the inclusion of a claimed prohibition on lending still is a form of copyfraud and an attempted expansion of claimed rights.
Copyfraud isn't a legal term of art, but I take it to mean over-claiming one's copyright rights. Still, I'm not sure I understand why you think the word "lending" is a problem if the other words in the list (copying, reproduction, public performance and broadcasting) are not. Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download. Some lending is infringing just like some copying, reproducing, public performing, or broadcasting is infringing. But some is not, such as if I'm copying and it's fair use. Seems clear to me that everything on that list can be either infringing or noninfringing, depending on the facts. So I think it's weird to point to just "lending" and claim copyfraud, whatever that even means. It's just like putting a copyright notice in the beginning of a book even if that book contains a mix of public domain and copyrighted materials. That's not copyfraud even though some of the contents are not copyrighted.
Looked more like a Walk-Off Grand Slam from up here in the cheap seats..
And the usual suspects come out to congratulate Mike as the victor, even though he ran away. Shocker.
Mike, why don't you explain why it's OK to inline link to the content I paid to create when doing so takes away my profits from the ad revenue? What exactly is your argument? Or can you concede that such reaping where one has not sown is unjust?
Stop pretending like you answered and won. You didn't. The best you had was that news companies reap where they have not sown. What you haven't done is explained how that applies here. Are you arguing that since news companies report facts that they don't pay for, then it follows that you should able to inline link to the content I pay to create?
What is your argument exactly? You haven't connected the two. You seem to be trying to do a "gotcha" with the fact that the "don't reap where you haven't sown" rule isn't absolute. Or course it's not, and not everyone gets to claim exclusive rights to every little thing they do. What you haven't done is then show what that rule should not apply to inline linking. Nor do I think you can.
Stop running away all the time. It's really silly. I'm sorry in my hypothetical you won the award for world's biggest asshole. Feel better?
You're just trying to duck out of the argument. You don't have a good argument, and this is the best you can do. I understand completely, Mike. I expect as little. The fact remains that inline linking is reaping where one has not sown. Say I spend time, money, and energy creating a movie that I offer on my website for free, but that I make money from the advertising traffic. If Mike were to inline link that movie to his website, he'd be making money from the advertising at my expense. That's reaping where one has not sown. Mike knows this and has no response. Watch him run away, pretending to be the victor. Same bullshit as always.
Mike, using this hypothetical, do you have an actual argument for why you should be able to inline link to my movie? What about the fact that its creation costs me money, and that by inline linking to it you are taking away my profits? Instead of pretending to have won an argument where you refused to even make a cogent argument, why don't you actually make an argument?
But that's not what you said above. You argued that merely "reaping what you had not sown" was so obviously evil. Yet now you're changing your mind?
You're just playing silly games. It's the difference between facts and an original, copyrightable work. Are you arguing that the people should have exclusive rights to facts? Or are you arguing that people should not have exclusive rights to their works? Let's be clear which you're arguing.
You don't think that someone's life took time, money and energy? Really now?
Again, facts and copyrightable works are not the same. If you win the award for being the biggest asshole on the internet, and I tell someone that fact, you don't have any kind of property right that allows you to demand money from me for relaying that fact. Why? Because even though you no doubt spent time and energy being a complete asshole, you don't get the exclusive right to that fact as there are countervailing interests--like society's interests in the free exchange of facts. It's not as simple as what you're making it out to be, and you know damn well that the two are not identical even though you could say that on some level I'm reaping the fact that you're an asshole even though it was your effort that made you such a complete fucking asshole in the first place. This argument is really, really weak, and it's no surprise that you're not even being clear about which you're arguing.
You were the one who turned this into a "reap what you sow" argument. Now you're admitting that you didn't really mean that. Huh.
Yep, you don't get to reap all that you sow in being an asshole. Some things, like the fact that you're an incredible douchebag of an asshole, are facts that you don't get to own. Why? Because there are countervailing needs and your right to reap what you sow is not absolute. Don't be such a child with this nonsense. You still haven't explained why you should be able to inline link to copyrighted works.
As for linking, as others have pointed out, what "right" under copyright law does that violate?
Depending on the facts, it violates the exclusive right to distribute, reproduce, display, or perform.
No, I'm just debunking your idiotic "reap what you sow" argument. Which you've now closed out successfully by backing away from that argument. Lovely.
