You can't really compare music, which is an art, to air, which is a necessity.
Uh, yes you can. Mike's comparison is actually quite valid and serves the purpose very well of illustrating the difference between value and price. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that showing there is at least one difference between two things renders a comparison of those two things invalid. This is not true.
I can understand why an artist may not want their album sold for $4.00, it could well be the equivalent of stocking it in a discount bin at Kmart. It's cheap, must be because no one wants to buy it kind of perception.
This point would have a lot more impact if there wasn't a place where people could download almost any song ever recorded for $0.00. One point that Mike made is that the value that many young people give to music is now disassociated from the price. Value has more to do with the buzz around a band online or [gasp!] the quality of the music rather than what's printed on the sticker on a piece of plastic they'll probably never see.
First off, doesn't it seem weird that a government agency pulls a stunt to "make something of a statement"? If they wanted to make a statement, couldn't they just call a press conference? Sure, I think it's kind of funny that they tweeted the facts of a MLB game, but it just seems on the petty side to me.
Secondly, the FCC shouldn't care if some sporting events are blacked out as part of a contract negotiation. The only reason that it's an issue in the first place is that we don't have real competition in that space. If the FCC really wanted to help, they'd promote a system where people could just get their shows from another source instead of being held hostage to the single source.
I can see why he would want to put on strong prohibitions against copying.
Sure, anyone can see why he'd want to, in the very least, overstate the restrictions and, at most, outright lie about the restrictions. The more interesting question is what should be the punishment for mistating the restrictions in such a way? In my mind, the punishment for stating innacurate information about the protections on your products should be roughly equivolent to infringing on those protections.
I suspect that the video clips were licensed, but not because there was a legal obligation to do so, but as insurance against frivolous copyright infringement claims. 20/20's usage of those clips was fair use. Someone posting those same clips would equally be fair use. The only question in my mind is if posting the entire 20/20 segment is fair use. But even if it isn't, it's not a concern of Universal Music. They're a third party to any infringment of the 20/20 content.
Can you provide us with analysis of why this is clearly fair use
Since Universal Music is the one who submitted the takedown request, it's my guess is that the "problem" is the clips of music videos, not the 20/20 story itself. If this is the case, I would think that they fall under fair use because they're rather short, they're used to support a news story, and they wouldn't act as a replacement for purchasing the respective products. If I'm a Kate Bush fan, I'm not going to be watching the clip for a 15 second snippet of one of her videos instead of buying the album.
Can you provide a reason for why you think this is not fair use?
the report points out that the industry is betting on video laser discs to bring back the profits.
The funny thing is that the revolutionary (as of the time of the 20/20 report) combination of music and video actually did breath new life into the music industry, just not in the way that they expected. In what is a typical response by big music, they thought that they could directly sell music videos to the public, whereas what turned out to be the working model is using music videos as a promotional tool to sell more records.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana
many groups are going to great lengths g to silence him
Since when is making fun of someone the same as trying to silence them? Freedom of speech cuts both ways. You can support the right to publicly ridicule someone without wanting to remove their right to publicly say things that are worthy of ridicule.
My guess is that even if GM were to get some special privileges from being owned by the governemnt, that these privileges wouldn't carry over after their IPO. In other words, the privileges wouldn't be grandfathered to GM after they were no longer owned by the governemnt. Given this, I would think that GM lawyers would avoid invoking these priveleges at all costs.
It's called law. The french legislature passed a law that was poorly thought out and badly written (irrespective of whether it was just or wise).
Exactly. Isn't including a punishment for something that you're prohibiting Lawmaking 101? The makers of this law are not just sort-sighted, but also incompetant.
There are few examples of existing DRM that are cost effective.
Agreed. However this doesn't relate to whether the Canon copier referenced in the linked article implements DRM. It doesn't. It's a simple keyword match. To implement a true DRM system in a copy machine, even one that was connected to the Internet, would be very cost-ineffective, even compared to other forms of DRM.
Because it's Digitial, and it Manages Restrictions?
DRM = Digital Rights Management. Canon isn't saying that its printer can be configured to detect a document which contains material to which a third-party has a copyright or any other IP right. They're simply saying that it can detect a specified keyword.
I would think that it's a little bit silly to create a situation where employees get in trouble but they aren't allowed to know before hand what might get them in trouble.
