Isn't the current system one of cross-checking the SSN with something else? It's easy to guess a valid SSN and it's easy to guess someone's birthday, but it's hard to match the two together.
Actually, come to think of it, it might not be that hard. Presumably SSNs are assigned in some sort of order.
So you'd have to cross-check SSNs against something with less correlation -- like names or something. But I imagine that creates all sorts of havoc for people who change their names and whatnot.
Well, I'm only a law student, but based on what I've learned in my first year, two things come to mind.
(1) There's no liability on Twitter's part because of Section 230.
(2) There's probably no slander or libel claim that would withstand the First Amendment UNLESS you can show that the anonymous Twitterer is intentionally lying (or recklessly disregarding the truth) -- as opposed to simply being mistaken. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). That's hard to show.
I would add a requirement that it copies a substantial portion of the original (see my post below).
You could argue that Star Wars and Star Trek are "direct competitors" because they target the same audience (protestations of sci-fi partisans notwithstanding), even though there's no shared language or expression. You could also argue that you have to copy some expression to be a "direct" competitor, but there's no need to rely on the court making an inference when you can just explicitly require it.
It's unfair if:
(1) You copy a substantial portion of it, AND
(2) Your copying lowers the value of the original by serving as a substitute for the original work
Basically, this does two things to existing law:
(1) I take out the two factors about "purpose and character of the use" and "nature of the copyrighted work" from the current two-factor fair use test. They're (a) too vague for my taste and (b) redundant with the two factors I did keep -- e.g. transformative works generally don't copy a substantial portion and don't serve as direct competitors to the original.
(2) It's no longer a multi-factor balancing test. Multi-factor balancing tests yield far too inconsistent results IMHO. Under the above test, in order to qualify as unfair, both parts of the test have to be met.
Okay, so lyric sites increase sales for performing artists. Since the lyricist gets a cut from the performing artist, then the lyricist makes money as well.
If the lyric website is ultimately making the lyricist more money, then what's the problem? You're getting a cut. If that's not enough for you, negotiate with the performing artist.
I'm pretty that wouldn't hold water in court. Otherwise, I could simply claim that copying an entire book does not violate copyright since it's simply stating, factually, which words were in the book. There's probably also derivative work liability.
IANAL, but I think these lyric sites do infringe upon the copyright. The issue is whether there's any real damage done to the right-holder. Probably not. Lyric sites increase sales.
And to address technopolitical's point (one more time), if the lyricist is distinct from the performing artist and not getting a decent cut, that's not really the fault of the lyrics site. It's up to the lyricist to negotiate a better deal from the performer.
By expanding who could sue, I'm hoping you mean to large organizations like Google and Microsoft that process huge amounts of e-mail each day
Because I could see a lot of frivolous lawsuits being filed if we allowed anyone to sue for spam -- e.g. I criticize a public official which triggers a lot of angry e-mails from others to said official. Would that make me a contributory spammer?
I'm sure you could write the law in such a way to limit some of the crazier suits, but I'm also sure that people would ignore those limits in the same way they ignore Section 230.
Moreover, a good chunk of these would undoubtedly become class action lawsuits. Each individual spamee doesn't suffer very much in damages, so it's only the cases were aggregated that law firms would suddenly be interested. Yet class action suits offer their own bag of worms.
Legally maybe, but business-wise, I think it's the wrong decision. The artist is getting paid, indirectly, through increased album sales and concert tickets. You won't cede me that point, but you have no argument to counter it.
It's interesting reading the comments on their blog. Apparently, some people who didn't pay even a penny because:
(1) The payment systems offered didn't work for them
(2) They're kids who hate asking their parents if they can use their credit card.
The first penny is always the hardest. There's probably a great opportunity for those willing to cater to those who want to "pay" through non-monetary means -- e.g. read scanned text to help improve OCR technology a la reCaptcha.
The lyric site lets the the visitor know what the song title was. Then the visitor, now knowing who the artist is, buys the song off iTunes, attends a concert, etc. That's money the artist wouldn't have made without the "free" help of the lyric sites.
The fact that the lyric sites also make money off advertising is irrelevant. Most artists don't have any advertising on their own site -- so there's no competition.
Think of it this way. Would the artist make more or less money in a world without these lyric sites? I say less. Yes, more people will buy lyric sheets now, but many more people would never learn you existed. They'd hear your lyric, have a hard time finding you online, and would never buy an album or go to a concert.
Put another way -- the biggest problem an artist faces isn't that someone is ripping them off. It's that no one gives a crap about them.
Re: What about those who don't believe in patents at all?
I don't think that many of the people trying to make this DPL do believe in patents. They're just trying to set up a system to protect themselves from other patent-holders by subverting the existing system.
It's like Creative Commons and open-source licenses. Many people who use those licenses don't believe in copyright, but are willing to use copyright law to subvert it (hence the term "copyleft").
On the post: The Mathematics Of Proving (Or Disproving) Identity Fraud
Re:
Actually, come to think of it, it might not be that hard. Presumably SSNs are assigned in some sort of order.
