I think we should have this allowance for copyright: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
And no others.
We do have that allowance already. But "promot[ing] the Progress" is a fairly broad standard. Do you think copyright currently doesn't meet that standard? If not, what is the proper standard and why doesn't copyright meet it?
It's easy to say that these works should be in the public domain because they really should be. Copy protection lengths do in fact last way too long (assuming copy protection should even exist).
Why is it too long?
Mike doesn't have to have an answer to this question in order to reasonably determine that our existing laws are a result of corruption and are not publicly beneficial.
The determinations are related. If he has an opinion about one, he can form an opinion about the other.
It's easy to say those works should be in the public domain because of copyright expansion. But do you think those works should've ever been copyrighted in the first place? That is, do you think we should have any copyright?
And yet I'm here making substantive arguments, backed with links and quotes, and citing case law. You're just tossing out insults and conclusory nonsense. When are you going to provide anything of substance?
It's "painfully obvious," yet you can't point to even a single word or sentence that supports your contention? I linked to five different posts where Mike makes the claim without a hint of facetiousness. You have proferred exactly zero evidence.
It's obvious in the most broad and clear way what point is being made by both Mike and the original report.
The only way you could possibly not understand is a) genuine stupidity or b) willful stupidity. Either way, there's no point in engaging with you.
I assume you're not going to respond with any sort of explanation. That's fine. But the irony is pretty funny. The claim is so dumb that your defense is that Mike didn't really it. The sad thing is, he really did. Well, he purported to really mean it. I'm not sure why you can't just admit that he was (you were?) sensationalizing. That's been my point. It's not just the email thing. It's hundreds of little things just like that. They're all bullshit. This place is a house of cards built on bullshit.
Just out of curiosity, how many such "quoted in email" cases are you personally aware of?
That's a great point. There is one case in particular that I remember--and Mike is aware of it too:
1. Publication of some of the contents in the email archive is lawful.
At the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, Diebold's counsel asserted that portions of the email archive contain material that is copyrighted and has no “public interest” value. Transcript of Law and Motion Hearing, November 17, 2003, p. 8:7–12. However, Diebold did not identify and has never identified specific emails that contain copyrighted content, and thus it has not provided evidence to support its counsel's assertion. See, e.g., id. at 10. At the same time, Diebold appears to have acknowledged that at least some of the emails are subject to the fair use doctrine. See, e.g., id. at 12:8–9 & 14–16.
The purpose, character, nature of the use, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work all indicate that at least part of the email archive is not protected by copyright law. The email archive was posted or hyperlinked to for the purpose of informing the public about the problems associated with Diebold's electronic voting machines. It is hard to imagine a subject the discussion of which could be more in the public interest. If Diebold's machines in fact do tabulate voters' preferences incorrectly, the very legitimacy of elections would be suspect. Moreover, Diebold has identified no specific commercial purpose or interest affected by publication of the email archive, and there is no evidence that such publication actually had or may have any affect on the putative market value, if any, of Diebold's allegedly copyrighted material. Even if it is true that portions of the email archive have commercial value, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs have attempted or intended to sell copies of the email archive for profit. Publishing or hyperlinking to the email archive did not prevent Diebold from making a profit from the content of the archive because there is no evidence that Diebold itself intended to or could profit from such content. At most, Plaintiffs' activity might have reduced Diebold's profits because it helped inform potential customers of problems with the machines. However, copyright law is not designed to prevent such an outcome. See, e.g., Acuff–Rose, 510 U.S. at 591–92, 114 S.Ct. 1164. Rather, the goal of copyright law is to protect creative works in order to promote their creation. To the extent that Diebold argues that publication of the entire email archive diminished the value of some of its proprietary software or systems information, it must be noted that there is no evidence that Plaintiffs published or linked to the archive in order to profit. Finally, Plaintiffs' and IndyMedia's use was transformative: they used the email archive to support criticism that is in the public interest, not to develop electronic voting technology. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Diebold, through its use of the DMCA, sought to and did in fact suppress publication of content that is not subject to copyright protection.
