In my mind, the most relevant result for a Netflix show is Netflix.
Ok, fair enough. But what about the in real world? Take Techdirt as an example, there are plenty of times where Techdirt does commentary on an article and it gets pushed up higher on Google than the original article because that is where people are clicking.
What about an article from Podunk News that gets picked up by AP and published by a major news outlet? The major outlet will get a higher ranking because that is where people are clicking.
How is this different and why would it be Google's responsibility, if that is where people are clicking?
The whole point is that they're "voluntary agreements" between private parties. And thus, there's no government policy involved, and thus it's difficult to see how the deliberative process privilege could or should possibly apply.
Wouldn't it also follow that since the court upheld the deliberative process privilege that three strike programs could then be considered government policy and therefore subject to First Amendment protection?
The White House seems to be wanting it both ways - that it's a voluntary agreement between private parties that is created and enforced with governmental power.
Still, the point was about Google's poor results more than piracy.
Just curious here - if the Stream-TV link is the one that gets the most clicks (I have no idea if it is or not) when doing this search, then why would it be considered a "poor result"? Isn't that what Google is supposed to do?
Morris essentially took a copyrighted work of art and added color to it. That is a derivative work and is copyright infringement if you don't have permission.
Not necessarily. Derivative works can and have been considered Fair Use quite often. If it's Fair Use then no infringement actually occurred and permission is not required whatsoever.
Finally, I could find nothing in Nolo that even comes close to permitting this to be fair use. Fulfilling one condition for fair use does not help. All for factors must be considered. Particularly #3, the amount of a work used. It looks to me like Ms. Morris used very close to 100% of the original work, if not, in fact, 100%.
That is also not exactly true either. None of the four factors are any more important than the others - it all depends on the individual circumstances of each case. Nor does a Fair Use ruling require that ALL of the factors be met. There have been cases where only one factor was met, but was strong enough that the use was considered Fair Use anyways.
As for the amount of work used, there are no set rules defining how much can be used and still be considered Fair Use. In fact, there was a case in 2011 where a complete web article was used and the court still found that it was Fair Use.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you people do with yourselves...
They apologized and explained why the mistake was made.
As they should. So far so good.
They were very gracious about the matter...
Well, except for being threatening douchbags about the negative review. That's a perfect example of how not to do customer service really.
...but this stupid whore decides to leave negative feedback.
And it is her prerogative to give her opinion. Just like it's my prerogative to give my opinion of you and your comments - you are being an even a bigger douchbag for supporting this type of behavior from anyone, let alone someone who wants my business.
Good for them, perhaps that infantile little poop head will think twice before ruining someone's reputation in the future.
Hannah's Attic And Place has done that all by themselves. One negative review isn't anything very notable at all. On the other hand, threatening people who post a negative review is very newsworthy. Don't blame the user because Hannah's Attic And Place reacted in the worst possible way and ruined their reputation all on their own.
Side Note: You may want to curtail your insults of this person who posted the review. Your comments are bordering on libelous. Just some friendly advice.
I did not have a choice when he put me at risk, nor did the millions upon millions of Americans he put at risk by proceeding with his agenda to take out his grievances against the United States Government.
Umm...care to elaborate on this "risk" you speak of?
Thus far, the only harm I've seen come from the Snowden revelations is to the credibility of the US government and the other Five Eye nations.
Re: Re: Re: What would you people do with yourselves...
Let's say this wasn't Scientology, and just some seller who was the victim of this venomous bitch.
They would also be highlighted for their incredible stupidity in the treatment of their paying customers. To claim that you are being singled out because it's Scientology only adds to the stupidity.
But, I can't say that I don't have personal feelings of sympathy for the poor bastards trying to deal with that. Did the original poster use Tor? Tough shit for you then. Is the original poster judgment-proof? Tough shit for you then.
