BTW what rights do i have? Since you know all about their rights enlighten use on ours.
Under the Copyright Act, section 102 gives us the right to the "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in" a copyrighted work. Only the particular expression is locked up, and even then, it's locked up for a limited time (albeit arguably too long a term). On top of that, there are all the exceptions under sections 107 through 122, most notably being fair use.
The trade-off is certain exclusive rights for a limited time to the rights holder now in exchange for the work's transition into the public domain later. In the meantime, if the work is published, we get to enjoy it now, exercising all of our rights listed above. And if it's not published, we get to enjoy it later. It's not a ridiculous deal for either party. There are in fact people incentivized to create new works in exchange for these limited rights. Examples of such are all around us. The system works. It's not the only system that could work, of course, but it does work, IMO.
I haven't read the complaint, and I don't know exactly how these things work, but I can think of two reasons for suing the site. One reason to make the site a party to the suit would be because the site is the only party who could supply information to help identify the posters who made the allegedly defamatory postings. A subpoena could be used to get the same result, but that brings up the second reason--unless the site is a party to the suit, the court cannot order the site to remove the postings that are determined to be defamatory.
Section 230 protects the site from liability, but does it also mean the site cannot be named as a party to the suit? If so, that seems to me to be a Catch-22. How else could you get the site to remove the offending material?
Re: Re: Re: This is not what corruption looks like
LOL! You're funny! I like that.
The point is that perhaps the numbers are probative of corruption, or perhaps they're not. Saying here's "what corruption looks like" is FUD because the same numbers also could be what corruption doesn't look like.
The end result is the same: Someone has a copy of something that they didn't pay the rights holder for. You can dance around the head of the pin trying to find a way out of that one, but for the consumer, the results are exactly the same.
Exactly. I feel like the only one trying to gain an advantage from the purportedly wrong conflation here is techdirt.
Looking at Black's Law Dictionary, "counterfeit" is a verb that means "to unlawfully forge, copy, or imitate an item."
Copying your favorite band's CD or copying your favorite designer's handbags would be counterfeiting under that definition.
Either way, you are violating someone's rights as they appertain to their intellectual property.
On the post: European Commission Planning New, More Draconian 'Anti-Piracy' Laws
Re: Re: Re:
Under the Copyright Act, section 102 gives us the right to the "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in" a copyrighted work. Only the particular expression is locked up, and even then, it's locked up for a limited time (albeit arguably too long a term). On top of that, there are all the exceptions under sections 107 through 122, most notably being fair use.
The trade-off is certain exclusive rights for a limited time to the rights holder now in exchange for the work's transition into the public domain later. In the meantime, if the work is published, we get to enjoy it now, exercising all of our rights listed above. And if it's not published, we get to enjoy it later. It's not a ridiculous deal for either party. There are in fact people incentivized to create new works in exchange for these limited rights. Examples of such are all around us. The system works. It's not the only system that could work, of course, but it does work, IMO.
On the post: Righthaven Moves On To Suing Message Board Posters, Rather Than Just Site Operators
Re: Law Quiz
On the post: Righthaven Moves On To Suing Message Board Posters, Rather Than Just Site Operators
On the post: Doctor Sues Website For Defamation, After Being Convicted For Hitting Diver With His Boat
Section 230 protects the site from liability, but does it also mean the site cannot be named as a party to the suit? If so, that seems to me to be a Catch-22. How else could you get the site to remove the offending material?
On the post: European Commission Planning New, More Draconian 'Anti-Piracy' Laws
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Re: Re: This is not what corruption looks like
The point is that perhaps the numbers are probative of corruption, or perhaps they're not. Saying here's "what corruption looks like" is FUD because the same numbers also could be what corruption doesn't look like.
On the post: European Commission Planning New, More Draconian 'Anti-Piracy' Laws
Re:
Exactly. I feel like the only one trying to gain an advantage from the purportedly wrong conflation here is techdirt.
Looking at Black's Law Dictionary, "counterfeit" is a verb that means "to unlawfully forge, copy, or imitate an item."
Copying your favorite band's CD or copying your favorite designer's handbags would be counterfeiting under that definition.
Either way, you are violating someone's rights as they appertain to their intellectual property.
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: This is not what corruption looks like
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re:
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't enjoy a good debate on the merits?
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice. I like that.
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re:
:)
LOL! I don't think that's it. I'm waiting for a good story to debate you on, but this one isn't it. I don't have enough Ibuprofen in the house. :)
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Re:
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Re:
Next >>