Something else these journalists are leaving out... the option to MONTH BY MONTH decide when to cancel a service... If I want to watch a single show on CBS's streaming service, I can subscribe for ONE MONTH, then cancel it. Wait a year... do it again. Can you do that with cable? Nope... you have a $5 surcharge for changing anything on your account and that pesky 2 year service agreement and don't forget install fees when you want it back...
You could easily subscribe to 1 streaming service a month and switch which one that is and only pay at most $15.
Good luck finding a cable provider that will let you do anything like that...
I feel like this is the same type of journalism like they had when trains were first coming out comparing the speed of a train to that of a horse... "Well the horse is faster in this very short race we set up, so obviously this new fangled train thing will never catch on..."
Masnick has given his viewpoint on multiple occasions and has used logic, reason, and all here are pretty familiar with his stance.
Do you care to share what you believe to the be actual rules on the matter of copyright? I see you lashing out at others, but not contributing to the conversation at hand. It seems to me that you believe Slater has a valid copyright; and with this being a law blog and all, do you care to counterpoint with reasoned logic what your interpretation of the law is? Citations help when making a case, so please include any that are applicable.
What I don't get is he could still capitalize off of it... He can make prints... he can sign it... he can literally do whatever he wants with this picture. Fair Use and Public Domain doesn't mean that what he has created can't be monetized... you just have to make a market for it.
A great example of this is I could print my favorite XKCD print off the internet and hang it on my wall (which is legal under CC BY-NC 2.5 license), but I'd rather spend $25 to buy it from the guy that created it. It helps him, I get signed art, and everyone leaves happy.
Comcast Fix is Simple... Slightly Different Verbiage
While I do have high hopes for this case, it will not stop them from these practices. Their lawyers will just change the agreement to say 'All Taxes and Fees' instead of 'Taxes and Government Related Fees'. Surprised their lawyers missed that one.
I think it is sad that this event occurred over half a decade ago and they are still having to fight this.... glad for the win, it definitely is a slam dunk I would have thought... but any time the boys in blue are involved... let us throw common sense out the window
Can't the States pass a new law that buries these guys in paperwork so that trying to skirt the federal process is so cumbersome that no one would want to do it?
Also, couldn't the States also pass a law that says any federal asset forfeiture split returning to local PDs will instead go into that State's general fund when there was not a conviction?
Both of those things I would think put the kibosh on an end-run around local control... but again, that is a perfect world. I can imagine the royal bitch fit Police Lobbyists will throw if either of those rules were tried to be put in place.
I'd say that if you have a laptop, setting up a honey pot account for precisely this type of intrusive crap would be a great idea. That way they rifle through just what you want them to and can protect your privacy. Setup a few social media accounts you don't use as well, just in case they want those as well.
None of this should be necessary, mind you, but in this day in age... gotta do something or you will be put on a secret list and never allowed to travel again.
The true test of the merit of the case is this: had GYPI asked Zazzle for the information of the person who created the design and sued them; sure... you might have a case.
Suing Zazzle for the infringement of someone else? You are cash grabbing.
Zazzle, or any other company for that matter (Wal-Mart, Kinkos, etc) has any idea whether or not an item is infringing. They usually have some legalese saying: 'The Person using the reproduction equipment is liable for any infringement.'
Follow the money. This is a poorly decided case by the courts plain and simple.
I've always liked reductio ad absurdum. A person creates an I to churn out 'poems' of a small length and copyrights these 'poems'. Given a sizeable amount of computing, this person may be able to encompass the entirety of all logical sentences of a given language. More people see what is occurring and jump on the same 'create it all' bandwagon, which would throw more computing power and thus create more of these 'poems', essentially copyrighting an entire language.
Would this open up a new form of trolling where the creators of these pacts could sue any author of any creative work for 'plagiarism' given that these 'poems' are just sentences that have already been written and are owned by a few of these AI-Language Squatters?
I'll disagree on this point only because whenever there is a cat-mouse game, technology evolves to outsmart the other. If law enforcement starts to get into this game, their attempts at OpSec will obviously leak and show us new 0-day vulnerabilities which will then be patched and we will progressively get safer. Adding more hackers into the pool (especially ones without super-nefarious purposes) is good news for everyone all around.
