Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Apr 2011 @ 1:45pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclusive rights
They can transfer their ownership interest to a third-party.
And would that "owner" actually own the work and all rights, or would they be bound with all the limitations that RightHaven is? Doesn't sound like ownership to me.
Assuming they didn't grant Stephens Media the right to sub-license the works, they can prevent Stephens Media from sub-licensing the works.
Yeah, so when SM wants to sub-license the work, they just shoot RightHaven an email saying 'We're gonna sub-license this. Let us or we take the work back.'
They can make agreements with other parties to share in the proceeds from enforcement of their copyrights (as they did with Stephens Media).
Yeah, they can do whatever they want with their half of the money. The other half already belongs to Stephens Media.
Important for our purposes, they can bring lawsuits as they are doing here.
Yes, very important. Just that Stephens Media has veto power over any lawsuit or "enforcement" action.
Righthaven granted a right of reversion to Stephens Media, so probably not, unless there's fraud or something like that.
Interesting that you brought up fraud. That seems like a good description of RightHaven.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Apr 2011 @ 12:19pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclusive rights
Righthaven does have a genuine interest in the work. They are the title owner of it.
So, as title owner of the work, what unequivocal right does RH have? Is there some right they have that they are not contractually obligated to grant Stephens Media? Can RH decide to perform any action in regards to the work without Stephens Media having veto over? Is there some situation in which Stephens Media decided to reclaim ownership that RightHaven could conceivably fight against and prevail?
Agreed. Righthaven throws that in for leverage, IMO. It's not really about them wanting the domain name. But still, I don't see anything *legally* wrong with them throwing it in.
Aren't lawyers supposed to be held to a higher standard than what is just strictly legal? Isn't that what the various bar associations do? Hold lawyers to certain levels of professional conduct standards, and can disbar them even if they have not done anything strictly illegal?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Apr 2011 @ 8:54am
Re:
Righthaven is doing more with its ownership than just filing lawsuits. Righthaven is exercising its ownership by granting rights to its exclusive licensee, Stephens Media.
You are spreading FUD and lies, Mr. FUDBuster.
The only reason Righthaven "owns" the rights is because Stephens granted it to them with the express purpose of RH licensing those rights back to them. Here's the way it works:
1) SM creates the copyrighted content.
2) RH finds someone infringing on the copyright.
3) SM transfers the ownership of the content to RH.
4) RH transfers all rights to the content except for the right to sue back to SM.
5) RH then sues the guy infringing.
It's an interesting twist of logic from the court in a decision that I don't think will withstand appeal.
The only thing twisted here is RightHaven's blatantly obvious end-run around case law. And judges see right through it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Apr 2011 @ 11:24am
No surprise
ridiculous, ignorant arguments religious talk radio host That's wrong on so many levels
Those things always go together.
I'm amused about the Jefferson reference coming from the host, though. Jefferson was unquestionably an atheist, and because of that there's been a movement among the religious nutjobs to remove and de-emphasize him in school textbooks.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Apr 2011 @ 8:18am
Re: Re: One simple solution
First, this is all hearsay and I have not seen actual data, but this is my understanding from US elections:
The issue is not that people will necessarily change their vote, but that some statistically significant portion of west coast voters will not bother to go to the polls in some situations such as an obvious landslide election. They feel their vote doesn't matter because their candidate has already lost (or won) the presidency. And while this doesn't end up mattering to who becomes president, it can effect other races, like governors/senators/representatives.
I don't know how that translates into the Canadian election process.
All that being said, it probably is still a stupid law.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Apr 2011 @ 2:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great, so China should just be free to strip copy protection from software and spread ideas and content?
FTFY. I think you confused this discussion with some other discussion about a different subject.
You ask the question like its a bad thing. What exactly is wrong with copying good ideas? What exactly is wrong with improving on them and spreading them?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Apr 2011 @ 1:59pm
Re:
Nowhere in the FAQ is listed what preventions bitcoin has in case of mass hack/breach of the system. Open source and eyeballs doesn't guarantee ultimate security, it just means lots of eyeballs and a greater potential to catch bugs/exploits.
A hack or breach of what, exactly?
There are no servers to break into. Everyone using BitCoin has the entire transaction database already. Anyone can create multiple addresses without contacting any other system. Anyone can create single use addresses for every transaction.
Its all based on public/private keys. If something comes around that can trivially break that, there's going to be much more interesting things to worry about.
but at least I have receipts and actual cash/gold/silver that in theory one or more of the above will still hold value given a data breach or world disaster.
