Everything Metallica predicted about artists getting screwed has pretty much happened.
Care to elaborate? What did they predict and why do you think it happened? Because, from where I'm standing, it looks like Metallica just screwed themselves, as are any artists who refuse to adapt to the current market realities.
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
For example a text, something you have written. If you do not own that text as property then what the HELL is it ?
By my reading, your statement above is a good example of where peoples' brains shut off when they hear the word "property". Do you really not understand that the ideas that are represented by the words on that piece of paper are fundamentally different that the physical piece of paper? Do you not understand that the laws which are labeled "intellectual property" are actually government-granted monopoly privileges? Just because you are confused by or are ingorant of the differences between real property and IP, doesn't mean they are the same.
"Facebook are in breach of the suppression order - it's the company who put it out there."
So, what if it had been a newspaper that had published the name of the accused killer before the court ordered that the person's name be kept secret? Would the newspaper have to recover every single newspaper sold? Even in the case where the "platform" takes editorial responsibility for publishing information, such as a newspaper, this still wouldn't make sense. You can't unrelease information to the public. Doesn't Australia have rules against issuing ex post facto decrees? Or is this barrister just (preteding to be) ignorant of the law?
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
"people already know the actual details of the murder"
What an assumption you make! Everything that appears in the press or on Facebook is absolutely true, eh?
I think you're missing the point. Facebook is being accused of releasing the identify of the person in question, not the details fo the alleged crime. What Mike is saying is that knowing the person's name wouldn't have an affect on the objectivity of people who already knew the details of the murder (through "normal" news channels).
The whole "please try to be nicer to him" thing is kind of strange, and suggests that Brownmark knows what a ridiculous lawsuit this is.
I think it simply suggests that Samwell's representatives are sick of him getting blamed for something he didn't do. It's not Brownmark, but Samwell who knows what a ridiculous lawsuit this is.
On that note, I'm really unsure when it became 'okay' to deposit things on private property...
I think this is the angle that city counsels should focus on to deal with the problem. Aren't there already laws on the books in most cities about soliciters having to register with the government before they enter a neighborhood? Well, don't tell the Yellow Pages that it's illegal to dump their books on people's doorsteps. Just tell them that they are legally considered solicitors and bury them in so much red tape that it won't be worth their while any longer. When the representatives come to city hall to register, give them the -- almost certainly very short -- list of people who have opted in to receive solicitors along with a reminder that every violation comes with a penalty of $500. Problem solved with no free speech issues.
You can't fold and take back your share of the pot
If you're filing the kind of case where, if you lose, you'd be on the hook for legal fees, you should be strictly prohibited from dropping the case unless you pay all of the outstanding legal fees of the defendent. Maybe there's some practical or legal reason why this wouldn't work, but it seems to just make sense. If you're playing a hand of poker, you can't just fold and ask for you share of the pot back. Try that some time and see what happens. It's a simple matter of common sense fairness.
no amount of normal-people-figuring-things-out is going to stop it.
It sounds like you think the US too should have the government involved in determining truth versus falsehood. This is the same kind of misguided attitude that newspapers give when bashing bloggers -- "Only we should have the privilege to tell the public what the truth is." -- and when people sue Google because they don't like what people are saying on the pages returned in a search -- "But but but...Google should know that this web page is saying bad things about me and remove it from its results!"
In both scenarios, the responsibility of determining what is truth and falsehood is being shifted from the individual to some responsible authority. I don't know about you, but I don't want a Ministry of Truth deciding these kinds of things for me. If that means that many people believe the lies of a politician, then so be it. That's just one of the prices of freedom.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education."
That could mean that the video will go back up shortly, and Turkey might just go back to banning YouTube again.
If the video goes back up, I don't think they'll ban YouTube again. When the video came down, the Ataturk Thought Association probably jumped at the chance to lift the ban on YouTube. They likely used the removal of the video as a pretext to do something they wanted to do, but couldn't because they'd lose face. If I was conspiratorially minded, I’d say that the ATA could themselves have been behind the takedown request. Even Orwellian government agencies can feel political pressure.
This only highlights what the Labels are all about - Money for nothing, and sticking to their old worn out business model
Personally, I think it has much more to do with the latter than the former. If it were just about money, then the US labels would be jumping all over this because it's a proven moneymaker. This is the point of Mike's post. But because they're not, it must be about something else. While there's no doubt that the music labels are greedy, there's something more fundamental and complex at play here than just simple greed.
