companies Are Selling Cops Access To Personal Data Harvested From Malicious Hacking And Data Breaches
The effrontery
First of all, if these are stolen records, the why the hell isn't law enforcement using the access to these files as leads to arrest those offering them.
Secondly, given that these cases are likely to lead to parallel construction, what case number do they assign the cost to? I have some doubt that there is a line item in the budget for 'buying illicit stolen information'. I am not sure an illegal data broker could qualify as a CI.
On the post: How Absolutely Desperate Must You Be To Try To Claim That The Answer To 'Cancel Culture' Is Stronger Copyright?
The best thing about copyright is the public domain
While it is obvious that Sean O'Connor wants not only for authors to get enormous incomes, forever, and wants to protect whatever is written from anything that might be a discredit either real or imagined, he leaves out the most important thing about copyright. It's end and the product entering the public domain where authors of merit are enjoyed and discussed for decades and centuries while the meritless are soon forgotten, if they haven't already been forgotten after the first five to seven years, let alone the life of the author plus a century.
The worst thing for any content creator is to be ignored or forgotten. They want people talking about them, it makes for more sales. O'Conner's attitude about 'cancel culture' is weird because it would inherently shut down discussion of authors works.
To that end, here is yet another source of some good writing and in this case the publishers have taken some extra steps to make quality publications. They do use Project Gutenberg as a source, but go a bit further.
On the post: Washington State AG Fines Frontier Communications A Pittance For Its Bullshit Fees
Tactics or intent?
Why oh why do Attorneys' General feel the need to 'negotiate' with a plaintiff when they have them cold? Why does the judge (not sure if it is merely allowed or insisted upon) accept such a weak settlement when they know how a continued case might turn out?
On the post: Detroit PD Now Linked To Two Bogus Arrests Stemming From Facial Recognition False Positives
Abusing the 'R' word
Sorry, I don't see racism in the actions of the police in the case stated in the article. That doesn't mean that the Detroit PD isn't racist, nor that the software is not racist. Members of the Detroit PD might be stupid and/or lazy, as there were clues as to who the perpetrator was and they did not follow them nor include them when ID'ing the 'culprit'. They brought in the wrong man when they could have easily eliminated him.
The fact is that the person who did the crime was black. It isn't racist to go after a black person when a black person actually did the crime. Nor is going after the wrong black person. Wrong, yes, but not racist.
On the post: Appeals Court: Government Can't Keep Warrants Under Seal Just Because The Unsealing Process Is Difficult
Will they waffle or tap dance?
Starting a pool on how long it will take the DoJ to comply with the order now expected. Weeks, months, years? Any projections?
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re:
The problem is that there is no self-test for emotion vs rationality or for logical fallacy positions (then could we get people to use them?) (might be nice though, maybe AI could come up with something after we figure out how to remove bias from AI's (that's a joke folks)).
Once some people put their feet in their mouths, they then tend to dig their heels in.
On the post: Now That USMCA Is In Effect... Can Congress Even Reform Section 230 Without Violating The Agreement?
Re: Why Big Tech?
That the situation exists is deplorable, and each should be equally culpable. But it is in fact easier to decry the corporations than the politicians as the politicians have their elections to support them (no matter how many 1st Amendment protected lies they told to get into office, nor how much they received in bribes a.k.a. campaign contributions, nor how much they then favor the corporations rather than their constituents). Whereas the corporations have only the support of their stockholders who are more interested in the profits and growth they can produce, no matter how they are achieve, rather than their morality or integrity.
This might change when the screaming minority (a.k.a. mob rule even if it is minority mob, if they are loud enough) engages upon some slight or another they perceive. But until that screaming minority focuses on the problem rather than the symptoms, and the non screaming majority wakes up and realizes the downside to those 'contributions' (a.k.a. take money out of politics) will any effective change take place.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The publisher has the opportunity to read what the writer wrote and then decide whether to publish it or not. The teacher would have to rely on references, and the new employer might actually contact the previous employer to find out what the issues were. The new school might not want the same treatment the previous school got preventing the re-employment.
