While I completely understand what you're saying, rap blogs are the new way to promote rap music. However, the problem with the radio analogy is that radio does pay royalties to song writers and publishers. Blogs do not. Nor should they.
But you're still assuming the standing issue is valid. The courts which have used standing to dismiss the Righthaven lawsuits are not relying on a binding US Supreme Court decision, they're relying on 9th circuit decisions which hold that copyright holders cannot contract away the mere right to sue.
Other federal circuits might come to a different conclusions on that same issue, so the trial court in this case did what trial courts are supposed to do. It gave alternative bases for the dismissal.
Once again, you've cited no law that says a court cannot provide alternate bases to rule on an opinion. How many times to I have to repeat this?
"it focuses on the simple truth that if there's no standing, then the fair use ruling should be vacated."
Read my comment directly above you. It's quite common for courts to give alternative bases for its opinion. There is nothing wrong with doing so and there is no law or court rule which forbids it.
If the primary basis is upheld, the alternatives are not vacated, they're merely considered dicta.
"To be fair, I can see their overall argument here. If Righthaven has no standing, then should the court even consider the specific issues?"
Yes. Yes it should.
It's quite common for courts to give alternative reasons in their opinions. They'll say, for example, that the case is dismissed because the plaintiff has no standing. And in alternative, if it is later determined that the plaintiff does have standing, that fair use is complete a defense to this action.
If the initial basis for the dismissal or ruling stands, the alternative bases become dicta.
If there are multiple reasons to dismiss an action or rule upon an issue, a good court deals with all of them. That keeps the case from being remanded back from an appellate court because of an unaddressed issue.
"it seems odd that ICE is using these videos -- which present a ridiculously inaccurate and one-sided argument that "piracy" is taking away movie industry jobs -- on web sites seized & forfeited for trademark violations"
It's not odd at all. The IP industry and the governments it bought want to conflate copyrights, patents, trademarks, publicity rights, etc into one huge group. If you can't shut down a blog because of fair use, then shut it down for diluting trademarks. If that doesn't work, shut it down for interfering with publicity rights. If that doesn't work sue the ISP for patent infringement.
Despite completely different origins and legal backgrounds, patents, copyrights, trademarks are now all tools for eliminating competition, the exchange of ideas, and free speech.
I can still remember in Sci Fi Lit class in high school, probably about 1982. The teacher asked us what Fahrenheit 451 was about. Of course we all said censorship. He smiled and went on a coffee fueled sermon about how Fahrenheit 451 was actually about the dangers of new technology making us intellectually complacent where we make it against the law to express or absorb large and important ideas.
I get that. What I don't get is how Bradbury refuses to admit that it's the censorship that's the harm, not the complacency of the many. There has never been any time in history where the majority of people were intellectually curious. The intellectually curious are always in the minority. Thus the problem in the world of Fahrenheit 451 is not that the vast majority of people are intellectually complacent, that's the norm, it's that those intellectually complacent people make it illegal for anyone to be anything else.
Actually, the fact that there are fewer millionaires shows that the music industry is becoming more efficient. Instead of large amounts of money being collected by a select few artists, it's being spread around thousands of artists.
Think about it, if you find a great way to make money, in a free market someone else should come along and compete with you, lowering prices and profits. The only way someone can make an obscene amount of money is by having some sort of inefficiently in the market which allows you to conduct business without competition.
Bill Gates? Windows and Office monopolies/Copyright.
Carlos Slim Helu? Has a 90% monopoly lock on Mexico's phone network.
Anyone rich from oil? Monopoly rights in the mineral rights of certain land.
If someone got extremely rich, there was some market inefficiency that got him there, e.g., patent, copyright, government contract, etc.
Yeah, think about all the government entities regulating automobile dealerships. What those regulations do is eliminate any disruptive way of selling new automobiles. Under those regulations, if you want to sell new cars, you have to follow the regulations, thus, you have to follow the same approach the status quo uses.
Let's say you come up with an innovative taxi cab service. Once again, if you're disruptive, the status quo taxi cab services will complain to the government and the government regulators will shut down the innovative and more efficient upstart.
I could go on and on. Corporations pretend to dislike and even hate regulations. But those same corporations depend on regulations to protect their status quo.
The true purpose of a government regulator is to protect the industry he's assigned to regulate from any outside competition. In other words, Lord Hunt is just doing his job.
Ok I'm going to patent a piece of metal with holes drilled in it. I have no idea what use it'll have but my guess is that there are billions of dollars to be made once I start enforcing it against the manufacturing sector.
On the post: Congressional Research Service Shows Hollywood Is Thriving
Re: Re:
On the post: Congressional Research Service Shows Hollywood Is Thriving
On the post: ICE Admits To Returning Domain While RIAA Threatens Dajaz1 With More Legal Actions
While I completely understand what you're saying, rap blogs are the new way to promote rap music. However, the problem with the radio analogy is that radio does pay royalties to song writers and publishers. Blogs do not. Nor should they.
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Relish Irony Of SOPA's Great Firewall Of America
The Great Firewall of China blocks speech the Chinese government doesn't like.
