If later works using the same characters aren't derivative of the first work, then wouldn't that mean that later works not written by Doyle aren't violating the estate's exclusive right in derivative works?
Us highly-professional, highly-trained U.S. librarians can't keep WorldCat metadata straight all the time; who the hell's going to put together an accurate whitelist of anything anywhere?
Ditto the above. In this context, it means that it cannot be persuaded not to be led to the conclusion. More damningly, the "despite the fact" in the next sentence clearly places the two at odds, which makes no sense if "inexorably" constitutes negation rather than emphasis.
[T]he Court is inexorably led to the conclusion that the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States [...] despite the fact that the NSA knows with certainty that upstream collection, viewed as a whole, results in the acquisition of wholly domestic communications.
If you suspect that many people, either (a) you're mostly right and can't be trusted with sensitive information or (b) you're wrong and shouldn't be trusted with automated threat analysis.
Usually I don't bother questioning forms of thin copyright. Having a theoretical right isn't always the same as it being polite to use it, though, and the secondary liability problem is insurmountable either way.
Here's my two theoreticals:
Collage artists and the like vs playlists: where do you draw the copyright line for assembling existing materials into a creative whole? Why is one a copyrightable assemblage and the other not?
Playlists vs very similar playlists: Could I get around this by inserting Prince's "Segue" (four seconds of silence) into a playlist? If not, where do you draw the line for infringing similarity?
Looking at those, I think I'll stick with playlists being copyrightable but only if identical. And then tell MoS that they're being asses.
Someone keeps confusing "We have reached out to" for "We have responded to." You cannot be reaching out to someone who has already made contact with you directly.
I'd be a bit more convinced if "selector" wasn't common jargon for any term that selects a subset of a pool of potentially responsive nodes. (For example, in CSS. Or jQuery. Or a million other languages.) Any term used to search or filter a data stream or database could be properly referred to as a selector.
Analyzing their font and measuring the length of the redaction would provide better data. In fact, my eyeball guess is that the redaction could very well be PRISM, and it's a little short for many of the other program names we know about. But that's got nothing to do with the use of the word "selector."
If the order included production of evidence stored on their servers and he destroyed that evidence in shutting down the service, that's an offense. I'm not sure if that's still true if the order was illegal. And if it was legal, I'm not 100% opposed to civil disobedience (although you would expect the consequences if you knew that was what you were doing).
On othe other hand, I'm guessing that you can't destroy evidence that doesn't exist, so a purely prospective order doesn't have the same concerns attached to it. I could believe the U.S. Attorney's Office bullying someone without legal grounds, though.
M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:30am
Re: There is a difference, surely ?
Exactly! It's not a search of your email when they just store it; it's only a search when they use a keyword search to figure out something about you. Shall you tell the NSA or shall I?
I somehow doubt that American Buddha was operating in a manner consistent with the normal practices and ethics of the library profession regarding ebooks.* Thus it would be my presumption, should they fail to present evidence to the contrary, that they were doing this in a manner which went beyond the bounds of Fair Use or §108 protections (e.g., posting full ebooks online without any access restrictions). If that's the case, this can be decided without any implications for the wider library and archive community for the simple reason that the facts are so wildly different as to be easily distinguishable.
That being said, the complaint by Penguin does not give us a lot of details as to why they believe the relevant limitations and defenses do not apply. They will have to stop being so vague at some point, but for now, there's this:
27. The exemption from liability for copyright infringement under Section 108 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 108, does not apply to "virtual-only" libraries and archives, i.e., those that do not conduct their operations through physical premises.
Say what?!? I just re-read 108 to check, and a physical presence is nowhere to be found in the requirements. If this is an established aspect of statutory or case law, it is not one with which I am familiar, and I'm a librarian specializing in these sorts of legal issues. More suspiciously, if American Buddha has truly screwed up, Penguin shouldn't need to throw out a legal theory like this to expose them; I find it entirely likely that they weren't in compliance with the requirements of §108 to begin with, not that they were but were magically exempted from its protections due to lack of physical premises. In my mind, this is the part that bears watching.
*If they had been, they probably wouldn't have gotten sued. Also, I generally don't credit a Carreon with brains. Or ethics.
"[...] and Pandora noted that its online competitors, such as iHeartRadio -- which is owned by ClearChannel, the largest owners of terrestrial radio stations in the US."
Umm. I feel like I'm missing a verb in here. This is a very long noun phrase with lots of nested parentheticals.
