As proven by the fact that I can still read your posts by merely clicking on the text "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment," TechDirt wins. How many moderated posts can I un-hide on Trichordist, hmm?
You seem to think you are making a point, but you're just proving ours. As the article says, download the song, you play it as much as you want. The money for all 14, 140, 14 million of that person's theoretical plays is received up front. Spotify pays per actual play, so you have to wait until the plays happen to reach the same level of revenue. I fail to see what the problem is.
Sorry to nitpick, but the word used was "bovine," which means cow-like, not pig-like. It wasn't in reference to Masnick himself, but to what Maria Bustillos characterizes as Masnick's "willingness to lie down in front of the corporate bulldozer" when Masnick implies everyone should accept the reality that people pirate en masse (and thus bulldoze the pro-copyright corporations, if I understand the belabored metaphor) instead of railing against it.
Still, you're right, it's just ad hominem and hyperbole. Yes, we're "lying down in front of the piratical bulldozers" because we're "like cows". Yawn.
Offering a download button exposes streaming, user-uploaded content services to potential contributory or vicarious liability for copyright infringement when the button is used to make an unauthorized copy.
Additionally, service providers and software makers who provide a means of bypassing technological measures designed to prevent unauthorized copying (streaming tech is likely such a measure) may be liable under DMCA section 1201(b) for $200 to $2,500 "per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service."
To the extent that the RIAA had a hand in crafting the DMCA and litigating cases which support these interpretations of U.S. copyright law, Google could be said to be blocking downloads because the RIAA said so.
Lowery is one guy, but loves referring to himself as "we", doesn't he?
We think think this keep the tone of the debate more honest and civilized.
It probably does keep out the riff-raff, but by excluding anonymous commenters who make good points and engage in honest and civilized debate, I "think think this keep" the Trichordist in a state of "intellectual dishonesty", to borrow one of "their" favorite phrases.
For those who don't want to go look, on Hulu, the film is one of the titles filed under eOne.
Issuing a false takedown "in good faith" is allowed under the DMCA, but this casts serious doubt upon eOne's intentions. On Hulu, they're claiming ownership of the film, and presumably they're the ones getting paid when people watch it there. If they are hijacking the film's profits, then actual financial harm is being done and Gaylor may have grounds for a 512(f) case.
Oh, but I'm sure it's all just an honest mistake, a computer glitch or something. Gosh darn those automated processes.
The authorities? There's no legal remedy for DMCA takedown notices that are made "in good faith" but that turn out to be false. There are no "authorities" to report them to. It's not a criminal matter. Now, if you think you could convince a court that the accuser knew the claim was false at the outset, you could sue them, but since you probably weren't financially harmed by the takedown, all you'd get is attorney's fees, if you win. If you lose, you pay their fees.
I hadn't thought of it like that before. I mean, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and people who know a thing or two about ducks are calling it "duck". But you're right! People who know a thing or two about insects haven't used the word duck, so clearly, this "duck" is just some kind of squat, feathered, flat-billed, webbed-footed insect, which is nowhere near as interesting as duck. Thanks, pal!
Exactly. Cheers to Rep. Lofgren for pursuing the issue, but she really just lobbed him a soft pitch. Her long-winded backstory and rambling questions didn't put him on the hot seat at all. All she said to him was that she hoped that in the future there would be more respect for bloggers' 1st and 5th Amendment rights.
Hindsight is 50-50, but she should've recapped more tersely, with something like this, so she would've had more time to grill him: On the basis of the RIAA's mere accusation of infringement, ICE and the DOJ seized the dajaz1.com blog's domain and held it for over a year, repeatedly convincing the court to stonewall and keep everything under seal, then returned the domain without explanation. Unsealed court records reveal there was never anything more than the accusation of infringement and an unfulfilled promise by the RIAA to bring evidence of that infringement.
And then she should've called it what it was: Abuse of seizure and forfeiture power. Abuse of the legal system, using delay tactics and keeping everything under seal, in order to hide the fact that the prosecution had no evidence all along. Abuse of the legal system in order to bully an innocent blogger. And in the end, not even the slightest mea culpa and admission of error, nor any promise that it won't happen again.