Online Policy Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (footnotes omitted).
More than 13,000 emails were published, yet the court held that the copyright owner had violated the law by sending DMCA takedown notices to have the email archive removed:
Applying this standard and in light of the evidence in the record, the Court concludes as a matter of law that Diebold knowingly materially misrepresented that Plaintiffs infringed Diebold's copyright interest, at least with respect to the portions of the email archive clearly subject to the fair use exception. No reasonable copyright holder could have believed that the portions of the email archive discussing possible technical problems with Diebold's voting machines were protected by copyright, and there is no genuine issue of fact that Diebold knew—and indeed that it specifically intended—that its letters to OPG and Swarthmore would result in prevention of publication of that content. The misrepresentations were material in that they resulted in removal of the content from websites and the initiation of the present lawsuit. The fact that Diebold never actually brought suit against any alleged infringer suggests strongly that Diebold sought to use the DMCA's safe harbor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.
That is one of the problems of copyright law, fair use is so poorly defined that it becomes an expensive exercise to prove it through the courts if the copyright holder wishes to make a case of it.
Mike writes post after post where he quotes others, and he's not worried about it because he knows it's fair use. When he receives legal threats, he publicly posts his responses where he proudly tells the party complaining that he's confidently quoting them because of fair use. It's not a problem for Mike, and it's not a problem for me either. I just quoted your entire comment, and I haven't the least bit of concern about it being infringing.
No, the truth is that Mike was making a very easy and obvious point that you are refusing to understand, even though you easily could, because you love fighting in the Techdirt comments to a perverted degree.
And you have yet to supply even one iota of evidence of why you think Mike is facetiously making his claim. I await your substantive response. No need for further insults, but you keep acting that way if it's all you got. I understand.
Again, utterly (or intentionally) failing to understand the point.
I get that you need to say I'm wrong, but you're not explaining WHY I'm wrong. Please be specific. I'm happy to address your points, despite your obvious hatred of me, because I only care about substance. Explain exactly what the point is that I'm "failing to understand." It's easy to say I'm wrong. It's not so easy to explain why. Can you explain why?
It's obvious in the most broad and clear way what point is being made by both Mike and the original report.
The only way you could possibly not understand is a) genuine stupidity or b) willful stupidity. Either way, there's no point in engaging with you
I get that you need to insult me, but I'm not understanding what basis you have for thinking that Mike is being facetious when he makes the claim that replying to an email with quotes is infringement. You keep saying it's "obvious," but you have yet to back up that assertion with even one single sentence from Mike that demonstrates this purported obviousness. Can you please provide even one shred of textual basis for your claim?
One last point: Mike claimed that replying to an email with quotations from the email being replied to is infringement. We're not talking about publishing someone's emails. This is not a close case. It's fair use. Considering the incredibly broad understanding of fair use that Mike has, wherein he considers much less obvious uses to be fair, do you honestly think that Mike really doesn't think the email thing is fair use? Serious question.
I'm not dodging anything. I said Gwiz and Mike could sue me. That implies that they potentially have a claim. Are emails copyrighted upon fixation? Probably, if they're sufficiently original, long enough, etc. Given that I said they're not infringing because of DEFENSES, such as fair use, I implied that they were copyrightable to begin with. What am I dodging? How am I disingenuous?
Sorry, don't know why I got signed out. I love the irony, though, that Mike is claiming that something is infringing, and I'm explaining why it's not. The truth is that Mike doesn't realky think it's infringing either. But he won't admit it.
Great comment. The irony is that this site blasts other for "hyperbole, moral panic, and misleading information," while it engages in those very same tactics even more so than most. Mike's "emails are infringing" bit is just one example. Strange how my AC critic can't even admit that Mike is *really* making this claim. They're all so desperate to defend him. Heck, this AC probably is Mike. I'd actually be shocked if it weren't, to tell you the truth. I really think he's that desperate.
