Well, maybe those that send a DMCA should have to pay fees to cover the costs of a service provider complying with said take-down? That is to say, if they want Google to use their time and resources to comply with a DMCA, they should be obligated pay them for it. I'm curious how much Google spends on complying with the DMCA notices they receive.
If everyone getting this wage doesn't have to work to live, don't you think people would have the time to set aside and do these things for themselves instead of being helpless? Without these jobs we rely on to exchange our labor for the currency we need to make a living, we have the time to learn and do things for ourselves rather than pay other people to do things we previously didn't have the time to learn and do.
Honestly, if every neighborhood took the time to help their community collect and deliver their waste, it would be a trivial effort spread among many people. It just asks of people to do a tiny bit more to reduce the overhead of the system that does the work that many people could do in a couple minutes a day. This all assumes that menial tasks won't fundamentally change into something wholly different that completely negates the infrastructure and labor applied to dealing with it. We may not even have need of "trash" collection anymore. Technology changes everything to the point that all menial physical tasks could become fully automated. Anything that requires rudimentary cognitive effort would be the realm of human minds and we would do that without an economic incentive because all physical needs would be addressed without trading symbolic units of value for labor. Our only currency would be social interaction that is inherent in what we do on a daily basis.
So I don't think society will fail to function because nobody is taking out the trash. For every hour you're not tied to a job, you're free to invest that time into doing the things you would have previously paid another person to do.
Of course they want to pursue the leaker exposing institutional incompetence. It's a far higher crime to make the authorities look stupid than to expose sensitive documents.
It is most definitely a factor, but so is the impact on the market for the original work. Will this parody usurp the market for the original? It's very unlikely since the song's long tail market value has tapered off a long time ago. So you have the transformative factor (new lyrics and recording), the parody factor (contradicting the original lyrics), negligible market impact (this song is not competing against the original), and it's reasonable to see this as fair use.
A determination of fair use is meant to slant towards the benefit of the public good rather than the benefit of the rights holder. This parody was created to promote a product that is intended to fulfill an educational gap in society, which is introducing science and engineering to girls, a lofty goal. Are they trying to make money on this? Of course they are, it's hard to make products for free and our economy is profit driven.
You are delusional to think it's a slam-dunk decision that this is not fair use just because it's commercial in nature. You make the massive presumption that commercial use is a major determining factor in fair use, but it isn't. It is one of many factors that all must be investigated.
You weigh commercial factors higher than all the others because of some misguided sense of moral property rights. But it isn't property. It's a grant from the government, a compromise between the public and the artist so that both can get something out of it. It isn't self-evident and it isn't inalienable. It's a granted right that can just as easily be taken as it was given. The goal, which is to provide an opportunity to make a profit, is not to give the power to prevent people from benefiting from it.
This is an example of such beneficial use. The more content we have access to, the more resources we have to create new works, regardless of the motivations for leveraging it. More access to more content to be used in the creation of more content is a good thing. More accessible content benefits us all so that we can expand our culture, our self-expression, and our knowledge, even if that content is used for commercial gains.
Your attitude is poor and it's very arrogant that you are so sure of your position that you can be condescending to anyone that argues against your presumedly superior opinion.
Your use of the phrase "read it and weep" is insulting because you have not sufficiently argued that your opinion has the most merit. Even if you had, it's still a dick move to be so immodest.
That's true. Regardless of whether or not the arrest is lawful, resisting even illegal arrest through self-defense will get you a beating, jail, and charges while they are immune to any crimes they have committed. At least if I manage to get a hold of the criminal's gun in a struggle and shoot him, I can claim self-defense. Shoot a corrupt cop in self-defense and you become a target for his buddies to make your life a living hell. Police are just as much a gang of thugs as the Bloods or the Crips.
I only need my cable to do one thing: connect me to the internet. I don't need their TV packages, I can get my own entertainment online just fine. So let them drive their business into the ground, nobody needs them anymore.
Nowhere in the copyright act does it say that commercial exploitation of a work automatically invalidates fair use. You are just flat-out wrong. Go read it or shut up.
You say that as if copyright makes being a professional artist possible. It doesn't. Copyright doesn't make copying impossible nor does it make people respect the concept of obeying the artist's wishes in the use of their works. There are other things in art than can be leveraged to make money that would allow the artist to give away their works. Believe it or not, there are people out there that will furiously throw money at you if they like your work enough and you give them ample opportunities to buy stuff from you. Pissing and moaning that people can't make a living without copyright just rings hollow.
You're trying to claim that what they did was "special" and, therefore, exempt from the same kind of scrutiny that is being applied to Goldieblox. It doesn't count for one iota that their actions are out of respect for the wishes of a dead friend, the law doesn't, and shouldn't, take that into consideration. It's not legally binding. So "Girls" is a famous song, so what? That doesn't make it anymore exempt from fair use than any other.
Furthermore, Goldieblox didn't even sample the song. They recorded a new song with the same composition, but different lyrics. Nothing of the BB's recording exists in the song used in the ad.