Due to the high burden, it isn't like Joe Beat Cop can use his hacking arsenal on his girlfriend... this isn't a Sting Ray you can just throw in your squad car and drive down to her house... it would be way too difficult and costly to implement. They'll have to save this as a 'nuclear' option.
End of the day, it makes us more safe, gives police another tool that will have oversight (compelled due to complexity and security).
So after contemplating this story... and so many more like it... I think I have a solution for this 'is it fair use' issue we have here in the US. It is AWESOME that we have fair use, but this threat of constant 'guilty until proven innocent' that we have where you have to defend yourself and put up a bunch of money just on the off chance you are infringing (or aren't and are just being bullied)... that puts too much owner on the 'speaker' and not enough on the harasser.
What if we made the harasser first pass through a court system (their paying their own expenses) to first prove that a given use can be reasonably assumed NOT to be fair use before getting the infringer involved.
I would say this is similar to the grand jury indictment that most police officers must go through before being charged with misconduct... You weed out the cases that have no merit or would be too hard to litigate, and only the worst offenders make it through.
Only after that point could a law firm say that there is reasonable suspicion of infringement and could only then send a threatening letter of this type.
At that point the infringing party would know that there is a POTENTIAL for not being fair use with the exact merits of why it may be reasonable to assume that it is not within the guidelines. They could choose to take down their content at this time or litigate knowing exactly which tenant they are reasonably suspected of breaking.
I think it would ultimately make fair use more fair and less about how much money a person has. Make the onus back on the one claiming damages rather than on the speaker defending themselves...
...Or you could just make a stronger federal anti-SLAPP law... but even then, you still have to litigate which makes it less appetizing to most people.
Can't wait til USPS, UPS, and Fedex try this next...
If we draw analogs to the current paper mail situation, I can't imagine a congress-critter allowing any mail carrier in the US to allow FedEx to open up every package so that they could 'better advertise' to their clients... I understand if they say 'hey... Bob always sends Alice something'... fine.. that is great. They can optimize their routes or even give you a flier. It is BASIC ROUTING INFORMATION that has to be public by nature...
Deep Packet Inspection (or Deep Postage Inspection in this case) is opening it up to find out what exactly Bob is sending to Alice. Everyone should be shocked and abhorred by that. Not to mention it also opens up the possibility that a nefarious ne'er-do-well could use that against Bob or Alice in the form of blackmail *gasp*.
This issue should be looked at seriously... but... money talks and us constituents are boned by the lack of options...
While I was split on this when they were pushing Amendment 71 through last election. It upped the requirements for ballot initiatives so that a normal Joe Blow couldn't just get irritated for half a second and throw something on the ballot half cocked (this article case in point).
Thankfully this will put a stop to a lot of these nut-jobs putting random things on the ballot.
So can someone explain to me what would happen if he were to endorse a Patreon or GoFundMe page (not set up by him) and stop taking ad revenue? It sounds like he could still do YouTube. That money from the GoFundMe could be going to support his family back home.
I'm sure the NCAA would balk, but 'technically' he stopped doing the one thing they said he had to stop doing (take ad revenue from YouTube).
First off, Free speech and First Amendment is about protecting unpopular speech, or speech that might 'hurt feelings'. Everything that Masnick has reported has been truthful, and your obvious bend leads me to believe you either: A) Are a conspiracy theory nut-job who somehow finds credibility in Ayyadurai's insane claim. B) Have a hard-on for attacking Masnick because Troll C) Ayyadurai himself ranting on here as an Anonymous Coward
Ayyadurai's self aggrandizement and attempt to rewrite history is a deplorable tactic. The thought that he has to resort to these kinds of free-speech-stifiling activities only reaffirms that his argument holds no water.
I don't care about Ayyadurai's feelings, his skin is thinner than the Gollum-Dictator in Turkey... this is a mess he made himself. Masnick, on the other hand, is just doing his job as a journalist and is being punished for speaking truth. Yeah, he said mean things about this scam artist, but they are wholly deserved.
Not being able to call a liar, a fraud, or a scam artist by their names, is what got us into this mess... if TD loses this court case... watch out journalists... the Political-Correctness police will be coming for you... which is literally what this article is about... stifling free speech.