This should've been followed up by very pointed questions. When Holder tried to say they were just complying with court orders, the response needed to be "but these were orders your department repeatedly insisted the court should issue, because you alleged they were crucial to the case! How dare you pretend otherwise! Who do you think you're fooling? It's right here in the court records, your department and ICE was lying, the RIAA was lying, you manipulated the court, and the end result was a denial of this blogger's 1st Amendment rights. You must respect the law, and the Constitution; even if you find a court which is willing to overlook your lack of evidence, you must have standing; you can't just take the accuser at their word. Now what, Mr. Holder, are you going to do to ensure this never happens again?"
*sigh* ... yes, things play out much differently in my mind.
Why should I bother to try to innovate anything in the world of computer tech? Seriously, why should I even try? Someone, somewhere (at least in the U.S.), always has a vague patent on something that is kinda, sorta, maybe just a little bit like whatever I could come up with, and they're going to sue the f*cking f*ck out of me if I don't hand over everything and "admit" that I "stole" their idea. There's no point anymore. The defendants in these trolling suits are unpaid employees, people who figure out how to make something viable out of an idea that happens to be vaguely similar to the one in the plaintiffs' half-baked patents that no one but lawyers have ever looked at... but it's worse, these unsuspecting employees have to pay the employer! What a racket!
The only way to stop them is to stop innovating. Seriously. Stop inventing. Let them reap what they sow.
RIAA innovate? No, they will wait for someone else to develop the technology, then they'll find a legal excuse to sue it out of existence, and then they'll wait another 5-10 years for someone else who's too big to sue to do the exact same thing, and then they'll pressure them into licensing (even if there's nothing to actually license), and that will of course precipitate years of arguing over the rates, culminating in crying to Congress that they're losing money and that piracy must be stopped.
"less revenue from music sales" — indeed, sales revenue = downloads and physical product. Prices of both have declined, and people are buying less. People are also streaming more (streaming is not sales), and people are also spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere. But, you know, pirates.
If Google were to only operate in countries where it were under no external pressure to censor the Web, it would be unavailable to 95% of the world. And if Google doesn't stand up to censorship, be it from repressive governments or the copyright industry, you think the lesser search engines will?
"Simply not making money does not give you a fair use pass."
I would've made this the very first bullet point. The incorrect notion that noncommercial use is fair use is a widely held misconception among noncommercial file-sharers, YouTube uploaders and remixers. The reality is that the "effect on the market for the work" test for fair use in U.S. copyright law is just one example of multiple factors that can be taken into account on a case-by-base basis, and has never(?) been accepted as a sole justification for use of the work. Even U.S. courts that are relatively sympathetic to the plight of noncommercial file-sharers are emphatic on this point (click).
owners of CC licenses sometimes complain that people do not honor the conditions
I'm not sure why this was mentioned. Certainly it's not a complaint limited just to owners of CC licenses! Copyright owners often complain that people do not honor the conditions of their traditional licenses: handing over money (and, increasingly, privacy), to whatever degree the owner demands.
I don't know about that last.fm example. The Michael Jackson song "Slave to the Rhythm" is, as far as I know, officially unreleased. The last.fm info page about the song wouldn't be infringing if the page was just informational, but the page was edited by a user to embed someone's YouTube video whose audio track is one of the leaked recordings of this song. In this situation, the last.fm page is infringing (at least from the copyright owner's point of view), so the DMCA notice for its Google listings is ostensibly valid.
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Copyright Maximalists Think That Lame 'Education' Campaigns Will Brainwash Children?
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs
Re:
Still, you're right, it's just ad hominem and hyperbole. Yes, we're "lying down in front of the piratical bulldozers" because we're "like cows". Yawn.
On the post: RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs
Re:
Additionally, service providers and software makers who provide a means of bypassing technological measures designed to prevent unauthorized copying (streaming tech is likely such a measure) may be liable under DMCA section 1201(b) for $200 to $2,500 "per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service."