The "Such as" actually defends my point in that the use is not obvious and, as we can see, will now take a judge to decide.
Hold on a second. Regardless of the overall point you're trying to make, you appear to be backtracking after being caught out in a contradiction. My original post started off like this...
As I understand it, the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line are examples of fair use, not an exclusive list.
You replied with this...
Husler, the checks only apply after the content meets the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" definition.
What you're basically saying in the above reply is "Yes, I know that I was wrong in saying that the 'criticism...' line only refers to examples and that the four criteria really are independent of the four criteria, but that's not important because my overall point is..."
I should have looked up the actual wording myself at the time of my post because if I did, I would have seen that your post was indeed not acccurate.
Commercial use can mean more than trying to make money off of it.
As others have pointed out, this seems to indicate a fundamental disconnect between what the legal definition and reality. I have no reason to doubt that Henley v. Devore indicates that gaining the support of voters is commercial use. There's just one small problem. It isn't!
I read a case recently where it was argued that since the defendant was able to circumvent the protection, it wasn't "effective."
Of course you're under no obligation to do so, but can you link to a citation of this? I've done some searches and can't find anything that makes this particular point.
Fair use is not "obvious" in this regard, and this article stated it was. That's simply not true and no amount of word-twisting is going to change this.
Well, to be fair, I think that the label of "obvious" has a lot to do with whether the four factors are meant to be applied independently of the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line or as additional qualifiers thereof.
Perhaps a better question would be is this a fair use rather than does it qualify legally as "fair use"? One of the problems with this situation is that, in my estimation, a huge majority of people would say it is a fair use.
And "commercial" doesn't necessarily mean that the person makes money off of it.
So, are you splitting hairs and saying that the intent of the use has to be to make money, not that any money is actually made? Because I'm not sure how else you could define commercial use but in one of these two ways. The woman who took this video did not do so with the intent to make money. Nor do I think that she uploaded the video to YouTube with the intent to make money. And I certainly don't think that she actually made any money from this video. So, how is this not obviously non-commercial?
The last thing I heard, from a copyright lawyer, was that no use is fair until a judge orders it so.
And you don't see a problem with this? I think I know what your lawyer friend would say, but are you really suggesting that it's a good thing that we need to involve copyright lawyers in something that almost every non-lawyer on the planet would say is a fair use of copyrighted material?
As I understand it, the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line are examples of fair use, not an exclusive list. Here are the four factors...
"The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"
The dancing baby video is not of a commercial nature. Applicable? Check.
"The nature of the copyrighted work"
The copyrighted work is a song. The dancing baby video is a video which only contains a very garbled version of the song. Applicable? Check.
"The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
Only 29 seconds of the song is used in the video and for most of it, you can't even really tell what song it is. Applicable? Check.
"The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
If anything, this would increase the market for the song. Applicable? Check.
Also, just to clarify, are you saying that you don't think it legally satisfies the requirement for fair use or that you don't think it should?
I really don't understand the logic of charging people money for a service then intentionally trying to block people from various devices.
From the perspective of Hulu, it is logical. Hulu has two masters, its customers and its owners (i.e. the companies which provide the content). Hulu is trying to balance the demands of the two. Lean too far towards what the customers want -- give them more, unrestricted content -- and you piss off the owners. Lean too far towards the owners -- don't give content away for free that is being sold to other parties for good money -- and you piss off your customers.
No, it's not logical in the grand scheme of things that Hulu would block Google TV, but if they don't, they'd have their content yanked. If you were a big cable company paying through the nose for a show to appear on your service, what would you think if you found out your customers were just going out and buying Google TV and getting the same content for free? Sure, the cable companies and the content companies are burying their heads in the sand by pretending that the world is the same as it was before the Internet, so what they're doing isn't really logical, but I can at least see why Hulu is doing what it's doing just to try to survive another day.
Hmmm... that would imply that analogies relating infringement to theft might have some validity. I don't think we're supposed to go there.
