Nope. I'm not asking him to prove a negative. He said there is no evidence that there is an influence. I wondered if he just made that up (which is my suspicion), or was that claim based on actual evidence.
This is basic stuff. Either Mike has a basis for his claim, or he does not. He calls people out on stuff like this all the time.
I'm sorry, but rational thought normally follows the path assume there isn't until proven there is.
Assuming there is until proof there isn't is what results in fear mongering and uninformed decision making.
Really, you think the presumption is that there is no influence here? Sorry, but rational thought would mean presume nothing and see what the evidence indicates. Otherwise it's just faith-based.
I don't have an answer, as I've tried to indicate. I don't think there is a clear answer. I can't say "definitely x, y, and z, but not a, b, and, provided l, m, and n." It just doesn't work like that. Sorry, but that's the best answer I can give you.
Not really. I don't think it's a sham in the sense that sham means a simulation. A simulation is where the parties say one thing but intend another. I think the agreement here means what it says. Yes the agreement here is the parties contracting around the holding in Silvers, but I'm not convinced that this can't rightfully be done. Silvers doesn't say that an assignee can't turn around and grant its assignor an exclusive license of the rights it was assigned. I'm also not convinced that it's champerty, since Righthaven has legal ownership of the rights its enforcing and is not a mere intermeddler. Copyright law provides for the assignment of the right to sue. It makes little sense to not allow the assignee of that right to exercise it. The policy reason for allowing this is because the enforcement of rights is a good thing.
I don't think there is a clear answer. That's been my point. It's one of those things--to get legalese on you--that would be decided on a case-by-case basis looking at the totality of the circumstances as there is no bright-line rule.
I already explained why - because propagandists want it so.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. It's not a conspiracy. It's a simple fact. When you realize that property simply means ownership rights, it all makes sense.
No, it doesn't - in any way, shape or form. Property is *by definition* exclusive. Only one person at a time can hold it. Property can be possessed. Copyright cannot be possessed - it is a legal manifestation of imagination.
Property can be owned by more than one person at a time. Have you never heard of co-owners? Ownership between two or more owners can be joint or separate. This is basic property law 101 stuff.
Yes, property can be possessed. But the possessor is not necessarily the owner. If I loan you my car, you possess it, but you do not own it. You appear not to understand basics like the difference between possession and ownership. Of course these are legal constructs. This is so with all property laws, like copyright.
It most certainly *CANNOT*. All these things are figments of your imagination, and the fact that you assert these fictions as if they were true shows that Mike is absolutely correct.
Wow, you are out there. Property can't be owned? That makes no sense.
Copyright law is by definition what defines copyright. If copyright law does not say it's property, then by definition it is not property.
That's not how property works. You don't have to define something as property for it to be property. It just is property, by definition, because it is a thing susceptible of ownership.
Ah, a tautology - how amusing.
Copyrights acts like property because copyrights are property. It's that simple. You need to understand that property just means ownership rights.
No, to claim that it *is* property is just silly. As I said, copyright is defined by copyright law. If copyright law does not call it property, then it is not. Unless you can point to a copyright law that says otherwise, you lose.
Sorry, but you lose because it doesn't work that way. Copyrights are intangible property. It's axiomatic and by definition. I'm speaking legally of course because we're talking about the legal meanings of the words.
This need to argue that copyrights aren't property is quite amusing. Copyrights are property susceptible of ownership, this much is perfectly clear. Yes, ownership and rights are constructs of man. So what?
copyright. The right to copy; specifically, a property right in an original work of authorship
Recall that property is defined as "the right of ownership." If you realize that property just means rights, this makes sense. Copyright, like any other property, is just a bundle of rights.
Close, but you missed the important part. When Righthaven granted the exclusive license to Stephens Media, they did not give Stephens Media complete ownership. The analogy with a lease should be helpful. When you lease a house, you are granted certain exclusive rights in the house. This does not mean you own the house though. It's the same with an exclusive licensee. The licensee does not have complete ownership of the thing he licenses.