The choice of Google not to stitch these files together seems to be the choice of Google; This isn't a technical issue, its an issue of whether or not Google will comply (because it obviously has the means to).
In light of the Microsoft case, I'd say Google has every right to withhold that information, but it does seem a bit like Google does say it is above the law... which I'm also not about.
Quite literally a convoluted network management solution of a company (regardless of how justified or efficient) is no better than the NSA saying "we cant tell how many people's privacy we are tromping on because we will violate people's privacy to find out".
I'm a fan of accountability and the police doing the right thing (like requesting warrants). It is rulings like this that makes officer's bend the law and do parallel construction and other nefarious backroom hacking... That helps no one. Just saying...
On the post: Tech Journalists Keep Completely Missing The Point Of Cord Cutting
'Doing it wrong'
You could easily subscribe to 1 streaming service a month and switch which one that is and only pay at most $15.
Good luck finding a cable provider that will let you do anything like that...
I feel like this is the same type of journalism like they had when trains were first coming out comparing the speed of a train to that of a horse... "Well the horse is faster in this very short race we set up, so obviously this new fangled train thing will never catch on..."
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
'John' -- Care to Share?
Masnick has given his viewpoint on multiple occasions and has used logic, reason, and all here are pretty familiar with his stance.
Do you care to share what you believe to the be actual rules on the matter of copyright? I see you lashing out at others, but not contributing to the conversation at hand. It seems to me that you believe Slater has a valid copyright; and with this being a law blog and all, do you care to counterpoint with reasoned logic what your interpretation of the law is? Citations help when making a case, so please include any that are applicable.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Moving On
A great example of this is I could print my favorite XKCD print off the internet and hang it on my wall (which is legal under CC BY-NC 2.5 license), but I'd rather spend $25 to buy it from the guy that created it. It helps him, I get signed art, and everyone leaves happy.
On the post: Comcast Tries, Fails To Kill Lawsuit Over Its Hidden, Bogus Fees
Comcast Fix is Simple... Slightly Different Verbiage
On the post: Court Strips Immunity From Sheriff's Office That Raided Hobby Gardener's Home Over Tea Leaves
6 years and still no justice
On the post: DOJ Forfeiture Directive Gives Local Law Enforcement A Chance To Dodge State Reform Efforts
Additional Rules at The State Level
Also, couldn't the States also pass a law that says any federal asset forfeiture split returning to local PDs will instead go into that State's general fund when there was not a conviction?
Both of those things I would think put the kibosh on an end-run around local control... but again, that is a perfect world. I can imagine the royal bitch fit Police Lobbyists will throw if either of those rules were tried to be put in place.
Wishful thinking on my behalf I guess....
On the post: DHS Confirms There Will Be More And Greater Intrusiveness During Border Searches
Honeypot Accounts
None of this should be necessary, mind you, but in this day in age... gotta do something or you will be put on a secret list and never allowed to travel again.
On the post: Indian ISPs Continue Futile Effort To Prevent Subscribers From Using Decent Encryption
How does HTTPS Work?
On the post: Court Says DMCA Safe Harbors Disappear Once Infringing Images Are Printed On Physical Items
Sue the infringer, not the company
Suing Zazzle for the infringement of someone else? You are cash grabbing.
Zazzle, or any other company for that matter (Wal-Mart, Kinkos, etc) has any idea whether or not an item is infringing. They usually have some legalese saying: 'The Person using the reproduction equipment is liable for any infringement.'
Follow the money. This is a poorly decided case by the courts plain and simple.
On the post: There Is An Easy Answer To Whether Machines Should Get Copyright Rights And It Comes Down To Copyright's Purpose
What happens when...
Would this open up a new form of trolling where the creators of these pacts could sue any author of any creative work for 'plagiarism' given that these 'poems' are just sentences that have already been written and are owned by a few of these AI-Language Squatters?
On the post: Moving Beyond Backdoors To Solve The FBI's 'Going Dark' Problem
Re: Hacking is just as bad if not...
Due to the high burden, it isn't like Joe Beat Cop can use his hacking arsenal on his girlfriend... this isn't a Sting Ray you can just throw in your squad car and drive down to her house... it would be way too difficult and costly to implement. They'll have to save this as a 'nuclear' option.
End of the day, it makes us more safe, gives police another tool that will have oversight (compelled due to complexity and security).