Why does cash have value? Only because the government that issued it says it does, and people trust that government's word (or at least think everyone else does). Once that trust is broken... I've been meaning to get a hold of some of those trillion dollar Zimbabwe bills but I keep forgetting to set aside the US$1.00 I'd need to buy a couple (includes shipping!).
Why do silver and gold have value? You really need to listen to those PlanetMoney podcasts. The short answer is because people think they have value. The concept of abstract money is effectively circular logic, but it works.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Apr 2011 @ 12:30pm
Re: Albums per person
It's measured in albums per person, and they are asserting that individuals would have continued to purchase more and more albums over time
This x1000.
Expecting people to just buy more and more albums is exactly like expecting that home prices would continue to rise indefinitely. Could someone remind me how well that worked out?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Apr 2011 @ 9:24am
Re: Re: currency
Some of the things this seems to put an end to are, currency trading, inflation, the ability of governments to tax you, and all sorts of speculative financial instuments.
Gonna disagree with these.
currency trading - I'm guessing you mean currency exchange. Instead of exchanging US Dollars for Japanese Yen, there's nothing stopping someone from trading BitCoin money for US Dollars. The only way it would happen is if everyone is using BitCoin and only BitCoin - no chance at all of that happening. One day you may be exchanging your BitCoin for PayPalBucks or GoogleDollars. Once an e-currency really succeeds, there will be plenty of competitors.
inflation - BitCoin doesn't stop inflation. Inflation just means that your money doesn't buy the same amount as it used to (simplified, I'm only an amateur economist). Inflation is a supply/demand issue - if there's more money in an economy than their use to be and the demand for a good remains the same, the price of that good will rise (inflate).
the ability of governments to tax you - Well, not really. With a truly anonymous currency, the government has no way to tax you, right? Cash is anonymous, and the government doesn't have many issues charging taxes on most cash purchases. When I pay cash for a burger, there's tax included. The business is charging me that because the government says they have to in order to operate. Government will find a way to tax you even if they can't see your transactions.
all sorts of speculative financial instuments - Nope. People invest in these in order to make money. It is based on trust - you give your money to a person or company with the expectation (or hope) that they will do something with it and give you back more than you gave them.
From what I understand someone is attempting to put together a stock market based on this "e-Currency". It is going to be ripe for manipulation and hence unworkable unless the anonymity is removed.
Both the currency and a stock market based in it will succeed or fail based on the trust people put into either. If there is manipulation, no sane investor will trust their money to it (unless they're the one doing the manipulating).
I really do hope that this does succeed. It has some serious implications that most people will not see or understand until it is to late.
I absolutely agree. I hope it succeeds. It is disruptive, and current banks and government will have to figure out a way to deal with it. I think it will change many things for the better. But governments will find a way to tax you even if you're using this - heck, if you've read Cryptonomicon, there's a whole section discussing just this very thing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:25am
Re: Re: Same for all laws that grant a monopoly
Regulatory capture is true for those industries, yes. The industries end up controlling their own regulation.
But it is clear to me that copyright and patent law is taken farther than simple regulatory capture. For lack of a better term, hyper regulatory capture.
The lawyers started by arguing the patent and copyright cases in the courts. Then advising the politicians who write laws and advising their clients/employers on the law. Then it went beyond just advising - they outright write the laws now. They run the companies and trade groups. They have their own patent court circuit with judges that used to be the patent lawyers. Copyright is heading on that same path - attempts to set up separate expedited judicial systems in regards to 3-strikes internet access cut-offs. Former copyright lawyers and lobbyists are ending up as judges.
This. Is. Crazy. We have IP laws written by IP lawyers, IP lawyers arguing cases in their own IP courts ruled over by former IP lawyers turned judges, and IP lawyers running those business involved in those cases.
No matter what level you start at, (apologies to Terry Pratchett) its IP lawyers all the down.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:44am
Re:
We don't need a bunch of idiots who ought to be in straightjackets misrepresenting us to the media!
But it works so well for:
1) RIAA/MPAA/etc
2) Political parties
3) Most major world religions
4) Anyone else belonging to a group who I haven't managed to offend yet with my list
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2011 @ 1:13pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, and the argument here is that, effectively, Righthaven and Stephens Media are contracting around the limitation noted in Silvers. By agreement, the only right Righthaven can execute is the right to sue. I don't see the problem with this though. Since ownership is being transferred, Silvers is not applicable.
So for us non-lawyers here:
Silvers vs. Sony caselaw says effectively that you can't just assign the right to sue.
What Stephens Media and Righthaven do is:
1) SM creates the copyrighted content.
2) RH finds someone infringing on the copyright.
3) SM transfers the ownership of the content to RH.
4) RH transfers all rights to the content except for the right to sue back to SM.
5) RH then sues the guy infringing.
