Just to point out, you have never actually given any logical or evidence-based argument why their liability would be any different. Also, Righthaven.com has not claimed in any manner to be absolved of liability.
They only claim that they will help a content creator assert the rights that THEY ALREADY HAVE, which they are often not able to given limited resources and knowledge.
Prediction: you will continue to ignore both of these points.
Ok, well you can form whatever opinions you like, but they don't seem grounded in much resembling critical thought.
You know there are many, many reasons that providers tier in this manner--it is a very common and healthy occurrence in any marketplace. They will succeed or fail based on how well they serve the customers not targeted by the upstream provider and by how they differentiate themselves. No surprise there.
So your entire argument boils down to: "I don't believe they can provide anything unique" for which you have no actual evidence (since they are just starting) to point to.
We do, however, have plenty of evidence that the typical approach to supporting customers in this manner is to NOT support customers in this manner. Ergo a possible differentiation that we also have plenty of evidence is actually desired.
Be negative if you wish, but it sounds pretty foolish--they have as much chance to succeed as any other startup.
Hey, nevermind what they actually said or even how safe harbors actually work, go ahead and just change their words to whatever you wanted to hear!
The point of the notice and takedown process, as well as the legal realm is to try and give both accusers and defendants a remedy. They are simply saying they will provide the defendants support in situations where they are often on the losing side (by far) regarding resources at their disposal to defend against misdirected or wrongful accusations.
Unless you believe (and I think you may) that defendants should have the most limited (or none) remedies possible and always capitulate, then I guess I understand why you fabricated all that language.
Did you not read the article closely? They addressed this directly: "But dialogue isn't always enough. Against this unfortunate possibility we have a second level of defense: In cooperation with our upstream providers in Switzerland we have some of the best free speech counsel in the world on retainer. "
I realize I misunderstood the meaning behind your first post--I was focused on Keii's post, which I do think was positing religion as the cause, despite its humorous intent.
is that major media and so-called journalists don't call anyone out on these kinds of things any more. Or force them to provide justifications for assertions made in large, public forums. Or research citations and statistics.
But, there you have it, expecting journalism to be a check and balance to hold our leaders and politicians accountable to the people and fundamental rights is pretty much dead.
I get it, I really do, but to me, this discussion is the worst part of philosophy. Its intellectual masturbation. Great, so good and evil only exist because we defined them so, and morality derived mostly from religion throughout history.
Yet, selfishness, greed, anger, hatred, jealousy, altrusim, love, etc. have existed since long before any of that.
So, fine, I'll grant that religion was the source of our concept of evil, as long as we also grant that religion is not the source of the behaviors that are often characterized as evil. To me the latter is ludicrous. Even Richard Dawkins would agree with that.
And we can agree that as we go forward into the future society's perception of certain actions will change (and so will religion's for that matter).
Completely agree with the sentiments, but I bet organizations like these don't have shareholders. Would be interesting to confirm--I looked at the site and it lists itself as a "private collective management society".
So, I guess it is actually worse--they represent the interests of the leaders of the organization and no one else.
Re: Re: Evidence of Acts not used for their intended purpose
Yeah, I know. It's just sad to see the various forms of the statement, "this will only be used for its intended purposes" have any weight whatsoever. Anyone that doesn't immediately reject that statement and its forms is completely clueless about both history and human nature.
As long as you substitute "content brokers" for "content creators" whenever you are having a conversation about protecting copyright, you'll fully understand everything said.
You know, this is where the judge faltered and I wish they would address this. Instead of focusing on what is similar, I think that the judicial system ought to determine if they could explain, in precise terms, what the second photographer would have had to do differently for his work to not infringe.
After these rulings we're all left wondering exactly how to avoid infringement in future situations because the logic is fluid and arbitrary.
How much longer until fashion magazines decide not to bother photoshopping real people at all? We know that virtual pop acts exist already, why continue to pay millions to photoshop supermodels to hide imperfections (and fight that battle) when you can just create the perfect model virtually?
I know, we're far from that--too much cache brought by an actual famous person to bother with a facsimile.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike in favor of false and misleading advertising.
I've been sitting here for five minutes still trying to process the above. Every time I think of Glenn Beck (shudder) and then try to mentally compare him to Dark Helmet, my brain just blue screens--its like a cerebral divide-by-zero fault.
That's where I am too-- and it makes sense, because it is true of any organization (political, religious, environmental, etc.).
Leadership is what makes an organization balance its needs and principles with external and internal (individual) needs and expectations.
I think a lot of folks feel as though many existing organizations seem to think that the only way to achieve their objectives is to do it at the expense of others and without compromise--leading to extreme positions and no consideration of other perspectives.
Its not that simple, of course, but its how I rationalize it.
Actually, no. Infringement is a tort and in limited cases is criminal.
