But neither do corporations have unlimited control over what or who goes out: they are to provide SERVICE to the public, not rule over it. Period.
Does your wacky theory also apply to corporations that hold copyrights?
Would the company that holds the copyright to your "$100 million dollar movie" have "to provide SERVICE to the public" by giving free copies to those can't afford to buy one or something similar?
Inquiring minds want to know because you when you are talking about copyright, you feel that the copyright holder should have 100% control of everything in perpetuity and when you talk about internet platforms they shouldn't be allowed to have 100% control of the platforms they created.
Pacman was responsible for all the "Rave" parties in the 80's & 90's too.
People running around large mazes with flashing lights and electronic music, gobbling up all pills they could find and hallucinating that they being chased by ghosts.
In short, Section 230 is an unworkable tangle that must be revised in light of what's now known of how corporations abuse the power precisely to deny "natural" persons outlet for Constitutionally protected speech.
Please show any place in the Constitution, US Code, or caselaw that states that anyone, corporation or otherwise, is required to give you a platform for your speech.
If all courts and society held to "actual knowledge" standard way you want, it'd be impossible to convict unless every person in a jury witnessed first-hand.
Where does Mike ever say "actual knowledge" should be required across the board in every legal proceeding? That's just a straw-man you've built.
Copyright law does require "actual knowledge" in case of contributory infringement. This ruling even reinforces that.
Cox had/has a party TELLING it [...] that infringements have occurred. That's a fully legal representation which Cox MUST credit under DMCA.
You seem to be laboring under the false notion that DMCA notices are proof of something. They are not. They are unsubstantiated accusations of infringement, that is all. They are exactly the same as what you labeled a "silly hypothetical" from Anonymous Anonymous Coward.
Only a court of law can rule an actual copyright infringement has occurred and until that time the only "actual knowledge" an ISP has is that someone has made an unsubstantiated claim of copyright infringement.
Blue, I would personally like to thank you for being a part of the Techdirt community all these years.
Without the chuckles you provide with your outlandish and usually wrong notions and your childish insults and ad homs, this year would have been a bit more depressing. Keep up the good work of entertaining us all.
You wouldn't stand for vile ad hom in a bar, especially when unprovoked, you'd expect bartender to defend you, and call the police.....
I wouldn't expect any of that. People in bars say all sorts of shit and I couldn't care less.
If the person was being unusually disruptive I would expect management to ask them to leave and if management didn't do that I would find another place to hang out at.
Maybe you should take that advice to heart, Blue - if you don't like the responses you get when you spout stupid shit and you don't like how Techdirt manages THEIR comment section, find someplace else to hang out at.
Based on what I've seen of COPS, most of the people on the show don't seem very educated and/or have a lot of money so they are probably coerced into quiet settlements by the network's army of lawyers when this comes up.
Such extreme privacy-violating scenes have been a staple on TV for decades, and I've never understood how the authorities have ever been able to get away with that.
I believe (but IANAL, so I don't know for sure) that shows like "Cops" have to obtain a signed release from the "perps" before they can air the video without blurring the identities, especially if it's filmed on private property.
I would imagine that getting a signed release wouldn't cost much more than bail money in most cases.
Meanwhile, you've contributed nothing to the discussion.
Actually you're the one who has contributed nothing to this discussion.
You spout a fact and when you're asked to support it you give a link to a dubious survey with questionable results. And to top it off you toss out childish insults.
In my opinion you've contributed nothing and your argument remains specious.
I do think an exception could be made in this particular case, since the legal precedent was set to protect human artists.
Not really. The purpose of copyright has never been about protecting artists, it's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The means we use is by giving artists exclusive rights for a limited time. When copyright laws were first written "limited time" meant 14 years with an option to renew for another 14 years. After that the work belonged to everyone. The idea originally was to give artists a small amount of time of exclusivity, but eventually the works would be in the Public Domain to enrich society as a whole.
But they're doing it because they can, because the current copyright law is worded in such a way that they feel like they're protected legally.
I'm not really sure about Wikipedia, but I can say that Techdirt's use of the images is perfectly legal, even if the photos were copyrighted. Techdirt used the photos in articles about the photos themselves. It's perfectly reasonable to do so and in fact is legally covered under copyright's Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is the safety valve that helps keep copyright from infringing on the First Amendment right to Free Speech by allowing one to critique or comment on a work (and include the work or a portion of the work so the audience will know what you are talking about) without having to ask permission from the artist.
They are absolutely great photos, but that doesn't change the fact that they are not copyrighted. If you wish to support Slater, then by all means purchase them from him. No one is stopping you. The photos being in the Public Domain doesn't mean Slater cannot sell them, it just means that he doesn't have an exclusive right to sell them or the ability to control anyone else selling them or using them.