Do you really expect a judge not to see through this?
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
Look behind you.
Farther.
Oh, maybe I need to lend you my binoculars.
See it yet?
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclusive rights
And would that "owner" actually own the work and all rights, or would they be bound with all the limitations that RightHaven is? Doesn't sound like ownership to me.
Assuming they didn't grant Stephens Media the right to sub-license the works, they can prevent Stephens Media from sub-licensing the works.
Yeah, so when SM wants to sub-license the work, they just shoot RightHaven an email saying 'We're gonna sub-license this. Let us or we take the work back.'
They can make agreements with other parties to share in the proceeds from enforcement of their copyrights (as they did with Stephens Media).
Yeah, they can do whatever they want with their half of the money. The other half already belongs to Stephens Media.
Important for our purposes, they can bring lawsuits as they are doing here.
Yes, very important. Just that Stephens Media has veto power over any lawsuit or "enforcement" action.
Righthaven granted a right of reversion to Stephens Media, so probably not, unless there's fraud or something like that.
Interesting that you brought up fraud. That seems like a good description of RightHaven.
On the post: The Infinite Loop Of Algorithmic Pricing On Amazon... Or How A Book On Flies Cost $23,698,655.93
Say it
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Exclusive rights
So, as title owner of the work, what unequivocal right does RH have? Is there some right they have that they are not contractually obligated to grant Stephens Media? Can RH decide to perform any action in regards to the work without Stephens Media having veto over? Is there some situation in which Stephens Media decided to reclaim ownership that RightHaven could conceivably fight against and prevail?
On the post: If You Can't Understand The Difference Between Money And Content, You Have No Business Commenting On Business Models
Re: Copying the argument
I bet one of them even added a line in the email chain:
'Share this with all those pirate scum to prove their[sic] wrong.'
On the post: Does Being More Vocal In Video Game Violence Debate Mean You Have The Better Argument?
Re:
Without video games you might have to go shoot some lawyers and academics in real life.
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Righthaven Defies Court, Ignores Domain Name Ruling
Aren't lawyers supposed to be held to a higher standard than what is just strictly legal? Isn't that what the various bar associations do? Hold lawyers to certain levels of professional conduct standards, and can disbar them even if they have not done anything strictly illegal?
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re:
You are spreading FUD and lies, Mr. FUDBuster.
The only reason Righthaven "owns" the rights is because Stephens granted it to them with the express purpose of RH licensing those rights back to them. Here's the way it works:
1) SM creates the copyrighted content.
2) RH finds someone infringing on the copyright.
3) SM transfers the ownership of the content to RH.
4) RH transfers all rights to the content except for the right to sue back to SM.
5) RH then sues the guy infringing.
It's an interesting twist of logic from the court in a decision that I don't think will withstand appeal.
The only thing twisted here is RightHaven's blatantly obvious end-run around case law. And judges see right through it.
On the post: The Pilgrims Would Oppose Net Neutrality?
No surprise
religious talk radio host
That's wrong on so many levels
Those things always go together.
I'm amused about the Jefferson reference coming from the host, though. Jefferson was unquestionably an atheist, and because of that there's been a movement among the religious nutjobs to remove and de-emphasize him in school textbooks.
On the post: Canadians Face Fines & Jail Time If They Tweet Election Result News Prior To West Coast Poll Closings
Re: Re: One simple solution
The issue is not that people will necessarily change their vote, but that some statistically significant portion of west coast voters will not bother to go to the polls in some situations such as an obvious landslide election. They feel their vote doesn't matter because their candidate has already lost (or won) the presidency. And while this doesn't end up mattering to who becomes president, it can effect other races, like governors/senators/representatives.
I don't know how that translates into the Canadian election process.
All that being said, it probably is still a stupid law.
On the post: MPAA Hypocrisy: We Must Protect Culture! But We're Not Interested In Protecting Culture!
Re: "When I want your [culture], I'll give it to you!"
Agree with everything you said.
Except that. Never that. It totally could not.
On the post: Congressman Complains That iPads Are Killing Jobs In The Paper Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY. I think you confused this discussion with some other discussion about a different subject.
You ask the question like its a bad thing. What exactly is wrong with copying good ideas? What exactly is wrong with improving on them and spreading them?
On the post: Can Bitcoin Really Succeed Long Term?
Re:
A hack or breach of what, exactly?
There are no servers to break into. Everyone using BitCoin has the entire transaction database already. Anyone can create multiple addresses without contacting any other system. Anyone can create single use addresses for every transaction.
Its all based on public/private keys. If something comes around that can trivially break that, there's going to be much more interesting things to worry about.
but at least I have receipts and actual cash/gold/silver that in theory one or more of the above will still hold value given a data breach or world disaster.
