The student's use of the theme song is clearly an infringement of the copyright in the Fresh Prince theme song. Even if he wasn't planning to shoot up the school, he still should have been locked up for this outrageous affront to the moral standards held by all hardworking recording industry shills.
Try as I might, I just can't understand how the proponents of free software and CC licensed content rationalize their positions. I know what it sounds like they're saying, but I just can't believe they're actually saying it. Are they really saying that no one should be able to give away their work for free or pursue alternative business models? If I write a song (or a computer program) in my basement tonight, are they actually advocating that I should be required to charge a fee for it? I don't really consider myself a "content creator", but even I've put out a few small scripts and programs that I thought might be useful to others.
If your business model depends on proving a certain product, when other people are willing to provide a similar product of equal or better quality for free, then you need a new business model. Or you need to be pushing a product that's better than the free stuff. But telling creators "you aren't allowed to share your work unless you charge for it" isn't an adequate solution.
I interpret your summary to be that a lawyer has to take bad cases because it's their job. If I understand that, allow to me to reword to express the lack of morality:
Lawyers lack the heart to turn down a paycheck and refuse a bad case.
For better or worse, the legal profession still embraces the notion (to a certain extent) that everyone deserves their day in court. For most people, lawyers are the gateway through which they will get that day. For this reason, ethical and moral guidelines published for lawyers sometimes
state that lawyers should be hesitant to refuse to represent someone simply because they believe that person will lose.
As someone else pointed out, of course there is a point where the case is completely baseless and frivolous and at that point the lawyer should refuse to represent that client, or they risk being sanctioned by the court and damaging their reputation.
But in less extreme situations: Yes, the lawyer is sometimes expected to file the case because that's what the client wants and it's their job. Though it's not just because they want a paycheck. If a lawyer refuses to file simply because they think a case will lose, and not because it's completely frivolous, the lawyer is usurping the judges role.
I often feel that I need to defend lawyers on here. Sometimes awful pleadings are the result of a client who insists on filing a lawsuit even after being advised by their lawyer that they don't have a case. This leaves the lawyer with two options: file the best pleading they can, which involves making some pretty creative arguments since they have nothing to work with. Or they can refuse to represent the client. This second option sounds like it should obviously be the ethical option, but some clients will then go on to file the lawsuit anyway, and represent themselves. Nothing is more frustrating and time consuming than dealing with a determined and misguided self represented litigant. Sure, it would be best if this lawsuit didn't get filed at all, but letting the client try and do it on their own is sometimes the worst case for everyone involved.
In this situation however, it sounds like these lawyers are both sleazy and lazy and deserve everything they got, and more. I wonder if Ms. Ovadia or her partner ever worked at a law firm under the supervision of other, more experienced lawyers, or if they just passed their bar exams and struck out on their own.
In addition to implying that they're a law enforcement agency themselves, they are also offering to accept money in exchange for not reporting a crime to other law enforcement agencies. Anyone know if the US places any criminal sanctions on that kind of activity?
First, I'm curious as to what he thinks would happen if we just shut down all the libraries. Does he think everyone would then go to the bookstore to buy books? He is right, times have changed since the Victorian era, but not in the way he thinks.
Look at the prevailing trend. People rent out their apartments on AirBnB, their couches on CouchSurfer, their car through RelayRides, and all manner of other things through any number of other website. Wired was talking about this over two years ago in an article called "Rentalship is the New Ownership": http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/rentalship-the-new-ownership/. The Internet has made de-centralization not just possible but easy. If all the libraries just disappeared, how long until a book-sharing web site popped up? When you join, you submit a list of books you own, and when you're looking for a book it will tell you who else in your area has that book and is willing to lend it to you. BookCrossing is already doing something similar to this. If libraries shut down, people wouldn't flock to bookstores; they'd find a new way to borrow and share books.
Libraries provide many services beyond just the simple ability to borrow a book for free. All of these benefits would be lost if they were shut down, and it still wouldn't achieve the result Terry Deary wants to achieve.
Second: about a year ago I took "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business, And How The Culture Business Can Fight Back" by Robert Levine out from the library, just to see what he had to say. Trying to be funny, I sent him a snarky tweet asking if taking the book out from the library instead of buying it made me an "analog pirate". He responded to tell me that most authors supported libraries, because libraries buy books. So congrats Mr. Deary, even a guy who thought it was reasonable to include the words "digital parasites" in the title of his book thinks you're too far out there.
Aww. Don't worry Germany, here in Canada we've been on the 301 watch list for years (even after we instituted some of the most draconian digital lock laws in the world). We've managed to make our time here quite comfortable. We've got a couch and a beanbag chair, and Spain is going to bring in a modded Xbox so we can all play pirated games.
