The notices are all "directed at" just one site, Google, to get it to delist allegedly infringing sites. Often, those sites do host, embed, or link to unauthorized content, so the notices for those sites are ostensibly valid. But the article is highlighting two other situations for which the notices are arguably invalid: 1. sites which host/embed/link to authorized content, and 2. sites which don't host/embed/link to any content owned by the copyright owner, but rather just contain certain keyword combos. No claim was made that all of the notices are for #1; examples are given for both, with many more for #2 than for #1.
Asking for stats is fine; it'd be interesting to see what percentage of the invalid notices are for authorized content, and what percentage of all notices are invalid. But your mischaracterization of the article seems to suggest that you were actually asking a rhetorical question, trying desperately to cast doubt on the notion that the copyright owners and their agents are, at times, quite reckless in their methods, in ways that waste time & money and that ultimately limit people's access to non-infringing content.
Re: WHY IS NONE EVER SUED INTO OBLIVION FOR THIS BEHAVIOR??
It's difficult to argue that you were harmed when a video someone uploaded to YouTube was blocked, especially if the video is itself pirated. Just as importantly, to claim damages under 512(f), the party issuing the bogus takedown must also be shown to have "knowingly" issued the takedown, i.e. they actually knew they didn't own copyright, or should've known with reasonable care or diligence, or would've had no doubt when acting in good faith. We can say that AVG should've performed a cursory check that the link purporting to be for their software wasn't actually a Rickroll, but AVG would counter that 99.999% of the time the links are what they say they are, so they had no doubt, thus aren't liable for the few mistakes here and there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
I suppose more succinctly, I could've said "artists who fail to instill a sense of value in buyers of their art do indeed deserve to struggle to sell that art, or to 'work for free', as you put it."
Although he focused on copyright being an unnecessary part of the process, Jay implied that the Kickstarter model is giving fans a sense of value and investment that they don't get in the traditional processes, and he implied that the major labels should have this kind of transparency. I believe the AC's reply, hyperbole aside, is rhetorically asking "if people are supporting these Kickstarter artists because they approve of how the money is being spent, then doesn't it follow that artists/labels/etc. who don't disclose such things are being deemed undeserving of such support?"
...to which the answer is a big shrug. Creating a sense of value and investment in the mind of the consumer is always a challenge. One way to go about it is playing out on Kickstarter, with artists like Amanda Palmer basically putting a detailed business plan up for consideration, establishing a forthright brand, and making overtures to connect with fans, not just treating them as suckers or potential adversaries. It seems to be working rather well; people like this new paradigm.
Does it follow that any other approach to marketing will fail? Of course not; it only means there's competition—suddenly the more opaque methods of marketing don't seem to have as much appeal to consumers. Anonymous Coward, if you want to interpret this as "consumers increasingly shun artists who use traditional marketing, and embrace those who are relatively transparent and direct," you certainly can. If you want to characterize it as "you people say artists who don't disclose expenses should work for free," then you imply that you think people shouldn't be more supportive artists who successfully foster a greater sense of value in the minds of consumers. That makes you sound like an idiot, frankly, someone with sour grapes because people are choosing to spend their money in ways that don't benefit you.
Artists have a wide variety of opinions, and many of those opinions change over time. It is easy to find examples of artists on each side, as well as many who have mixed feelings. You can't win an argument about artists in general if you're selectively quoting the ones that seem to be on your side. So, your response was pointless.
The similarity to Colbert's 2010 appearance before Congress was my thought, as well. Clearly the 1906 testimony was a tongue-in-cheek performance by the Mark Twain character. I think Masnick is attempting some satire of his own, here, absurdly characterizing Twain as a possible copyright maximalist, knowing full well (and demonstrating with some humorous quotes) that the esteemed literary figure was unlikely to hold such extreme views.
[i]Paul's Boutique[/i] shows up in a lot of third-party anecdotes about being "unreleasable today" but I have yet to see any quotes to that effect coming from the record companies. to the contrary, Capitol released a 20th Anniversary remastered reissue of the album in 2009. I would assume they did their sample-clearance homework beforehand.
I would also add something along the lines of "Purchasing or listening to it doesn't violate my privacy," but that's just me. Lots of consumers don't care about that.
There are those who feel they're getting a raw deal if they create something and then someone makes some minor change to it, takes all the credit and profits handsomely. I doubt they would be easily persuaded that your proposal is a good idea. How would you win them over?