You think that by arguing that people don't get to own facts that you've shown that people shouldn't get to own works? Hardly. Your argument makes no sense, and you aren't even being clear about what you're arguing. Are you arguing that people should be able to own facts, or that they shouldn't be able to own works? Let's hear the argument in detail. No high level skimming.
How do you "give away" content by pointing people to where it has already been given away? If I stand on the corner and tell you that Joe's Cafe is giving away free donuts, is that me "giving away" their donuts?
It's not just pointing to it. It's bringing it right to their browsers while benefiting from the ad revenue at the expense of the originating website which was trying to benefit from the same traffic. It's diverting traffic to your site for your profit at the expense of the site that paid for the content. This stuff is so easy that I know you're lying about not understanding it.
The content is already being given away by the original source. Linking to it doesn't do anything other than point people to that content.
An inline link allows a site to benefit from the traffic that the content brings to the site without having to pay for that content and at the expense of the site that did pay for it. I know you understand this. Just because people don't get to own facts, it doesn't follow that they don't get to own the works they create. The two aren't synonymous, and the fact that you have to stretch so far to attempt to justify this only tells me that I'm right.
So you agree, that NBC should not be allowed to report on someone's life story without paying for them first?
Of course I don't agree. Like you have argued many times in the past, facts aren't copyrightable and no one has a monopoly on the news of the day.
And someone's life story wouldn't be interesting without their life. So, clearly, NBC cannot and should not report on anyone's life story without first paying them.
Good to know.
You're pretending like the news of the day and the facts of the world are the same thing as a copyrighted work that costs time, money, and energy to create.
Same with someone's life's story. They expect to make money from it. Someone else telling it... why that's PIRACY!
And yet you argue all the time that facts can't be property. You aren't making much sense with this, and you surely haven't explained why you should be allowed to inline link to valuable content at the expense of the party that paid for and created it.
Those news stations are taking away that "life rights" revenue without having to pay for the story that would bring in that revenue in the first place. It's amazing to me that you play so dumb about this stuff.
Though, in your case, I'm not convinced you know better.
Your article is about radio broadcasts but you're pretending now that the focus is over "life rights." The two aren't exchangeable, and you're not making any sense. You yourself obviously believe that such facts cannot be owned. Remember the First Amendment? Or are you really so intellectually bankrupt that you're now arguing that people should have the exclusive rights to facts? Stop pretending like you're making sense. Copyrighted content that people spend time, energy, and money creating is not the same thing as the news of the day. One is protected by copyright law, one is protected by the First Amendment. Stop playing games. It's childish.
That's not true, actually. Linking to content is not "giving it away." Nice try, though. Totally misrepresenting reality.
I'm talking about inline linking, which in fact does give away the content that is linked to. Stop pretending like all links are the same. You know they are not. You know this is about inline linking and profiting from the page views at the expense of the creator.
HBO does not provide such a live feed for me to embed. So kinda meaningless and unrelated.
If a site provides you an embed link and gives you permission, express or implied, to use it, then that's different. Don't move the goalposts. We're talking about unauthorized embeds.
You used a completely different example that is unrelated. Who's playing dumb?
It's not unrelated. You don't have permission to embed HBO's content just like you don't to embed these plaintiff's content. What you have not answered, and what you cannot answer, is why it's OK to inline link to content without permission.
And that says everything we need to know about you.
Always with the high-level meaningless rhetoric. Never with the substance. What is your argument exactly, Mike? Don't pretend like saying "they ought to clean up their own homes first" is actually an argument. It's not. What is your argument, exactly? What exactly do you argue this TF article means? Or do you admit that the article is more hate-fueled, mindless FUD meant to discredit your mortal enemy?
Case law, maybe, but that's not relevant. Technically, there is no difference. A link is a link. The difference is in presentation.
The case law reflects the reality that not all links are the same. Me giving you the link to hbo.com is different than me giving you a link to where you can stream HBO's content without paying and in violation of their rights.
Sounds plausible - BUT - the differences do not exist anywhere except on the user's screen.
On the contrary, what happens under the hood is what courts tend to look at. I think that such focus is superficial and that courts should look at the user's experience.
You are trying to create a fundamental difference based on superficial factors when no such difference is possible.
It's the difference between linking to hbo.com, sending you there to buy their content, or giving you their content for free on my website while making money off of the ads that I make you watch. This is a huge distinction.