To me the most frustrating aspect of this story isn't really a copyright issue at all: it's the rhetoric being used by US representatives and copyright holders to make it sound as if they have been acting in good faith, and it's the Antiguans who aren't playing fair. For instance, you hear the US representatives talk about how Antigua's actions jeopardize "productive settlement negotiations".
What settlement? The US was found in violation of their treaty obligations by the WTO, and that violation is costing Antigua $21M a year. The US talking about settlement negotiations makes it sound as if there is something left to argue about. There isn't. There's nothing to "settle" here. The dispute is over and the US lost. They refuse to pay the money, so Antigua is finding a way to get the money.
There's nothing to negotiate here. If the US doesn't want Antigua to do this, they can pay what they owe. And if the copyright holders don't like Antigua's plan, they can pressure the US government to pay what they owe.
This whole thing stems from the US refusal to pay what they owe, but they try to spin it like somehow, it's Antigua's fault.
Part of the problem is, for every person concerned about prosecutorial overreach, there's three people ready to howl their guts out if an alleged criminal receives what they perceive to be a too-light sentence. No one ever won an election by being the "soft on crime" candidate.
I'm still at a loss as to why the UK feels that it has any jurisdiction whatsoever concerning copyrights outside of its borders, but I fear that we're going to see a lot of unfortunate lawsuits because of this.
I suspect if you read the actual judgement, there will be a long discussion where the courts points out exactly why they feel they have power to apply foreign laws, probably involving interpreting whatever laws govern what powers the UK courts have, with some clauses from international treaties.
Ultimately, it's the UK courts and UK legislators who have to decide whether courts there can enforce foreign laws, not the country who's laws are being enforced. Of course, their ability to ENFORCE the judgement against a defendant who isn't based in the UK isn't enhanced in any way. If a successful plaintiff wants to recover from a US-based defendant who has no assets in the UK, they're still going to have to convince a US court to enforce the UK judgement.
Maybe someone better acquainted with how US courts decide whether to enforce foreign judgements can shed some light on whether or not this is likely to actually happen.
They would have to bring it in the US if they wanted it to matter against us.
True, there's a difference between what the law is, and whether or not it actually affects you. But a lot of the argument in the comments isn't over "what copyright law applies to Techdirt", it's over what copyright law does and does not allow, with no clarification that it's only US law being discussed.
Don't assume that just because I'm in the US, I did not research the UK side.
I never made any assumptions about what you researched. I know you look at UK and Indonesian law, I saw your previous posts. My comment was not directed specifically at you. There have been endless discussions in the comments over whether or not Slater's creative input was enough to justify a copyright claim over the pictures. I just wanted to point out that this depends on who's standards you're following.
I would be careful about relying too heavily on the "fair use" argument. When most people think "fair use", they're thinking of fair use as it exists in US copyright law. I'm not sure what, if any, similar provisions the UK or Indonesia have in their laws, but I wouldn't just assume it's as permissive as what the US has. If any litigation did arise from this, there's no guarantee it would be in the US courts or under US law.
Where this was litigated would also affect the question of how much creative input Mr. Slater had to put into the picture to claim copyright over it. The UK has mostly followed what's known as the "sweat of the brow" approach - if you put work and effort into the creation of something, then you can claim copyright in it. The standard in the US is higher - they require more creativity and originality before you can claim copyright.
As a UK paper, the Metro almost certainly consulted UK copyright "experts", who would follow the UK approach.
Even if there were a copyright on the pictures (and there's not), Mike's use is fair. He isn't going to "go broke" unless sending the words "LOL! No." back to Caters is somehow prohibitively expensive now.
Sadly, if someone brings a lawsuit against you for copyright infringement, even if the lawsuit is totally baseless, you can't just write back with "LOL no". You're going to have to provide SOME sort of legal defense and file some documents with the court, and chances are you're going to want a lawyer's help with that. And that's going to cost money.
This is why so many lawsuits settle. Sometimes winning is more expensive than settling.
Without disputing that the CRTC is useless at policing these regulations, I'd say that relying on the free market to sort things out would fail even worse. The Internet access industry isn't like other industries. There is a HUGE barrier to entry: at some point, you have to run some sort of cable to the consumers home (unless you're talking about wireless access, which Geist wasn't). Running these tables is obviously a massively expense undertaking. And do we really want/need a different cable going into our homes for every Internet access provider? Say I hate my ISP and want to change. I call up one of their competitors and they tell me "Sure, but you have to wait a year while we dig up your neighborhood to run a cable to your house". Is that really "competition"?