And, don't be disingenuous--you know that infringement is subjective enough that all that is required here is for the subject of the statement to be concerned about some form of threatening behavior from the other.
On the post: The 'New' Righthaven Offers Discount To Techdirt Readers Who Want 'Spineful' Hosting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They only claim that they will help a content creator assert the rights that THEY ALREADY HAVE, which they are often not able to given limited resources and knowledge.
Prediction: you will continue to ignore both of these points.
On the post: The 'New' Righthaven Offers Discount To Techdirt Readers Who Want 'Spineful' Hosting
Re: Re: Re:
You know there are many, many reasons that providers tier in this manner--it is a very common and healthy occurrence in any marketplace. They will succeed or fail based on how well they serve the customers not targeted by the upstream provider and by how they differentiate themselves. No surprise there.
So your entire argument boils down to: "I don't believe they can provide anything unique" for which you have no actual evidence (since they are just starting) to point to.
We do, however, have plenty of evidence that the typical approach to supporting customers in this manner is to NOT support customers in this manner. Ergo a possible differentiation that we also have plenty of evidence is actually desired.
Be negative if you wish, but it sounds pretty foolish--they have as much chance to succeed as any other startup.
On the post: The 'New' Righthaven Offers Discount To Techdirt Readers Who Want 'Spineful' Hosting
Re:
The point of the notice and takedown process, as well as the legal realm is to try and give both accusers and defendants a remedy. They are simply saying they will provide the defendants support in situations where they are often on the losing side (by far) regarding resources at their disposal to defend against misdirected or wrongful accusations.
Unless you believe (and I think you may) that defendants should have the most limited (or none) remedies possible and always capitulate, then I guess I understand why you fabricated all that language.
On the post: The 'New' Righthaven Offers Discount To Techdirt Readers Who Want 'Spineful' Hosting
Re:
On the post: Twitter Sued For Defamation By Someone Who Thinks It's Responsible For 'Publishing' Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots
On the post: Twitter Sued For Defamation By Someone Who Thinks It's Responsible For 'Publishing' Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots
I realize I misunderstood the meaning behind your first post--I was focused on Keii's post, which I do think was positing religion as the cause, despite its humorous intent.
On the post: Romney Campaign's Finance Co-Chair Accused Of Being SLAPP-Happy
What I think is a shame
But, there you have it, expecting journalism to be a check and balance to hold our leaders and politicians accountable to the people and fundamental rights is pretty much dead.
On the post: Twitter Sued For Defamation By Someone Who Thinks It's Responsible For 'Publishing' Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots
Yet, selfishness, greed, anger, hatred, jealousy, altrusim, love, etc. have existed since long before any of that.
So, fine, I'll grant that religion was the source of our concept of evil, as long as we also grant that religion is not the source of the behaviors that are often characterized as evil. To me the latter is ludicrous. Even Richard Dawkins would agree with that.
And we can agree that as we go forward into the future society's perception of certain actions will change (and so will religion's for that matter).
On the post: Twitter Sued For Defamation By Someone Who Thinks It's Responsible For 'Publishing' Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots
On the post: Belgian Anti-Piracy Group Facing Copyright Fraud, Embezzlement & Money Laundering Charges
Re: Look. Learn. Listen.
So, I guess it is actually worse--they represent the interests of the leaders of the organization and no one else.
On the post: Twitter Sued For Defamation By Someone Who Thinks It's Responsible For 'Publishing' Tweets
Re: Re: Idiots
On the post: Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'
Re: Re: Evidence of Acts not used for their intended purpose
On the post: Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'
Evidence of Acts not used for their intended purpose
On the post: Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
Not that confusing
On the post: UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph
After these rulings we're all left wondering exactly how to avoid infringement in future situations because the logic is fluid and arbitrary.
On the post: Couple Pushes For Law To Limit Photoshopping Models; Because It Hurts Young Girls' Self-Esteem
Here's a thought...
I know, we're far from that--too much cache brought by an actual famous person to bother with a facsimile.
On the post: Couple Pushes For Law To Limit Photoshopping Models; Because It Hurts Young Girls' Self-Esteem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike in favor of false and misleading advertising.
On the post: Couple Pushes For Law To Limit Photoshopping Models; Because It Hurts Young Girls' Self-Esteem
Re: Re: Re: Market Value
On the post: Teachers Union Thinks It Blocked Online Classes...But It Didn't
Re:
Leadership is what makes an organization balance its needs and principles with external and internal (individual) needs and expectations.
I think a lot of folks feel as though many existing organizations seem to think that the only way to achieve their objectives is to do it at the expense of others and without compromise--leading to extreme positions and no consideration of other perspectives.
Its not that simple, of course, but its how I rationalize it.
On the post: UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law
Re: Re: It's getting old.
And, don't be disingenuous--you know that infringement is subjective enough that all that is required here is for the subject of the statement to be concerned about some form of threatening behavior from the other.
Next >>