So yeah, they are different. Besides, these days self publishing is an option, though one then has to provide their own editing and marketing. The teacher doesn't have that opportunity.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re:
Those publisher have the option to not publish any work that has ideas they disagree with, as the creators have the option to go to another publisher. Where does the teacher fired for quoting literature accurately go to? Are we now going to burn books along with tearing down statues?
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
I didn't say anything about law, I am talking about sensibility. If I don't express some unpopular opinion (and here I am not talking about racist, or misogynistic, or homophobic but possibly a political opinion that is not the same as someone else's, or quoting some historical literature that was less than 'woke' at the time it was written but quoting it accurately) at work, but do so in my own time, what business is it of my employer?
That some yahoo's associate me and my employer and claim that my employer endorses my private opinion is another thing entirely. They probably don't, which means those claims are false, but then they still need defend themselves? That is crazy. That I have to be concerned about what my employer might think of opinions that I express entirely on my own time and away from work. That is also crazy.
Come after me, with more speech, like is happening here, fine. But going after my employer (too late, I'm retired) is crazy.
This will lead to employers (which may or may not be businesses) bending to the will of, well let's call them the vocal minority (as apposed to the many pejorative names) rather than the marketplace (however that marketplace is defined for non-businesses) which is how things should work.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Blech
Neither are other real world consequences (like losing ones job) for mere speech that is not in the name of ones employer. If this one gets by no one will be 'allowed' to have private opinions, or at least not be able to express them whether one is on the clock or not. If one is speaking for their employer and is insulting to whomever then one deserves the consequence. But if one is at home and speaking on social media (for example) there should be no work related consequence. If it is known where that person works, and the haters go after that employer because of what some employee did on their own time, the employer should tell them where to get off, in no uncertain terms.
Now that might have some real world consequences for that employer, boycotts or whatever, but if employers don't stand up to the vocal minority in a big way, they will all become controlled by that vocal minority. That will not turn out well for any, and in the long run all employers.
As to the speaker who says something someone else does not like, there is the more speech argument. More speech is fine, but bringing harm to ones livelihood (which has a tendency to impact more than just the speaker) should be a no brainer NOT OK.
On the post: New Indictment Tries To Tie Julian Assange To A Hacking He Had Nothing To Do With
Re: Define National Security (anyone).... [sound of crickets]
Near as I can tell, anything that might embarrass even the most lowly in the government. That our (supposed) enemies already know about it is inconsequential. Allowing Americans to talk about it is (to them) felonious. It would be better named 'Security of the Bureaucratic Ego', but that gives away too much.
On the post: House Passes Massive Broadband Bill That Surprisingly Doesn't Suck
Have some more subsidy.
It has been argued that the current batch of Telecom/Broadband providers have been given enough 'incentive' (cough, cough) to have laid down fiber to the home for almost everyone already, and they haven't. If this is true, and the fiber to the home doesn't exist (which is true) then who the hell are they going to get to run all this new fiber? Giving more money to the current batch of Telecom/Broadband providers doesn't make any sense, but then where does it say that government spending should make sense? What are the provisions in the bill that say the fiber layers get money on completion, rather than up front for failure?
On the post: New Indictment Tries To Tie Julian Assange To A Hacking He Had Nothing To Do With
How dare you shame us for doing the same things?
How many of the behaviors that the DoJ is alleging Assange is supposedly guilty of are committed by 'US entities' in the name of 'National Security'? What is the difference between 'US entities' (a.k.a. three initialed 'intelligence' agencies) committing these acts and someone else? They will argue that those 'US entities' don't do these things domestically. The reality is that as part of the 5 Eyes conspiracy (erm coalition) they just get a partner to do it for them, that is when they can't find a way to do it themselves and cover up with 'National Security Letters'.
There is one other major difference. When 'US entities' do it, they (at least try, often not very hard) to not let it leak out to the public. When others do it, they do it in order to leak it. So what those others are actually guilty of is letting the public know how incredibly two faced our government really is (in the name of 'National Security'), and aren't at all ashamed. But they should be. The government that is, not the others.
Next >>