The quality of a work has no bearing on whether the work is legally under copyright. For example take George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1969) film, because of a mistake, no copyright notice appeared on the released film (which was required under copyright law at the time) so the film immediately entered the Public Domain.
The law doesn't say that whoever presses the button is the person who owns the copyright. It says the "author" of the image is entitled to own it.
Yes, U.S. Code Title 17 refers to the "author" or "authors" of a work, but decades of court decisions have already established that the "author" of a photograph is the human person pressing the shutter button.
I don't agree that the person or animal that manipulated the machine to capture the art is the author of that piece of art,...
I'm sorry that you don't agree with something that has already been established as legal precedent.
...and I think if you do you are being willfully ignorant.
No, I'm just trying to help you understand this issue a little better.
Here's a blog post from an actual copyright lawyer who works mainly with photographers that does a pretty good job of explaining this stuff:
Is the writer of this article being disingenuous or ignorant about the creation of art and what makes someone the author?
No, the writer has based his opinion on actual copyright law, which states in general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright.
For example, if you ask a stranger to take a photo of you and your wife on vacation with your camera the copyright actually belongs to the stranger.
Copyright law also states that copyrights can only be held by legal persons—which an animal is not.
Slater chose the lens. He set the camera up in a specific place, considering light and background. He also set the aperture and shutter speed. The monkey then played with a button that Slater hoped he would play with to make the camera go off.
Did you read the whole article? Slater is the one being disingenuous and dishonest here. In his original interview concerning the monkey selfie Slater states that it was all an accident after "This critically endangered macaque monkey took his own photographs after grabbing a camera that had been left lying around".
After Slater realized that legally there was no copyright on the photos the monkeys took, he started changing his story.
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
Re: Re: Re:
Does your wacky theory also apply to corporations that hold copyrights?
Would the company that holds the copyright to your "$100 million dollar movie" have "to provide SERVICE to the public" by giving free copies to those can't afford to buy one or something similar?
Inquiring minds want to know because you when you are talking about copyright, you feel that the copyright holder should have 100% control of everything in perpetuity and when you talk about internet platforms they shouldn't be allowed to have 100% control of the platforms they created.
Bipolar much?
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pacman was responsible for all the "Rave" parties in the 80's & 90's too.
People running around large mazes with flashing lights and electronic music, gobbling up all pills they could find and hallucinating that they being chased by ghosts.
On the post: Wired's Big Cover Story On Facebook Gets Key Legal Point Totally Backwards, Demonstrating Why CDA 230 Is Actually Important
Re:
Please show any place in the Constitution, US Code, or caselaw that states that anyone, corporation or otherwise, is required to give you a platform for your speech.
On the post: County Gov't Tries To Dodge Liability In Jailhouse Deaths By Intimidating The Journalist Who Exposed Them
Re: Re: Actually, the question is WHY hasn't journalist not published entirety of information? Withholding it from public for private gain?
And that's saying a whole lot considering how much "dumb" Blue has been posting lately.
On the post: How We Got To The Point That Hollywood Is Trying To Attack The Internet Via NAFTA
Re: Re:
I think Blue does this on purpose so he can track responses to his inane prattling easier.
I always try to remove them when I respond.
On the post: Appeals Court Makes A Mess Of Copyright Law Concerning ISPs And Safe Harbors
Re:
Where does Mike ever say "actual knowledge" should be required across the board in every legal proceeding? That's just a straw-man you've built.
Copyright law does require "actual knowledge" in case of contributory infringement. This ruling even reinforces that.
You seem to be laboring under the false notion that DMCA notices are proof of something. They are not. They are unsubstantiated accusations of infringement, that is all. They are exactly the same as what you labeled a "silly hypothetical" from Anonymous Anonymous Coward.
Only a court of law can rule an actual copyright infringement has occurred and until that time the only "actual knowledge" an ISP has is that someone has made an unsubstantiated claim of copyright infringement.
On the post: The Same FCC That Ignored Science To Kill Net Neutrality Has Created An 'Office Of Economics & Analysis'
Re: I broke the cipher
On the post: New Year's Message: Keep On Believing
Blue, I would personally like to thank you for being a part of the Techdirt community all these years.
Without the chuckles you provide with your outlandish and usually wrong notions and your childish insults and ad homs, this year would have been a bit more depressing. Keep up the good work of entertaining us all.
Cheers & Happy New Year, my friend.
On the post: Europe's Ongoing Attack On Free Speech, And Why It Should Concern Us All
I wouldn't expect any of that. People in bars say all sorts of shit and I couldn't care less.
