If it weren't for all those uppity cattle creating more legal work trying to quash subpoenas and wasting the court's time claiming innocence before their execution is even arranged, the price might have stayed the same.
(C)(1) Within thirty days after the entry of an order sealing official records issued pursuant to section 2953.32, 2953.322, or 2953.52 of the Revised Code, any private individual, business organization, or other nongovernmental entity having records that include information concerning any arrest, complaint, indictment, trial, hearing, adjudication, conviction, or correctional supervision derived from or in substance identical to information in the official records that have been ordered sealed shall delete the information from the records or destroy the records.
It looks like the related sections are defining cases where the court will seal documents for first time offenders or other cases.
I'm not sure how this would apply to a convicted murderer, but the concept of erasing every individual's and organization's memory does seem a bit off.
Huh... I thought the plural of moose was m00se, or m33se depending if it is a North American moose or a Scandinavian moose. I learn something new every day, and that is the beauty of life.
The creatives get fed just enough scraps to keep them cloning the work of each other.
Consider this: when every piece of the oft-recycled crap we see every year suddenly gets a copyright holder, how many sustaining income creators will there be in the industries?
.. and how many lawyers?
Do you really think they'll let independent creators get valuable copyrights on their work? If so, what makes you think the army of lawyers vs. single lawyer win-lose model will work any different for the "little" fashion designers?
Your system would require works be registered to get copyright protection. Copyright was changed to apply automatically, without registration. What do they do about unregistered works?
Very true. However to be part of Creative Commons I believe the work also has to be registered with Creative Commons, or is this assumption faulty?
Unregistered works do not play well with a system designed to attribute works with artists (or even "copyright holders" if we had to go there). Naturally automatic no account could be given for an unaccounted work.
I think I only implied such in my comment, but I'm also agreeing that copyright law in its current state probably needs to be abandoned entirely. Creative Commons is amounting to an alternate copyright system for people, which i think may be worthy of supporting if, in the end, the copyright laws must be purged, de facto, through mass abandonment of practice. That's what inspired me to want a "killer app" for the Creative Commons system.
When all the cards in the deck are stacked against you... leave the table.
Seems the free market is working exactly as advertised to me.
You must be referring to U.S. product FreeMarket(TM) [Wall Street], not an imaginary "free market" somewhere in the world.
If so you are correct. Working as advertised.
Others are of the opinion that enabling homogenization of the markets is not unlike depending on a single strain of plant for year after year: sure its cheap, but makes us vulnerable to highly specialized predators, and creates nightmare circuses out of normal, cyclical, market contractions. That last part is mostly due to stupid, short-sighted investors, though, IMO.
OK I admit it, my opinion is driven by self-interest... why the hell should I have to go to a meat-boutique to get a steak that tastes remotely like beef?
Those here who choose to post comments that mock the plaintiff using potentially defamatory statements should bear in mind that they do not enjoy the protection of Section 230. This protection extends to the service provider, and not commenters. They would be wise to more carefully measure their words, and techdirt is wise not commenting on their comments. Otherwise, it could place techdirt is a position that could deny it 230's safe harbor.
That doesn't make Jeffrey Morris of Jeftel any less of a fucking twat for all the world to see for having filed the suit in the first place. That's my honest opinion.
The Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with a civil copyright infringement case.
...unless the filing lawyers ask for unreasonable search and seizure, which seems to be the case when they ask for identities without substantiation or court order.
Do you just make this stuff up?
No, in this case, Wikipedia "just made stuff up". Oh, also in this case, the The U.S. Constitution is also "just making stuff up".
ust what rights would ISPs be standing up for? The right to infringe on other people's copyrights?
I think this has been shared with you before, AJ. But, for your reference, the rights an ISP would be standing up for by refusing to hand over personal information would be our Fourth Amendment rights in the U.S.
The problem with the "guilt by IP address en masse" method, is that IP addresses can be shared, hijacked and even spoofed. By initiating these area-of-effect lawsuits, they are going to fuck at least a few innocent people every time. The innocent have much less chance at proving their innocence when they are addressed by the court as a herd of cattle.
Any reason to believe your ID/Certificate system would stand up to cracks any better than the software industry's?
None whatsoever. Even the SSL certificate system has its cracks, and "if it's a stream of binary information, it can be spoofed".
Auditing systems should be implemented for both pre-registration infringement detection and for post-registration fraud (for instance, a collection society might try to register a lot of stuff already on CC as their own copyright). Creating digital signatures and retaining original files would be crucial for any sort of automated or manual audit system.
As I mentioned in my original comment, I have my own doubts as to just how vulnerable such a system might be. This is one of the key reasons such an undertaking would require a massive collaborative effort.