Well, first off, there's nothing saying that a person would be "in trouble". Contrary to Mike's post, this technology is not DRM, so it's not illegal to copy a document with a specified keyword. It'd be up to the company how to handle attempts to copy keywords. Secondly, the point of is that if you have a sensitive list of keywords that you don't want copied, you wouldn't want to broadcast that list to all employees because you'd be defeating the purpose of having the information be controlled in the first place. For example, if you're running a legal office, you don't want the public copier in front of the conference room to be used to copy documents with any of your client names on it. You don't want to send out an e-mail to every person in the company, down to the interns, with your client list. Now, that would be a "bit silly".
Wait, why is this being called DRM? Maybe someone would try to use it to micromanage the simple activity of making a copy, but I don't think this qualifies as DRM. I think the reality is actually much simpler.
From the linked article...
"the system can prevent a user from attempting to print, scan, copy or fax a document containing a prohibited keyword, such as a client name or project codename."
There are some environments, such as law firms or other highly regulated industries, where I think this would be quite handy. If you don't want some temp making a copy of a document with your client's name on it because this is against your company policy, then buy this printer. It makes sense to me.
To qualify as DRM, the copier would have to somehow prevent any copyrighted material from being copied. This just isn't practical given the way this copier works. (What, you'd have a monster list of every trademarked phrase in the world or copyrighted passages?) I'm no fan of DRM, but I don't think this qualifies as DRM.
Are you trying to give credit to the source of your information?
TechDirt is a site that provides commentary and analysis on interesting news stories. As such, it makes sense to link to the stories referenced in the TechDirt posts. It's not any more complicated than that.
I understand that clicking on a link that is locked behind a paywall can be aggravating, and you may not want to risk reader aggravation, but that's simple enough to solve: Just add a little note after the link, like (P) that indicates a non-free link.
I've seen that method used. And I never click on the link. Yes, it may be a bit paternalistic to not link to sites that require registration, but I think it's about mitigating risk. You can either link to a site that you know everyone will be able to access or you can link to a site that you know a relatively small percentage of people will be able to link to. Based on the model used by TechDirt, it makes sense to do the former. It's not any more compicated than that.
Consider that our system has devolved into one in which national party lines are strictly followed at the local level.
This is a bit off topic, but I agree that the so-called two party system is a disaster. Occasionally I'll hear one member of a party -- doesn't matter which one -- lamenting the fact that one of his party members was "disloyal". The translation of "disloyal" of course is that this person didn't vote along party lines. So, basically what this person is saying is that it's a good thing to ignore your own moral convictions in favor of the official stance of the private organization to which you belong. The funny thing is that the moral convictions that are being put aside are most likely the very same issues that were prominant in their campaign. "I'm a strong supporter if X! Vote for me and I'll make sure that we have more X! Unless of course my political party doesn't like X, in which case, I'll have to ignore that issue and vote along party lines. Because, you know, being called 'disloyal' is obviously much worse than screwing my constituants."
Until we have campaign reform, there will be a section of government reserved for the ones that want the most money.
Of course you're right. The only hope that I have that a congressperson would actually reply that way is indignation that the ACTA is trying to cut them out of the loop. Even if big media were contributing heavily to a congressperson's campaign, they might let their emotions get the better of them when they see their power being encroached on.
"Remember, negotiators have repeatedly insisted that nothing in ACTA will (or even can) change US law."
If the ACTA negotiators are so sure that the "executive agreement" won't conflict with US law, then they should agree to add a clause that stipulates this. Any objections to this would just expose their assurances as lie.
Besides, they should know that the risk of attempting an end run around the treaty process (including ratification by Congress) by using an executive agreement carries the risk of it being ignored by Congress. Any congressman confronted with a whiny media lobbyist yapping at their feet about "not conforming to our international obligations" should just reply "Sorry, I'm not familiar with this 'executive agreement' of which you speak. If you wanted ACTA to be binding, it should have been a treaty. As it is now, I consider ACTA to carry as much weight as the minutes to a private meeting. Now piss off while we get down to some real copyright reform."
It's more likely that the know what they're feeding you isn't the truth, and they don't want to be called out on it.
Maybe I should have put truth in quotes. There are plenty documented cases where the media has published information they new to be false, but I think in most cases, reporters think they're presenting the truth. I believe that they just don't like being called out -- by anyone, much less someone not in their guild -- when they're wrong.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Giving Away Music 'Devalues' It
Re: Can't compare music to air
Uh, yes you can. Mike's comparison is actually quite valid and serves the purpose very well of illustrating the difference between value and price. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that showing there is at least one difference between two things renders a comparison of those two things invalid. This is not true.