Says the Second Circuit:
[W]e conclude that Section 101 cannot be read to mean that an owner of an exclusive right is also, thereby, an owner of the underlying copyright.
And yet it is not “property”. Nowhere in copyright law is it referred to as “property”. The phrase “intellectual property” is not to be found in any law. Ergo, it is a term with no meaning in law. QED.
That makes no sense. If there exist no law stating that hairbrushes are property, are hairbrushes then not property?
It's not property because some statute defines it as property. Property just means a bundle of rights. Copyright is a bundle of rights. It's really that simple.
You guys have a strange idea of what the word property means.
This is simply not analogous at all. When you lease a house, there are numerous things that you can and are leasing.
The analogy, as I carefully tried to explain so it wouldn't go over your head, is that like a lessor, a licensor does not give total ownership to the person he grants a license to. Pointing out the differences between a lease and a license is stupid, since I was using the analogy for its similarity as to how ownership does not pass. Does a lessee have complete ownership of the thing he leases? No. Does a licensee have complete ownership of the thing he licenses? No. The analogy is spot on.
When you deal with copyright there are the limited rights under section 106.
Yes.
That's the problem. You still can't point to a SINGLE right that Righthaven has EVER held under Section 106. Because there are none. And that's where your argument falls entirely apart.
You're going to have to do better than that. As I have proved pointing to caselaw and treatises, a licensee does not obtain complete ownership of the thing he licenses. Just like the lessee of a house, a licensee doesn't truly have complete ownership of the thing he licenses. Remarkably, you have shown nothing to rebut the evidence on this point that I have produced. Nor can you, I suppose.
As has been explained to you. Over and over again.
Considering that you don't seem to understand what a license is, much less what even property is, perhaps you aren't the one to be explaining this to me.
Nope. First of all, copyright is a "chattel," and it is a "determinate thing." Chattel just means a "movable," in continental-law speak. Rights are movables.
Secondly, property can be divided into one of two types: tangible and intangible. Both types are still property. From Black's:
tangible property. (1802) Property that has physical form and characteristics. Cf. intangible property.
intangible property. (1843) Property that lacks a physical existence. • Examples include stock options and business goodwill. Cf. tangible property.
Intellectual property is just a type of intangible property. From Black's:
intellectual property. (1808) 1. A category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect. The category comprises primarily trademark, copyright, and patent rights, but also includes trade-secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition. 2. A commercially valuable product of the human intellect, in a concrete or abstract form, such as a copyrightable work, a protectable trademark, a patentable invention, or a trade secret. — Abbr. IP.
Scarcity has nothing to do with it. Copyright is intangible property. Copyright is property. Property is rights. Copyrights are rights. There's really no debate on this point. The law doesn't limit the meaning of property to only tangible things.
Sorry, I don't have those cases off the top of my head. It'd be easy to find if there weren't so many damned Righthaven cases. I know Randazza brought up the assignment in one case, and Mike wrote a story about it recently. I can't find it though.
Righthaven is stripped of the rights in the sense that they granted an exclusive license of those rights. But keep in mind that the licensor doesn't give his licensee complete ownership. That means that Righthaven kept ownership even though it granted an exclusive license.
Again, Righthaven has all of the 106 rights, as owner.
It's very analogous to when you lease a house. As a lessee, you have the right to use and enjoy the property, but technically you don't own it. A license is like a lease in that full ownership does not change hands.
A licensor is one who grants a license to another. The party he grants the license to is the licensee.
Righthaven granted a license to Stephens Media. Since it was exclusive, that means Righthaven may not also grant a license of that same right to another party.