Even if your claim about there being no money for artists online were true, why do you feel they are entitled to continue having X% of their income be derived from selling copies of their work (and/or selling at a particular price point)? Talk about being stuck in the past. It is not my job, as a consumer, to ensure that artist revenue sources remain within certain proportions to each other!
If El-P does continue to get paid without "fighting for it" and singing for his supper every night, are you going to publicly eat crow and advocate copyright reform, or are you just going to continue to stand under the bridge and shout at every passerby that artists and everyone else in the music is starving on the streets because of piracy?
If they only require a modest fee, then why are they suing for far, far more than that? No one is forcing them to sue at all! They are perfectly free to sue for a modest amount, or to negotiate a license without suing. But what they want is as much as they can possibly squeeze out of him...for a noncommercial use, no less. No, Poindexter and his lawyer are the ones who are behind "all this" and they have no intention of avoiding it.
Wow, touch a nerve, did I? Let's stay on topic. The argument that 50 Cent should've cleared the sample has been shot down, and your Madlib/Blue Note example fails to breathe any life into it. You cannot argue that he should've gotten clearance when it's quite evident that he didn't have the option. If they were willing to license it for a low fee, they wouldn't be suing for upwards of $1 million; 50 Cent would've paid the fee. No, it's just another example (like Berry) of copyright owners exercising their legal right to hold works for ransom, and to litigate in a brazen lunge at someone else's fortune (which in this instance isn't even connected to the sampling in question). When we see that, some of us are going to exercise our right to free speech and call them out on it. Yes, they have a legal right to do it, but their moral standing is in serious doubt.
I love how you keep saying sample clearance is so inexpensive. Just a couple grand! Just a few thousand! Chump change! Shyeah, right, so why is this lawsuit seeking 600,000 in punitive damages alone? I'll tell you why. Because when 50 Cent is doing the sampling, suddenly the clearance costs go way, way up. The fact that your side keeps pointing out his wealth just proves the point.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Re:
Asking for stats is fine; it'd be interesting to see what percentage of the invalid notices are for authorized content, and what percentage of all notices are invalid. But your mischaracterization of the article seems to suggest that you were actually asking a rhetorical question, trying desperately to cast doubt on the notion that the copyright owners and their agents are, at times, quite reckless in their methods, in ways that waste time & money and that ultimately limit people's access to non-infringing content.
On the post: Apparently The USTR Thinks 'Unprecedented Transparency' Means Hiding TPP Details From 98% Of Congress
On the post: Another Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Millions Of Rickrolls (Briefly)
Re: WHY IS NONE EVER SUED INTO OBLIVION FOR THIS BEHAVIOR??
On the post: Another Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Millions Of Rickrolls (Briefly)
Re: Re:
On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent
Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
...to which the answer is a big shrug. Creating a sense of value and investment in the mind of the consumer is always a challenge. One way to go about it is playing out on Kickstarter, with artists like Amanda Palmer basically putting a detailed business plan up for consideration, establishing a forthright brand, and making overtures to connect with fans, not just treating them as suckers or potential adversaries. It seems to be working rather well; people like this new paradigm.
Does it follow that any other approach to marketing will fail? Of course not; it only means there's competition—suddenly the more opaque methods of marketing don't seem to have as much appeal to consumers. Anonymous Coward, if you want to interpret this as "consumers increasingly shun artists who use traditional marketing, and embrace those who are relatively transparent and direct," you certainly can. If you want to characterize it as "you people say artists who don't disclose expenses should work for free," then you imply that you think people shouldn't be more supportive artists who successfully foster a greater sense of value in the minds of consumers. That makes you sound like an idiot, frankly, someone with sour grapes because people are choosing to spend their money in ways that don't benefit you.
On the post: Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
On the post: Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: you're != your
On the post: Canadian Politician Claims That Ripping A CD To Your iPod Is Like Buying Socks & Stealing Shoes To Go With Them
Re:
On the post: Mark Twain: Copyright Maximalist Who Also Believed That Nearly All Human Utterances Were Plagiarism?
Re:
On the post: As A Tribute To MCA: Can We Stop The War On Sampling?
Re: Who says the Beastie Boys are in the clear?
On the post: Nobody Cares About The Fixed Costs Of Your Book, Movie, Whatever
Re: Re:
I would also add something along the lines of "Purchasing or listening to it doesn't violate my privacy," but that's just me. Lots of consumers don't care about that.
On the post: How Can You Tell If Uploading Your Cover Song To YouTube Is Infringing? You Can't
Re: Why stop at cover songs?
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Yes, it's indispensible to hip-hop culture
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>