So instead, we have a system where independent ISPs basically just resell bandwidth that they buy from the telcos and cable companies, using the cables that already exist. This gives the telcos and cable companies a lot of power to limit any new competition either by pricing this bandwidth ridiculously high, or by shaping the traffic flowing upstream from the independent, which affects the service the independent can offer to their customers.
Without some form of regulation, if the telcos and cable companies decide they want to traffic shape, then there's nothing the independents can do about it. No new competitor can just pop up and start offering non-shaped access. It's a situation where we need regulation in order to promote competition.
The CRTC complaint system sucks for two reasons. First, it doesn't prohibit traffic shaping, it just says the ISPs have to disclose that they do it. So the solution to many complaints is "Oh, there was inadequate disclosure. The ISp doesn't have to stop doing it, they just have to be better at disclosing it".
Secondly, it puts the burden of filing complaints on the consumer, then requires them to provide evidence. The average consumer isn't capable of obtaining and providing evidence sufficient to satisfy the CRTC. So you see complaints which consist of nothing more than "My internet access is slow", which the CRTC dismisses for lack of evidence.
On the post: Misheard Will Smith Lyrics Results In Arrest Of Student And District-Wide Lockdown
On the post: French Politicians Worry That Free Creative Commons Works Devalue 'Legal' Offers
Re:
On the post: French Politicians Worry That Free Creative Commons Works Devalue 'Legal' Offers
If your business model depends on proving a certain product, when other people are willing to provide a similar product of equal or better quality for free, then you need a new business model. Or you need to be pushing a product that's better than the free stuff. But telling creators "you aren't allowed to share your work unless you charge for it" isn't an adequate solution.
On the post: Judge: Mocking Lindsay Lohan Is Allowed; Plagiarizing A Court Filing, Not So Much
Re: Re:
Lawyers lack the heart to turn down a paycheck and refuse a bad case.
For better or worse, the legal profession still embraces the notion (to a certain extent) that everyone deserves their day in court. For most people, lawyers are the gateway through which they will get that day. For this reason, ethical and moral guidelines published for lawyers sometimes
state that lawyers should be hesitant to refuse to represent someone simply because they believe that person will lose.
As someone else pointed out, of course there is a point where the case is completely baseless and frivolous and at that point the lawyer should refuse to represent that client, or they risk being sanctioned by the court and damaging their reputation.
But in less extreme situations: Yes, the lawyer is sometimes expected to file the case because that's what the client wants and it's their job. Though it's not just because they want a paycheck. If a lawyer refuses to file simply because they think a case will lose, and not because it's completely frivolous, the lawyer is usurping the judges role.
On the post: Judge: Mocking Lindsay Lohan Is Allowed; Plagiarizing A Court Filing, Not So Much
In this situation however, it sounds like these lawyers are both sleazy and lazy and deserve everything they got, and more. I wonder if Ms. Ovadia or her partner ever worked at a law firm under the supervision of other, more experienced lawyers, or if they just passed their bar exams and struck out on their own.
On the post: Pure Scamming Copyright Troll Implies It's A Gov't Agency And That You Will Face Jail Time If You Don't Pay Up
On the post: Bestselling Author Of Children's Books Accuses Public Libraries Of Stealing His Paychecks
Look at the prevailing trend. People rent out their apartments on AirBnB, their couches on CouchSurfer, their car through RelayRides, and all manner of other things through any number of other website. Wired was talking about this over two years ago in an article called "Rentalship is the New Ownership": http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/rentalship-the-new-ownership/. The Internet has made de-centralization not just possible but easy. If all the libraries just disappeared, how long until a book-sharing web site popped up? When you join, you submit a list of books you own, and when you're looking for a book it will tell you who else in your area has that book and is willing to lend it to you. BookCrossing is already doing something similar to this. If libraries shut down, people wouldn't flock to bookstores; they'd find a new way to borrow and share books.
Libraries provide many services beyond just the simple ability to borrow a book for free. All of these benefits would be lost if they were shut down, and it still wouldn't achieve the result Terry Deary wants to achieve.
Second: about a year ago I took "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business, And How The Culture Business Can Fight Back" by Robert Levine out from the library, just to see what he had to say. Trying to be funny, I sent him a snarky tweet asking if taking the book out from the library instead of buying it made me an "analog pirate". He responded to tell me that most authors supported libraries, because libraries buy books. So congrats Mr. Deary, even a guy who thought it was reasonable to include the words "digital parasites" in the title of his book thinks you're too far out there.