SOPA blocks speech that corporations don't like.
See, it's not too hard to understand.
On the post: First Grader Investigated For Sexual Harassment For Kicking A Bully In His Private Parts
An assault is the placing of a person in fear of a battery. The battery is the unlawful touching.
On the post: It's Official: RIAA Trying To Join Righthaven Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
Other federal circuits might come to a different conclusions on that same issue, so the trial court in this case did what trial courts are supposed to do. It gave alternative bases for the dismissal.
Once again, you've cited no law that says a court cannot provide alternate bases to rule on an opinion. How many times to I have to repeat this?
On the post: RIAA Claims It Succeeded In Getting Piracy Under Control Years Ago
Re: Re:
I used WinMX as an example because, as far as I remember, it was the first P2P program that let you download the same file from multiple sources.
On the post: RIAA Claims It Succeeded In Getting Piracy Under Control Years Ago
People then used the next generation of P2P, e.g., WinMX, to download entire albums. The RIAA stopped that.
People then started using bittorrent to download entire discographies.
If music piracy is "under control", it's only because everything we want has already been downloaded.
On the post: It's Official: RIAA Trying To Join Righthaven Lawsuit
Re:
Read my comment directly above you. It's quite common for courts to give alternative bases for its opinion. There is nothing wrong with doing so and there is no law or court rule which forbids it.
If the primary basis is upheld, the alternatives are not vacated, they're merely considered dicta.
On the post: It's Official: RIAA Trying To Join Righthaven Lawsuit
Yes. Yes it should.
It's quite common for courts to give alternative reasons in their opinions. They'll say, for example, that the case is dismissed because the plaintiff has no standing. And in alternative, if it is later determined that the plaintiff does have standing, that fair use is complete a defense to this action.
If the initial basis for the dismissal or ruling stands, the alternative bases become dicta.
If there are multiple reasons to dismiss an action or rule upon an issue, a good court deals with all of them. That keeps the case from being remanded back from an appellate court because of an unaddressed issue.
On the post: More People Realizing That The FBI's 'Big Wins' Are In Stopping Its Own Made Up Terror Plots
On the post: Questionable 'Consumer' Group Releases Most Misleading Report Imaginable, Falsely Claiming People Support SOPA
Corporations are people now, aren't they?
On the post: Press Realizing That ICE May Be Breaking The Law Showing NBC Universal Propaganda Films On Domains It Seized
It's not odd at all. The IP industry and the governments it bought want to conflate copyrights, patents, trademarks, publicity rights, etc into one huge group. If you can't shut down a blog because of fair use, then shut it down for diluting trademarks. If that doesn't work, shut it down for interfering with publicity rights. If that doesn't work sue the ISP for patent infringement.
Despite completely different origins and legal backgrounds, patents, copyrights, trademarks are now all tools for eliminating competition, the exchange of ideas, and free speech.
On the post: Ray Bradbury Discovers The Internet Is Real After All; Publishers Force Him To Offer Ridiculously Overpriced Ebooks
I get that. What I don't get is how Bradbury refuses to admit that it's the censorship that's the harm, not the complacency of the many. There has never been any time in history where the majority of people were intellectually curious. The intellectually curious are always in the minority. Thus the problem in the world of Fahrenheit 451 is not that the vast majority of people are intellectually complacent, that's the norm, it's that those intellectually complacent people make it illegal for anyone to be anything else.
Thus, it's the censorship.
On the post: Just Because New Artist Platforms Aren't Minting Millionaires Doesn't Mean These Platforms Have Failed
Think about it, if you find a great way to make money, in a free market someone else should come along and compete with you, lowering prices and profits. The only way someone can make an obscene amount of money is by having some sort of inefficiently in the market which allows you to conduct business without competition.
Bill Gates? Windows and Office monopolies/Copyright.
Carlos Slim Helu? Has a 90% monopoly lock on Mexico's phone network.
Anyone rich from oil? Monopoly rights in the mineral rights of certain land.
If someone got extremely rich, there was some market inefficiency that got him there, e.g., patent, copyright, government contract, etc.
On the post: Finns And Norwegians Argue Over Who Owns The Northern Lights
The quotes read like something written for the Onion. Are you sure this isn't a joke?
On the post: New Head Of UK's Newspaper Regulators Thinks Bloggers Are A Bigger Problem Than Phone Hacking Tabloids?
Re: Re:
Let's say you come up with an innovative taxi cab service. Once again, if you're disruptive, the status quo taxi cab services will complain to the government and the government regulators will shut down the innovative and more efficient upstart.
I could go on and on. Corporations pretend to dislike and even hate regulations. But those same corporations depend on regulations to protect their status quo.
On the post: New Head Of UK's Newspaper Regulators Thinks Bloggers Are A Bigger Problem Than Phone Hacking Tabloids?
On the post: Warner Bros. Wants You To 'Buy' Movies Instead Of Rent... And By 'Buy' It Means Spend More To Still 'Rent'
My brain hurts.
On the post: UK Judges Think US Makes It Too Hard To Get Patents, Lower Patentability Bar To Show How It's Done
Next >>