YouTube does have a Content ID system which will block certain uploads (or let the copyright holder monetize them)
While I find this system innovative, I think there is room for a more comprehensive, if antagonistic, solution to the copyright problem. Disclaimer: Its not only possible, but likely I've read similar suggestions before, perhaps here.
First I would drop all "standard" collection societies and their "standard" copyrighted works from the Content ID system until they stop their legal attacks and attempts to create third party infringement "standards".
Second, lets build a killer app for Creative Commons based on, but more tightly integrated than the Content ID system. Essential to this system would be an artist 'key' and tagging standard that would be implemented across the board:
- Set up a key registration and maintenance system and an RFC standard similar to how SSL certificates are defined, assigned and controlled.
- Registered CC artists would optionally be assigned a key similar to SSL certificates, and this would be used for identification across all integrated systems.
- Each time an artist creates and registers a new work, this would be assigned to their key, and a digital profile of the data representing their work would be created. This profile would be used for validation, infringement detection and anti-fraud activities.
- Create and use a new media file format standard (or extension, more likely), where the artist's key would be encoded in the original work's data.
- Create application standards in video, audio and image editors which retain and embed artist public keys whenever the original work is sourced for use in a new project. As many keys as necessary could be embedded into a new 'derivative' work.
- Implement standards for all "monetizing" media sharing services, such as YouTube, whereby any new works that are monetized have their CC artist tags applied, and, if opted in, the artists related Payment account would automatically be assigned a portion of any proceeds from the new derivative work.
Running separate, manually administered Content ID systems for every collection society out there is cost prohibitive, therefore others outside of CC who wish to opt-in to the system must adhere to CC standards and subscribe to the system as a service.
This type of system would require a massive, coordinated effort and buy-in from a lot of key players in the industry (technology, independent artists and CC, not legacy Copyright industries).
This system would also be a juicy target for fraud and abuse hacks. Also the idea itself may be cost prohibitive for a grass-roots effort. And of course, there would be the ubiquitous frivolous lawsuits that it would inevitably draw from legacy copyright, especially if implemented as a civil (disobedient) alternative to a broken and corrupted copyright system?
Has this idea been discussed before? What are the drawbacks and impediments to implementing a system like this?
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Costs add up
On the post: French ISPs Pushing Back Against Hadopi; Threaten To Ignore Requests
Re: Re: @ 3 and 4
tsk tsk
On the post: Scammers Sending Out Notices Pretending To Be From HADOPI, Demanding Money For Infringement
Re: Interesting...
Hand over your 401K and move along, nothing to see here.
On the post: Ohio Senator Introduces Bill That Would Let Ex-Convicts Try To Erase Online Information About Their Arrest
Re: Yup Pretty Silly
On the post: Ohio Senator Introduces Bill That Would Let Ex-Convicts Try To Erase Online Information About Their Arrest
Yup Pretty Silly
It looks like the related sections are defining cases where the court will seal documents for first time offenders or other cases.
I'm not sure how this would apply to a convicted murderer, but the concept of erasing every individual's and organization's memory does seem a bit off.
On the post: Record Labels Flip Out After Indian Copyright Board Massively Lowers Radio Royalties
Re: Re: Re: Re: In unrelated news....
On the post: Record Labels Flip Out After Indian Copyright Board Massively Lowers Radio Royalties
Re: Re: In unrelated news....
On the post: If Fashion Copyright Harms So Many, Why Is Congress Pushing For It?
Re: why?
Consider this: when every piece of the oft-recycled crap we see every year suddenly gets a copyright holder, how many sustaining income creators will there be in the industries?
.. and how many lawyers?
Do you really think they'll let independent creators get valuable copyrights on their work? If so, what makes you think the army of lawyers vs. single lawyer win-lose model will work any different for the "little" fashion designers?
On the post: When Suing A Website For Libel, It Helps To Actually Sue The Right One
Re: Re:
*poof* Real Journalism written by Real Journalists, with all the rights and immunities assigned thereto.
On the post: Shameful News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks To Get Shield Law
Re: Re:
That would be the chicken wing.
On the post: German Court Says Google May Have To Police Videos On YouTube For Infringement
Re: Re: CC Flagging
Very true. However to be part of Creative Commons I believe the work also has to be registered with Creative Commons, or is this assumption faulty?
Unregistered works do not play well with a system designed to attribute works with artists (or even "copyright holders" if we had to go there). Naturally automatic no account could be given for an unaccounted work.
I think I only implied such in my comment, but I'm also agreeing that copyright law in its current state probably needs to be abandoned entirely. Creative Commons is amounting to an alternate copyright system for people, which i think may be worthy of supporting if, in the end, the copyright laws must be purged, de facto, through mass abandonment of practice. That's what inspired me to want a "killer app" for the Creative Commons system.
When all the cards in the deck are stacked against you... leave the table.
