You are right. It is very hard to work as a freelance writer. It is even more difficult for writers who want to be paid. For every writer who wants paid for their work, there are 20 writers willing to write for free.
The fact that this guy and 9000 other people were willing to write for free not only devalued themselves, but it also "overvalued" the writers who want to be paid.
That is not true. CNN at one point in years past a new source for news. It took content to build that brand image they have now.
Same with the Huffington Post. It was the content whether original or reposted that brought readers and which ended up being worth $315 million to AOL. If the Huff. Post never had such content they would never have been valuated at that price.
This is not to say that this guy's lawsuit has any merit, but it is true.
The people may blame the transit authority for bad data, but in the end it is the app creators fault and the eventual lawsuit (if there is one) will lead to it.
Such bad data will also lead people to complain about said app and people will steer other people away from it. Thus teh free market corrects itself as those apps that produce accurate data will get more business.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 10:03am
Copyrighting pi?
I think I need to register a patent on the process of creating musical compositions based on a string of numbers. I would be able to make millions by suing both of these people.
Agreed. If you are fishing on public land, the game warden, ranger, police etc have every right to check for a valid fishing license. You may not like it, but that is what you signed up for when you applied for it.
It is also illegal to drive without a valid license. Police are authorized to enforce that law. They can use routine traffic stops and documented road blocks to do so.
Neither case is a violation of privacy rights.
Now this case where they require people who are exercising their 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble to show ID and store that information in a database is a violation of our rights.
Re: Mike, really? This Guy's an ass. Ill prove it.
Yeah that argument is complete trash.
Now he may have had a point if he said something along the lines of this:
Cable providers charge you per tv when they set up cable service. If you were to pay for a single tv and then wired your home to support a second tv without the cable provider's authorization, you could theoretically be called a thief.
But if you are only ever watching tv on one tv at a time or had it set up so that both tvs showed the same channel and your could not have two channels on at the same time, you are functioning on the same principal of tethering.
On a note, I have met numerous people who have done what I describe above. One family did it so that their kids could watch tv in a second room when the parents had guests over. The cable box was in the main room and channels could only be changed there. It was quite convenient.
The only justification I can see for calling people who tether "thieves" is that the ISP is charging extra for the service and they are not paying for it. Other than that, no they are not thieves.
Now is it justified to even charge extra for the service? Not really considering the most generous plan I have ever seen gives your 5 Gigs of download and then starts charging you an arm and a leg for more. It doesn't really matter how I reach that threshold. It should only matter that I pay for what I use.
While the US is not perfect, one can often look at another country's laws and see what works well and what doesn't. There is nothing wrong with that.
To Mike, US libel laws are in a better position than UK laws. To Mike US laws regarding copyright are a huge mess and should not be copied by other countries.
So with two examples, your argument falls flat on its face.
Not entirely true. While he does request permission, he is not required to do so.
From his website:
Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
I don't think that works as a definition of parody. Weird Al rarely comments on the underlying work. The only two cases I can think of that qualify under that definition are his songs "Achy Breaky Song" and "Smells Like Nirvana" Everything else is wholly differently lyrics with some added Foley sounds and accordion. (I am a fan of Al and know very much that this is not the extent of his work and he is a very talented musician and song writer)
So under your definition of parody almost all of Weird Als music is not protected by fair use.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Mar 2011 @ 11:07am
Re: Re: Re:
Well, when those same organizations are doing the same stupid things over and over again, while also doing different stupid things, it is difficult to ignore.
Perhaps if they would stop suing for stupid reasons and actually do something intelligent, Mike would change his tune a bit.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Mar 2011 @ 11:39am
Re: Re:
Exactly. The burden should always be on the person who owns the IP to police its usage.
It is the same with physical goods. It is the car owner's responsibility to secure their car from theft and damage. If they don't buy insurance and their car is stolen, they must pay to replace it.
Honestly, I think the burden to police works companies own is a fair punishment for the insane length copyrights are valid for. If the company wants to hold a copyright for 95 years, they should have to pay to secure that copyright. If a person wants a copyright for life plus 70 years, they and their descendents should have to pay to secure the copyright for that time. They should pay with their own money and time.
There will come a time when such enforcement will cost more than they copyright brings in and the owner will be forced to cede their control.
On the post: Perfect 10's Latest Bizarre Arguments Against Google Heard By Skeptical Appeals Court
Perfect 10?
