Actually, I'd say this guy is a modern artist. He knows not many people will see his graffiti or if they do see it, they won't even recognize that it's his. So what's a good way to get exposure? Run an ad in a magazine? Not big enough. Step 1: Sue HBO and make sure the graffiti put into the public record as part of the court case. Step 2: Make sure legal-analysis sites (such as this one) cover the story. Step 3: Profit from the exposure bought for just the cost of filing a court case.
I wholeheartedly, 100% support the creators and artists. What I *don't* support are the corporations that hold the copyrights to all the music. Extending the copyrights on music doesn't help the artists when almost all of the royalties go to the corporations and record labels. Remember the dust-up a few years ago where Apple was accused of not paying the artists? Even Taylor Swift argued against Apple. Yet the media didn't mention the fact that Apple's contracts were with the record labels and not the artists, therefore, Apple didn't have to pay the artists since the record labels were supposed to do that. But it's always easier to argue against a large company like Apple than to look into the details.
The second problem is that it sounds like this law will cover every recording, whether or not the rightful copyright-owner can be found. Then what? Does the public lose out on the recording because a radio station is too afraid to play it and get sued because they didn't pay a royalty?
I think the most important question is why it took 3 months to decide the case. If it took that long for the case to get heard, then that's probably pretty quick. But if it took the judges 3 months to decide a verdict after hearing the case, then that's absurd.
You'd think Erdogan would be smarter than this. He's seen what happens to leaders that out-live their usefulness to the western world: we invade. The US decided Noriega of Panama was a drug dealer, so we invaded. Yet years earlier, he was a friend of the CIA. The US decided Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, so we invaded. Yet years earlier, he was a friend against Iran.
So how long will it be until the western countries decide Turkey is too valuable to be in the hands of Erdogan?
You have to love American companies for their distracting marketing ability: let's sell everyone on the fancy new features and hope they never mention the underlying problem. If we fixed the underlying problem with cars (that they use gas), maybe we'd be using electric cars since the 1990's. But instead, we get marketing people pushing rounded designs and fins and large trunks.
... after all, if no one can get to the Disney Movies website, then people can't illegally download them, which means people can't illegally share them. So there you go- the piracy issue is solved!
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic, but in case you're being serious, the 1 line of text at the top of TechDirt is FAR, FAR better than other sites:
At DeviantArt, the top half of the screen would be taken up with a big message saying "We know you're not here for ads, but please turn your AdBlocker off". They're telling their users that the "best experience" involves letting the ad-system serve them annoying, flashing ads and possibly malware.
At ComicsAlliance, there's a javascript pop-up that's coded so you have 3 minutes to disable your ad-blocker (and allow ads, malware, etc) or a big banner will cover the entire page and stop you from reading it. Yes, you can disable javascript which disables the pop-up, but that also blocks the images from appearing, which isn't helpful on a comic book site.
"so when is the repeal going to be filed, then?" I would say, never. Even though there's a lot of evidence saying the law actually hurts people, politicians passed it assuming it helped people. They're not going to go back on their campaign promises to get the law passed and then say they were wrong. Like other posters have said, this is a morality law and politicians rarely, if ever, change their stance on morality.
Isn't banning "fake news" the same as banning "porn"? The first problem is defining what exactly needs to be banned.
* We can probably agree that posts from trolls trying to sway the election are bad, but should they be banned? Or should people be adults and make up their own mind about whether the story is true?
* Stories from known satire sites like The Onion. Of course their stories are "fake news" and they even say their stories are satire. Should these be banned? What about the Chinese media that thinks these stories are true? Should those be banned? What about legit sites like the Huffington Post that see the story in the Chinese media (again based on the The Onion article) and report it as true because they never verified the original source? Should these kinds of stories be banned? And if you're banning this story from HuffPo, should you allow the rest?
* And will the "fake news ban" block any stories are scientifically proven false, such as how vaccines cause autism or how the world is flat?
* If California can get its own fake news ban, can other states and countries? Will we go along with Middle East countries when they say any negative information about Islam is fake news?
Sure, people can protest and say how evil loot boxes are, but game companies will *never* change their behavior until it affects their bottom line. And as long as people buy the games with loot boxes *despite* the protests, game companies will keep doing it.
It's interesting to hear how so many law-enforcement types complain about how their state will go to hell if marijuana is passed. Can you blame them? Just look what happened to California and Washington state: every city has turned into a drug-fueled "Mad Max" wasteland as people seek out harder drugs. And the drug dogs in those states have turned into rabid, wild packs that go around eating babies!!!
Wait, none of this happened. I don't remember hearing *anyone* talk about drug dogs when debating marijuana. In fact, his position completely ignores all the benefits: lower arrest rates for drug use, more tax revenue, and so on.
Plan A: 1) Get a flimsy copyright. 2) Threaten to sue people who don't know copyright law or who don't want to spend the money to defend themselves. 3) Profit... and make more money than actually writing books.