Ahhh, I see! You believe there's some kind of difference between "inline linking" and "regular linking". I wasn't grasping that. Fair enough, this is a matter of opinion and has long been a source of debate on the web.
The case law and logic demonstrate that the two are different.
In any case, my main point still holds: if the site being linked to objects to a particular method of linking, there are existing, trivial, zero-cost mechanisms they can use to prevent it. The law is not required to address their needs.
If Mike inline links to HBO and profits from the inevitable vast increase in traffic that he will get from the drawing power of HBO's valuable content he's not paying for, you bet the law is there to address HBO's needs.
"Applying our test, Google could be held contributorily liable if it had knowledge that infringing Perfect 10 images were available using its search engine, could take simple measures to prevent further damage to Perfect 10's copyrighted works, and failed to take such steps."
Lots of businesses use content they didn't pay for to get attention to profit. That's everything that any news media operation does. When NBC reports on the Newtown massacre, did they pay the people they're reporting on? Of course not. Because NBC's ability to profit from that story, is because they're providing a service, reporting the news, and that's what the profit comes from.
Yes, some people talk to the news for free. Other people get paid to tell their stories. That doesn't explain why a site should be allowed to inline link to valuable content at the expense of the party who invested in the content's creation.
The sites talked about here are providing a service to users as well, and that's what they profit from. Not from "the content."
The content (in part) makes the services valuable. No one would use a media site without any media. It worries me that you argue this nonsense.
And, you seem to ignore that the content here is being given away willingly.
They give it away to people who are using their website and looking at the ads that they make money from. These third parties are taking away that ad revenue without having to pay for the content that brings in the ad revenue in the first place. It's amazing to me that you play so dumb about this stuff. I know you know better.
No, actually, they're not.
They take content that others paid money to create and give it away for free at the expense of the creator who paid money to create the valuable content. It's not hard. Pretend that Techdirt had an inline link to a live feed of HBO surrounded by ads. Would that not be you reaping where you had not sown when you got tons of traffic and profited from it? Of course it would be. Don't play dumb.
The only thing strange is your willful misunderstanding of reality.
Knowingly inline linking to copyrighted content hosted elsewhere in order to facilitate infringement is not the same thing as what "search engines, phone books, periodical indices, etc." do. Such inline linking can be contributory infringement under the Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com holding, and rightfully so.
But they're not just hyperlinking to that website and taking visitors there. They're inline linking and keeping the visitors on their site, benefiting from the traffic. It's not a newspaper listing where the patron still has to go to the theater to see the show. It brings the show to the patron while profiting from it at the expense of the theater.
Yes, Mike is pretending like this makes no sense even though it's simple, and there he was pretending like it was simple even though it made no sense. How does that make me willfully ignorant?
Nope. Infringement is wrong whether some employee wrongfully does it or not.
Do you think people will be more or less likely to believe the MPAA's harsh condemnation of filesharing -- painting it as "theft" and a "crime" -- with the knowledge that it goes on inside their own organization?
I think smart people will see that it doesn't matter and dumb people will think it means something.
If linking is copyright infringement, think of the amount of it carried out by academics referencing their sources. Or is it not infringing if it is not a hyperlink?
Some linking can make the linker liable for infringement, and other linking cannot. It depends on the facts.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Copyfraud isn't a legal term of art, but I take it to mean over-claiming one's copyright rights. Still, I'm not sure I understand why you think the word "lending" is a problem if the other words in the list (copying, reproduction, public performance and broadcasting) are not. Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download. Some lending is infringing just like some copying, reproducing, public performing, or broadcasting is infringing. But some is not, such as if I'm copying and it's fair use. Seems clear to me that everything on that list can be either infringing or noninfringing, depending on the facts. So I think it's weird to point to just "lending" and claim copyfraud, whatever that even means. It's just like putting a copyright notice in the beginning of a book even if that book contains a mix of public domain and copyrighted materials. That's not copyfraud even though some of the contents are not copyrighted.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the usual suspects come out to congratulate Mike as the victor, even though he ran away. Shocker.
Mike, why don't you explain why it's OK to inline link to the content I paid to create when doing so takes away my profits from the ad revenue? What exactly is your argument? Or can you concede that such reaping where one has not sown is unjust?
