Want to create a lyrics site for your favorite band, because the band/label itself refuses to do so? Too bad.
Yes the band doesn't want their lyrics reproduced but you have an inherent right to do so, yes? You have a right to make a website and how dare they? The indignation, that someone who made or controls the work does what they want with it.
"Find a new artist and, in an attempt to share them with your friends and family you send them a track, or the songs so they can listen to, and possibly become fans as well? Enjoy the million dollar plus lawsuit."
If you sent a CD of you favorite band to your friends and family you would get sued? Not if you bought it. When I turn my friends and family on to new music I generally tell them the name of the group and they go look it up on Youtube. I am not sure when you were sued for millions but do tell.
"Write a song that sounds a little too much like another one, either accidentally or perhaps because your song is meant as an homage to the other song/artist? Enjoy the lawsuit."
Incredible generalization, but for the sake of argument I'll run with it. The only reason you would get sued is if there is money involved. Did you rip off the song? Was it really a accident? Are you selling it? If you heard it on the radio or you heard it before( if you had access) yup, prob gonna get sued. If it is as a homage ( a cover) the original artist shouldn't get some money when you do? Why not? Didn't they write the song? Isn't giving them some money the ultimate in homage?
"Make a review video for a game, movie, or even book, spending dozens of hours and work putting it together, before putting it on a site like YT?"
I would argue fair use, but you know what? Youtube is a commercial entity and as such they do what they want. Yes, their content ID needs to be changed .....but want to keep the money from your review, don't use any video you don't own or music that is not yours or....... license it.....I know that is an odd thought.
"Have a business and want to play the radio for your customers to listen to while they wait?"
If it is the commercial radio or Tv, you got no worries mate. Hmm, I guess you could pay for a service right? You see you are getting a commercial benefit from playing the music(customers staying and buying cause they like the music) but you don't want to pay for it, Why not?
"making illegal human nature of creativity and sharing, ."
This is always my favorite. It diminishes the works and rights of the creator because this is what we humans do, we share right? There is a fundamental difference between back in the olden days and now, capitalism.
"There's a difference between 'made because of IP law' and 'made while IP law exists'. Saying that because IP laws exists, and someone made something, that makes the creation 'due to' IP law would make just as much sense if you swapped out 'hair' with 'IP laws'."
Of course......I often feel I must voice my opinion because there is often only one flavor of Kool aid available on this site.
"You realize that a good number of locations in developed countries like England were built from the profits made via the slave trade in the 18th century. So slavery is justified?"
Stop.......please. Equating IP and slavery is just offensive.
"This is often used as justification for harsh punishments - since few people are ever caught those unlucky enough to get fingered have a pound of flesh demanded from them. The RIAA has been caught declaring multiple times in the past that they considered backing up your CDs as illegal."
The harsh punishments are because the statutory damages were designed for penalizing businesses and are being applied to individuals and this is wrong.
"Whatever content exists as a result of IP law can cease to exist, I don't care."
That is just it. You don't care because it is not your profession. You are not a content creator. For some reason anyone who makes a living from the benefit of IP you don't care about. You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP, not to mention the computer you wrote this comment with.
"I want my right to freely copy."
I am tired of this statement. I have made copies of my CDs and nobody came to my house. Nor has anyone come to your house.
I never understood this argument. The MPAA is pissed about losing sales of DVDs and digital downloads. The sale of DVDs has nothing to do with people going to the movies.
That brings us back to the point of mastering a rule then being able to break it effectively.
He has shown no mastery. The mission statement for his website was lifted verbatim from another comic book author. I find a pattern of laziness, you find it brilliant artist. He has given no credit to anyone besides himself until confronted.
I did not come up with the phrase "more than meets the eye," (obviously), nor did I come up with
"There is more to him than meets the eye."
This was taken from another comments section, on another web site, pertaining to the story, written by someone else. The function of the quotation marks is to signify this.