Plan B: 1) Get a flimsy copyright. 2) Threaten to sue people. 3) Receive tons of media attention from actual copyright experts who say this is a bogus copyright and a stupid law suit. 4) Profit from all the media attention. After all, any attention is more attention.
This is a good idea in theory, but the reality is that everyone will complain to their ISP and the ISP should work with the EUC to unblock everything. People will say they're paying the ISP's for access and they're not the ones who should have to write letters to commissioners.
For example, imagine if Congress said Comcast had to block The Pirate Bay. If you were a Comcast customer, would you write a letter to your Senator or would you complain that Comcast wasn't letting, you, a paying customer, get the sites that you want to visit?
What I mean is that many (or most) people in the US blindly trust US media, for good or bad. Yet when you mention something like The Guardian or the BBC or Al-Jazeera, people claim those aren't US-sources so they can't be trusted.
I was just about to say the same thing, but then I realized: if Facebook really blocked all German traffic, would the people blame Facebook or would they blame the government? Something tells me that people would yell at Facebook for not cooperating with the government rather than complain about a bad law.
I say to proceed with a lawsuit since the first thing Gizmodo will do is file a motion that their article is truthful. And how do that do that? By subpoena-ing every customer of SmileDirectClub to see how many of them wound up with screwed-up teeth. Is this really something SmileDirectClub wants revealed in a public record? I'd bet they also run the risk of having a judge smack them down and require a warning that their product may or may not do what it claims to do.
That's an interesting "what if", but here's another: what if someone with a differing opinion actually has a good point to make? I know it's rare, but those people are out there.
So I think what you're suggesting is a system that weeds out the far-leaning people that rely on "I just know it" rather than evidence and logic.
I think this quote from Spielberg is odd: "I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination."
Is he trying to argue that Netflix has a "token release" just to qualify for awards? Yet how many Oscar-bait movies are released on Christmas Day in New York and Los Angeles (only) simply to qualify for that year's Academy Awards? How many times have we seen TV commercials for movies that say "Opens in New York on Christmas Day, opening everywhere February 15th." A month and a half later for the rest of the country?? Really?? That's not a token release at all.
Actually, CBS started their CBS All Access experiment with "The Good Fight", which is the spin-off of "The Good Wife". It started in January 2017, when "Star Trek: Discovery" was originally supposed to air. So now CBS should have all the fans of "The Good Wife" and all the Star Trek fans as subscribers.
But if their streaming service is so successful, how come they teamed with Amazon to offer CBS All Access as an Amazon Prime channel? Could it be because of convenience? Did CBS realize that Amazon Prime provides a better user experience?
So, like you say, let's see some real figures for CBS All Access.
On the post: HBO Wins Stupid Copyright, Trademark Lawsuit Brought By Graffiti Artist Over 2 Seconds Of Background Scenery
Re: This isn't an artist.
Step 1: Sue HBO and make sure the graffiti put into the public record as part of the court case.
Step 2: Make sure legal-analysis sites (such as this one) cover the story.
Step 3: Profit from the exposure bought for just the cost of filing a court case.
On the post: How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It)
Support the creators and artists
Remember the dust-up a few years ago where Apple was accused of not paying the artists? Even Taylor Swift argued against Apple. Yet the media didn't mention the fact that Apple's contracts were with the record labels and not the artists, therefore, Apple didn't have to pay the artists since the record labels were supposed to do that. But it's always easier to argue against a large company like Apple than to look into the details.
The second problem is that it sounds like this law will cover every recording, whether or not the rightful copyright-owner can be found. Then what? Does the public lose out on the recording because a radio station is too afraid to play it and get sued because they didn't pay a royalty?
On the post: Food Fight Over: New Jersey Turnpike Authority Gets Told To Pound Sand By PTAB Over Florida Pizza Company's Logo
The most important question
If it took that long for the case to get heard, then that's probably pretty quick.
But if it took the judges 3 months to decide a verdict after hearing the case, then that's absurd.
On the post: Turkish President Visits UK To Remind Everyone He Still Wants To Punish Critical Speech
You'd think Erdogan would be smarter...
The US decided Noriega of Panama was a drug dealer, so we invaded. Yet years earlier, he was a friend of the CIA.
The US decided Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, so we invaded. Yet years earlier, he was a friend against Iran.
So how long will it be until the western countries decide Turkey is too valuable to be in the hands of Erdogan?
On the post: The 'Race To 5G' Is Largely Just Marketing Nonsense
Marketing versus underlying problems
If we fixed the underlying problem with cars (that they use gas), maybe we'd be using electric cars since the 1990's. But instead, we get marketing people pushing rounded designs and fins and large trunks.
On the post: They Always Suck: UK ISP 'For The Children' Filters Block Disney And Educational Websites
Maybe the filters are working correctly
So there you go- the piracy issue is solved!
On the post: Ad Software Dev Doesn't Like Being Called Out For Privacy Violations ; Sends Threatening Letter To Researchers Who Exposed It
Re: Re:
At DeviantArt, the top half of the screen would be taken up with a big message saying "We know you're not here for ads, but please turn your AdBlocker off". They're telling their users that the "best experience" involves letting the ad-system serve them annoying, flashing ads and possibly malware.
