Says the asshat with the Antidirt nick and Avatar! You cannot make this up. Congrats.
*report*
I chose my name to protest the fact that Mike tried to ban me, desperately so, yet he can't admit what went down. I chose my name because Mike is still preventing me from posting freely from my home IP address--and this is true even though I am a financial contributor to the site. I chose the name because I think Mike publishes lots of ridiculous things that he won't stand behind or explain when challenged. So what? As far as hostility goes, you're one of the most hostile people here. I have yet to see you add anything of value to a discussion. Seriously. Congrats.
By your own logic, absolutely nothing you say should be taken seriously. I don't agree with that. I judge comments on the merits, even if I don't know who wrote them. This applies even to your comments.
I think a big part of it is the double-standards. If something like this can be said, on live tv no less...
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
... with no repercussions or charges, the idea of 'Hey, if you promise to vote for and/or sponsor a law that I agree with, I'll vote for you and help you get elected' being this massive breach of ethics, worthy of charges, is just a titch insane and hypocritical.
I don't read that quote as indicating that there was a mutual agreement for a quid pro quo. There's no promise that certain action will be taken if they write a check.
You're so hostile. This poster seems to have made a mistake, as he readily admitted. There's no need to assume that anyone disagreeing with you is being dishonest. You certainly set a terrible example for others, IMO. No wonder reasoned debate is hard to come by here. They're just following your lead.
This same distinction between bribes, gratuities and lawful campaign contributions has recently been applied to some of the Federal prosecutive theories that are currently used to address bribery and corruption by state and local public officials. For example, in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) did not apply to a series of campaign contributions that were made with a general intent to curry favor with a state senator and to thank him for his support. Noting that campaign contributions are a necessary part of the American political process, the Court held that when an allegedly corrupt payment represents a bona fide campaign contribution, the prosecution must prove the existence of a quid pro quo. This principle was thereafter affirmed shortly thereafter in Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992).
So it looks like the difference between a contribution and a bribe is that there has to be a quid pro quo. The quote from Randazza's blog makes it sound like there could have been one:
I shook his hand and said “if you will sponsor an Anti-SLAPP bill, I’ll vote for you, and I’ll contribute to your campaign.” He promised me that he would do so. Within days of taking office, he made good on his promise.
I have no idea if there really was such an agreement, and I doubt there was, but it was a dumb thing to post, IMO.
There is one other slightly troubling part in the ruling, which is that the court seems to suggest that fair use is "an implied license."
In a sense, the grant to an author of copyright in a work is predicated upon a reciprocal grant to the public by the work’s author of an implied license for fair use of the work.
But that's just wrong. The law itself says "the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright." That doesn't mean that it's an implied license. It means that no license is needed. The idea that it's an implied license, unfortunately, takes us back to this idea that every use "must be licensed" which is simply wrong. Still, that's not a huge part of the ruling, but a little pet peeve.
I think you're right and you're wrong. The Eleventh Circuit does cite that passage from Harper & Row about fair use being an implied license:
In a sense , the grant to an author of copyright in a work is predicated upon a reciprocal grant to the public by the work’s author of an implied license for fair use of the work. See Harper & Row , 471 U.S. at 549, 105 S. Ct. at 2225 (“[T]he author’s consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works ha[d] always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science . . . since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained.” (quoting H. Ball, Law of Copyright and Literary Property 260 (1944) )). Thus , in order to promote the creation of new works, our laws contemplate that some secondary users — those implied licensees making fair use of copyrighted works — will be allowed to make use of original authors ’ works. At the same time, a secondary user who takes overmuch in the name of fair use operates outside the bounds of his or her implied-by-law license.
The Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court are saying an author implies a license for others to make fair use of a work. I agree that that's the wrong way to look at it. Licenses are based on consent, either implied or manifest. But even if an author expressly says there is no consent whatsoever to use the work--thus defeating any claim of implied consent--the fair use defense is still available. It's available because it's not based on consent. Moreover, Harper & Row was about fair use of a pre-publication work, back when federal statutory copyright did not kick in until publication. The Court was talking about consent once the work is published, and this was part of the quid pro quo view of copyright where certain customary uses were implied in exchange for the protection. That view makes less sense today with automatic copyright upon fixation.
I think you miss with your point that the "law itself says 'the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright.'" That's not why fair use is not an implied license. Using a work consistent with an implied license is "not an infringement of copyright" either. The reason fair use and implied license are not infringements is because they excuse activity that would otherwise be infringing. They're affirmative defenses. You say: "The idea that it's an implied license, unfortunately, takes us back to this idea that every use 'must be licensed' which is simply wrong." I agree that it needn't be licensed, but assuming there's more than de mininis use, there needs to be some defense, such as fair use or implied license, or else it's infringing. So it's not that the uses need to be licensed, but they still do need to be excused--whether by license or something else, like fair use.
As for the ridiculous suggestion that we are "shilling" for Randazza, I have no problem calling Randazza out on issues when I think he's wrong.