For example, LaBeouf wrote: “Seemingly indifferent to the fate that awaited him – Donal Thomas continued to look obstinate in the antechamber of the execution room. A silent exchange pitted the condemned man.”
While Duteurtre wrote: “Seemingly indifferent to the fate that awaited him, Désiré Johnson continued to look obstinate. In the antechamber of the execution room a silent exchange pitted the condemned man…”
If you think this is somehow brilliant or that he was should be celebrated because his apologies for doing this were quotes from other people without using quotation marks we obviously don't agree on brilliance. I perhaps might give him more credit if he were answering interviews like this his whole career as opposed to after being shown as a plagiarist.
"There have been a sizable number of 'pay what you want' ventures that have been very successful."
If this was the preferred and most profitable way to do business then the majority of businesses would operate in this fashion. If you believe this is the best way for you to do business, I encourage you to tell whoever you interact with to earn a living, that they can pay you if they want to.
I've torrented games before that I have since bought.
That is an interesting statement, as if you were not required to so. And I guess after you already had the product, the only motivation for you to pay was because you wanted to. What of the games you did not buy? Did they cost any less to produce? Would you agree a business set up where the customer only pays when they want to would have a tenuous existence? In addition, because you paid is no guarantee anyone else did or will. Your behavior has some predictive value as to the behavior of others but only as far as those that share your same values. I
"I'm violating the anime studio's geographical distribution rights inherent to copyright. I soothe my conscience by saying that I am still paying anyway."
I think they value you as a paying customer. I agree that many geo restrictions are tiresome. As content becomes available globally, better methods must be developed. However, copyright allows a holder to stop another from commercially exploiting the work. If I write and record a song and make a CD should another company be entitled to duplicate it and sell it an keep all of the profits? Should a company be able to play the song in an advertisement without licensing it? Those are some examples of infringement.
Cheers to Mike and the Techdirt staff. As one who disagrees often with what is written and with the community, I thank you all for enriching my understanding and for the lively discourse. "We are doing what humans have always done, sharing ideas."
one user, who was paid $5,500 in rewards from 2009 to 2011, uploaded popular TV programs like 30 Rock, Friday Night Lights, and True Blood and had been subject to more than 300,000 takedown requests.
"Google's algorithm picked up the news article that E! had written."
The E online story was ran the day before. The fact that E-online story had an incorrect photo is libelous. The fact Google's algorithm picked the incorrect photo shows that the algorithm had no safeguards as to where it pulled the image. If you are suggesting that it is not possible to cross-reference images to ensure you have the right one before displaying them, I believe Google is capable of writing an algorithm to accomplish this feat.
"I suspect Google has a means of manually teaching their algorithm, but it requires that something is brought to their attention before they intervene."
I am sure you are correct. I also feel they are responsible for how their product lists information. This article implies Google (the creator of said search engine and algorithm) was powerless. His picture came up next to a story from another news source, CBS. CBS said they ran no picture with the story, so the placement of the picture next to the story was done by Google. If the wrong photos get placed next to stories then they need to work on their "algorithm."
"Google does NOT supply contact information, or a means of feedback on the search results page...."
I am sure filing suit got their attention, as they supply no contact information.
"Astonished?" "H" can't be that astonished. After all, he should at least have some idea why his photos might be appearing next to stories dealing with the other Watkins."
Sure seems like a rather cavalier attitude to have. Would you just roll with it if it happened to you? Your photo comes up in conjunction with a child molester serving 35 years. But there is nothing Google can do because it's just..., you know, computers.....they can't change the algorithm....
What's interesting is, if you do the search now, astonishingly, 10 days later, Google has somehow fixed the problem.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
Yes the band doesn't want their lyrics reproduced but you have an inherent right to do so, yes? You have a right to make a website and how dare they? The indignation, that someone who made or controls the work does what they want with it.
