Since your opinions are constantly mocked here by the site's principals and most of its readers, I would prefer to have the answer to my question provided by Mr. Masnick himself. Most of the readership defers to his opinions, so perhaps his response would be a teaching moment.
Instead of insulting me, a simple thank you would've been nice since I took the time to answer your question. As far as getting Mike to address your question, good luck with that. I suggest that you don't hold your breath while waiting.
Just a simple question. Can streaming currently be prosecuted as a crime under federal law? Your series of articles on this subject make it sound as if the answer is "No, streaming is not subject to criminal prosecution."
Streaming can be a misdemeanor, but not a felony, under existing law. Violation of the reproduction or distribution right can be a felony or a misdemeanor. This proposed change would put performances on par with reproductions and distributions.
When the order to disperse was an illegal order violating the right to assemble, there's nothing to be read into it.
It was an illegal act following an illegal act, both illegal acts on the part of the FPD, meaning that the officer should be arrested and indicted on grand treason (violating the constitution during a purported time of war).
Treason? We should just have all the TD tinfoil-hatters form a firing squad, right?
An accusation is made with equivocation that a court order has been violated, and yet there is no factual background provided upon which the accusation is based.
Don't you think that the FPD should making those explanations? Do you think Mike has a crystal ball or somethin? Why don't they tell us what else they he was supposedly doing that caused the arrest.
Accordi ng to that source, Yingst was with a group that was ordered to disperse because they were blocking traffic. The others dispersed. Yingst and one other did not, and they were arrested. I'm not saying that's true, but at least it offers an explanation for why he was arrested.
Oh, wait ... There must not be anything else or they would have charged him with it
Was he not charged? I honestly don't know.
We know that you just like to cower before your masters and make excuses for them, but can you not at least open your fucking eyes to the blatant and continued corruption that's going on?
I don't cower before my masters. Give me a break. Your tinfoil hat is a bit tight, I suspect.
Why do you have to come on here and make pathetically weak knee-jerk arguments about everything?
How is my pointing out that maybe there's more to the story a knee-jerk argument?
Look, I know it's your nature to automatically accept in a kneejerk fashion any authoritarian argument, but you can at least admit here that the police themselves made the claim.
Yes, they said he failed to disperse. What you've failed to explain in your knee-jerk reaction is why they did so. What was he doing that prompted the order? Look, I know you hate authority more than most, but can you not at least admit that maybe they had a good reason?
Fair use is a defence when accused of copyright infringement. Irrelevant since the image is public domain.
On a law school exam, you can't assume the facts! You're correct that its copyright status matters, and fair use would be irrelevant if the original is not copyrighted. But you should have also run through the analysis assuming it is copyrighted. Sorry... You only get partial credit for this! I would have given extra points if you mentioned the choice of law issue.
I'm hazy on this, but my belief is that it is so long as it's sufficiently different from the original public domain image. Perhaps an actual lawyer (or American) can clarify?
It's copyrightable to the extent it's original, I think. So here the protection would be "thin."
So, to recap: we have a (most likely) public domain monkey selfie image, which someone else is seeking a trademark on, using another company's photoshopped photos. In this scenario, please describe how much the lawyers are going to bill to sort this all out?
Fun post. I think the IP questions are interesting (and more likely to be on an exam!). Is the monkey selfie copyrighted? Is the new image fair use? To what extent is the new image itself copyrightable? Is the new image on the gap's shirt registrable as a mark?
Once again, intellectual property does not equate to physical property. At times, I think you conflate the two on purpose just win an argument. You really should know better than that.
I'm not conflating them. I just look at property differently than you do. For me, "property" refers to the intangible rights that someone has in a given thing. It doesn't matter whether that thing is tangible or intangible. When someone owns a thing, whether that thing be tangible or intangible, the owner generally has the intangible right to exclude others from making certain uses of the thing. You're getting hung up on whether the thing itself is tangible or intangible, but for me the issue is the same either way. Asking permission to use someone's property--that is, asking permission to do something that the owner has an intangible right to exclude you from doing--is just how property works. It's the same whether the thing is a copyright or a hedge trimmer.
