Please explain to me how this is different from Apple changing their adapters after an Iphone redesign so you have to buy only one of their chargers and a new one at that.
The ruling of this judge makes my stomach turn. Actors in motion pictures are unequivocally performing works for hire and as such surrender rights in their performances. Yet the court says she has rights in the performance separate from the words and actions in the script? I can only envision the 9th circuit judge somehow tying the theory of right of publicity (a state claim in California) to grant rights to this actress and thus granting a copy right interest into the work. Then is she involved in a joint work between her and the filmmaker? That has to be shown as the intent of both parties from the onset and explicitly at that. This ruling makes no sense.
"Fans interested in bootlegs tend to be the kinds of fans who buy everything and spend tons of money on live shows as well."
I couldn't agree more. This and many of have his past copyright litigation decisions seem out of touch and ill advised. Bootlegs generally sound so crappy you'd have to be a die hard fan to listen. If he wants the links taken down that is his prerogative, but the monetary/ damages aspect is disappointing,
"For all that some people constantly claim that 'infringement = theft', the law certainly treats them completely and utterly different in severity and punishment."
Absolutely. The theft of a cd/dvd is the theft of a physical thing that retails under $20. Infringement is the taking of the underlying content that could have cost millions to produce. In addition, this appropriation of content then could allow someone else to reproduce it and sell it (bootlegs) (someone else making money instead of the producer) or interfering with the producers ability to commercial exploit their product (offering it for free on the internet).
"By the light that turns on when you're recording."
Are you implying there is no way a red light can be disabled to record secretly?
"The other point about this particular incident is that he was wearing the glasses when he bought his ticket and when he gave his ticket to the ticket-tearer."
Perhaps this was meant to catch him in the act. The more I think about it, I don't think it was a pr stunt. They were operating under the assumption he was recording.
Yes, this whole situation was unfortunate. It's a story because he wasn't doing what they thought he was. Yes they made a mistake. If he was recording the same thing would have happened except he would have been arrested.
I believe that is why he was questioned as opposed to being arrested.
"If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago."
He wasn't breaking ANY statute.
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act 2005
18 U.S.C.A. § 2319B
(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or (2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both. The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense
"I love how you assholes justify breaking everyone's balls because of "copyright"
I am sorry you feel there is something wrong in enforcing this law.
"LAB is one of the more reasoned, controlled copyright advocates."
Thanks
"but the attempts and lengths he goes to defend the existing, over-the-top practices are a sign of his irreparably blind dedication."
Hardly, I just fail to see things and stories strictly in black and white, good vs. evil constructs. I feel you do yourself a disservice if you can't view it from the other side. Why would the MPAA be concerned with someone potentially using new technology to record in a movie theater? Why would federal authorities be involved? Why would they question him about higher ups and what organization he worked for?
How do you tell? How are they supposed to know? If you think someone is shoplifting from your store don't you check the bag they brought in?
I appreciate your analogy and am slightly more sympathetic. I think the analogy would be better served in a shoplifting situation. Incredibly inconvenient for the patron. My point more is that when dealing with private entities you get crazy reactions. Regardless how you feel about the laws I would not wear a potential recording device on my face in a theater and be surprised if anything happened.
"Now, that said, while I highly doubt this was a PR stunt on Google's behalf, I can totally see it as being an attempted one, and one that backfired badly, on behalf of the *AA's, to 'make an example' out of a movie pirate."
"But don't lose sight of the fact that THIS MAN DID NOTHING AND LOST HOURS OF HIS LIFE to these assholes."
I barely understand the outrage. It is illegal to record in a movie theater. This is pretty well known by much of the adult population of the United States. A shame he is from the Balkans and might not have realized it but.....a movie theater is private property. They were well within their rights to call the authorities if they suspect someone breaking the law in their establishment.
"Just like photos, you can use a voice action to start video recording by saying "ok glass, record a video."
from google glass help
I am more concerned with the potential to abuse privacy rights by these devices then a potential stunt to get people to talk about $3,000 glasses and where people should and shouldn't wear them.
"And perhaps YOU don't care that ICE is now the private Gestapo of the MPAA, catching all those "piracy-terrorists," but some of us would like our tax dollars spent on something more worthwhile."
If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago. I suggest a trip to ICE's website to see what they have been doing since 2008. It is quite a bit more than being MPAA goons.
I disagree with your interpretation of the case law.
Copyright's function/effect today is to provide a limited monopoly of use by the copyright holder. This has purposeful economic consequences.