You're giving him the kid-glove treatment here, I think, but I appreciate the post. I've always thought he had a big mouth. I mean, who posts on their blog that they promised money to a senator if he would take certain action. That's just dumb.
Certain songs?!! We're talking about every song up to my 20th birthday. The very foundations that inspired millions of works since then. So, no Elvis, Buddy Holly, Beatles, Hendrix, Sinatra, early Stones, Doors, Beach Boys etc? Rock was born in the 50's, not 1972.
They'll need licenses for those songs in California, assuming these rulings are upheld. But I still don't see how obtaining a license means they can't innovate. Can you explain it?
But the truth is that the RIAA wants to keep these works out of federal copyright law to use them as a weapon against internet innovation. With rulings like these, it can hold companies like Pandora hostage, since those works wouldn't be subject to compulsory rates. As always, it's all about the RIAA seeking to hold back innovative services unless they'll go bankrupt in paying the RIAA.
Wow. How does this hold back innovation? Sirius XM or Pandora can innovate as much as they want. They just can't play certain songs in California. Exaggerate much? (Again, rhetorical. We both know you don't explain your FUD.)
As we noted, this ruling effectively upset decades of consensus about public performance rights for pre-1972 works.
This claim is really strange. The issue here is whether there's a statutory right to publicly perform in California. There is no "consensus" either way. This isn't about the common law. This is about a particular statute in California passed in 1982, namely, Section 980(a)(2). Can you explain why you think there's a "consensus" as to whether this statute provides this right? (Rhetorical question. I know you can't and/or won't answer and/or back up what you post.)
Wouldn't one legally have an "existing legitimate interest" in free over-the-air television broadcast signals from the moment they leave the broadcast tower?
You have an interest in it once it's received, not when it's sent.
That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
Because the point of the definition in Section 101 is to make it so that third parties that act as intermediaries must obtain a license. Cable systems do this, and they have licenses.
No, it's still the court's fault. Aereo didn't believe that they were a cable company, and acted accordingly. The SC ruled that they did act like a cable company, but what they failed to do was state that this meant that Aereo was a cable company under the law.
But it's two distinct issues. Whether Aereo performs comes under Section 101, while the cable system issue is Section 111. The Court didn't interpret Section 111 because that part of the Act simply wasn't before it. The Court *couldn't* rule on that issue since no one argued it. It's not the Court's fault that it didn't respond to an argument that no one raised. Aereo caused this problem by arguing Section 101 and not Section 111. Blame them for making the bed they're now laying in.
And this is why the Supreme Court completely screwed up their ruling. If they had flat out stated 'Aereo is a cable company under the law' or 'Aereo is not a cable company under the law', this whole mess could have been cleared up. Aereo and the courts would have had a clear idea just which rules and laws did and did not apply to the company, and they could have gone on from there.
At the time, Aereo was saying that it's *not* a cable system. I assume it's because cable systems perform, and they were arguing that they don't perform. Section 111 wasn't before the Court because Aereo was not arguing it. That's not the Court's fault. If Aereo wanted the Court to address the 111 issue, it should have argued it.
And yet, when we point our YOUR lack of journalistic integrity (if it applies to Mike and his OPINION blog, it applies to you and your opinion COMMENTS in the same manner) and report your comments, you freak out about "censorship" and all sorts of nonsense persecution bullshit.
Do you think a person who comments on an article at the New York Times has the same duty of journalistic integrity as the reporter and/or publisher of the article? I don't think that makes any sense.
You're basically asking to be spoonfed information that you should be able to scrounge up yourself like an adult. You aren't even actively engaging in discussion; you're basically just claiming that you are right until someone else proves otherwise.
He claims the opinion contains guidelines. I'm asking what those guidelines are, specifically. And I am "actively engaging in discussion." See below, and give me a break.
Perhaps you should also keep in mind that this site is a
TECH
BLOG
and not a journalism site.
So when Mike whines about the journalistic integrity, or perceived lack thereof, of others, it's not fair game to point out his own lack of journalistic integrity? I disagree. Calling it a "tech blog" doesn't change things.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. That's quite the broad generalization. Can you actually back it up with some examples? I don't think so, because it's not true.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*report*
I chose my name to protest the fact that Mike tried to ban me, desperately so, yet he can't admit what went down. I chose my name because Mike is still preventing me from posting freely from my home IP address--and this is true even though I am a financial contributor to the site. I chose the name because I think Mike publishes lots of ridiculous things that he won't stand behind or explain when challenged. So what? As far as hostility goes, you're one of the most hostile people here. I have yet to see you add anything of value to a discussion. Seriously. Congrats.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your own logic, absolutely nothing you say should be taken seriously. I don't agree with that. I judge comments on the merits, even if I don't know who wrote them. This applies even to your comments.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
... with no repercussions or charges, the idea of 'Hey, if you promise to vote for and/or sponsor a law that I agree with, I'll vote for you and help you get elected' being this massive breach of ethics, worthy of charges, is just a titch insane and hypocritical.