On the post: German Court Says Google May Have To Police Videos On YouTube For Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: CC Flagging
That's by far a better reason to start a concept like this with CC alone, rather than favoring the Commons entirely out of spite and disgust.
On the post: Blockbuster Bankruptcy, Yet Again, Highlights How It's Not Easy To Just Copy The Disruptive Innovation
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
You must be referring to U.S. product FreeMarket(TM) [Wall Street], not an imaginary "free market" somewhere in the world.
If so you are correct. Working as advertised.
Others are of the opinion that enabling homogenization of the markets is not unlike depending on a single strain of plant for year after year: sure its cheap, but makes us vulnerable to highly specialized predators, and creates nightmare circuses out of normal, cyclical, market contractions. That last part is mostly due to stupid, short-sighted investors, though, IMO.
OK I admit it, my opinion is driven by self-interest... why the hell should I have to go to a meat-boutique to get a steak that tastes remotely like beef?
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Re:
That doesn't make Jeffrey Morris of Jeftel any less of a fucking twat for all the world to see for having filed the suit in the first place. That's my honest opinion.
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...unless the filing lawyers ask for unreasonable search and seizure, which seems to be the case when they ask for identities without substantiation or court order.
No, in this case, Wikipedia "just made stuff up". Oh, also in this case, the The U.S. Constitution is also "just making stuff up".
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re:
I think this has been shared with you before, AJ. But, for your reference, the rights an ISP would be standing up for by refusing to hand over personal information would be our Fourth Amendment rights in the U.S.
The problem with the "guilt by IP address en masse" method, is that IP addresses can be shared, hijacked and even spoofed. By initiating these area-of-effect lawsuits, they are going to fuck at least a few innocent people every time. The innocent have much less chance at proving their innocence when they are addressed by the court as a herd of cattle.
On the post: German Court Says Google May Have To Police Videos On YouTube For Infringement
Re: Re: CC Flagging
None whatsoever. Even the SSL certificate system has its cracks, and "if it's a stream of binary information, it can be spoofed".
Auditing systems should be implemented for both pre-registration infringement detection and for post-registration fraud (for instance, a collection society might try to register a lot of stuff already on CC as their own copyright). Creating digital signatures and retaining original files would be crucial for any sort of automated or manual audit system.
As I mentioned in my original comment, I have my own doubts as to just how vulnerable such a system might be. This is one of the key reasons such an undertaking would require a massive collaborative effort.
On the post: German Court Says Google May Have To Police Videos On YouTube For Infringement
CC Flagging
While I find this system innovative, I think there is room for a more comprehensive, if antagonistic, solution to the copyright problem. Disclaimer: Its not only possible, but likely I've read similar suggestions before, perhaps here.
First I would drop all "standard" collection societies and their "standard" copyrighted works from the Content ID system until they stop their legal attacks and attempts to create third party infringement "standards".
Second, lets build a killer app for Creative Commons based on, but more tightly integrated than the Content ID system. Essential to this system would be an artist 'key' and tagging standard that would be implemented across the board:
- Set up a key registration and maintenance system and an RFC standard similar to how SSL certificates are defined, assigned and controlled.
- Registered CC artists would optionally be assigned a key similar to SSL certificates, and this would be used for identification across all integrated systems.
- Each time an artist creates and registers a new work, this would be assigned to their key, and a digital profile of the data representing their work would be created. This profile would be used for validation, infringement detection and anti-fraud activities.
- Create and use a new media file format standard (or extension, more likely), where the artist's key would be encoded in the original work's data.
- Create application standards in video, audio and image editors which retain and embed artist public keys whenever the original work is sourced for use in a new project. As many keys as necessary could be embedded into a new 'derivative' work.
- Implement standards for all "monetizing" media sharing services, such as YouTube, whereby any new works that are monetized have their CC artist tags applied, and, if opted in, the artists related Payment account would automatically be assigned a portion of any proceeds from the new derivative work.
Running separate, manually administered Content ID systems for every collection society out there is cost prohibitive, therefore others outside of CC who wish to opt-in to the system must adhere to CC standards and subscribe to the system as a service.
This type of system would require a massive, coordinated effort and buy-in from a lot of key players in the industry (technology, independent artists and CC, not legacy Copyright industries).
This system would also be a juicy target for fraud and abuse hacks. Also the idea itself may be cost prohibitive for a grass-roots effort. And of course, there would be the ubiquitous frivolous lawsuits that it would inevitably draw from legacy copyright, especially if implemented as a civil (disobedient) alternative to a broken and corrupted copyright system?
Has this idea been discussed before? What are the drawbacks and impediments to implementing a system like this?
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Re: SPEECH Act
(See what I did with the Internet there Jeffrey? Boner.. haha that's you)
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Re: Do I have this right?
Ooh ooh, I know... "Jeffrey Morris is a fucking tosser!"
Next >>