"Find a new artist and, in an attempt to share them with your friends and family you send them a track, or the songs so they can listen to, and possibly become fans as well? Enjoy the million dollar plus lawsuit."
If you sent a CD of you favorite band to your friends and family you would get sued? Not if you bought it. When I turn my friends and family on to new music I generally tell them the name of the group and they go look it up on Youtube. I am not sure when you were sued for millions but do tell.
"Write a song that sounds a little too much like another one, either accidentally or perhaps because your song is meant as an homage to the other song/artist? Enjoy the lawsuit."
Incredible generalization, but for the sake of argument I'll run with it. The only reason you would get sued is if there is money involved. Did you rip off the song? Was it really a accident? Are you selling it? If you heard it on the radio or you heard it before( if you had access) yup, prob gonna get sued. If it is as a homage ( a cover) the original artist shouldn't get some money when you do? Why not? Didn't they write the song? Isn't giving them some money the ultimate in homage?
"Make a review video for a game, movie, or even book, spending dozens of hours and work putting it together, before putting it on a site like YT?"
I would argue fair use, but you know what? Youtube is a commercial entity and as such they do what they want. Yes, their content ID needs to be changed .....but want to keep the money from your review, don't use any video you don't own or music that is not yours or....... license it.....I know that is an odd thought.
"Have a business and want to play the radio for your customers to listen to while they wait?"
If it is the commercial radio or Tv, you got no worries mate. Hmm, I guess you could pay for a service right? You see you are getting a commercial benefit from playing the music(customers staying and buying cause they like the music) but you don't want to pay for it, Why not?
"making illegal human nature of creativity and sharing, ."
This is always my favorite. It diminishes the works and rights of the creator because this is what we humans do, we share right? There is a fundamental difference between back in the olden days and now, capitalism.
"There's a difference between 'made because of IP law' and 'made while IP law exists'. Saying that because IP laws exists, and someone made something, that makes the creation 'due to' IP law would make just as much sense if you swapped out 'hair' with 'IP laws'."
Of course......I often feel I must voice my opinion because there is often only one flavor of Kool aid available on this site.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop.......please. Equating IP and slavery is just offensive.
"This is often used as justification for harsh punishments - since few people are ever caught those unlucky enough to get fingered have a pound of flesh demanded from them. The RIAA has been caught declaring multiple times in the past that they considered backing up your CDs as illegal."
The harsh punishments are because the statutory damages were designed for penalizing businesses and are being applied to individuals and this is wrong.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
That is just it. You don't care because it is not your profession. You are not a content creator. For some reason anyone who makes a living from the benefit of IP you don't care about. You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP, not to mention the computer you wrote this comment with.
"I want my right to freely copy."
I am tired of this statement. I have made copies of my CDs and nobody came to my house. Nor has anyone come to your house.
On the post: Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C
Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
On the post: Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has shown no mastery. The mission statement for his website was lifted verbatim from another comic book author. I find a pattern of laziness, you find it brilliant artist. He has given no credit to anyone besides himself until confronted.
On the post: Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is more to him than meets the eye."
This was taken from another comments section, on another web site, pertaining to the story, written by someone else. The function of the quotation marks is to signify this.
On the post: Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism
Re: Re:
"There is more to him than meets the eye."
If I left the quotation marks off you would assume I came up with this.
On the post: Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism
“Seemingly indifferent to the fate that awaited him – Donal Thomas continued to look obstinate in the antechamber of the execution room. A silent exchange pitted the condemned man.”
While Duteurtre wrote:
“Seemingly indifferent to the fate that awaited him, Désiré Johnson continued to look obstinate. In the antechamber of the execution room a silent exchange pitted the condemned man…”
If you think this is somehow brilliant or that he was should be celebrated because his apologies for doing this were quotes from other people without using quotation marks we obviously don't agree on brilliance. I perhaps might give him more credit if he were answering interviews like this his whole career as opposed to after being shown as a plagiarist.