I don't read that quote as indicating that there was a mutual agreement for a quid pro quo. There's no promise that certain action will be taken if they write a check.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so hostile. This poster seems to have made a mistake, as he readily admitted. There's no need to assume that anyone disagreeing with you is being dishonest. You certainly set a terrible example for others, IMO. No wonder reasoned debate is hard to come by here. They're just following your lead.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re:
So it looks like the difference between a contribution and a bribe is that there has to be a quid pro quo. The quote from Randazza's blog makes it sound like there could have been one:I have no idea if there really was such an agreement, and I doubt there was, but it was a dumb thing to post, IMO.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Important Fair Use Win Concerning University 'E-Reserves' -- But Potentially For Good Reasons
I think you're right and you're wrong. The Eleventh Circuit does cite that passage from Harper & Row about fair use being an implied license:The Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court are saying an author implies a license for others to make fair use of a work. I agree that that's the wrong way to look at it. Licenses are based on consent, either implied or manifest. But even if an author expressly says there is no consent whatsoever to use the work--thus defeating any claim of implied consent--the fair use defense is still available. It's available because it's not based on consent. Moreover, Harper & Row was about fair use of a pre-publication work, back when federal statutory copyright did not kick in until publication. The Court was talking about consent once the work is published, and this was part of the quid pro quo view of copyright where certain customary uses were implied in exchange for the protection. That view makes less sense today with automatic copyright upon fixation.
I think you miss with your point that the "law itself says 'the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright.'" That's not why fair use is not an implied license. Using a work consistent with an implied license is "not an infringement of copyright" either. The reason fair use and implied license are not infringements is because they excuse activity that would otherwise be infringing. They're affirmative defenses. You say: "The idea that it's an implied license, unfortunately, takes us back to this idea that every use 'must be licensed' which is simply wrong." I agree that it needn't be licensed, but assuming there's more than de mininis use, there needs to be some defense, such as fair use or implied license, or else it's infringing. So it's not that the uses need to be licensed, but they still do need to be excused--whether by license or something else, like fair use.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re:
You're giving him the kid-glove treatment here, I think, but I appreciate the post. I've always thought he had a big mouth. I mean, who posts on their blog that they promised money to a senator if he would take certain action. That's just dumb.
On the post: Sirius XM Hit Again Over Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re:
They'll need licenses for those songs in California, assuming these rulings are upheld. But I still don't see how obtaining a license means they can't innovate. Can you explain it?
On the post: Sirius XM Hit Again Over Pre-1972 Recordings
Wow. How does this hold back innovation? Sirius XM or Pandora can innovate as much as they want. They just can't play certain songs in California. Exaggerate much? (Again, rhetorical. We both know you don't explain your FUD.)
On the post: Sirius XM Hit Again Over Pre-1972 Recordings
This claim is really strange. The issue here is whether there's a statutory right to publicly perform in California. There is no "consensus" either way. This isn't about the common law. This is about a particular statute in California passed in 1982, namely, Section 980(a)(2). Can you explain why you think there's a "consensus" as to whether this statute provides this right? (Rhetorical question. I know you can't and/or won't answer and/or back up what you post.)
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think Mike wants to gain the benefits of an actual journalist, but without the trouble of earning them.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have an interest in it once it's received, not when it's sent.
That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
Because the point of the definition in Section 101 is to make it so that third parties that act as intermediaries must obtain a license. Cable systems do this, and they have licenses.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*someone* has to be the POS traitors they buy off, but i don't think you are one...
no, i think you are a twue beweiver, and an obvious high-RWA...
which is both more likely, and less desirable...
Empire must fall,
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all
You are weird dude. I am a "twue beweiver," assuming that means I believe truly what I say.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's two distinct issues. Whether Aereo performs comes under Section 101, while the cable system issue is Section 111. The Court didn't interpret Section 111 because that part of the Act simply wasn't before it. The Court *couldn't* rule on that issue since no one argued it. It's not the Court's fault that it didn't respond to an argument that no one raised. Aereo caused this problem by arguing Section 101 and not Section 111. Blame them for making the bed they're now laying in.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've having a productive conversation with several other people. You should join us.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the time, Aereo was saying that it's *not* a cable system. I assume it's because cable systems perform, and they were arguing that they don't perform. Section 111 wasn't before the Court because Aereo was not arguing it. That's not the Court's fault. If Aereo wanted the Court to address the 111 issue, it should have argued it.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you think a person who comments on an article at the New York Times has the same duty of journalistic integrity as the reporter and/or publisher of the article? I don't think that makes any sense.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He claims the opinion contains guidelines. I'm asking what those guidelines are, specifically. And I am "actively engaging in discussion." See below, and give me a break.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TECH
BLOG
and not a journalism site.
So when Mike whines about the journalistic integrity, or perceived lack thereof, of others, it's not fair game to point out his own lack of journalistic integrity? I disagree. Calling it a "tech blog" doesn't change things.
Next >>