There is an English version of the ruling that's clear and detailed
Do you have a link to the English version? Thanks.
but why bother reading the order from the court when you can reply on the ever colorful interpretations of Mike Masnick.
I'd be shocked if Mike got this one right. Seems like one of many posts where he doesn't have the primary documents and instead just copies what TorrentFreak said.
Re: Re: Re: A key part of the judgement intentionally ignored
With pleasure. The ruling seems to be isolated to a specific case for starters; further to this "communication to the public" is one of many Rights of the rightful owner. The ruling made clear that the content *must* be uploaded by the rightful owner(s) and that the link or embedding must be legal by any and all 3rd parties.
A streaming site that makes public Uses of copyright protected works can only (legally) stream what the rightful owner up loaded in the first place. It's very unlikely that the large production companies have made their full length feature film publicly accessible in order for a link to be considered legal.
Thanks for the explanation. Is there an English version of this opinion out yet?
Even more unfortunately, Verrilli attacks the point that CAFC makes that you can't infringe on an invalid patent. CAFC noted "it is axiomatic that one cannot infringe an invalid patent." Nuh-uh, claims Verrilli. Of course you can infringe on an invalid patent:
A patent is infringed, regardless of its validity if the defendant has practiced all of its elements without authorization.
He says all invalidity does is "preclude liability from that infringement." Got that? Even if the patent is totally invalid, you can still infringe on it, you just can't be held liable for it. Welcome to upside down world -- where infringement is the standard, and not infringing on an invalid patent is some sort of exception or defense against liability.
So are you arguing that that's not an accurate statement of the law, or is your complaint that you don't like the law? I think the statement makes sense. Under 35 USC 282, the patent is "presumed valid." And anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" that presumptively valid patent "infringes the patent." 35 USC 271. "Noninfringement" and "invalidity of the patent" are defenses to infringement. 35 USC 282. First the plaintiff proves infringement, then the defendant proves a defense. How else would you have it work?
Does TD feel all better now that it has again posted something negative about the individual from the Copyright Alliance? Of course, this does nothing to correct the errors contained in the original article.
It was never about getting it right. It was about sensationalizing events to make copyright proponents look bad. It's funny to note that the article Mike referenced but didn't link to, which was posted on Bloomberg, didn't even support Mike's version of what Aistars said. Moreover, the Bloomberg piece has since been taken down (as has Lemley's comments on Facebook). I had assumed that Mike didn't bother to link to it because he hadn't actually read it, and now that I've read the piece, I think that's correct. But, of course, since it's been taken down, he couldn't link to it he wanted to--not that he ever wanted to. I appreciate the fact that Mike updated the post, but his updates are just as ridiculous as what he originally said. And the irony of it all is how Mike complains that the other side can't engage in "real discussion" about copyright, when the reality is that Mike has no intention of ever engaging in any real discussion about copyright. His intentions, which he has made clear repeatedly as he made clear in that post, is that he only wants to attack the other side personally. Just think about Swartz/Snowden/SOPA/PIPA/TPP/ACTA/etc. Mike will never engage in any real discussion on any of those issues. He'll run away every time.
Ha ha. As soon as the evidence comes out, he's gone. Sounds about right. I honestly think that the post above is nonsense, and I don't think his explanation makes much sense. The fact is I just don't have the wherewithal today to get into an argument. I'm still worn out from yesterday's escapades. It's just unbelievable to me that he claimed that Aistars was saying all of these crazy things, such as there's no innovators who want copyright perform. I merely suggested that perhaps Mike was wrong, and his throng went insane censoring and calling me all sorts of names. And then the evidence comes out this morning proving that Mike was wrong, and all the trolls scattered. And, of course, Mike is nowhere to be found. Of course, he can't even admit that he got it wrong. And then he has all these post where he complains about other people's lack of integrity. It's just unbelievable. Where is Mike's integrity? I seriously wonder if he has any.
We have the video and the transcript. Can anyone find where she said these criminal elements are "secretly leading" the reform movement? Can anyone find where she said no one in the "innovative sector" supports reform? It's not there. Where did everyone go who demanded I admit it if I were wrong?
As for the idea that this is an acceptable state of affairs, I find that to be troubling. We shouldn't rely on judges to determine the overall aesthetic value of things, because that is, by definition, a regulation on speech that shouldn't be permitted under the First Amendment. Judges determining the aesthetic value of a particular work is a dangerous path to tread.
Mike,
Why did you leave out the third case Tehranian discussed, namely, Cariou v. Prince? He argues that aesthetics lead the Second Circuit to find fair use. Did you leave it out because it doesn't support your claim that "this is a dangerous path to tread"? Was the omission intentional?
Thanks for posting this. I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me, preferably explaining why they think I'm wrong. I am troubled, however, that people here "report" my comments because they don't like me--even if the comment is anything but trollish. I wish that Mike would step in and say something like what you've said here.