M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 20 Jul 2013 @ 10:05pm
Has he never heard of Marbury v. Madison? Even the argument that something can be protected by the legislative branch rather presupposes legislation, and legislation is inherently reviewable for constitutionality by the courts. Q.E.D.
Wait, if that's the Game of Thrones takedown list, why is the item immediately above VLC clearly a copy of Evil Dead? (Other than the obvious fact that these people are idiots, that is.)
On the post: Conan Doyle Estate Is Horrified That The Public Domain Might Create 'Multiple Personalities' Of Sherlock Holmes
On the post: Russia's Latest Idea: An Internet Whitelist For Copyright Materials
On the post: Nebraska Attorney General Sued For Trying To Stop Patent Troll
On the post: The NSA Didn't Actually Address All Of The FISA Court's Concerns, Contrary To What It Claims
Re: Inexorably
On the post: Would You Trust Any Organization That Doesn't Trust 4,000 Of Its Employees? What If It's The NSA?
On the post: Label Sues Spotify Because Some Of Its Users Create Playlists Of Authorized Music In The Same Order It Did
Here's my two theoreticals:
Collage artists and the like vs playlists: where do you draw the copyright line for assembling existing materials into a creative whole? Why is one a copyrightable assemblage and the other not?
Playlists vs very similar playlists: Could I get around this by inserting Prince's "Segue" (four seconds of silence) into a playlist? If not, where do you draw the line for infringing similarity?
Looking at those, I think I'll stick with playlists being copyrightable but only if identical. And then tell MoS that they're being asses.
On the post: Insanity: PayPal Freezes Mailpile's Account, Demands Excessive Info To Get Access
On the post: Court Says You Can Be Liable For Merely Sending A Text Message To Someone Who's Driving
[Law enforcement take note: /sarcasm]
On the post: Banker Pleads Guilty To Using Bailout Money To Buy Himself A Luxury Condo
Well, consider it trotted.
On the post: Did New Zealand Spooks Tap Into PRISM To Spy On Dotcom?
Selectors
Analyzing their font and measuring the length of the redaction would provide better data. In fact, my eyeball guess is that the redaction could very well be PRISM, and it's a little short for many of the other program names we know about. But that's got nothing to do with the use of the word "selector."
On the post: Feds Threaten To Arrest Lavabit Founder For Shutting Down His Service
On othe other hand, I'm guessing that you can't destroy evidence that doesn't exist, so a purely prospective order doesn't have the same concerns attached to it. I could believe the U.S. Attorney's Office bullying someone without legal grounds, though.
On the post: Senator Leahy Calls For More Surveillance Hearings, This Time With 'Honest Answers'
On the post: Press Suckered By Anti-Google Group's Bogus Claim That Gmail Users Can't Expect Privacy
Re:
On the post: Press Suckered By Anti-Google Group's Bogus Claim That Gmail Users Can't Expect Privacy
I reported the article to the ombudsman for really bad reporting, of course.
On the post: Press Suckered By Anti-Google Group's Bogus Claim That Gmail Users Can't Expect Privacy
Re: There is a difference, surely ?
On the post: Loophole Shows That, Yes, NSA Has 'Authority' To Spy On Americans -- Directly In Contrast With Public Statements
On the post: Charles Carreon Having Some Difficulties Trying To Represent His Wife In Court Over Copyright Infringement Claims
That being said, the complaint by Penguin does not give us a lot of details as to why they believe the relevant limitations and defenses do not apply. They will have to stop being so vague at some point, but for now, there's this:
Say what?!? I just re-read 108 to check, and a physical presence is nowhere to be found in the requirements. If this is an established aspect of statutory or case law, it is not one with which I am familiar, and I'm a librarian specializing in these sorts of legal issues. More suspiciously, if American Buddha has truly screwed up, Penguin shouldn't need to throw out a legal theory like this to expose them; I find it entirely likely that they weren't in compliance with the requirements of §108 to begin with, not that they were but were magically exempted from its protections due to lack of physical premises. In my mind, this is the part that bears watching.
*If they had been, they probably wouldn't have gotten sued. Also, I generally don't credit a Carreon with brains. Or ethics.
On the post: ASCAP Asks FCC To Block Pandora From Buying Radio Station, Because ASCAP Doesn't Like Pandora
Umm. I feel like I'm missing a verb in here. This is a very long noun phrase with lots of nested parentheticals.
On the post: DOJ: Some Constitutional Rights Can't Be Tested In Courts, Like Our Ability To Kill You With A Drone
On the post: HBO's Latest DMCA Abuse: Issues Takedown To Google Over Popular VLC Media Player
Next >>