So you have nothing. Thanks for confirming. If you think I'm reading something wrongly, quote the exact text you're referring to and then explain how you think it should be interpreted. I've brought links and quotes and analysis. You've brought nothing.
In all seriousness, I'd like to see the numbers on who is being censored the most. Of course, we'll never get that kind of transparency. Heck, Mike cannot even admit to how desperately he tried to censor me the summer before last. Good times.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
And no others.
We do have that allowance already. But "promot[ing] the Progress" is a fairly broad standard. Do you think copyright currently doesn't meet that standard? If not, what is the proper standard and why doesn't copyright meet it?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
Instead of insults, why not join the conversation?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
Why is it too long?
Mike doesn't have to have an answer to this question in order to reasonably determine that our existing laws are a result of corruption and are not publicly beneficial.
The determinations are related. If he has an opinion about one, he can form an opinion about the other.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only way you could possibly not understand is a) genuine stupidity or b) willful stupidity. Either way, there's no point in engaging with you.
I assume you're not going to respond with any sort of explanation. That's fine. But the irony is pretty funny. The claim is so dumb that your defense is that Mike didn't really it. The sad thing is, he really did. Well, he purported to really mean it. I'm not sure why you can't just admit that he was (you were?) sensationalizing. That's been my point. It's not just the email thing. It's hundreds of little things just like that. They're all bullshit. This place is a house of cards built on bullshit.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I meant one email case I remember. It's not a "quoted in email" case. I've never heard of one of those. Which was your point.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a great point. There is one case in particular that I remember--and Mike is aware of it too:Online Policy Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (footnotes omitted).
More than 13,000 emails were published, yet the court held that the copyright owner had violated the law by sending DMCA takedown notices to have the email archive removed:Id. at 1204-05 (footnote omitted).
Mike is, of course, completely aware of this case. He blogged about it in 2004: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040930/2247229.shtml And he's mentioned it recently. See, for example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130207/00105521902/putting-together-database-bogus-dmca-takedown s.shtml
There are other cases, but this is the one I remember distinctly.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike writes post after post where he quotes others, and he's not worried about it because he knows it's fair use. When he receives legal threats, he publicly posts his responses where he proudly tells the party complaining that he's confidently quoting them because of fair use. It's not a problem for Mike, and it's not a problem for me either. I just quoted your entire comment, and I haven't the least bit of concern about it being infringing.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you have yet to supply even one iota of evidence of why you think Mike is facetiously making his claim. I await your substantive response. No need for further insults, but you keep acting that way if it's all you got. I understand.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get that you need to say I'm wrong, but you're not explaining WHY I'm wrong. Please be specific. I'm happy to address your points, despite your obvious hatred of me, because I only care about substance. Explain exactly what the point is that I'm "failing to understand." It's easy to say I'm wrong. It's not so easy to explain why. Can you explain why?
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only way you could possibly not understand is a) genuine stupidity or b) willful stupidity. Either way, there's no point in engaging with you
I get that you need to insult me, but I'm not understanding what basis you have for thinking that Mike is being facetious when he makes the claim that replying to an email with quotes is infringement. You keep saying it's "obvious," but you have yet to back up that assertion with even one single sentence from Mike that demonstrates this purported obviousness. Can you please provide even one shred of textual basis for your claim?
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141227/05571829528/sonys-own-copyright-infringement-shows-h ow-broken-our-copyright-system-is-today.shtml#c557
Perhaps you missed it or were too busy to respond or....just maybe....you were too chicken to respond. Who knows?
Glass houses, my friend.
LOL! Sorry, I missed your question earlier. (1) De minimis, (2) fair use, (3) implied license. Make sense?
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you have nothing. Thanks for confirming. If you think I'm reading something wrongly, quote the exact text you're referring to and then explain how you think it should be interpreted. I've brought links and quotes and analysis. You've brought nothing.
On the post: Techdirt 2014: The Numbers.
Re: Missing Statistics
Next >>