He's right in one respect. Nina did have trouble giving her work away. Of course, it wasn't because nobody wanted it. It was because of greedy gatekeepers, but that's a minor point.
Of course, pointing that our really doesn't help his whole 'respect for artists' thing, now does it.
I think a big part of the problem is the schools themselves. It's too hard for them to determine if a teacher can actually teach. It's much cheaper, and easier to point to a piece of paper and say that this means they can teach.
It's a way of outsourcing staff evaluation and training to a third party who does not have to deal with the consequences of mistakes in the evaluation process.
The product is not known to infringe on the patent. Until such time as a court rules that the software is infringing, the status is not known, and assumed to be non-infringing.
Until that court ruling, or an injunction from the court, Apple has no legal requirement to do anything.
You forgot to mention that he followed it up by cancelling an $8 billion transit plan that had been developed over the last ten years. Cancelling that plan cost the city $49 million dollars in cancellation fees.
Then he tried to push through a subway only plan that would have cost the city $1 billion dollars more than the amount of money available, with the expectation that developers would cough up the extra money to finish it.
Funny how after a year of trying, nobody has been willing to commit anything in the way of donations to the project.
But then why use the CFAA to prosecute? If the former employee violated an employment contract, then that would leave him open to a civil suit for breach of contract, would it not?
The only reason I can see for using the CFAA is to get the taxpayer to pick up the legal costs of enforcing a civil contract that may or may not exist.
I don't think so. Copyright doesn't exist until the work is fixed. You can have the right to create a performance of a previously fixed work. You can have a copyright on a recording of a performance, but the performance itself is not fixed, so there can't be a copyright on it.
Unless there's a written agreement to the contrary, the copyright to the video would be held by the operator of the camera, not the performer.
Which leads to another question. Given that the camera is fixed in place, and operating totally automatically, is there enough creativity in the recording to qualify for any copyright at all? It looks to me like there's a good case to be made that the only copyright involved is the songwriter's copyright on the original music.
The artist has the copyright, has either signed a limited distribution deal for Austria, or has assigned rights to another distributor who isn't offering the product in the US yet.
As note, I did a test using the label's own site, and they were more than willing to sell me the EP for just under 3 euros (via paypal processing).
If the artist has signed an exclusive distribution deal with a company in Austria, isn't selling directly to the customer a violation of that deal? If it's not, or there is no exclusive deal, why are they refusing to sell the product in the first place?
Morality had nothing at all to do with the decision to block the hardcore porn books. Money had a lot to do with it.
When someone disputes a charge on their credit card, the credit card companies generally reverse the charge, and absorb the loss as a business expense. For whatever reason, this type of porn has a much higher percentage of such disputed charges than other books, or pretty much anything else. To compensate for the extra losses, the credit card companies have to charge a higher transaction fee for that category of merchandise. Paypal set up their merchant accounts with the credit card companies with the intent of selling general merchandise, which has a much lower chargeback rate, but then got into the porn business by providing services for these publishers. Now, should the credit card companies be forced to absorb higher losses simply because Paypal is lumping all transactions under the same 'general merchandise' category? The credit card companies chose instead to tell Paypal that the transaction fees on all transactions were going to go up to reflect that higher rate of losses.
This left Paypal with a couple of possible solutions. They could refuse to do business with companies generating the higher fees, they could increase all transaction fees to cover the extra expense, or they could completely rework their system to charge different transaction rates to different merchants, like the credit card companies do.
Paypal chose option A. It was the cheapest, and quickest solution to their problem. Option B would annoy most of Paypal's customers, while benefiting only a small minority of those customers. Option C would involve a lot of time and expense on Paypal's part, without giving them any real benefit in return.
Did Paypal make the best possible decision? Probably not, at least, not long term. Did they do anything wrong? I would have to say no. While it may have given the appearance of morality based censorship, the reality is that the decision was one of refusing to deal with a class of customer that was causing more problems than they were worth.
Is there a way to avoid problems like this in the future? Sure, create enough online payment options that competition will make it much harder for credit card companies or online payment processors to wipe out businesses by refusing to deal with them. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
How hard is it for them to see the files that are most often accessed on their server and use common sense to determine that it is infringing.
As it turns out, the answer is 'very hard'.
To start with look at the easy part, 'fair use.' You can probably make a pretty good guess at whether or not a use is fair, but that's all you can do. Fair use is something that ultimately needs to be decided by a court.
The harder item to determine would be licensing. In order to determine whether or not a file is licensed, you would need to A) know the copyright status of the work (and this can vary with country!) B) know who the copyright holder is, and C) have access to the terms and conditions of every single license ever granted for the use of that work.
Good luck building that database. Even the creators of the work are finding they have to use a lawsuit in order to pry that information out of the big studios.
Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
Of course, since the FBI knows which vehicles it attached the devices to, it could always simply contact the vehicle owner and ask for permission to recover the devices without needing to involve the courts at all.
Section 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) also requires that the complaint must include:
A statement that the information in the
notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury,
that the complaining party is authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
Failing to check before complaining might get a handslap from a judge. Being called on it, and still claiming copyright in the work cannot be anything other than willful action, and that would leave the complainant open to a perjury charge.
Of course, the big question is, as always, "is nailing this company worth the expense of going to court?" Unless you're willing to put a lot of money on the line in an attempt to set a precedent, the answer is probably "no"
How do you violate the constitutional rights of non citizens?
Might I point out that the United States constitution does NOT apply to American citizens, so they have no constitutional rights either.