I can understand why an artist may not want their album sold for $4.00, it could well be the equivalent of stocking it in a discount bin at Kmart. It's cheap, must be because no one wants to buy it kind of perception.
This point would have a lot more impact if there wasn't a place where people could download almost any song ever recorded for $0.00. One point that Mike made is that the value that many young people give to music is now disassociated from the price. Value has more to do with the buzz around a band online or [gasp!] the quality of the music rather than what's printed on the sticker on a piece of plastic they'll probably never see.
On the post: Did The FCC 'Rebroadcast Or Retransmit An Account' Of MLB Game On Twitter?
Stunt
Secondly, the FCC shouldn't care if some sporting events are blacked out as part of a contract negotiation. The only reason that it's an issue in the first place is that we don't have real competition in that space. If the FCC really wanted to help, they'd promote a system where people could just get their shows from another source instead of being held hostage to the single source.
On the post: Irony: Eugene Roddenberry Might Sue You For Using A Replicator To Create Your Own Star Trek Prop
Re: $129
Sure, anyone can see why he'd want to, in the very least, overstate the restrictions and, at most, outright lie about the restrictions. The more interesting question is what should be the punishment for mistating the restrictions in such a way? In my mind, the punishment for stating innacurate information about the protections on your products should be roughly equivolent to infringing on those protections.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that the video clips were licensed, but not because there was a legal obligation to do so, but as insurance against frivolous copyright infringement claims. 20/20's usage of those clips was fair use. Someone posting those same clips would equally be fair use. The only question in my mind is if posting the entire 20/20 segment is fair use. But even if it isn't, it's not a concern of Universal Music. They're a third party to any infringment of the 20/20 content.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re:
Since Universal Music is the one who submitted the takedown request, it's my guess is that the "problem" is the clips of music videos, not the 20/20 story itself. If this is the case, I would think that they fall under fair use because they're rather short, they're used to support a news story, and they wouldn't act as a replacement for purchasing the respective products. If I'm a Kate Bush fan, I'm not going to be watching the clip for a 15 second snippet of one of her videos instead of buying the album.
Can you provide a reason for why you think this is not fair use?
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
I want my MTV
The funny thing is that the revolutionary (as of the time of the 20/20 report) combination of music and video actually did breath new life into the music industry, just not in the way that they expected. In what is a typical response by big music, they thought that they could directly sell music videos to the public, whereas what turned out to be the working model is using music videos as a promotional tool to sell more records.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana
On the post: Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda
Re: What if Glen Beck is Right
Since when is making fun of someone the same as trying to silence them? Freedom of speech cuts both ways. You can support the right to publicly ridicule someone without wanting to remove their right to publicly say things that are worthy of ridicule.
On the post: Can GM Legally Ignore Others' Patents, Thanks To US Ownership?
Grandfather
On the post: French Culture Minister Unilaterally Tries To Change Hadopi Rules To Close Loophole
Re: laws are made of words
Exactly. Isn't including a punishment for something that you're prohibiting Lawmaking 101? The makers of this law are not just sort-sighted, but also incompetant.
On the post: Canon Creates Keyword-Based DRM For Copy Machines?
Re: Re: Re: DRM?
Agreed. However this doesn't relate to whether the Canon copier referenced in the linked article implements DRM. It doesn't. It's a simple keyword match. To implement a true DRM system in a copy machine, even one that was connected to the Internet, would be very cost-ineffective, even compared to other forms of DRM.
On the post: Canon Creates Keyword-Based DRM For Copy Machines?
Re: Re: DRM?
DRM = Digital Rights Management. Canon isn't saying that its printer can be configured to detect a document which contains material to which a third-party has a copyright or any other IP right. They're simply saying that it can detect a specified keyword.
On the post: Canon Creates Keyword-Based DRM For Copy Machines?
Re: Re: DRM?
In that case, it would be DRM. But that's not what this copier does, so I believe it's innacurate to label it as DRM.
On the post: Canon Creates Keyword-Based DRM For Copy Machines?
Re: This is really bad for getting work done.
Well, first off, there's nothing saying that a person would be "in trouble". Contrary to Mike's post, this technology is not DRM, so it's not illegal to copy a document with a specified keyword. It'd be up to the company how to handle attempts to copy keywords. Secondly, the point of is that if you have a sensitive list of keywords that you don't want copied, you wouldn't want to broadcast that list to all employees because you'd be defeating the purpose of having the information be controlled in the first place. For example, if you're running a legal office, you don't want the public copier in front of the conference room to be used to copy documents with any of your client names on it. You don't want to send out an e-mail to every person in the company, down to the interns, with your client list. Now, that would be a "bit silly".