If the person was being unusually disruptive I would expect management to ask them to leave and if management didn't do that I would find another place to hang out at.
Maybe you should take that advice to heart, Blue - if you don't like the responses you get when you spout stupid shit and you don't like how Techdirt manages THEIR comment section, find someplace else to hang out at.
On the post: Bogus Wiretap Charges Brought Against Man Who Recorded Cops Costs NH Taxpayers $275,000
Re: Re: Re: whataboutism: role reversal
They don't have that right according to SCOTUS. WILSON V. LAYNE (98-83) 526 U.S. 603 (1999).
Based on what I've seen of COPS, most of the people on the show don't seem very educated and/or have a lot of money so they are probably coerced into quiet settlements by the network's army of lawyers when this comes up.
On the post: Bogus Wiretap Charges Brought Against Man Who Recorded Cops Costs NH Taxpayers $275,000
Re: whataboutism: role reversal
I believe (but IANAL, so I don't know for sure) that shows like "Cops" have to obtain a signed release from the "perps" before they can air the video without blurring the identities, especially if it's filmed on private property.
I would imagine that getting a signed release wouldn't cost much more than bail money in most cases.
On the post: Ajit Pai Attacked Hollywood & Silicon Valley Because Even Republicans Are Against His Net Neutrality Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot, Kettle
Actually you're the one who has contributed nothing to this discussion.
You spout a fact and when you're asked to support it you give a link to a dubious survey with questionable results. And to top it off you toss out childish insults.
In my opinion you've contributed nothing and your argument remains specious.
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re:
I don't think Blue is any of those guys. He has a pretty unique style and verbiage.
I think NyNameHere used to go by Average Joe at one time and Whatever used to comment as A Horse with No Name, but I'm not really sure.
I also suspect that the paint chip guy is really Shiva Ayyadurai, but once again who knows.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. The purpose of copyright has never been about protecting artists, it's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The means we use is by giving artists exclusive rights for a limited time. When copyright laws were first written "limited time" meant 14 years with an option to renew for another 14 years. After that the work belonged to everyone. The idea originally was to give artists a small amount of time of exclusivity, but eventually the works would be in the Public Domain to enrich society as a whole.
I'm not really sure about Wikipedia, but I can say that Techdirt's use of the images is perfectly legal, even if the photos were copyrighted. Techdirt used the photos in articles about the photos themselves. It's perfectly reasonable to do so and in fact is legally covered under copyright's Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is the safety valve that helps keep copyright from infringing on the First Amendment right to Free Speech by allowing one to critique or comment on a work (and include the work or a portion of the work so the audience will know what you are talking about) without having to ask permission from the artist.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are absolutely great photos, but that doesn't change the fact that they are not copyrighted. If you wish to support Slater, then by all means purchase them from him. No one is stopping you. The photos being in the Public Domain doesn't mean Slater cannot sell them, it just means that he doesn't have an exclusive right to sell them or the ability to control anyone else selling them or using them.
The quality of a work has no bearing on whether the work is legally under copyright. For example take George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1969) film, because of a mistake, no copyright notice appeared on the released film (which was required under copyright law at the time) so the film immediately entered the Public Domain.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Famous for being an obnoxious rude ass.
TRANSLATION: the person who needs to be corrected the most because they are so consistently wrong.
TRANSLATION: A puffed-up peon with a narcissistic personality disorder.
Nah, "angry dude" was far more notable than you.
Only the fear of losing IQ points from reading your pointless drivel.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, U.S. Code Title 17 refers to the "author" or "authors" of a work, but decades of court decisions have already established that the "author" of a photograph is the human person pressing the shutter button.
I'm sorry that you don't agree with something that has already been established as legal precedent.
No, I'm just trying to help you understand this issue a little better.
Here's a blog post from an actual copyright lawyer who works mainly with photographers that does a pretty good job of explaining this stuff:
https://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re:
No, the writer has based his opinion on actual copyright law, which states in general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright.
For example, if you ask a stranger to take a photo of you and your wife on vacation with your camera the copyright actually belongs to the stranger.
Copyright law also states that copyrights can only be held by legal persons—which an animal is not.
Did you read the whole article? Slater is the one being disingenuous and dishonest here. In his original interview concerning the monkey selfie Slater states that it was all an accident after "This critically endangered macaque monkey took his own photographs after grabbing a camera that had been left lying around".
After Slater realized that legally there was no copyright on the photos the monkeys took, he started changing his story.
On the post: Mark Cuban Still Has Absolutely No Idea How Net Neutrality Works
Blue telling someone to learn tact is a bit like a crackhead telling kids to just say no to drugs.
Next >>