To the extent that the RIAA had a hand in crafting the DMCA and litigating cases which support these interpretations of U.S. copyright law, Google could be said to be blocking downloads because the RIAA said so.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re:
We think think this keep the tone of the debate more honest and civilized.
It probably does keep out the riff-raff, but by excluding anonymous commenters who make good points and engage in honest and civilized debate, I "think think this keep" the Trichordist in a state of "intellectual dishonesty", to borrow one of "their" favorite phrases.
On the post: RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
On the post: RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
Re: Interesting.
For those who don't want to go look, on Hulu, the film is one of the titles filed under eOne.
Issuing a false takedown "in good faith" is allowed under the DMCA, but this casts serious doubt upon eOne's intentions. On Hulu, they're claiming ownership of the film, and presumably they're the ones getting paid when people watch it there. If they are hijacking the film's profits, then actual financial harm is being done and Gaylor may have grounds for a 512(f) case.
Oh, but I'm sure it's all just an honest mistake, a computer glitch or something. Gosh darn those automated processes.
(Attn: Gaylor—talk to a lawyer about this.)
On the post: Flickr Finally Realizes That Not All DMCA Takedowns Are Legit
Re: Re: FTFY
On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog
Re:
On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog
Re: The hot seat isn't hot enough
Hindsight is 50-50, but she should've recapped more tersely, with something like this, so she would've had more time to grill him: On the basis of the RIAA's mere accusation of infringement, ICE and the DOJ seized the dajaz1.com blog's domain and held it for over a year, repeatedly convincing the court to stonewall and keep everything under seal, then returned the domain without explanation. Unsealed court records reveal there was never anything more than the accusation of infringement and an unfulfilled promise by the RIAA to bring evidence of that infringement.
And then she should've called it what it was: Abuse of seizure and forfeiture power. Abuse of the legal system, using delay tactics and keeping everything under seal, in order to hide the fact that the prosecution had no evidence all along. Abuse of the legal system in order to bully an innocent blogger. And in the end, not even the slightest mea culpa and admission of error, nor any promise that it won't happen again.
This should've been followed up by very pointed questions. When Holder tried to say they were just complying with court orders, the response needed to be "but these were orders your department repeatedly insisted the court should issue, because you alleged they were crucial to the case! How dare you pretend otherwise! Who do you think you're fooling? It's right here in the court records, your department and ICE was lying, the RIAA was lying, you manipulated the court, and the end result was a denial of this blogger's 1st Amendment rights. You must respect the law, and the Constitution; even if you find a court which is willing to overlook your lack of evidence, you must have standing; you can't just take the accuser at their word. Now what, Mr. Holder, are you going to do to ensure this never happens again?"
*sigh* ... yes, things play out much differently in my mind.
On the post: Google Drive Barely Launched... And Google's Already Hit With Patent Infringement Lawsuit
The only way to stop them is to stop innovating. Seriously. Stop inventing. Let them reap what they sow.
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
On the post: Google Cryptically Alerts The World That It Will Nudge Chinese Searchers Away From Censorship
Re:
On the post: Myths And Realities About Fair Use
I would've made this the very first bullet point. The incorrect notion that noncommercial use is fair use is a widely held misconception among noncommercial file-sharers, YouTube uploaders and remixers. The reality is that the "effect on the market for the work" test for fair use in U.S. copyright law is just one example of multiple factors that can be taken into account on a case-by-base basis, and has never(?) been accepted as a sole justification for use of the work. Even U.S. courts that are relatively sympathetic to the plight of noncommercial file-sharers are emphatic on this point (click).
On the post: Fair Use, Public Domain And Creative Commons: They're Not All The Same
I'm not sure why this was mentioned. Certainly it's not a complaint limited just to owners of CC licenses! Copyright owners often complain that people do not honor the conditions of their traditional licenses: handing over money (and, increasingly, privacy), to whatever degree the owner demands.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Next >>