Why does cash have value? Only because the government that issued it says it does, and people trust that government's word (or at least think everyone else does). Once that trust is broken... I've been meaning to get a hold of some of those trillion dollar Zimbabwe bills but I keep forgetting to set aside the US$1.00 I'd need to buy a couple (includes shipping!).
Why do silver and gold have value? You really need to listen to those PlanetMoney podcasts. The short answer is because people think they have value. The concept of abstract money is effectively circular logic, but it works.
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Re: Re: What's the data based on?
There's a surprise. Pretty chart with no actual evidence backing it up sounds like standard operating procedure for them.
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Re: Albums per person
This x1000.
Expecting people to just buy more and more albums is exactly like expecting that home prices would continue to rise indefinitely. Could someone remind me how well that worked out?
On the post: Can Bitcoin Really Succeed Long Term?
Re: Re: currency
Gonna disagree with these.
currency trading - I'm guessing you mean currency exchange. Instead of exchanging US Dollars for Japanese Yen, there's nothing stopping someone from trading BitCoin money for US Dollars. The only way it would happen is if everyone is using BitCoin and only BitCoin - no chance at all of that happening. One day you may be exchanging your BitCoin for PayPalBucks or GoogleDollars. Once an e-currency really succeeds, there will be plenty of competitors.
inflation - BitCoin doesn't stop inflation. Inflation just means that your money doesn't buy the same amount as it used to (simplified, I'm only an amateur economist). Inflation is a supply/demand issue - if there's more money in an economy than their use to be and the demand for a good remains the same, the price of that good will rise (inflate).
the ability of governments to tax you - Well, not really. With a truly anonymous currency, the government has no way to tax you, right? Cash is anonymous, and the government doesn't have many issues charging taxes on most cash purchases. When I pay cash for a burger, there's tax included. The business is charging me that because the government says they have to in order to operate. Government will find a way to tax you even if they can't see your transactions.
all sorts of speculative financial instuments - Nope. People invest in these in order to make money. It is based on trust - you give your money to a person or company with the expectation (or hope) that they will do something with it and give you back more than you gave them.
From what I understand someone is attempting to put together a stock market based on this "e-Currency". It is going to be ripe for manipulation and hence unworkable unless the anonymity is removed.
Both the currency and a stock market based in it will succeed or fail based on the trust people put into either. If there is manipulation, no sane investor will trust their money to it (unless they're the one doing the manipulating).
I really do hope that this does succeed. It has some serious implications that most people will not see or understand until it is to late.
I absolutely agree. I hope it succeeds. It is disruptive, and current banks and government will have to figure out a way to deal with it. I think it will change many things for the better. But governments will find a way to tax you even if you're using this - heck, if you've read Cryptonomicon, there's a whole section discussing just this very thing.
On the post: Newspaper Sued For Defaming Judge Over Defamation Ruling
Incoming...
On the post: Why Do We Let Those Who Benefit Most From Monopolies Write The Laws That Grant Them?
Re: Re: Same for all laws that grant a monopoly
But it is clear to me that copyright and patent law is taken farther than simple regulatory capture. For lack of a better term, hyper regulatory capture.
The lawyers started by arguing the patent and copyright cases in the courts. Then advising the politicians who write laws and advising their clients/employers on the law. Then it went beyond just advising - they outright write the laws now. They run the companies and trade groups. They have their own patent court circuit with judges that used to be the patent lawyers. Copyright is heading on that same path - attempts to set up separate expedited judicial systems in regards to 3-strikes internet access cut-offs. Former copyright lawyers and lobbyists are ending up as judges.
This. Is. Crazy. We have IP laws written by IP lawyers, IP lawyers arguing cases in their own IP courts ruled over by former IP lawyers turned judges, and IP lawyers running those business involved in those cases.
No matter what level you start at, (apologies to Terry Pratchett) its IP lawyers all the down.
On the post: The Pirate Party Not Pirate-y Enough For You? Maybe You Need Kopimism, The Official Pirate Religion
Re:
But it works so well for:
1) RIAA/MPAA/etc
2) Political parties
3) Most major world religions
4) Anyone else belonging to a group who I haven't managed to offend yet with my list
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So for us non-lawyers here:
Silvers vs. Sony caselaw says effectively that you can't just assign the right to sue.
What Stephens Media and Righthaven do is:
1) SM creates the copyrighted content.
2) RH finds someone infringing on the copyright.
3) SM transfers the ownership of the content to RH.
4) RH transfers all rights to the content except for the right to sue back to SM.
5) RH then sues the guy infringing.
Do you really expect a judge not to see through this?
Next >>