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
Re:
The fact that this guy and 9000 other people were willing to write for free not only devalued themselves, but it also "overvalued" the writers who want to be paid.
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
Re:
Same with the Huffington Post. It was the content whether original or reposted that brought readers and which ended up being worth $315 million to AOL. If the Huff. Post never had such content they would never have been valuated at that price.
This is not to say that this guy's lawsuit has any merit, but it is true.
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
Fair Market Value
Of course she is under no obligation to even do that much. She has agreed upon terms that they contribute for free.
On the post: Study Shows Better Data & Apps Improve Public Transit Usage... So Why Do So Many Transit Authorites Block Useful Apps?
Re: Re: Common knowledge
Such bad data will also lead people to complain about said app and people will steer other people away from it. Thus teh free market corrects itself as those apps that produce accurate data will get more business.
On the post: Study Shows Better Data & Apps Improve Public Transit Usage... So Why Do So Many Transit Authorites Block Useful Apps?
Re: Common knowledge
On the post: Copyright Fight Over GoDaddy CEO Shooting An Elephant?
Re: Re: Agenda
On the post: Can You Copyright Pi? Lawsuit Filed Over Copyright On Pi Symphony
Copyrighting pi?
On the post: SF Entertainment Commission Says Attending Any Gathering Of 100 Or More People Means You Lose All Privacy Rights
Re: Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
It is also illegal to drive without a valid license. Police are authorized to enforce that law. They can use routine traffic stops and documented road blocks to do so.
Neither case is a violation of privacy rights.
Now this case where they require people who are exercising their 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble to show ID and store that information in a database is a violation of our rights.
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
No Betamax, No DVR
If so, there will be a whole lot of upset technology companies as they would be responsible for inducement simply for existing.
On the post: Zen And The Art Of Patent Protecting Zen Art
Re:
On the post: Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
Re: Mike, really? This Guy's an ass. Ill prove it.
Now he may have had a point if he said something along the lines of this:
Cable providers charge you per tv when they set up cable service. If you were to pay for a single tv and then wired your home to support a second tv without the cable provider's authorization, you could theoretically be called a thief.
But if you are only ever watching tv on one tv at a time or had it set up so that both tvs showed the same channel and your could not have two channels on at the same time, you are functioning on the same principal of tethering.
On a note, I have met numerous people who have done what I describe above. One family did it so that their kids could watch tv in a second room when the parents had guests over. The cable box was in the main room and channels could only be changed there. It was quite convenient.
On the post: Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
Now is it justified to even charge extra for the service? Not really considering the most generous plan I have ever seen gives your 5 Gigs of download and then starts charging you an arm and a leg for more. It doesn't really matter how I reach that threshold. It should only matter that I pay for what I use.
On the post: Proposal For UK Libel Reform Fixes Many Problems, Leaves Plenty Of Others
Re:
To Mike, US libel laws are in a better position than UK laws. To Mike US laws regarding copyright are a huge mess and should not be copied by other countries.
So with two examples, your argument falls flat on its face.
On the post: 'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Re: Not really parody
On the post: 'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Re: Not really parody
From his website:
Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
http://www.weirdal.com/faq.htm
On the post: 'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim
Re: Not really parody
So under your definition of parody almost all of Weird Als music is not protected by fair use.
On the post: Why Hasn't The Report Debunking Entire US Foreign IP Policy Received The Attention It Deserves?
That's Easy
News Media reports on what they are paid to report. Since the news media is all owned by entertainment companies, they are not paid to report on this.
Is that really hard to understand?
On the post: Righthaven Sues Reporter Who Wrote About Righthaven For Including Image From Its Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps if they would stop suing for stupid reasons and actually do something intelligent, Mike would change his tune a bit.
Until then however...
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
Re: Re:
It is the same with physical goods. It is the car owner's responsibility to secure their car from theft and damage. If they don't buy insurance and their car is stolen, they must pay to replace it.
Honestly, I think the burden to police works companies own is a fair punishment for the insane length copyrights are valid for. If the company wants to hold a copyright for 95 years, they should have to pay to secure that copyright. If a person wants a copyright for life plus 70 years, they and their descendents should have to pay to secure the copyright for that time. They should pay with their own money and time.
There will come a time when such enforcement will cost more than they copyright brings in and the owner will be forced to cede their control.
Next >>