No wait, you were serious? You can't honestly expect a *single* person to believe that, after you have been called out literally HUNDREDS of times and yet have not once admitted to even being so much as *slightly* incorrect, let alone outright wrong. Even when PROVEN you were wrong, even when your being wrong was as simple as a TYPO, you refuse to admit you were wrong and instead try to turn it back on the criticizer (see the black/white/gray comment above - that is you to a 'T') and then keep arguing against the point.
Link to a comment where I was wrong, explain why you think I was wrong, and if I think you're right, I'll admit it. I'm happy to admit errors. Let me ask you this, why isn't anyone here calling out Dark Helmet for his mistake above? Am I held to a different standard than the people that work for TD?
I agree, Ninja. Given the audicity TD readers have, they wasted zero time in censoring a specific user, regardless if the post wasn't trollish at all. I FUCKING HATE this hide system TD implemented.
If users want to hide the post of a user, I have no problem with it. The problem I have is their idiotic reasoning is thrusted upon me, forcing me to unhide those comments.
If that's not the definition of censorship, I don't know what is.
I appreciate that this person can at least admit that it's censorship. Censorship is not limited to the government, and it's not limited to completely removing speech. There's private censorship too, and making something more difficult to read is censorship. TD users are engaging in censorship at an embarrassing level. Seriously, given the values many here purport to have, you should be ashamed at what you're doing to the dissenters. Stop making excuses. If you disagree with someone, address the merits of what they're saying. Use more words, don't hide words you don't like.
Yes, several of you have "censored" to the point that someone like me who would like to read the string of comments in its entirety and without interruption is effectively prevented from doing so.
I think that's the idea. They want to hide dissenting views so that it's more difficult to see what the dissenters are saying. And, of course, Mike never says anything about the "report" button being abused. I wonder if hidden comments aren't picked up by search engines. That would be a nice little bonus for Mike, I'm sure.
By the way, you might want to learn grammar, and include all of the words in the sentence, it might make you look a little more credible. doubt it, but anything is possible.
You got me there. I made a mistake. I left out a word. I erred. See, it's easy to admit. I think there's a difference, though. This poster has called me a "lier" before, so it seems clear that he/she doesn't know how to spell the word. I, on the other hand, do know proper grammar, even if I make an occasional mistake grammar-wise. Regardless, I made a mistake. Mea culpa. Thank you for pointing out my error. I appreciate it. I have no trouble admitting the error, and I have no trouble thanking those who point out my errors.
If you turn out to be wrong though will you admit to it? Will you admit that maybe Mike actually had enough reason to believe the validity of the claims enough to post them?
Of course. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I can almost guarantee you that Mike will not say a thing if the video comes out and shows that Aistars did not say that these "criminal elements" are "leading" the reform movement and that there's no innovators who want reform. My understanding is that she did in fact say there are "criminal elements" who want to eradicate copyright, but she didn't say they're leading the movement and she didn't deny that many people in the movement are innovators. She was merely talking about a subset of the reform movement (which makes a lot more sense than the extreme view Mike attributed to her). I think Mike will do like Dark Helmet did above--run away rather than admit a mistake. If I'm wrong, call me out, and I will readily admit it. I have no trouble admitting mistakes.
Output is the measure the framers were interested in. It's the entire point of copyright.
I think that's a ridiculous view of what the Framers thought, not that I think it matters too much what they thought. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but first I think you need to man up and admit that you were wrong to (1) attribute that other person's claim to me that you said I wouldn't defend, and (2) acknowledge that your answer about trademark rights didn't address my questions about copyright rights. Can't you admit a simple mistake? We all make them. The better of us admit them. I mean, even *RD* of all people, thinks you're wrong. That should tell you something.
Don't for a second claim that this is creators standing up for their rights. That's BS. This is legacy industry corporations standing up for their "right" to make as much profit as possible from the creative output of others, by putting themselves between the creators and the public using bought-for laws and made-up rights.
You've apparently bought into the TD narrative hook, line, and sinker. Do you actually know who was on this panel? Do you actually know what they said? Do you actually delve into matters to get to the truth?
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: @PaulT
Do you have a link to the English version? Thanks.
but why bother reading the order from the court when you can reply on the ever colorful interpretations of Mike Masnick.
I'd be shocked if Mike got this one right. Seems like one of many posts where he doesn't have the primary documents and instead just copies what TorrentFreak said.
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: Re: Re: A key part of the judgement intentionally ignored
The ruling made clear that the content *must* be uploaded by the rightful owner(s) and that the link or embedding must be legal by any and all 3rd parties.