At ComicsAlliance, there's a javascript pop-up that's coded so you have 3 minutes to disable your ad-blocker (and allow ads, malware, etc) or a big banner will cover the entire page and stop you from reading it. Yes, you can disable javascript which disables the pop-up, but that also blocks the images from appearing, which isn't helpful on a comic book site.
On the post: Police Realizing That SESTA/FOSTA Made Their Jobs Harder; Sex Traffickers Realizing It's Made Their Job Easier
Re:
I would say, never.
Even though there's a lot of evidence saying the law actually hurts people, politicians passed it assuming it helped people. They're not going to go back on their campaign promises to get the law passed and then say they were wrong.
Like other posters have said, this is a morality law and politicians rarely, if ever, change their stance on morality.
On the post: California Gov't Thinks It Might Be Able To Regulate Fake News Sometime Before 2020
What is fake news?
* We can probably agree that posts from trolls trying to sway the election are bad, but should they be banned? Or should people be adults and make up their own mind about whether the story is true?
* Stories from known satire sites like The Onion. Of course their stories are "fake news" and they even say their stories are satire. Should these be banned?
What about the Chinese media that thinks these stories are true? Should those be banned?
What about legit sites like the Huffington Post that see the story in the Chinese media (again based on the The Onion article) and report it as true because they never verified the original source? Should these kinds of stories be banned? And if you're banning this story from HuffPo, should you allow the rest?
* And will the "fake news ban" block any stories are scientifically proven false, such as how vaccines cause autism or how the world is flat?
* If California can get its own fake news ban, can other states and countries? Will we go along with Middle East countries when they say any negative information about Islam is fake news?
On the post: Gaming Industry And Game Consumers On A Collision Course Over Loot Boxes
Re:
Sure, people can protest and say how evil loot boxes are, but game companies will *never* change their behavior until it affects their bottom line. And as long as people buy the games with loot boxes *despite* the protests, game companies will keep doing it.
On the post: Drug Dog Trainer: Marijuana Legalization Will Literally Kill Police Drug Dogs
What about other states?
Wait, none of this happened. I don't remember hearing *anyone* talk about drug dogs when debating marijuana. In fact, his position completely ignores all the benefits: lower arrest rates for drug use, more tax revenue, and so on.
On the post: Romance Novelist Secures Trademark For Word 'Cocky,' Begins Beating Other Novelists Over The Head With It
The usual formula...
Plan A:
1) Get a flimsy copyright.
2) Threaten to sue people who don't know copyright law or who don't want to spend the money to defend themselves.
3) Profit... and make more money than actually writing books.
Plan B:
1) Get a flimsy copyright.
2) Threaten to sue people.
3) Receive tons of media attention from actual copyright experts who say this is a bogus copyright and a stupid law suit.
4) Profit from all the media attention. After all, any attention is more attention.
On the post: EU Commission Asks Public To Weigh In On Survey About Just How Much They Want The Internet To Be Censored
Re: The solution is easy.....
For example, imagine if Congress said Comcast had to block The Pirate Bay. If you were a Comcast customer, would you write a letter to your Senator or would you complain that Comcast wasn't letting, you, a paying customer, get the sites that you want to visit?
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
What about country bias?
On the post: Glass-Tongued Copyright Troll Thinks Google, Popehat, and Boing Boing Are Engaged In 'Black Hat Seo'
Re:
On the post: Inverting The Expected Order Of Things, German Court Orders Facebook To Reinstate 'Offensive' Content
Re:
On the post: At-Home Dental Appliance Company Sues Website For Having Opinions About Its Products
I say proceed with a lawsuit
Is this really something SmileDirectClub wants revealed in a public record? I'd bet they also run the risk of having a judge smack them down and require a warning that their product may or may not do what it claims to do.
On the post: It Took All Of Three Hours To Code A Plugin That Makes News Comments More Civil
Re: Pardon me being the devil's advocate...
So I think what you're suggesting is a system that weeds out the far-leaning people that rely on "I just know it" rather than evidence and logic.
On the post: Cannes Bans Netflix Films From Competition Because The Internet Is Bad (Or Something)
An odd quote
"I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination."
Is he trying to argue that Netflix has a "token release" just to qualify for awards? Yet how many Oscar-bait movies are released on Christmas Day in New York and Los Angeles (only) simply to qualify for that year's Academy Awards?
How many times have we seen TV commercials for movies that say "Opens in New York on Christmas Day, opening everywhere February 15th." A month and a half later for the rest of the country?? Really?? That's not a token release at all.
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Re:
So now CBS should have all the fans of "The Good Wife" and all the Star Trek fans as subscribers.
But if their streaming service is so successful, how come they teamed with Amazon to offer CBS All Access as an Amazon Prime channel? Could it be because of convenience? Did CBS realize that Amazon Prime provides a better user experience?
So, like you say, let's see some real figures for CBS All Access.
Next >>