Blank? Look at page PDF page 16 of the Agreement. Exhibit 1 contains this text:
COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENT
This Copyright Assignment (the "Assignment") is made effective as of _______ (the "Effective Date") by Stephens Media LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company ("Stephens Media"),
In consideration of monetary commitments and commitments to services to be provided and/or already provided by Righthaven LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company, ("Righthaven") to Stephens Media and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Stephens Media hereby transfers, vests and assigns the work depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Work"), to Righthaven, subject to Stephens Media's rights of reversion, all copyrights requisite to have Righthaven recognized as the copyright owner of the Work for purposes of Righthaven being able to claim ownership as well as the right to pursue past, present and future infringements of the copyright in and to the Work.
That's the boilerplate language they've been using for the individual assignments. I know the assignments in other cases have come out, and sure enough, they use that exact language. Courts that have looked at that assignment, standing alone, have ruled that ownership clearly transferred to Righthaven. If you're talking about a specific case where they were supposed to produce that assignment but failed to, that is interesting. I hadn't heard that before.
You're hanging your hat on the word "retain." I've explained this in other threads already, but I agree that the word is poorly chosen. The rights are not technically retained. Looking at the phrase directly after, it states, "retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven)." To me, that clearly means that Righthaven granted Stephens those rights, not that Stephens Media retained them. The net result is that Stephens Media retained them, but technically, ownership changed hands and the rights were licensed to Stephens Media by Righthaven. I don't think a court will look at the unfortunate choice of wording, "retain," and give it much pause once they take a step back and read the whole sentence.
Explain to me this: How is it NOT property? Looking to Black's Law Dictionary:
property. 1. The right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing (either a tract of land or a chattel); the right of ownership . — Also termed bundle of rights.
That sums it up nicely. And it points out the complete fallacy and lack of understanding on Mike's part about this. He claims that copyright isn't property because copyright is just a bundle of rights. However, property is a bundle of rights. Therefore, the proper conclusion is that copyright is property BECAUSE copyright is a bundle of rights.
Why do you think it's called intellectual property? It acts like property because it can be bought and sold. It can be owned and licensed. Ownership can be dismembered. It can be alienated and encumbered. Etc. Etc.
Whether or not the Copyright Act refers to it as "property" is irrelevant. It acts like property because it is property.
Property itself is just a bundle of rights. To say that copyright is not property is just silly.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re:
Well played, FUDmaster-, er, buster....
Nope. I'm not asking him to prove a negative. He said there is no evidence that there is an influence. I wondered if he just made that up (which is my suspicion), or was that claim based on actual evidence.
This is basic stuff. Either Mike has a basis for his claim, or he does not. He calls people out on stuff like this all the time.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re:
Assuming there is until proof there isn't is what results in fear mongering and uninformed decision making.
Really, you think the presumption is that there is no influence here? Sorry, but rational thought would mean presume nothing and see what the evidence indicates. Otherwise it's just faith-based.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re:
How is that a better question? I've made no claim either way. I have no evidence either way.
The issue is whether Mike can back up his claim with evidence. He's the one that made the claim.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Do you have any evidence that there is a "complete and total lack of evidence," or is this just meta-FUD?
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. It's not a conspiracy. It's a simple fact. When you realize that property simply means ownership rights, it all makes sense.
No, it doesn't - in any way, shape or form. Property is *by definition* exclusive. Only one person at a time can hold it. Property can be possessed. Copyright cannot be possessed - it is a legal manifestation of imagination.
Property can be owned by more than one person at a time. Have you never heard of co-owners? Ownership between two or more owners can be joint or separate. This is basic property law 101 stuff.
Yes, property can be possessed. But the possessor is not necessarily the owner. If I loan you my car, you possess it, but you do not own it. You appear not to understand basics like the difference between possession and ownership. Of course these are legal constructs. This is so with all property laws, like copyright.
It most certainly *CANNOT*. All these things are figments of your imagination, and the fact that you assert these fictions as if they were true shows that Mike is absolutely correct.
Wow, you are out there. Property can't be owned? That makes no sense.