Stop pretending like you answered and won. You didn't. The best you had was that news companies reap where they have not sown. What you haven't done is explained how that applies here. Are you arguing that since news companies report facts that they don't pay for, then it follows that you should able to inline link to the content I pay to create?
What is your argument exactly? You haven't connected the two. You seem to be trying to do a "gotcha" with the fact that the "don't reap where you haven't sown" rule isn't absolute. Or course it's not, and not everyone gets to claim exclusive rights to every little thing they do. What you haven't done is then show what that rule should not apply to inline linking. Nor do I think you can.
Stop running away all the time. It's really silly. I'm sorry in my hypothetical you won the award for world's biggest asshole. Feel better?
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, using this hypothetical, do you have an actual argument for why you should be able to inline link to my movie? What about the fact that its creation costs me money, and that by inline linking to it you are taking away my profits? Instead of pretending to have won an argument where you refused to even make a cogent argument, why don't you actually make an argument?
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just playing silly games. It's the difference between facts and an original, copyrightable work. Are you arguing that the people should have exclusive rights to facts? Or are you arguing that people should not have exclusive rights to their works? Let's be clear which you're arguing.
You don't think that someone's life took time, money and energy? Really now?
Again, facts and copyrightable works are not the same. If you win the award for being the biggest asshole on the internet, and I tell someone that fact, you don't have any kind of property right that allows you to demand money from me for relaying that fact. Why? Because even though you no doubt spent time and energy being a complete asshole, you don't get the exclusive right to that fact as there are countervailing interests--like society's interests in the free exchange of facts. It's not as simple as what you're making it out to be, and you know damn well that the two are not identical even though you could say that on some level I'm reaping the fact that you're an asshole even though it was your effort that made you such a complete fucking asshole in the first place. This argument is really, really weak, and it's no surprise that you're not even being clear about which you're arguing.
You were the one who turned this into a "reap what you sow" argument. Now you're admitting that you didn't really mean that. Huh.
Yep, you don't get to reap all that you sow in being an asshole. Some things, like the fact that you're an incredible douchebag of an asshole, are facts that you don't get to own. Why? Because there are countervailing needs and your right to reap what you sow is not absolute. Don't be such a child with this nonsense. You still haven't explained why you should be able to inline link to copyrighted works.
As for linking, as others have pointed out, what "right" under copyright law does that violate?
Depending on the facts, it violates the exclusive right to distribute, reproduce, display, or perform.
No, I'm just debunking your idiotic "reap what you sow" argument. Which you've now closed out successfully by backing away from that argument. Lovely.
You think that by arguing that people don't get to own facts that you've shown that people shouldn't get to own works? Hardly. Your argument makes no sense, and you aren't even being clear about what you're arguing. Are you arguing that people should be able to own facts, or that they shouldn't be able to own works? Let's hear the argument in detail. No high level skimming.
How do you "give away" content by pointing people to where it has already been given away? If I stand on the corner and tell you that Joe's Cafe is giving away free donuts, is that me "giving away" their donuts?
It's not just pointing to it. It's bringing it right to their browsers while benefiting from the ad revenue at the expense of the originating website which was trying to benefit from the same traffic. It's diverting traffic to your site for your profit at the expense of the site that paid for the content. This stuff is so easy that I know you're lying about not understanding it.
The content is already being given away by the original source. Linking to it doesn't do anything other than point people to that content.
An inline link allows a site to benefit from the traffic that the content brings to the site without having to pay for that content and at the expense of the site that did pay for it. I know you understand this. Just because people don't get to own facts, it doesn't follow that they don't get to own the works they create. The two aren't synonymous, and the fact that you have to stretch so far to attempt to justify this only tells me that I'm right.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course I don't agree. Like you have argued many times in the past, facts aren't copyrightable and no one has a monopoly on the news of the day.
And someone's life story wouldn't be interesting without their life. So, clearly, NBC cannot and should not report on anyone's life story without first paying them.
Good to know.
You're pretending like the news of the day and the facts of the world are the same thing as a copyrighted work that costs time, money, and energy to create.
Same with someone's life's story. They expect to make money from it. Someone else telling it... why that's PIRACY!
And yet you argue all the time that facts can't be property. You aren't making much sense with this, and you surely haven't explained why you should be allowed to inline link to valuable content at the expense of the party that paid for and created it.