And they're not hypocrites? This article would put that to doubt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
That is complete and utter fallacy. The fact that the song was constructed from other songs hits the moral outrage pretty hard because it's hypocritical. However, proving that a work being defended from alleged infringement is actually infringing itself can render a copyright null, thus rendering a copyright suit null.
Also, I never said nobody has the right to be paid, that is a fabrication. I said nobody has the right to bitch about people using your works when you do the exact same thing to create yours! It's a double standard to use the works of others for profit and then go after those that do the same to your works. You don't need copyright to make money, it was set up as an incentive to get people to make more art, not a welfare system for artists nor a cudgel to beat people over the head because you don't like what they're doing.
Drop the moral indignation, you're not on high ground here.
Except the Beastie Boys didn't write wholly original songs either. They "store" riffs, melodies, and other pieces of prior art to build their album as jupiterkansas noted above. If you can come down on Goldieblox over their use of the Beastie Boys' song, then you should equally come down on the Beastie Boys for their use of other songs in that album. The bottom line is that the Beastie Boys are being immensely hypocritical.
That's completely false. You have no idea what you're talking about. Commercial use of copyrighted material does not negate fair use. Just because you think it should, doesn't make it so.
On the post: Bogus DMCA Notices Nearly Delete Cyberlocker From Google
Re:
On the post: How To Solve The Piracy Problem: Give Everyone A Basic Income For Doing Nothing
Re:
Honestly, if every neighborhood took the time to help their community collect and deliver their waste, it would be a trivial effort spread among many people. It just asks of people to do a tiny bit more to reduce the overhead of the system that does the work that many people could do in a couple minutes a day. This all assumes that menial tasks won't fundamentally change into something wholly different that completely negates the infrastructure and labor applied to dealing with it. We may not even have need of "trash" collection anymore. Technology changes everything to the point that all menial physical tasks could become fully automated. Anything that requires rudimentary cognitive effort would be the realm of human minds and we would do that without an economic incentive because all physical needs would be addressed without trading symbolic units of value for labor. Our only currency would be social interaction that is inherent in what we do on a daily basis.
So I don't think society will fail to function because nobody is taking out the trash. For every hour you're not tied to a job, you're free to invest that time into doing the things you would have previously paid another person to do.
On the post: Feds Focus Investigation On Who Leaked Report Implicating Ex-CIA Boss For Intelligence Leak... Rather Than On Initial Leak
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A determination of fair use is meant to slant towards the benefit of the public good rather than the benefit of the rights holder. This parody was created to promote a product that is intended to fulfill an educational gap in society, which is introducing science and engineering to girls, a lofty goal. Are they trying to make money on this? Of course they are, it's hard to make products for free and our economy is profit driven.
You are delusional to think it's a slam-dunk decision that this is not fair use just because it's commercial in nature. You make the massive presumption that commercial use is a major determining factor in fair use, but it isn't. It is one of many factors that all must be investigated.
You weigh commercial factors higher than all the others because of some misguided sense of moral property rights. But it isn't property. It's a grant from the government, a compromise between the public and the artist so that both can get something out of it. It isn't self-evident and it isn't inalienable. It's a granted right that can just as easily be taken as it was given. The goal, which is to provide an opportunity to make a profit, is not to give the power to prevent people from benefiting from it.
This is an example of such beneficial use. The more content we have access to, the more resources we have to create new works, regardless of the motivations for leveraging it. More access to more content to be used in the creation of more content is a good thing. More accessible content benefits us all so that we can expand our culture, our self-expression, and our knowledge, even if that content is used for commercial gains.
Your attitude is poor and it's very arrogant that you are so sure of your position that you can be condescending to anyone that argues against your presumedly superior opinion.
Your use of the phrase "read it and weep" is insulting because you have not sufficiently argued that your opinion has the most merit. Even if you had, it's still a dick move to be so immodest.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Use For Facebook: Apologizing To That Guy You Mugged Three Decades Ago
On the post: Ex-FBI Agent, Trauma Surgeon Testify That Kelly Thomas' Death Was A Result Of Officers' Excessive Force
Re: Re:
On the post: Ex-FBI Agent, Trauma Surgeon Testify That Kelly Thomas' Death Was A Result Of Officers' Excessive Force
Re:
On the post: CEO Of 21st Century Fox Thinks People Aren't Really Asking For A La Carte TV Channels
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little conflicted
Furthermore, Goldieblox didn't even sample the song. They recorded a new song with the same composition, but different lyrics. Nothing of the BB's recording exists in the song used in the ad.
And they're not hypocrites? This article would put that to doubt.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/beastie-boys-cant-escape-pauls-628260
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little conflicted
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
Also, I never said nobody has the right to be paid, that is a fabrication. I said nobody has the right to bitch about people using your works when you do the exact same thing to create yours! It's a double standard to use the works of others for profit and then go after those that do the same to your works. You don't need copyright to make money, it was set up as an incentive to get people to make more art, not a welfare system for artists nor a cudgel to beat people over the head because you don't like what they're doing.
Drop the moral indignation, you're not on high ground here.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: A little conflicted
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Obvious
Next >>