Copyright law is by definition what defines copyright. If copyright law does not say it's property, then by definition it is not property.
That's not how property works. You don't have to define something as property for it to be property. It just is property, by definition, because it is a thing susceptible of ownership.
Ah, a tautology - how amusing.
Copyrights acts like property because copyrights are property. It's that simple. You need to understand that property just means ownership rights.
No, to claim that it *is* property is just silly. As I said, copyright is defined by copyright law. If copyright law does not call it property, then it is not. Unless you can point to a copyright law that says otherwise, you lose.
Sorry, but you lose because it doesn't work that way. Copyrights are intangible property. It's axiomatic and by definition. I'm speaking legally of course because we're talking about the legal meanings of the words.
This need to argue that copyrights aren't property is quite amusing. Copyrights are property susceptible of ownership, this much is perfectly clear. Yes, ownership and rights are constructs of man. So what?
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the Second Circuit:Morris v. Bus. Concepts, Inc., 259 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001).
Translation: an exclusive licensee does not own the copyright he licenses.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
That makes no sense. If there exist no law stating that hairbrushes are property, are hairbrushes then not property?
It's not property because some statute defines it as property. Property just means a bundle of rights. Copyright is a bundle of rights. It's really that simple.
You guys have a strange idea of what the word property means.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The analogy, as I carefully tried to explain so it wouldn't go over your head, is that like a lessor, a licensor does not give total ownership to the person he grants a license to. Pointing out the differences between a lease and a license is stupid, since I was using the analogy for its similarity as to how ownership does not pass. Does a lessee have complete ownership of the thing he leases? No. Does a licensee have complete ownership of the thing he licenses? No. The analogy is spot on.
When you deal with copyright there are the limited rights under section 106.
Yes.
That's the problem. You still can't point to a SINGLE right that Righthaven has EVER held under Section 106. Because there are none. And that's where your argument falls entirely apart.
You're going to have to do better than that. As I have proved pointing to caselaw and treatises, a licensee does not obtain complete ownership of the thing he licenses. Just like the lessee of a house, a licensee doesn't truly have complete ownership of the thing he licenses. Remarkably, you have shown nothing to rebut the evidence on this point that I have produced. Nor can you, I suppose.
As has been explained to you. Over and over again.
Considering that you don't seem to understand what a license is, much less what even property is, perhaps you aren't the one to be explaining this to me.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Secondly, property can be divided into one of two types: tangible and intangible. Both types are still property. From Black's:Intellectual property is just a type of intangible property. From Black's:Scarcity has nothing to do with it. Copyright is intangible property. Copyright is property. Property is rights. Copyrights are rights. There's really no debate on this point. The law doesn't limit the meaning of property to only tangible things.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven is stripped of the rights in the sense that they granted an exclusive license of those rights. But keep in mind that the licensor doesn't give his licensee complete ownership. That means that Righthaven kept ownership even though it granted an exclusive license.
Again, Righthaven has all of the 106 rights, as owner.
It's very analogous to when you lease a house. As a lessee, you have the right to use and enjoy the property, but technically you don't own it. A license is like a lease in that full ownership does not change hands.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven granted a license to Stephens Media. Since it was exclusive, that means Righthaven may not also grant a license of that same right to another party.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're hanging your hat on the word "retain." I've explained this in other threads already, but I agree that the word is poorly chosen. The rights are not technically retained. Looking at the phrase directly after, it states, "retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven)." To me, that clearly means that Righthaven granted Stephens those rights, not that Stephens Media retained them. The net result is that Stephens Media retained them, but technically, ownership changed hands and the rights were licensed to Stephens Media by Righthaven. I don't think a court will look at the unfortunate choice of wording, "retain," and give it much pause once they take a step back and read the whole sentence.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not the Copyright Act refers to it as "property" is irrelevant. It acts like property because it is property.
Property itself is just a bundle of rights. To say that copyright is not property is just silly.
Next >>