So you'd have to cross-check SSNs against something with less correlation -- like names or something. But I imagine that creates all sorts of havoc for people who change their names and whatnot.
On the post: Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett Can't Take Anonymous Twitter Criticism; Issues Subpoenas For IDs
Re:
(1) There's no liability on Twitter's part because of Section 230.
(2) There's probably no slander or libel claim that would withstand the First Amendment UNLESS you can show that the anonymous Twitterer is intentionally lying (or recklessly disregarding the truth) -- as opposed to simply being mistaken. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). That's hard to show.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Competition
You could argue that Star Wars and Star Trek are "direct competitors" because they target the same audience (protestations of sci-fi partisans notwithstanding), even though there's no shared language or expression. You could also argue that you have to copy some expression to be a "direct" competitor, but there's no need to rely on the court making an inference when you can just explicitly require it.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
2 Part Test
(1) You copy a substantial portion of it, AND
(2) Your copying lowers the value of the original by serving as a substitute for the original work
Basically, this does two things to existing law:
(1) I take out the two factors about "purpose and character of the use" and "nature of the copyrighted work" from the current two-factor fair use test. They're (a) too vague for my taste and (b) redundant with the two factors I did keep -- e.g. transformative works generally don't copy a substantial portion and don't serve as direct competitors to the original.
(2) It's no longer a multi-factor balancing test. Multi-factor balancing tests yield far too inconsistent results IMHO. Under the above test, in order to qualify as unfair, both parts of the test have to be met.
On the post: Australian Gyms Dumping Pop Music After Massive Increase In Royalty Rates
Seriously, ever play Rock Band for 2 hours straight? That is tiring.
On the post: Some Fiction About Fan Fiction
Re:
On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps
Re: Re: Re: Android ?
On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps
Re: Re: Re: Android ?
On the post: FTC Gives Ann Taylor A Pass In First 'Blog Disclosure' Investigation
Indemnity
If an advertiser tells a blogger to disclose some information and then the blogger does not do so... is the advertiser still liable?
Maybe -- but if so, then all that'll happen is that there'll be an indemnity clause in future blogger-advertiser contracts.
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the lyric website is ultimately making the lyricist more money, then what's the problem? You're getting a cut. If that's not enough for you, negotiate with the performing artist.
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Lyrics as facts
IANAL, but I think these lyric sites do infringe upon the copyright. The issue is whether there's any real damage done to the right-holder. Probably not. Lyric sites increase sales.
And to address technopolitical's point (one more time), if the lyricist is distinct from the performing artist and not getting a decent cut, that's not really the fault of the lyrics site. It's up to the lyricist to negotiate a better deal from the performer.
On the post: So Few Spam Lawsuits Because Judges Don't Understand Technology?
Why do we need more lawsuits?
Because I could see a lot of frivolous lawsuits being filed if we allowed anyone to sue for spam -- e.g. I criticize a public official which triggers a lot of angry e-mails from others to said official. Would that make me a contributory spammer?
I'm sure you could write the law in such a way to limit some of the crazier suits, but I'm also sure that people would ignore those limits in the same way they ignore Section 230.
Moreover, a good chunk of these would undoubtedly become class action lawsuits. Each individual spamee doesn't suffer very much in damages, so it's only the cases were aggregated that law firms would suddenly be interested. Yet class action suits offer their own bag of worms.
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Keeps Getting Better, Exceeding Expectations
The first penny
(1) The payment systems offered didn't work for them
(2) They're kids who hate asking their parents if they can use their credit card.
The first penny is always the hardest. There's probably a great opportunity for those willing to cater to those who want to "pay" through non-monetary means -- e.g. read scanned text to help improve OCR technology a la reCaptcha.
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Re:
The lyric site lets the the visitor know what the song title was. Then the visitor, now knowing who the artist is, buys the song off iTunes, attends a concert, etc. That's money the artist wouldn't have made without the "free" help of the lyric sites.
The fact that the lyric sites also make money off advertising is irrelevant. Most artists don't have any advertising on their own site -- so there's no competition.
Think of it this way. Would the artist make more or less money in a world without these lyric sites? I say less. Yes, more people will buy lyric sheets now, but many more people would never learn you existed. They'd hear your lyric, have a hard time finding you online, and would never buy an album or go to a concert.
Put another way -- the biggest problem an artist faces isn't that someone is ripping them off. It's that no one gives a crap about them.
On the post: Effort Underway For Defensive Patent Pool For Open Source Developers
Re: What about those who don't believe in patents at all?
It's like Creative Commons and open-source licenses. Many people who use those licenses don't believe in copyright, but are willing to use copyright law to subvert it (hence the term "copyleft").
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists do not work for Free
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meaning, the lyric sites that the industry is trying to shut down ARE, in a sense, free efforts by techy people to help artists.
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Meaning, the lyric sites that the industry is trying to shut down ARE, in a sense, free efforts by techy people to help artists.
Next >>