A streaming site that makes public Uses of copyright protected works can only (legally) stream what the rightful owner up loaded in the first place. It's very unlikely that the large production companies have made their full length feature film publicly accessible in order for a link to be considered legal.
Thanks for the explanation. Is there an English version of this opinion out yet?
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re: Re: A key part of the judgement intentionally ignored
It wasn't me, my paranoid friend. I look forward to the day you add something of value to the conversation.
On the post: US Solicitor General, Don Verrilli, Tells Supreme Court That Of Course You Can Infringe On An Invalid Patent
So are you arguing that that's not an accurate statement of the law, or is your complaint that you don't like the law? I think the statement makes sense. Under 35 USC 282, the patent is "presumed valid." And anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" that presumptively valid patent "infringes the patent." 35 USC 271. "Noninfringement" and "invalidity of the patent" are defenses to infringement. 35 USC 282. First the plaintiff proves infringement, then the defendant proves a defense. How else would you have it work?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
It was never about getting it right. It was about sensationalizing events to make copyright proponents look bad. It's funny to note that the article Mike referenced but didn't link to, which was posted on Bloomberg, didn't even support Mike's version of what Aistars said. Moreover, the Bloomberg piece has since been taken down (as has Lemley's comments on Facebook). I had assumed that Mike didn't bother to link to it because he hadn't actually read it, and now that I've read the piece, I think that's correct. But, of course, since it's been taken down, he couldn't link to it he wanted to--not that he ever wanted to. I appreciate the fact that Mike updated the post, but his updates are just as ridiculous as what he originally said. And the irony of it all is how Mike complains that the other side can't engage in "real discussion" about copyright, when the reality is that Mike has no intention of ever engaging in any real discussion about copyright. His intentions, which he has made clear repeatedly as he made clear in that post, is that he only wants to attack the other side personally. Just think about Swartz/Snowden/SOPA/PIPA/TPP/ACTA/etc. Mike will never engage in any real discussion on any of those issues. He'll run away every time.
On the post: Copyright Law Stifling Free Speech And Artistic Criticism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Video and transcript
On the post: Copyright Law Stifling Free Speech And Artistic Criticism
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Video and transcript
On the post: Copyright Law Stifling Free Speech And Artistic Criticism
Mike,
Why did you leave out the third case Tehranian discussed, namely, Cariou v. Prince? He argues that aesthetics lead the Second Circuit to find fair use. Did you leave it out because it doesn't support your claim that "this is a dangerous path to tread"? Was the omission intentional?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
I don't have time to watch it right now as I'm out the door for an appointment. If anyone has time, watch it and let us know what she actually said.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Link to a comment where I was wrong, explain why you think I was wrong, and if I think you're right, I'll admit it. I'm happy to admit errors. Let me ask you this, why isn't anyone here calling out Dark Helmet for his mistake above? Am I held to a different standard than the people that work for TD?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that's the idea. They want to hide dissenting views so that it's more difficult to see what the dissenters are saying. And, of course, Mike never says anything about the "report" button being abused. I wonder if hidden comments aren't picked up by search engines. That would be a nice little bonus for Mike, I'm sure.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You got me there. I made a mistake. I left out a word. I erred. See, it's easy to admit. I think there's a difference, though. This poster has called me a "lier" before, so it seems clear that he/she doesn't know how to spell the word. I, on the other hand, do know proper grammar, even if I make an occasional mistake grammar-wise. Regardless, I made a mistake. Mea culpa. Thank you for pointing out my error. I appreciate it. I have no trouble admitting the error, and I have no trouble thanking those who point out my errors.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I can almost guarantee you that Mike will not say a thing if the video comes out and shows that Aistars did not say that these "criminal elements" are "leading" the reform movement and that there's no innovators who want reform. My understanding is that she did in fact say there are "criminal elements" who want to eradicate copyright, but she didn't say they're leading the movement and she didn't deny that many people in the movement are innovators. She was merely talking about a subset of the reform movement (which makes a lot more sense than the extreme view Mike attributed to her). I think Mike will do like Dark Helmet did above--run away rather than admit a mistake. If I'm wrong, call me out, and I will readily admit it. I have no trouble admitting mistakes.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The conference was publicly announced, anyone from the public could attend, and the videos will be made public soon. What's secretive about that?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that's a ridiculous view of what the Framers thought, not that I think it matters too much what they thought. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but first I think you need to man up and admit that you were wrong to (1) attribute that other person's claim to me that you said I wouldn't defend, and (2) acknowledge that your answer about trademark rights didn't address my questions about copyright rights. Can't you admit a simple mistake? We all make them. The better of us admit them. I mean, even *RD* of all people, thinks you're wrong. That should tell you something.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re:
You've apparently bought into the TD narrative hook, line, and sinker. Do you actually know who was on this panel? Do you actually know what they said? Do you actually delve into matters to get to the truth?
Next >>