"The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work. Instead, s 1 of the Act enumerates several ‘rights' that are made ‘exclusive’ to the holder of the copyright. If a person, without authorization from the copyright holder, puts a copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these ‘exclusive rights,’ he infringes the copyright."
The full passage is necessary to provide context:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's STATUTORY MONOPOLY, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a BALANCE of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be ENCOURAGED and REWARDED, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."
"The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."
"That's not really true. The uses listed are merely illustrative examples"
I believe one of the most important parts of statutory interpretation is acknowledging what is present. You will note that these illustrations are not meant to be exhaustive, but they do have purpose. They are to show the nature of uses generally considered fair use. They are the same in many respects and a common theme can be observed.
"Even if does not do any of those things, it may still be fair use"
I am speaking from a practical standpoint. As one often would be claiming fair use in a litigious context, I would highly suggest, right from the beginning, contemplating whether the use is or is similar to the uses mentioned in the first paragraph of the statute. They are there for guidance.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
Fair, I misinterpreted Rikuo's response.
I do find it disappointing blue's comments are always blocked and the responses to his arguments are not. Some of his points are valid.
"Putting entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit."
I agree. While it maybe "sharing" it most certainly is not fair use. In addition, the creator or copyright holder should have control of the dissemination of the work. Isn't that the point? And when I state this, I do not mean the purpose of copyright from the 1700's but its current purpose, to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder.
"Fair use is about the rights of the public to speak, to make use of content, to comment, to criticize and to express themselves."
This is indeed true but is often confused and twisted by both sides of the copyright argument.
"to make use of content"
Yes the public can use, but for what purpose. In the United States, what is often ignored is the paragraph before the four factors of statute 107, which states:
... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Is the use a criticism or comment? Does it dissect the work? Is it commenting or criticizing the work itself? Does the use break it down, analyze it? Is it news reporting? Is the use academic?
These are some of the questions that must be addressed even before the four factors are weighed to determine fair use.
As someone who enjoys video games and anime, you know that both media are economically expensive to produce. You tell me what they should cost to purchase.
This is patently false. Megaupload paid members to post content encouraging the posting of infringing content. In addition, they received a direct financial benefit by selling memberships where members had access to infringing content. Google does not do this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
"They're called 'fans', you know, people who like a band/artist/writer, and so want to share what they like with other people?"
Sounds like a bad PR move but there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else. Sorry.
"And pray tell, how exactly does a lyric site harm a band."
I didn't say it did. If the artist/ right holder doesn't want a site with their lyrics on them that is their right. They control reproduction of their work.
"the huge number of lawsuits over people sharing or downloading music"
Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began. They are not an accurate representation missing seven years of data. I agree with you that piracy was mostly a service issue and has stabilized and I think the MPAA needs to realize this. They must change the way they are getting their product to their customers.
"as far as the youtube angle there, how many of the songs you direct them to are put up by the band itself, vs fans who want to share the music?"
And people wonder why youtube gets sued all the time and is beginning to be hyper-reactive to rights holders. They have created a platform where people who don't own and haven't created a work can put it up and play it at will. In essence creating a video jukebox. Youtube is expected to have generated $5.6 billion for 2013. Content creators rightfully request if using my material to make money then you must pay for the use. Youtube is a company and as such their policies as to their platform are their own. If they don't want to risk the headache of dealing with a right holder claiming use of something on their platform that is their prerogative. To place any amount of someone else's music to film or video requires you pay the right holder.
"So first you argue for fair use, then you argue against it by claiming 'just license it'. 'Fair use' does not equal 'Paid use', no matter how much some industry people may wish it did."
I said I would argue fair use. To avoid any hassle and if I really wanted to use the clip or music I would probably license it. The choice is yours.
"First of all, who goes to, and buys stuff from, a store just because they like what's playing on the radio? Saying that having some background music is providing a 'commercial benefit' seems to be really stretching things."
I did not say that people go to a store to hear music, I said there was a commercial benefit. If the music didn't enhance the shopping experience then no business would play it, no? If it had no benefit then why do want to play music in your store anyway? There must be a reason you want to play music in your store, what could it be?
"As for why they shouldn't have to pay for it, radio is free to listen to, why should suddenly having multiple people listen to it require the exchange of money(an additional exchange I should say, the radio station likely already paid to play the music)?"
I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.
"No actually, what it does is brings the 'creators' back down with the rest of the people."
All the creator wants is to have the ability to commercially maximize their creation. If everyone creates then what does the term "talent" mean? Yes everyone can sing a song but for some reason many people want to hear the voice of one person over that of another. Anyone that is good at what they do should be compensated as such.