It's. A. Monopoly. AND it's supposed to be temporary.
Drop the conceit about property. Move away from the conceut about property. Never, ever touch it again. Thank you.
Disagree? Explain to me when my house will become public domain. The End.
I don't think this type of argument is persuasive. You're saying that unless copyright has Attribute X, it's not really property. The problem with this type of argument, generally, is that Attribute X is not really a necessary condition for something to be property. So, in your example, you think that something that is really property doesn't fall into the public domain. My response is that all property rights are limited in some way, and copyright just so happens to be limited in duration (as the Constitution requires). But it's not true that something can't be property if the rights are of a limited duration. I can sell you my house with a clause stating that title reverts back to me after 10 years. During those 10 years, you own the house. It's your property. But then after 10 years, it's not. Whether something is property, of course, depends on how you define the word "property." I define property in terms of acquisition, use, and disposition of a given asset. But there's no hard-and-fast rule. For example, I could have a usufruct whereby I have use of an asset, and even though I can't dispose of it, I still have a property interest in it. There's all kinds of property, and it's generally known that there's no one definition that captures all the possibilities--contrary to what you seem to think.
Our society's slide towards a permission culture concerns me greatly.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I think the whole "permission culture" argument is idiotic. Requiring permission to use other people's property has been a part of our culture for a long time. If I have to ask my neighbor's permission to borrow his hedge trimmer again, do you think Mike should write a post about terribly inefficient the entire hedge trimmer ecosystem is? Give me a break.
Once again, this process seems silly and unnecessary. If everyone is so happy about this -- and it's reinvigorated the song and attracted plenty of new interest in it -- why not grant a perpetual license? What possible harm is done in granting a perpetual license so that this process doesn't have to be replicated every few years -- other than to the billable hours of the various lawyers who have to negotiate such a silly thing? Copyright defenders often point to the need for copyright to enable agreements like this, but it seems to be enabling a ridiculously inefficient process, rather than making things easier.
Do you think Bowie et al. should have these exclusive rights in the first place? (Rhetorical question--I know you refuse to take a concrete position on copyright). If so, I don't see the problem. They were granted a one-year license. That license expired. They asked for a second license, and they got a two-year license. So what? It's Bowie et al.'s property to do with as they please. I know you hate this fact more than probably any other fact, but authors and artists have the right to decide how their works are used by others. Crying about inefficiency, I think, is your backhanded way of complaining about this fact. Yes, they needed permission. Big deal.
This article is republished from The Conversation under its Creative Commons license.
I love it when people come on Techdirt and remind us that their works are copyrighted. There's no shame in it! Thank goodness copyright gives you the power you've exercised in granting this license. Flaunt those rights!
Being transparent about point of view is the honest approach for reporters
I agree, which I why I find it so strange that Mike can't be transparent and honest about his views on copyright. Why won't Mike tell us whether he thinks authors and artists should have any exclusive rights? Why is he so desperate to tell us what he really believes about a subject he writes about frequently?
Looks like someone was lying about not being able to log in. Surprise, surprise.
When did I lie? I was unable to log in to my old account, so I created a new one. Later on, I was able to log in to my old account. I think it's because Mike et al. lifted whatever ban they had in place.
Quote: "I created a new account because I was unable to log into my old account. It told me there was no such account. I see that I can log in to that account now, so thank you for restoring it."
I explicitly said on September 8th that I now *can* log in to my old account. So, no, I didn't lie.
As far as lies go, I'd love Mike to have a frank and honest discussion about why he tried to ban me two summers ago. I'd love for him to explain why my home IP address is still being routed to the spam filter, even though I'm a financial contributor to the site. It's the secretiveness that bothers me. Where's the transparency that Mike demands of others?
And why is everyone here so hostile to anyone who expresses a differing point of view? Looking through my profile, I see that many comments are hidden. The only way to see those opinions is to leave the profile view, go to the thread, and click un-hide for each post. That just sucks. I'm happy to challenge anyone here. Heck, I'm even happy to have every single person here gang up on me. But hiding my posts because you don't agree or don't like me just fucking sucks.