Those news stations are taking away that "life rights" revenue without having to pay for the story that would bring in that revenue in the first place. It's amazing to me that you play so dumb about this stuff.
Though, in your case, I'm not convinced you know better.
Your article is about radio broadcasts but you're pretending now that the focus is over "life rights." The two aren't exchangeable, and you're not making any sense. You yourself obviously believe that such facts cannot be owned. Remember the First Amendment? Or are you really so intellectually bankrupt that you're now arguing that people should have the exclusive rights to facts? Stop pretending like you're making sense. Copyrighted content that people spend time, energy, and money creating is not the same thing as the news of the day. One is protected by copyright law, one is protected by the First Amendment. Stop playing games. It's childish.
That's not true, actually. Linking to content is not "giving it away." Nice try, though. Totally misrepresenting reality.
I'm talking about inline linking, which in fact does give away the content that is linked to. Stop pretending like all links are the same. You know they are not. You know this is about inline linking and profiting from the page views at the expense of the creator.
HBO does not provide such a live feed for me to embed. So kinda meaningless and unrelated.
If a site provides you an embed link and gives you permission, express or implied, to use it, then that's different. Don't move the goalposts. We're talking about unauthorized embeds.
You used a completely different example that is unrelated. Who's playing dumb?
It's not unrelated. You don't have permission to embed HBO's content just like you don't to embed these plaintiff's content. What you have not answered, and what you cannot answer, is why it's OK to inline link to content without permission.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Always with the high-level meaningless rhetoric. Never with the substance. What is your argument exactly, Mike? Don't pretend like saying "they ought to clean up their own homes first" is actually an argument. It's not. What is your argument, exactly? What exactly do you argue this TF article means? Or do you admit that the article is more hate-fueled, mindless FUD meant to discredit your mortal enemy?
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The case law reflects the reality that not all links are the same. Me giving you the link to hbo.com is different than me giving you a link to where you can stream HBO's content without paying and in violation of their rights.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, what happens under the hood is what courts tend to look at. I think that such focus is superficial and that courts should look at the user's experience.
You are trying to create a fundamental difference based on superficial factors when no such difference is possible.
It's the difference between linking to hbo.com, sending you there to buy their content, or giving you their content for free on my website while making money off of the ads that I make you watch. This is a huge distinction.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The case law and logic demonstrate that the two are different.
In any case, my main point still holds: if the site being linked to objects to a particular method of linking, there are existing, trivial, zero-cost mechanisms they can use to prevent it. The law is not required to address their needs.
If Mike inline links to HBO and profits from the inevitable vast increase in traffic that he will get from the drawing power of HBO's valuable content he's not paying for, you bet the law is there to address HBO's needs.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Applying our test, Google could be held contributorily liable if it had knowledge that infringing Perfect 10 images were available using its search engine, could take simple measures to prevent further damage to Perfect 10's copyrighted works, and failed to take such steps."
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You and Mike should exchange phone numbers.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re:
Yes, some people talk to the news for free. Other people get paid to tell their stories. That doesn't explain why a site should be allowed to inline link to valuable content at the expense of the party who invested in the content's creation.
The sites talked about here are providing a service to users as well, and that's what they profit from. Not from "the content."
The content (in part) makes the services valuable. No one would use a media site without any media. It worries me that you argue this nonsense.
And, you seem to ignore that the content here is being given away willingly.
They give it away to people who are using their website and looking at the ads that they make money from. These third parties are taking away that ad revenue without having to pay for the content that brings in the ad revenue in the first place. It's amazing to me that you play so dumb about this stuff. I know you know better.
No, actually, they're not.
They take content that others paid money to create and give it away for free at the expense of the creator who paid money to create the valuable content. It's not hard. Pretend that Techdirt had an inline link to a live feed of HBO surrounded by ads. Would that not be you reaping where you had not sown when you got tons of traffic and profited from it? Of course it would be. Don't play dumb.
The only thing strange is your willful misunderstanding of reality.
LMAO!
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re:
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re:
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Infringement is wrong whether some employee wrongfully does it or not.
Do you think people will be more or less likely to believe the MPAA's harsh condemnation of filesharing -- painting it as "theft" and a "crime" -- with the knowledge that it goes on inside their own organization?
I think smart people will see that it doesn't matter and dumb people will think it means something.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re:
Some linking can make the linker liable for infringement, and other linking cannot. It depends on the facts.
Next >>