How does this fit into the long standing legal tradition of treating anonymous speech as protected by First Amendment? From your tone in what I quoted is sounds like you may wish to erode that protection, but I'm not sure, so I'm asking.
Tv stations view and approve commercials all the time. Same for programming and even infomercials. They actually do take responsibility for the content of their users.
TV stations also "opt" out of that responsibility by broadcasting a bit of legalese stating that "the following is the view and opinions of others and not necessarily the views or opinions of this station or it's owners".
Section 230 does that as the blanket default for websites. How is that any different from what the TV stations do if you omit the opt-in part?
But, as far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a "natural right to freely copy," and never was.
With all due respect, that is simply untrue. Prior to copyright and other IP laws, which have only been around for a small fraction of human history, copying others was exactly how humans learned. Histories and culture were passed from one generation to the next through song and stories. Innovations that improved living conditions were copied from the next village over and passed on to the next village.
The "natural right to freely copy" existed centuries before IP laws ever did.
On the post: If You Do A Search Almost No One Does, Google Might Point You To Unauthorized Version Of House Of Cards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoa. Dyslexic sentence alert!
That's supposed to be:
But what about in the real world?
On the post: If You Do A Search Almost No One Does, Google Might Point You To Unauthorized Version Of House Of Cards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, fair enough. But what about the in real world? Take Techdirt as an example, there are plenty of times where Techdirt does commentary on an article and it gets pushed up higher on Google than the original article because that is where people are clicking.
What about an article from Podunk News that gets picked up by AP and published by a major news outlet? The major outlet will get a higher ranking because that is where people are clicking.
How is this different and why would it be Google's responsibility, if that is where people are clicking?
On the post: White House Withholds Details Of Its Role In 'Voluntary' Agreement Between Payment Processors And Copyright Industries
Wouldn't it also follow that since the court upheld the deliberative process privilege that three strike programs could then be considered government policy and therefore subject to First Amendment protection?
The White House seems to be wanting it both ways - that it's a voluntary agreement between private parties that is created and enforced with governmental power.
On the post: If You Do A Search Almost No One Does, Google Might Point You To Unauthorized Version Of House Of Cards
Re: Re: Re:
Just curious here - if the Stream-TV link is the one that gets the most clicks (I have no idea if it is or not) when doing this search, then why would it be considered a "poor result"? Isn't that what Google is supposed to do?
On the post: Zero Tolerance Nets Two 11-Year Old Boys Juvenile Criminal Charges For Bringing A Toy Gun To School
Re:
I always carried a pocket knife as a kid, even to school. As a Cub Scout/Webelo/Boy Scout it was considered "Being Prepared".
On the post: Cop Shoots Teen Holding Wii Controller In His Own Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A NERD gun? What is that?
Too funny. I posted my comment in jest at about the same moment you did and lo and behold such a thing does exist - with plenty of GBs and WiFi even.
On the post: Cop Shoots Teen Holding Wii Controller In His Own Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is that?
I have no idea...but I'm pretty sure I want the latest release - with lots of gee-bees and some of those why-fi thingys too.
On the post: Origami Creators Sue Artist For Copyright Infringement Concerning Crease Patterns
Re: Re: Final Verdict?
Not necessarily. Derivative works can and have been considered Fair Use quite often. If it's Fair Use then no infringement actually occurred and permission is not required whatsoever.
Finally, I could find nothing in Nolo that even comes close to permitting this to be fair use. Fulfilling one condition for fair use does not help. All for factors must be considered. Particularly #3, the amount of a work used.
It looks to me like Ms. Morris used very close to 100% of the original work, if not, in fact, 100%.
That is also not exactly true either. None of the four factors are any more important than the others - it all depends on the individual circumstances of each case. Nor does a Fair Use ruling require that ALL of the factors be met. There have been cases where only one factor was met, but was strong enough that the use was considered Fair Use anyways.