Yeah, I've actually seen (and participated) in some contentious threads about comparing theft and infringement. My point on that was (and is) that they are similar enough to be comparable, but have enough key differences to warrant using the proper term.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
Care to elaborate? What did they predict and why do you think it happened? Because, from where I'm standing, it looks like Metallica just screwed themselves, as are any artists who refuse to adapt to the current market realities.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
By my reading, your statement above is a good example of where peoples' brains shut off when they hear the word "property". Do you really not understand that the ideas that are represented by the words on that piece of paper are fundamentally different that the physical piece of paper? Do you not understand that the laws which are labeled "intellectual property" are actually government-granted monopoly privileges? Just because you are confused by or are ingorant of the differences between real property and IP, doesn't mean they are the same.
On the post: Facebook Blamed For Accused Killer's Name Spreading...
Ex post facto?
So, what if it had been a newspaper that had published the name of the accused killer before the court ordered that the person's name be kept secret? Would the newspaper have to recover every single newspaper sold? Even in the case where the "platform" takes editorial responsibility for publishing information, such as a newspaper, this still wouldn't make sense. You can't unrelease information to the public. Doesn't Australia have rules against issuing ex post facto decrees? Or is this barrister just (preteding to be) ignorant of the law?
On the post: Facebook Blamed For Accused Killer's Name Spreading...
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
What an assumption you make! Everything that appears in the press or on Facebook is absolutely true, eh?
I think you're missing the point. Facebook is being accused of releasing the identify of the person in question, not the details fo the alleged crime. What Mike is saying is that knowing the person's name wouldn't have an affect on the objectivity of people who already knew the details of the murder (through "normal" news channels).
On the post: South Park, Viacom Sued Over Parody Video... Videomakers Point To YouTube Lawsuit In Defense
Not strange at all
I think it simply suggests that Samwell's representatives are sick of him getting blamed for something he didn't do. It's not Brownmark, but Samwell who knows what a ridiculous lawsuit this is.
On the post: Yellow Pages Sues Seattle For New Law Letting People Opt-Out Of Getting The Phone Book
Re: The City Council should...
I think this is the angle that city counsels should focus on to deal with the problem. Aren't there already laws on the books in most cities about soliciters having to register with the government before they enter a neighborhood? Well, don't tell the Yellow Pages that it's illegal to dump their books on people's doorsteps. Just tell them that they are legally considered solicitors and bury them in so much red tape that it won't be worth their while any longer. When the representatives come to city hall to register, give them the -- almost certainly very short -- list of people who have opted in to receive solicitors along with a reminder that every violation comes with a penalty of $500. Problem solved with no free speech issues.
On the post: Righthaven Desperately Wants Out Of Lawsuit It Filed, As It Fears Having To Pay EFF's Legal Fees
You can't fold and take back your share of the pot
On the post: UK Politician Tossed Out Of Parliament For Lying About Opponent During Election
Re:
It sounds like you think the US too should have the government involved in determining truth versus falsehood. This is the same kind of misguided attitude that newspapers give when bashing bloggers -- "Only we should have the privilege to tell the public what the truth is." -- and when people sue Google because they don't like what people are saying on the pages returned in a search -- "But but but...Google should know that this web page is saying bad things about me and remove it from its results!"
In both scenarios, the responsibility of determining what is truth and falsehood is being shifted from the individual to some responsible authority. I don't know about you, but I don't want a Ministry of Truth deciding these kinds of things for me. If that means that many people believe the lies of a politician, then so be it. That's just one of the prices of freedom.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education."
On the post: Brazilian Librarians: Copyright Is A Fear-Based Reaction To Open Access To Knowledge
Brazillion
That's a lot of librarians. Where are they from?
On the post: Turkey Lifts YouTube Ban... But Only After Someone Made Questionable Copyright Claim On 'Offending' Video
The ban will not be put back
If the video goes back up, I don't think they'll ban YouTube again. When the video came down, the Ataturk Thought Association probably jumped at the chance to lift the ban on YouTube. They likely used the removal of the video as a pretext to do something they wanted to do, but couldn't because they'd lose face. If I was conspiratorially minded, I’d say that the ATA could themselves have been behind the takedown request. Even Orwellian government agencies can feel political pressure.
On the post: Why The Answer To The Smartphone Patent Thicket Is Not A Patent Pool
Re: Collusion?
