Which is why we need to push back, roll back bad laws, and withdraw from treaties if necessary. Create divergence, make it clear that we're not going to tolerate the ratchet anymore.
Can we just geoblock all of Europe already and get it over with?
At this point it's starting to look like it's going to be like ripping off a band-aid: it will hurt no matter what, but it has to happen, and the faster and more abruptly you do it and just get it over with, the less pain you end up with in the end.
Not exactly. What it says is that you have three months of "grace period" after publication to register as an exception to the rule cited above that:
The Copyright Act does not permit recovery of statutory damages or attorneys’ fees for “any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration.”
In other words, if I publish something today, and tomorrow Bob infringes on it before I've had time to register, I still have three months to register and be able to bust him for it. But if he waits three months and then infringes, and I still haven't registered by that point, then I can't seek damages. But if I register after three months and then Bob infringes on my work, I still have a valid case.
What I expect will happen is that, in a hypothetical case exactly like this that ended up in court, the Guardian would end up as the copyright owner under work-made-for-hire doctrine, which obviously did not apply to the infamous monkey photographer.
It's not right. It's not good. But I bet it will be what we end up with.
I didn't immediately believe anything. I took my time, waited for more evidence to become available, and considered the entire picture in context. Immediately believing things is how we get into messes like this in the first place!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hijacking your name -- another SPARSE zombie!
Are you even aware of what the profile link you're reading means?
(Here's a hint: why does Mike Read have one and you don't?)
Once you've laboriously worked out what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us, you'll understand why everyone else thinks these innuendos you keep dropping about gaps in comment histories are full of crap.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Closing in" just like
This would indeed raise reasonable doubt if we accept that Karl is a Google mouthpiece. But you've provided no proof of that, therefore any statements predicated upon it are worthless.
Prove that the characters "Karl Bode" connect to THIS one
It's been a while, so I might be misremembering, but I believe Karl mentioned back when this all started that it had not only his name but also his address on it. Or possibly his email address. Either way, there was indeed information there that uniquely identified it as our Techdirt writer and not some other guy named Karl Bode.
On the post: Who Needs Article 13: Italian Court Finds Facebook Liable For Hosting Links
Re: Next Link
So you want to implement RFC 3514?
On the post: Who Needs Article 13: Italian Court Finds Facebook Liable For Hosting Links
Re:
Which is why we need to push back, roll back bad laws, and withdraw from treaties if necessary. Create divergence, make it clear that we're not going to tolerate the ratchet anymore.
On the post: Court Says DOJ's Attempt To Force Facebook To Break Encryption Can Remain Under Seal
Re:
That's not what the article said. It said that the government wants to require Facebook to create a security hole that does not currently exist.
On the post: Court Says DOJ's Attempt To Force Facebook To Break Encryption Can Remain Under Seal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that software patents aren't considered valid anymore.
On the post: Who Needs Article 13: Italian Court Finds Facebook Liable For Hosting Links
Can we just geoblock all of Europe already and get it over with?
At this point it's starting to look like it's going to be like ripping off a band-aid: it will hurt no matter what, but it has to happen, and the faster and more abruptly you do it and just get it over with, the less pain you end up with in the end.
On the post: Court Says DOJ's Attempt To Force Facebook To Break Encryption Can Remain Under Seal
Re:
Your question assumes that arguing against it is a desired outcome. :P
On the post: AI Writes Article About AI: Does The Newspaper Hold The Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You... completely missed that this is not a position I'm in any way advocating for, didn't you?
On the post: AI Writes Article About AI: Does The Newspaper Hold The Copyright?
Re: Re:
Because under copyright maximalist logic™, what else could it possibly be?
On the post: Does Twitter Have An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?
Re:
As I've been saying pretty much since day 1, it's a service that's full of Twits.
On the post: Investigating the Higbee & Associates Copyright Trolling Operation
Re:
Not exactly. What it says is that you have three months of "grace period" after publication to register as an exception to the rule cited above that:
In other words, if I publish something today, and tomorrow Bob infringes on it before I've had time to register, I still have three months to register and be able to bust him for it. But if he waits three months and then infringes, and I still haven't registered by that point, then I can't seek damages. But if I register after three months and then Bob infringes on my work, I still have a valid case.
On the post: Investigating the Higbee & Associates Copyright Trolling Operation
Re:
That's because the underlying story is unfinished. We'll likely get the rest once (at least some of) the legal drama has run its course.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Hey, leave the noob alone before I pick him up and throw him at you! :P
On the post: AI Writes Article About AI: Does The Newspaper Hold The Copyright?
What I expect will happen is that, in a hypothetical case exactly like this that ended up in court, the Guardian would end up as the copyright owner under work-made-for-hire doctrine, which obviously did not apply to the infamous monkey photographer.
It's not right. It's not good. But I bet it will be what we end up with.
On the post: Does Twitter Have An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?
Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo
Yeah, claiming that something embarrassing from your past was "just a joke" is a classic deflection tactic.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Wow, projecting much?
I didn't immediately believe anything. I took my time, waited for more evidence to become available, and considered the entire picture in context. Immediately believing things is how we get into messes like this in the first place!
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
You mean the one where I pointed out that it's important to apply principles consistently even when it means defending people you don't like?
On the post: Investigators, Reporters Close In On The Origins Of Those Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hijacking your name -- another SPARSE zombie!
Are you even aware of what the profile link you're reading means?
(Here's a hint: why does Mike Read have one and you don't?)
Once you've laboriously worked out what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us, you'll understand why everyone else thinks these innuendos you keep dropping about gaps in comment histories are full of crap.
On the post: Investigators, Reporters Close In On The Origins Of Those Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Closing in" just like
This would indeed raise reasonable doubt if we accept that Karl is a Google mouthpiece. But you've provided no proof of that, therefore any statements predicated upon it are worthless.
On the post: Investigators, Reporters Close In On The Origins Of Those Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Closing in" just like "Trump Rus
It's been a while, so I might be misremembering, but I believe Karl mentioned back when this all started that it had not only his name but also his address on it. Or possibly his email address. Either way, there was indeed information there that uniquely identified it as our Techdirt writer and not some other guy named Karl Bode.
On the post: Investigators, Reporters Close In On The Origins Of Those Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Closing in" just like "Trump Russia collusion":
Yes.
Next >>