On the post: CCIA Argues Germany Should Be On The 'Naughty' Special 301 List For Attacking Fair Use
On the post: Copyright Alliance Invents New History (And New Meanings For 'Big' And 'Little') To Condemn Antigua
What settlement? The US was found in violation of their treaty obligations by the WTO, and that violation is costing Antigua $21M a year. The US talking about settlement negotiations makes it sound as if there is something left to argue about. There isn't. There's nothing to "settle" here. The dispute is over and the US lost. They refuse to pay the money, so Antigua is finding a way to get the money.
There's nothing to negotiate here. If the US doesn't want Antigua to do this, they can pay what they owe. And if the copyright holders don't like Antigua's plan, they can pressure the US government to pay what they owe.
This whole thing stems from the US refusal to pay what they owe, but they try to spin it like somehow, it's Antigua's fault.
On the post: Aaron Swartz's Death Leads To Public Attention Towards Prosecutorial Overreach
On the post: Forget The Stormtrooper Costumes, Get Worried About UK Courts Saying They Can Judge US Copyright Law
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0015_Judgment.pdf
On the post: Forget The Stormtrooper Costumes, Get Worried About UK Courts Saying They Can Judge US Copyright Law
I suspect if you read the actual judgement, there will be a long discussion where the courts points out exactly why they feel they have power to apply foreign laws, probably involving interpreting whatever laws govern what powers the UK courts have, with some clauses from international treaties.
Ultimately, it's the UK courts and UK legislators who have to decide whether courts there can enforce foreign laws, not the country who's laws are being enforced. Of course, their ability to ENFORCE the judgement against a defendant who isn't based in the UK isn't enhanced in any way. If a successful plaintiff wants to recover from a US-based defendant who has no assets in the UK, they're still going to have to convince a US court to enforce the UK judgement.
Maybe someone better acquainted with how US courts decide whether to enforce foreign judgements can shed some light on whether or not this is likely to actually happen.
On the post: Idea/Expression Dichotomy Is Dead; Judge Allows Photographer's Lawsuit Against Rihanna To Move Forward
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=120
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re:
True, there's a difference between what the law is, and whether or not it actually affects you. But a lot of the argument in the comments isn't over "what copyright law applies to Techdirt", it's over what copyright law does and does not allow, with no clarification that it's only US law being discussed.
Don't assume that just because I'm in the US, I did not research the UK side.
I never made any assumptions about what you researched. I know you look at UK and Indonesian law, I saw your previous posts. My comment was not directed specifically at you. There have been endless discussions in the comments over whether or not Slater's creative input was enough to justify a copyright claim over the pictures. I just wanted to point out that this depends on who's standards you're following.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Where this was litigated would also affect the question of how much creative input Mr. Slater had to put into the picture to claim copyright over it. The UK has mostly followed what's known as the "sweat of the brow" approach - if you put work and effort into the creation of something, then you can claim copyright in it. The standard in the US is higher - they require more creativity and originality before you can claim copyright.
As a UK paper, the Metro almost certainly consulted UK copyright "experts", who would follow the UK approach.
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, if someone brings a lawsuit against you for copyright infringement, even if the lawsuit is totally baseless, you can't just write back with "LOL no". You're going to have to provide SOME sort of legal defense and file some documents with the court, and chances are you're going to want a lawyer's help with that. And that's going to cost money.
This is why so many lawsuits settle. Sometimes winning is more expensive than settling.
On the post: Canada's Failure To Actually Enforce Its Net Neutrality Rules Shows Why Focusing On Regulation Is Missing The Point
So instead, we have a system where independent ISPs basically just resell bandwidth that they buy from the telcos and cable companies, using the cables that already exist. This gives the telcos and cable companies a lot of power to limit any new competition either by pricing this bandwidth ridiculously high, or by shaping the traffic flowing upstream from the independent, which affects the service the independent can offer to their customers.
Without some form of regulation, if the telcos and cable companies decide they want to traffic shape, then there's nothing the independents can do about it. No new competitor can just pop up and start offering non-shaped access. It's a situation where we need regulation in order to promote competition.
The CRTC complaint system sucks for two reasons. First, it doesn't prohibit traffic shaping, it just says the ISPs have to disclose that they do it. So the solution to many complaints is "Oh, there was inadequate disclosure. The ISp doesn't have to stop doing it, they just have to be better at disclosing it".
Secondly, it puts the burden of filing complaints on the consumer, then requires them to provide evidence. The average consumer isn't capable of obtaining and providing evidence sufficient to satisfy the CRTC. So you see complaints which consist of nothing more than "My internet access is slow", which the CRTC dismisses for lack of evidence.
Next >>