"Though anti-trust legislation today would likely render a smartphone patent pool an impossibility"
On the post: If Spotify Is Making Labels So Much Money In Europe, Why Are They Still Demanding Crazy Upfronts In The US?
Re: Model
Personally, I think it has much more to do with the latter than the former. If it were just about money, then the US labels would be jumping all over this because it's a proven moneymaker. This is the point of Mike's post. But because they're not, it must be about something else. While there's no doubt that the music labels are greedy, there's something more fundamental and complex at play here than just simple greed.
On the post: Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Objection!
Hold on a second. Regardless of the overall point you're trying to make, you appear to be backtracking after being caught out in a contradiction. My original post started off like this...
As I understand it, the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line are examples of fair use, not an exclusive list.
You replied with this...
Husler, the checks only apply after the content meets the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" definition.
What you're basically saying in the above reply is "Yes, I know that I was wrong in saying that the 'criticism...' line only refers to examples and that the four criteria really are independent of the four criteria, but that's not important because my overall point is..."
I should have looked up the actual wording myself at the time of my post because if I did, I would have seen that your post was indeed not acccurate.
On the post: Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
As others have pointed out, this seems to indicate a fundamental disconnect between what the legal definition and reality. I have no reason to doubt that Henley v. Devore indicates that gaining the support of voters is commercial use. There's just one small problem. It isn't!
On the post: Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Objection!
Of course you're under no obligation to do so, but can you link to a citation of this? I've done some searches and can't find anything that makes this particular point.
Fair use is not "obvious" in this regard, and this article stated it was. That's simply not true and no amount of word-twisting is going to change this.
Well, to be fair, I think that the label of "obvious" has a lot to do with whether the four factors are meant to be applied independently of the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line or as additional qualifiers thereof.
Perhaps a better question would be is this a fair use rather than does it qualify legally as "fair use"? One of the problems with this situation is that, in my estimation, a huge majority of people would say it is a fair use.
On the post: Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
So, are you splitting hairs and saying that the intent of the use has to be to make money, not that any money is actually made? Because I'm not sure how else you could define commercial use but in one of these two ways. The woman who took this video did not do so with the intent to make money. Nor do I think that she uploaded the video to YouTube with the intent to make money. And I certainly don't think that she actually made any money from this video. So, how is this not obviously non-commercial?
On the post: Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
Re: Objection!
And you don't see a problem with this? I think I know what your lawyer friend would say, but are you really suggesting that it's a good thing that we need to involve copyright lawyers in something that almost every non-lawyer on the planet would say is a fair use of copyrighted material?
On the post: Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
Re: Objection!
"The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"
The dancing baby video is not of a commercial nature. Applicable? Check.
"The nature of the copyrighted work"
The copyrighted work is a song. The dancing baby video is a video which only contains a very garbled version of the song. Applicable? Check.
"The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
Only 29 seconds of the song is used in the video and for most of it, you can't even really tell what song it is. Applicable? Check.
"The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
If anything, this would increase the market for the song. Applicable? Check.
Also, just to clarify, are you saying that you don't think it legally satisfies the requirement for fair use or that you don't think it should?
On the post: If Google TV Has To Pay To Make Hulu Available To Viewers, Will Mozilla Have To Pay To Access Hulu Via Firefox?
Re: Ugh
From the perspective of Hulu, it is logical. Hulu has two masters, its customers and its owners (i.e. the companies which provide the content). Hulu is trying to balance the demands of the two. Lean too far towards what the customers want -- give them more, unrestricted content -- and you piss off the owners. Lean too far towards the owners -- don't give content away for free that is being sold to other parties for good money -- and you piss off your customers.
No, it's not logical in the grand scheme of things that Hulu would block Google TV, but if they don't, they'd have their content yanked. If you were a big cable company paying through the nose for a show to appear on your service, what would you think if you found out your customers were just going out and buying Google TV and getting the same content for free? Sure, the cable companies and the content companies are burying their heads in the sand by pretending that the world is the same as it was before the Internet, so what they're doing isn't really logical, but I can at least see why Hulu is doing what it's doing just to try to survive another day.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Giving Away Music 'Devalues' It
Re: Re: Re: Can't compare music to air
Yeah, I've actually seen (and participated) in some contentious threads about comparing theft and infringement. My point on that was (and is) that they are similar enough to be comparable, but have enough key differences to warrant using the proper term.
Next >>