"you've pretty much admitted that you're not interested in hearing from the other side."
This is patently false. I read every argument and rationally think about it. If I didn't I wouldn't bother posting. If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain. I like Grape.
As is equating duplication of files with literally taking away money from the hands of artists. Anyone can see the RIAA and MPAA walk away each year with more profits than ever. Where are they getting paid if artists are devastated by piracy?
Is it? An artist makes a percentage of album sales. Sales are down since P2P and piracy. Artist makes less. This seems straight forward.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
On the post: UPDATED: Google Files Emergency Motion To Stop Censorship Ruling Over 'Innocence Of Muslims', Is Denied
On the post: Prince Sues 22 Fans For $1 Million Each For Linking To Bootlegs In Laughably Confused Complaint
I couldn't agree more. This and many of have his past copyright litigation decisions seem out of touch and ill advised. Bootlegs generally sound so crappy you'd have to be a die hard fan to listen. If he wants the links taken down that is his prerogative, but the monetary/ damages aspect is disappointing,
On the post: Prince Sues 22 Fans For $1 Million Each For Linking To Bootlegs In Laughably Confused Complaint
Re: Controversy
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. The theft of a cd/dvd is the theft of a physical thing that retails under $20. Infringement is the taking of the underlying content that could have cost millions to produce. In addition, this appropriation of content then could allow someone else to reproduce it and sell it (bootlegs) (someone else making money instead of the producer) or interfering with the producers ability to commercial exploit their product (offering it for free on the internet).
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you implying there is no way a red light can be disabled to record secretly?
"The other point about this particular incident is that he was wearing the glasses when he bought his ticket and when he gave his ticket to the ticket-tearer."
Perhaps this was meant to catch him in the act. The more I think about it, I don't think it was a pr stunt. They were operating under the assumption he was recording.
Yes, this whole situation was unfortunate.
It's a story because he wasn't doing what they thought he was. Yes they made a mistake. If he was recording the same thing would have happened except he would have been arrested.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe that is why he was questioned as opposed to being arrested.
"If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago."
He wasn't breaking ANY statute.
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act 2005
18 U.S.C.A. § 2319B
(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense
"I love how you assholes justify breaking everyone's balls because of "copyright"
I am sorry you feel there is something wrong in enforcing this law.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks
"but the attempts and lengths he goes to defend the existing, over-the-top practices are a sign of his irreparably blind dedication."
Hardly, I just fail to see things and stories strictly in black and white, good vs. evil constructs. I feel you do yourself a disservice if you can't view it from the other side. Why would the MPAA be concerned with someone potentially using new technology to record in a movie theater? Why would federal authorities be involved? Why would they question him about higher ups and what organization he worked for?
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you tell? How are they supposed to know? If you think someone is shoplifting from your store don't you check the bag they brought in?
I appreciate your analogy and am slightly more sympathetic. I think the analogy would be better served in a shoplifting situation. Incredibly inconvenient for the patron. My point more is that when dealing with private entities you get crazy reactions. Regardless how you feel about the laws I would not wear a potential recording device on my face in a theater and be surprised if anything happened.
"Now, that said, while I highly doubt this was a PR stunt on Google's behalf, I can totally see it as being an attempted one, and one that backfired badly, on behalf of the *AA's, to 'make an example' out of a movie pirate."
This is what I think.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I barely understand the outrage. It is illegal to record in a movie theater. This is pretty well known by much of the adult population of the United States. A shame he is from the Balkans and might not have realized it but.....a movie theater is private property. They were well within their rights to call the authorities if they suspect someone breaking the law in their establishment.
"Just like photos, you can use a voice action to start video recording by saying "ok glass, record a video."
from google glass help
I am more concerned with the potential to abuse privacy rights by these devices then a potential stunt to get people to talk about $3,000 glasses and where people should and shouldn't wear them.
"And perhaps YOU don't care that ICE is now the private Gestapo of the MPAA, catching all those "piracy-terrorists," but some of us would like our tax dollars spent on something more worthwhile."
If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago.
I suggest a trip to ICE's website to see what they have been doing since 2008. It is quite a bit more than being MPAA goons.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
Copyright's function/effect today is to provide a limited monopoly of use by the copyright holder. This has purposeful economic consequences.
"The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work. Instead, s 1 of the Act enumerates several ‘rights' that are made ‘exclusive’ to the holder of the copyright. If a person, without authorization from the copyright holder, puts a copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these ‘exclusive rights,’ he infringes the copyright."