This EU case doesn't address the question of embedding infringing content as TD suggests. The case was about embedding an original work, not an infringing copy.
That makes more sense than what Mike said. Have you seen an English version? Got a link? Thanks.
On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony
Re: Re: Re:
Instead of insulting me, a simple thank you would've been nice since I took the time to answer your question. As far as getting Mike to address your question, good luck with that. I suggest that you don't hold your breath while waiting.
On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony
Re:
Streaming can be a misdemeanor, but not a felony, under existing law. Violation of the reproduction or distribution right can be a felony or a misdemeanor. This proposed change would put performances on par with reproductions and distributions.
On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was an illegal act following an illegal act, both illegal acts on the part of the FPD, meaning that the officer should be arrested and indicted on grand treason (violating the constitution during a purported time of war).
Treason? We should just have all the TD tinfoil-hatters form a firing squad, right?
On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders
Re: Re: Re:
Mike turns off his critical eye whenever it suits him.
On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, that summarizes many of Mike's posts.
On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Five seconds of research turned up this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-reporter-arrest-20141123-story.html
Accordi ng to that source, Yingst was with a group that was ordered to disperse because they were blocking traffic. The others dispersed. Yingst and one other did not, and they were arrested. I'm not saying that's true, but at least it offers an explanation for why he was arrested.
Oh, wait ... There must not be anything else or they would have charged him with it
Was he not charged? I honestly don't know.
We know that you just like to cower before your masters and make excuses for them, but can you not at least open your fucking eyes to the blatant and continued corruption that's going on?
I don't cower before my masters. Give me a break. Your tinfoil hat is a bit tight, I suspect.
Why do you have to come on here and make pathetically weak knee-jerk arguments about everything?
How is my pointing out that maybe there's more to the story a knee-jerk argument?
On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders
Re: Re:
Look, I know it's your nature to automatically accept in a kneejerk fashion any authoritarian argument, but you can at least admit here that the police themselves made the claim.
Yes, they said he failed to disperse. What you've failed to explain in your knee-jerk reaction is why they did so. What was he doing that prompted the order? Look, I know you hate authority more than most, but can you not at least admit that maybe they had a good reason?
On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]
Re: Re:
Fair use is a defence when accused of copyright infringement. Irrelevant since the image is public domain.
On a law school exam, you can't assume the facts! You're correct that its copyright status matters, and fair use would be irrelevant if the original is not copyrighted. But you should have also run through the analysis assuming it is copyrighted. Sorry... You only get partial credit for this! I would have given extra points if you mentioned the choice of law issue.
I'm hazy on this, but my belief is that it is so long as it's sufficiently different from the original public domain image. Perhaps an actual lawyer (or American) can clarify?
It's copyrightable to the extent it's original, I think. So here the protection would be "thin."
On the post: Harry Reid Wants To Attach Part Of SOPA To Surveillance Reform Bill
Good grief, you need some new material.
On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]
Fun post. I think the IP questions are interesting (and more likely to be on an exam!). Is the monkey selfie copyrighted? Is the new image fair use? To what extent is the new image itself copyrightable? Is the new image on the gap's shirt registrable as a mark?
On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back... But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not conflating them. I just look at property differently than you do. For me, "property" refers to the intangible rights that someone has in a given thing. It doesn't matter whether that thing is tangible or intangible. When someone owns a thing, whether that thing be tangible or intangible, the owner generally has the intangible right to exclude others from making certain uses of the thing. You're getting hung up on whether the thing itself is tangible or intangible, but for me the issue is the same either way. Asking permission to use someone's property--that is, asking permission to do something that the owner has an intangible right to exclude you from doing--is just how property works. It's the same whether the thing is a copyright or a hedge trimmer.
On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back... But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away
Re: Re:
It's. A. Monopoly. AND it's supposed to be temporary.
Drop the conceit about property. Move away from the conceut about property. Never, ever touch it again. Thank you.
Disagree? Explain to me when my house will become public domain. The End.
