I usually get annoyed when people try to compare copyright and patents, however, the analogy of comparing Paul's Boutique to a patent thicket was pretty brilliant. Combining discrete ideas into a something new should be encouraged, not discouraged.
"Some will claim that this is no big deal, since the courts got it right and this clear overreach of copyright law went nowhere legally."
Anyone who claims that is an idiot. The expense of taking a case all the way to the supreme court is outrageous. My guess would be at least a half million in attorney fees alone. That is not a system that works for a frivolous case.
And even if the court does make the loser pay, where is that money coming from? It's not like that song writer has a half a million dollars lying around.
Mike, one of these days you should do a write-up of how the growth of ownership culture coincides with the growth of the sharing/pirate culture.
The ownership culture is more than just large corporations. You hear people bitching that people are poaching their facebook posts. You hear mothers-to-be bitching that some relative "stole" the name they were going to use for their child. Some people guard their recipes as if they're national secrets.
How is the pervasive ownership culture compatible with our culture of sharing? It doesn't seem to make any sense.
My guess is that AVG had a company searching for torrents of its software. That company came across such a torrent which actually pointed to the Astley video. So the software did the utterly sensible thing and flagged the video as infringing AVG's software.
Then let's get rid of eBay's auction on the internet patent. And Amazon's immediately paying after putting one item in your basket on the internet patent. And Microsoft's generating meeting requests and group scheduling on a mobile device patent.
No, I think Hillary wrote the book literally, that she hires people who live in foreign villages as cheap labor to work as nannies to raise her children.
First we have to protect children from books, plays, telephones, radio, movies, TV, drive-in theaters, pools, parking lots, dancing, and from information concerning their ability to procreate.
After that is done, then we can get started shutting down the internet to protect the children.
You keep arguing that this information should not be discoverable because it's "pure hearsay." The rule against hearsay evidence would only keep it from being used at trial There is no rule at all from conducting discovery based upon hearsay statements.
Considering that 99.999999999999999% of all statements are hearsay, i.e., are made out of court, discovery would be impossible if your rule was in place. When an attorney learns that something was said about his case, he's going to want discovery on that. Hearsay would not block that discovery from occurring.
I agree with your trap argument. If Google is gonna do this, it should buy the labels outright. If they remain in bed with the labels, they're gonna get screwed. And not in a good way, either.
Can you fricken imagine if Google bought a couple labels and started making money via music by giving customers value as opposed to relying on stronger and harsher laws?!
The RIAA would be greatly weakened. And that'd leave the MPAA weakened too because whenever they cry about some new technology that the government has to stop, they always team up with the music industry to drag us back a few decades.
Basically, the whole copyright lobby would have much less influence. And who knows, maybe our Congress could start passing copyright laws that actually make sense in the real world.
What a fricken minute! Are you saying that the copyright industry can adapt and profit from new technology?! That just doesn't seem right.... somehow. The internet!!!!
On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Not that I'm agreeing with the copyright middlemen, but they're not actually arguing that paying $1.5 million is reasonable, perfectly or otherwise.
They're arguing that it's perfectly legal because a due process analysis is not applicable. Being reasonable and legal are not always the same thing.
On the post: NYTimes Draws Connection Between Beastie Boys Lawsuit & Patent Trolls, Realizes IP Hinders Innovation
On the post: No, Writing A Song With The Lyric 'Let's Go Thunder' Doesn't Entitle You To 30% Of The Oklahoma City Thunder's Profits
Anyone who claims that is an idiot. The expense of taking a case all the way to the supreme court is outrageous. My guess would be at least a half million in attorney fees alone. That is not a system that works for a frivolous case.
And even if the court does make the loser pay, where is that money coming from? It's not like that song writer has a half a million dollars lying around.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
On the post: Is Photographing A Meal 'Taking Intellectual Property Away' From A Chef?
The ownership culture is more than just large corporations. You hear people bitching that people are poaching their facebook posts. You hear mothers-to-be bitching that some relative "stole" the name they were going to use for their child. Some people guard their recipes as if they're national secrets.
How is the pervasive ownership culture compatible with our culture of sharing? It doesn't seem to make any sense.
On the post: Don't You Dare Show Olympic Spirit In The UK
On the post: Another Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Millions Of Rickrolls (Briefly)
On the post: Boom: Jury Says No Patent Infringement By Google In Oracle Case
On the post: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration Of 'On The Internet' Software Patents
There are probably more. Unfortunately.
On the post: Guy Who Was Buying & Selling Foreclosed Homes In Florida Wins $124 Million Patent Lawsuit
On the post: Chelsea Clinton: We Must Protect The Children On The Internet
Re:
On the post: Chelsea Clinton: We Must Protect The Children On The Internet
After that is done, then we can get started shutting down the internet to protect the children.
On the post: Judge In Grooveshark Lawsuit Orders Blog To 'Preserve' Logs That Had Already Been Deleted
Considering that 99.999999999999999% of all statements are hearsay, i.e., are made out of court, discovery would be impossible if your rule was in place. When an attorney learns that something was said about his case, he's going to want discovery on that. Hearsay would not block that discovery from occurring.
On the post: Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
Re: $1-billion to labels?
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
The RIAA would be greatly weakened. And that'd leave the MPAA weakened too because whenever they cry about some new technology that the government has to stop, they always team up with the music industry to drag us back a few decades.
Basically, the whole copyright lobby would have much less influence. And who knows, maybe our Congress could start passing copyright laws that actually make sense in the real world.
On the post: US Government Gets 10% Royalty On 'Passion Of The Christ' Prequel In Plea Deal With Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
Understatement of the year.
On the post: Chappelle Show Creator Gives Grieving MCA Fans A Treat, Viacom Gives Them The Finger
Corporations celebrate profits and nothing else.
On the post: After Years Of Trying To Kill YouTube, Movie Studios Are Embracing & Profiting From It
Next >>