The full passage is necessary to provide context:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's STATUTORY MONOPOLY, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a BALANCE of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be ENCOURAGED and REWARDED, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."
"The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."
Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken, 1975
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
I believe one of the most important parts of statutory interpretation is acknowledging what is present. You will note that these illustrations are not meant to be exhaustive, but they do have purpose. They are to show the nature of uses generally considered fair use. They are the same in many respects and a common theme can be observed.
"Even if does not do any of those things, it may still be fair use"
I am speaking from a practical standpoint. As one often would be claiming fair use in a litigious context, I would highly suggest, right from the beginning, contemplating whether the use is or is similar to the uses mentioned in the first paragraph of the statute. They are there for guidance.
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
I do find it disappointing blue's comments are always blocked and the responses to his arguments are not. Some of his points are valid.
"Putting entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit."
I agree. While it maybe "sharing" it most certainly is not fair use. In addition, the creator or copyright holder should have control of the dissemination of the work. Isn't that the point? And when I state this, I do not mean the purpose of copyright from the 1700's but its current purpose, to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder.
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
This is indeed true but is often confused and twisted by both sides of the copyright argument.
"to make use of content"
Yes the public can use, but for what purpose. In the United States, what is often ignored is the paragraph before the four factors of statute 107, which states:
... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Is the use a criticism or comment? Does it dissect the work? Is it commenting or criticizing the work itself? Does the use break it down, analyze it? Is it news reporting? Is the use academic?
These are some of the questions that must be addressed even before the four factors are weighed to determine fair use.
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
Re: Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
On the post: RIAA's Boss Thinks He Knows Better Than Google How To Build A Search Engine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Blackberry Goes Back To Its Roots: Sues Ryan Seacrest For Patent Infringement
Re: Have you seen the keyboard?
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
Sounds like a bad PR move but there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else. Sorry.
"And pray tell, how exactly does a lyric site harm a band."
I didn't say it did. If the artist/ right holder doesn't want a site with their lyrics on them that is their right. They control reproduction of their work.
"the huge number of lawsuits over people sharing or downloading music"
Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began. They are not an accurate representation missing seven years of data. I agree with you that piracy was mostly a service issue and has stabilized and I think the MPAA needs to realize this. They must change the way they are getting their product to their customers.
"as far as the youtube angle there, how many of the songs you direct them to are put up by the band itself, vs fans who want to share the music?"
And people wonder why youtube gets sued all the time and is beginning to be hyper-reactive to rights holders. They have created a platform where people who don't own and haven't created a work can put it up and play it at will. In essence creating a video jukebox. Youtube is expected to have generated $5.6 billion for 2013. Content creators rightfully request if using my material to make money then you must pay for the use. Youtube is a company and as such their policies as to their platform are their own. If they don't want to risk the headache of dealing with a right holder claiming use of something on their platform that is their prerogative. To place any amount of someone else's music to film or video requires you pay the right holder.
"So first you argue for fair use, then you argue against it by claiming 'just license it'. 'Fair use' does not equal 'Paid use', no matter how much some industry people may wish it did."
I said I would argue fair use. To avoid any hassle and if I really wanted to use the clip or music I would probably license it. The choice is yours.
"First of all, who goes to, and buys stuff from, a store just because they like what's playing on the radio? Saying that having some background music is providing a 'commercial benefit' seems to be really stretching things."
I did not say that people go to a store to hear music, I said there was a commercial benefit. If the music didn't enhance the shopping experience then no business would play it, no? If it had no benefit then why do want to play music in your store anyway? There must be a reason you want to play music in your store, what could it be?
"As for why they shouldn't have to pay for it, radio is free to listen to, why should suddenly having multiple people listen to it require the exchange of money(an additional exchange I should say, the radio station likely already paid to play the music)?"
I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.
"No actually, what it does is brings the 'creators' back down with the rest of the people."
All the creator wants is to have the ability to commercially maximize their creation. If everyone creates then what does the term "talent" mean? Yes everyone can sing a song but for some reason many people want to hear the voice of one person over that of another. Anyone that is good at what they do should be compensated as such.
"you've pretty much admitted that you're not interested in hearing from the other side."
This is patently false. I read every argument and rationally think about it. If I didn't I wouldn't bother posting. If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain. I like Grape.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it? An artist makes a percentage of album sales. Sales are down since P2P and piracy. Artist makes less. This seems straight forward.
Next >>