I don't think this type of argument is persuasive. You're saying that unless copyright has Attribute X, it's not really property. The problem with this type of argument, generally, is that Attribute X is not really a necessary condition for something to be property. So, in your example, you think that something that is really property doesn't fall into the public domain. My response is that all property rights are limited in some way, and copyright just so happens to be limited in duration (as the Constitution requires). But it's not true that something can't be property if the rights are of a limited duration. I can sell you my house with a clause stating that title reverts back to me after 10 years. During those 10 years, you own the house. It's your property. But then after 10 years, it's not. Whether something is property, of course, depends on how you define the word "property." I define property in terms of acquisition, use, and disposition of a given asset. But there's no hard-and-fast rule. For example, I could have a usufruct whereby I have use of an asset, and even though I can't dispose of it, I still have a property interest in it. There's all kinds of property, and it's generally known that there's no one definition that captures all the possibilities--contrary to what you seem to think.
On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back... But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away
Re: Re:
*report*
I didn't ask Mike's permission because, even in my view, not all uses require permission. Give me a break.
On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back... But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away
Re: Re:
Our society's slide towards a permission culture concerns me greatly.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I think the whole "permission culture" argument is idiotic. Requiring permission to use other people's property has been a part of our culture for a long time. If I have to ask my neighbor's permission to borrow his hedge trimmer again, do you think Mike should write a post about terribly inefficient the entire hedge trimmer ecosystem is? Give me a break.
On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back... But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away
Do you think Bowie et al. should have these exclusive rights in the first place? (Rhetorical question--I know you refuse to take a concrete position on copyright). If so, I don't see the problem. They were granted a one-year license. That license expired. They asked for a second license, and they got a two-year license. So what? It's Bowie et al.'s property to do with as they please. I know you hate this fact more than probably any other fact, but authors and artists have the right to decide how their works are used by others. Crying about inefficiency, I think, is your backhanded way of complaining about this fact. Yes, they needed permission. Big deal.
On the post: Journalists Need A Point Of View If They Want To Stay Relevant
I love it when people come on Techdirt and remind us that their works are copyrighted. There's no shame in it! Thank goodness copyright gives you the power you've exercised in granting this license. Flaunt those rights!
Being transparent about point of view is the honest approach for reporters
I agree, which I why I find it so strange that Mike can't be transparent and honest about his views on copyright. Why won't Mike tell us whether he thinks authors and artists should have any exclusive rights? Why is he so desperate to tell us what he really believes about a subject he writes about frequently?
On the post: When Even The New Yorker Is Doing Long Features On The Ridiculous State Of Copyright Law...
Re: Re: Re:
Just don't say my name three times. :)
On the post: When Even The New Yorker Is Doing Long Features On The Ridiculous State Of Copyright Law...
Re: Re: Re:
When did I lie? I was unable to log in to my old account, so I created a new one. Later on, I was able to log in to my old account. I think it's because Mike et al. lifted whatever ban they had in place.
I said as much here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140904/09583328416/tor-asks-help-keeping-net-anonymity-as-option -anyone-any-site.shtml#c1446
Quote: "I created a new account because I was unable to log into my old account. It told me there was no such account. I see that I can log in to that account now, so thank you for restoring it."
I explicitly said on September 8th that I now *can* log in to my old account. So, no, I didn't lie.
As far as lies go, I'd love Mike to have a frank and honest discussion about why he tried to ban me two summers ago. I'd love for him to explain why my home IP address is still being routed to the spam filter, even though I'm a financial contributor to the site. It's the secretiveness that bothers me. Where's the transparency that Mike demands of others?
And why is everyone here so hostile to anyone who expresses a differing point of view? Looking through my profile, I see that many comments are hidden. The only way to see those opinions is to leave the profile view, go to the thread, and click un-hide for each post. That just sucks. I'm happy to challenge anyone here. Heck, I'm even happy to have every single person here gang up on me. But hiding my posts because you don't agree or don't like me just fucking sucks.
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: Re: Re:
That makes more sense than what Mike said. Have you seen an English version? Got a link? Thanks.
Next >>