On the post: The Grinch Who Stole The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights in Property
If this was the preferred and most profitable way to do business then the majority of businesses would operate in this fashion.
If you believe this is the best way for you to do business, I encourage you to tell whoever you interact with to earn a living, that they can pay you if they want to.
On the post: The Grinch Who Stole The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights in Property
That is an interesting statement, as if you were not required to so. And I guess after you already had the product, the only motivation for you to pay was because you wanted to. What of the games you did not buy? Did they cost any less to produce? Would you agree a business set up where the customer only pays when they want to would have a tenuous existence? In addition, because you paid is no guarantee anyone else did or will. Your behavior has some predictive value as to the behavior of others but only as far as those that share your same values. I
"I'm violating the anime studio's geographical distribution rights inherent to copyright. I soothe my conscience by saying that I am still paying anyway."
I think they value you as a paying customer. I agree that many geo restrictions are tiresome. As content becomes available globally, better methods must be developed. However, copyright allows a holder to stop another from commercially exploiting the work. If I write and record a song and make a CD should another company be entitled to duplicate it and sell it an keep all of the profits? Should a company be able to play the song in an advertisement without licensing it? Those are some examples of infringement.
On the post: The Grinch Who Stole The Public Domain
Re: Re: Rights in Property
"If someone steals my car, my car is lost."
I disagree. When someone infringes on a song generally they are financially exploiting it or interfering with the copyright holders ability to do so.
On the post: New Year's Message: Optimism On The Cusp Of Big Changes
Happy New Year
"We are doing what humans have always done, sharing ideas."
Happy New Year to you and yours.
On the post: New Year's Message: Optimism On The Cusp Of Big Changes
Re: Re: Re: Re: no its censoring
On the post: DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running Cloud Service
Re:
one user, who was paid $5,500 in rewards from 2009 to 2011, uploaded popular TV programs like 30 Rock, Friday Night Lights, and True Blood and had been subject to more than 300,000 takedown requests.
Interesting to see the contrast in the reporting.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails- and-financial-data/
On the post: Former Pop Star Angry At Google News For Providing Relevant Search Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes.
"Google's algorithm picked up the news article that E! had written."
The E online story was ran the day before. The fact that E-online story had an incorrect photo is libelous. The fact Google's algorithm picked the incorrect photo shows that the algorithm had no safeguards as to where it pulled the image.
If you are suggesting that it is not possible to cross-reference images to ensure you have the right one before displaying them, I believe Google is capable of writing an algorithm to accomplish this feat.
On the post: Former Pop Star Angry At Google News For Providing Relevant Search Results
Re: Re:
Don't place photos next to news stories if they are inaccurate. If the story doesn't supply a photo, don't add one.
"Should all references to "H" just be removed from the internet?"
No.
"A publisher's intention is irrelevant to the question of liability for defamation,"
"What matters is what the ordinary person would understand by what they read.
On the post: Former Pop Star Angry At Google News For Providing Relevant Search Results
Re: Re:
I am sure you are correct. I also feel they are responsible for how their product lists information. This article implies Google (the creator of said search engine and algorithm) was powerless. His picture came up next to a story from another news source, CBS. CBS said they ran no picture with the story, so the placement of the picture next to the story was done by Google. If the wrong photos get placed next to stories then they need to work on their "algorithm."
"Google does NOT supply contact information, or a means of feedback on the search results page...."
I am sure filing suit got their attention, as they supply no contact information.
On the post: Former Pop Star Angry At Google News For Providing Relevant Search Results
Sure seems like a rather cavalier attitude to have. Would you just roll with it if it happened to you? Your photo comes up in conjunction with a child molester serving 35 years. But there is nothing Google can do because it's just..., you know, computers.....they can't change the algorithm....
What's interesting is, if you do the search now, astonishingly, 10 days later, Google has somehow fixed the problem.
On the post: Judge Says That Sherlock Holmes Is In The Public Domain
Re:
Next >>