On the post: Canon Creates Keyword-Based DRM For Copy Machines?
DRM?
From the linked article...
"the system can prevent a user from attempting to print, scan, copy or fax a document containing a prohibited keyword, such as a client name or project codename."
There are some environments, such as law firms or other highly regulated industries, where I think this would be quite handy. If you don't want some temp making a copy of a document with your client's name on it because this is against your company policy, then buy this printer. It makes sense to me.
To qualify as DRM, the copier would have to somehow prevent any copyrighted material from being copied. This just isn't practical given the way this copier works. (What, you'd have a monster list of every trademarked phrase in the world or copyrighted passages?) I'm no fan of DRM, but I don't think this qualifies as DRM.
On the post: New York Times Insists It Can Stay Part Of The Conversation With 'First Click Free'
Re:
TechDirt is a site that provides commentary and analysis on interesting news stories. As such, it makes sense to link to the stories referenced in the TechDirt posts. It's not any more complicated than that.
I understand that clicking on a link that is locked behind a paywall can be aggravating, and you may not want to risk reader aggravation, but that's simple enough to solve: Just add a little note after the link, like (P) that indicates a non-free link.
I've seen that method used. And I never click on the link. Yes, it may be a bit paternalistic to not link to sites that require registration, but I think it's about mitigating risk. You can either link to a site that you know everyone will be able to access or you can link to a site that you know a relatively small percentage of people will be able to link to. Based on the model used by TechDirt, it makes sense to do the former. It's not any more compicated than that.
On the post: Where ACTA Disagrees With US Law
Re: Re: Re: Executive agreement
This is a bit off topic, but I agree that the so-called two party system is a disaster. Occasionally I'll hear one member of a party -- doesn't matter which one -- lamenting the fact that one of his party members was "disloyal". The translation of "disloyal" of course is that this person didn't vote along party lines. So, basically what this person is saying is that it's a good thing to ignore your own moral convictions in favor of the official stance of the private organization to which you belong. The funny thing is that the moral convictions that are being put aside are most likely the very same issues that were prominant in their campaign. "I'm a strong supporter if X! Vote for me and I'll make sure that we have more X! Unless of course my political party doesn't like X, in which case, I'll have to ignore that issue and vote along party lines. Because, you know, being called 'disloyal' is obviously much worse than screwing my constituants."
On the post: Where ACTA Disagrees With US Law
Re: Re: Executive agreement
Of course you're right. The only hope that I have that a congressperson would actually reply that way is indignation that the ACTA is trying to cut them out of the loop. Even if big media were contributing heavily to a congressperson's campaign, they might let their emotions get the better of them when they see their power being encroached on.
On the post: Where ACTA Disagrees With US Law
Executive agreement
If the ACTA negotiators are so sure that the "executive agreement" won't conflict with US law, then they should agree to add a clause that stipulates this. Any objections to this would just expose their assurances as lie.
Besides, they should know that the risk of attempting an end run around the treaty process (including ratification by Congress) by using an executive agreement carries the risk of it being ignored by Congress. Any congressman confronted with a whiny media lobbyist yapping at their feet about "not conforming to our international obligations" should just reply "Sorry, I'm not familiar with this 'executive agreement' of which you speak. If you wanted ACTA to be binding, it should have been a treaty. As it is now, I consider ACTA to carry as much weight as the minutes to a private meeting. Now piss off while we get down to some real copyright reform."
On the post: Details Of How The DC Online Voting System Was Hacked: Small Vulnerability, Huge Consequences
Re: Re: Unsecure, but in the wrong way
See my comment below regarding plausible deniability.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101006/01583711306/details-of-how-the-dc-online-v oting-system-was-hacked-small-vulnerability-huge-consequences.shtml#c227
On the post: Reuters Dumps Anonymous Comments: Throwing Out A Bunch Of Babies With The Bathwater?
Re: Re: Big media obliges
Maybe I should have put truth in quotes. There are plenty documented cases where the media has published information they new to be false, but I think in most cases, reporters think they're presenting the truth. I believe that they just don't like being called out -- by anyone, much less someone not in their guild -- when they're wrong.
Next >>