As for the amount of work used, there are no set rules defining how much can be used and still be considered Fair Use. In fact, there was a case in 2011 where a complete web article was used and the court still found that it was Fair Use.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/23595613558/big-big-loss-righthaven-reposting-full-art icle-found-to-be-fair-use.shtml
On the post: Crazy Amazon Seller Threatens the Wrath of Scientology on People Who Give Negative Feedback
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you people do with yourselves...
As they should. So far so good.
They were very gracious about the matter...
Well, except for being threatening douchbags about the negative review. That's a perfect example of how not to do customer service really.
...but this stupid whore decides to leave negative feedback.
And it is her prerogative to give her opinion. Just like it's my prerogative to give my opinion of you and your comments - you are being an even a bigger douchbag for supporting this type of behavior from anyone, let alone someone who wants my business.
Good for them, perhaps that infantile little poop head will think twice before ruining someone's reputation in the future.
Hannah's Attic And Place has done that all by themselves. One negative review isn't anything very notable at all. On the other hand, threatening people who post a negative review is very newsworthy. Don't blame the user because Hannah's Attic And Place reacted in the worst possible way and ruined their reputation all on their own.
Side Note: You may want to curtail your insults of this person who posted the review. Your comments are bordering on libelous. Just some friendly advice.
On the post: Competitor Takes Over Verizon's West Virginia Landlines; Complaints Drop Nearly 70%
Re: Re:
Amazon and Disney too!
On the post: Snowden's Lawyer Interrogated By UK Authorities At Heathrow Airport
Re: Get him all that's due him
Umm...care to elaborate on this "risk" you speak of?
Thus far, the only harm I've seen come from the Snowden revelations is to the credibility of the US government and the other Five Eye nations.
On the post: Crazy Amazon Seller Threatens the Wrath of Scientology on People Who Give Negative Feedback
Re: Re: Re: What would you people do with yourselves...
They would also be highlighted for their incredible stupidity in the treatment of their paying customers. To claim that you are being singled out because it's Scientology only adds to the stupidity.
Here's some examples:
http://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?num=20&q=negative+reviews+striesand&search=Sea rch
On the post: How Free Speech Online Is Enabled By Not Blaming Websites For The Actions Of Their Users
Re: Re: Re: Lets not totally close our minds...
How does this fit into the long standing legal tradition of treating anonymous speech as protected by First Amendment? From your tone in what I quoted is sounds like you may wish to erode that protection, but I'm not sure, so I'm asking.
On the post: How Free Speech Online Is Enabled By Not Blaming Websites For The Actions Of Their Users
Re: Re: What would happen to TV
TV stations also "opt" out of that responsibility by broadcasting a bit of legalese stating that "the following is the view and opinions of others and not necessarily the views or opinions of this station or it's owners".
Section 230 does that as the blanket default for websites. How is that any different from what the TV stations do if you omit the opt-in part?
On the post: Another Friend Of The Recording Industry Joins The House Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With all due respect, that is simply untrue. Prior to copyright and other IP laws, which have only been around for a small fraction of human history, copying others was exactly how humans learned. Histories and culture were passed from one generation to the next through song and stories. Innovations that improved living conditions were copied from the next village over and passed on to the next village.
The "natural right to freely copy" existed centuries before IP laws ever did.
On the post: US Military Looking To Trademark Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Careful now, you don't want a SWAT team showing up at your house with a no-knock warrant for the crime of logic infringement.
On the post: Another Friend Of The Recording Industry Joins The House Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
I wasn't comparing Techdirt to Ghandi at all, fool.
Ghandi's quote describes the stages of a winning strategy of nonviolent activism and you appear to be at stage 2 at the moment.
On the post: Another Friend Of The Recording Industry Joins The House Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Sounds good to me
On the post: Another Friend Of The Recording Industry Joins The House Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet
Re: Re:
Nah. That's just darryl - probably on a bender.
On the post: Another Friend Of The Recording Industry Joins The House Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet
Re: Sounds good to me
Next >>