On the post: State Dept. Enlists Hollywood And Its Friends To Start A Fake Twitter Fight Over Intellectual Property
Re:
On the post: Zillow Still Doesn't Get It: Second Letter About McMansion Hell Is Still Just Wrong
A Fair Use Proposal
What if we made the harasser first pass through a court system (their paying their own expenses) to first prove that a given use can be reasonably assumed NOT to be fair use before getting the infringer involved.
I would say this is similar to the grand jury indictment that most police officers must go through before being charged with misconduct... You weed out the cases that have no merit or would be too hard to litigate, and only the worst offenders make it through.
Only after that point could a law firm say that there is reasonable suspicion of infringement and could only then send a threatening letter of this type.
At that point the infringing party would know that there is a POTENTIAL for not being fair use with the exact merits of why it may be reasonable to assume that it is not within the guidelines. They could choose to take down their content at this time or litigate knowing exactly which tenant they are reasonably suspected of breaking.
I think it would ultimately make fair use more fair and less about how much money a person has. Make the onus back on the one claiming damages rather than on the speaker defending themselves...
...Or you could just make a stronger federal anti-SLAPP law... but even then, you still have to litigate which makes it less appetizing to most people.
On the post: AT&T May Soon Return To Charging Broadband Subscribers More For Privacy
Can't wait til USPS, UPS, and Fedex try this next...
Deep Packet Inspection (or Deep Postage Inspection in this case) is opening it up to find out what exactly Bob is sending to Alice. Everyone should be shocked and abhorred by that. Not to mention it also opens up the possibility that a nefarious ne'er-do-well could use that against Bob or Alice in the form of blackmail *gasp*.
This issue should be looked at seriously... but... money talks and us constituents are boned by the lack of options...
On the post: Former University Official Files Libel Lawsuit Against His Replacement For Things A Journalist Said
Re:
How this guy isn't going to be laughed out of court I have no idea.
On the post: Colorado Voters Will Get A Chance To Prevent Preteens From Using Smartphones
CO Ballot Initiatives -- Thank You Amendment 71!
Thankfully this will put a stop to a lot of these nut-jobs putting random things on the ballot.
On the post: Wall Street Still Annoyed That Competition Forced Wireless Carriers To Bring Back Unlimited Data Plans
Re: Some competition is good, but some is bad?
On the post: NCAA Forces UCF Football Player To Choose Between His Athletic Career And His YouTube Channel
So what if...
I'm sure the NCAA would balk, but 'technically' he stopped doing the one thing they said he had to stop doing (take ad revenue from YouTube).
Just Saying
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of A SLAPP Suit: My Story
Learn the First Amendment...
A) Are a conspiracy theory nut-job who somehow finds credibility in Ayyadurai's insane claim.
B) Have a hard-on for attacking Masnick because Troll
C) Ayyadurai himself ranting on here as an Anonymous Coward
Ayyadurai's self aggrandizement and attempt to rewrite history is a deplorable tactic. The thought that he has to resort to these kinds of free-speech-stifiling activities only reaffirms that his argument holds no water.
I don't care about Ayyadurai's feelings, his skin is thinner than the Gollum-Dictator in Turkey... this is a mess he made himself. Masnick, on the other hand, is just doing his job as a journalist and is being punished for speaking truth. Yeah, he said mean things about this scam artist, but they are wholly deserved.
Not being able to call a liar, a fraud, or a scam artist by their names, is what got us into this mess... if TD loses this court case... watch out journalists... the Political-Correctness police will be coming for you... which is literally what this article is about... stifling free speech.
On the post: Another Judge Says The Microsoft Decision Doesn't Matter; Orders Google To Hand Over Overseas Data
Government has a point...
In light of the Microsoft case, I'd say Google has every right to withhold that information, but it does seem a bit like Google does say it is above the law... which I'm also not about.
Quite literally a convoluted network management solution of a company (regardless of how justified or efficient) is no better than the NSA saying "we cant tell how many people's privacy we are tromping on because we will violate people's privacy to find out".
I'm a fan of accountability and the police doing the right thing (like requesting warrants). It is rulings like this that makes officer's bend the law and do parallel construction and other nefarious backroom hacking... That helps no one. Just saying...
Next >>