The constitution of the United States applies to the United States Government, and if the constitution says the government shall not do something, then it shall not do that something. The citizenship status of the people involved simply does not apply.
On the post: Dear Lamar Smith & House Judiciary: Have You Learned Nothing From SOPA?
On the post: DC Dumps Bill To Force Uber Into High Prices; Complains That The Bill Was To Help Uber
Re:
On the post: Chinese Companies Again Using Patents To Punish Foreign Competitors: Apple Sued Over Siri In Shanghai
Re: So wait...
What happens to all those American companies if Chinese patents mean those devices can no longer be manufactured in China?
How long do you think it would take to rebuild all the manufacturing capability and expertise that got outsourced to China?
On the post: Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend [Updated]
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Nina did have trouble giving her work away
Of course, pointing that our really doesn't help his whole 'respect for artists' thing, now does it.
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re:
It's a way of outsourcing staff evaluation and training to a third party who does not have to deal with the consequences of mistakes in the evaluation process.
On the post: Apple Steps Into Patent Fight To Unnecessarily Silence A Little Girl
Re: Re: Re:
Until that court ruling, or an injunction from the court, Apple has no legal requirement to do anything.
On the post: Toronto Mayor Wants Residents To Report Graffiti Via iPhone, And Pay For The Privilege
Re: Ford is a Fool
Then he tried to push through a subway only plan that would have cost the city $1 billion dollars more than the amount of money available, with the expectation that developers would cough up the extra money to finish it.
Funny how after a year of trying, nobody has been willing to commit anything in the way of donations to the project.
On the post: CISPA Sponsor Mike Rogers Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence' On Landing
On the post: No, Violating Your Employer's Computer Use Policy Is Not Criminal Hacking
Re: Re: I do have some issue with this...
The only reason I can see for using the CFAA is to get the taxpayer to pick up the legal costs of enforcing a civil contract that may or may not exist.
On the post: Bohemian Rhapsody Video Taken Down Again, This Time By The Drunk Guy Himself
Re: Actually he does
Unless there's a written agreement to the contrary, the copyright to the video would be held by the operator of the camera, not the performer.
Which leads to another question. Given that the camera is fixed in place, and operating totally automatically, is there enough creativity in the recording to qualify for any copyright at all? It looks to me like there's a good case to be made that the only copyright involved is the songwriter's copyright on the original music.
On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'
Re:
If the artist has signed an exclusive distribution deal with a company in Austria, isn't selling directly to the customer a violation of that deal? If it's not, or there is no exclusive deal, why are they refusing to sell the product in the first place?
On the post: When Entertainment Industry Numbers Are More Suited To Comedy Than Analysis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably not enough math geeks here to get this ...
On the post: Authors Can Sleep Easy Now; Paypal Reverses Its Censorship Decision
I'm not sure Paypal did anything wrong.
When someone disputes a charge on their credit card, the credit card companies generally reverse the charge, and absorb the loss as a business expense. For whatever reason, this type of porn has a much higher percentage of such disputed charges than other books, or pretty much anything else. To compensate for the extra losses, the credit card companies have to charge a higher transaction fee for that category of merchandise. Paypal set up their merchant accounts with the credit card companies with the intent of selling general merchandise, which has a much lower chargeback rate, but then got into the porn business by providing services for these publishers. Now, should the credit card companies be forced to absorb higher losses simply because Paypal is lumping all transactions under the same 'general merchandise' category? The credit card companies chose instead to tell Paypal that the transaction fees on all transactions were going to go up to reflect that higher rate of losses.
This left Paypal with a couple of possible solutions. They could refuse to do business with companies generating the higher fees, they could increase all transaction fees to cover the extra expense, or they could completely rework their system to charge different transaction rates to different merchants, like the credit card companies do.
Paypal chose option A. It was the cheapest, and quickest solution to their problem. Option B would annoy most of Paypal's customers, while benefiting only a small minority of those customers. Option C would involve a lot of time and expense on Paypal's part, without giving them any real benefit in return.
Did Paypal make the best possible decision? Probably not, at least, not long term. Did they do anything wrong? I would have to say no. While it may have given the appearance of morality based censorship, the reality is that the decision was one of refusing to deal with a class of customer that was causing more problems than they were worth.
Is there a way to avoid problems like this in the future? Sure, create enough online payment options that competition will make it much harder for credit card companies or online payment processors to wipe out businesses by refusing to deal with them. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re:
As it turns out, the answer is 'very hard'.
To start with look at the easy part, 'fair use.' You can probably make a pretty good guess at whether or not a use is fair, but that's all you can do. Fair use is something that ultimately needs to be decided by a court.
The harder item to determine would be licensing. In order to determine whether or not a file is licensed, you would need to A) know the copyright status of the work (and this can vary with country!) B) know who the copyright holder is, and C) have access to the terms and conditions of every single license ever granted for the use of that work.
Good luck building that database. Even the creators of the work are finding they have to use a lawsuit in order to pry that information out of the big studios.
On the post: FBI Turns Off About 3,000 GPS Devices Following Supreme Court Ruling
Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
On the post: Elsevier Backs Down, Removes Support For Research Works Act As Elsevier Boycott Grows
Re:
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re: Re:
Of course, the big question is, as always, "is nailing this company worth the expense of going to court?" Unless you're willing to put a lot of money on the line in an attempt to set a precedent, the answer is probably "no"
On the post: Indiana Court Says Anonymous Commenters Deserve High Standard Before Being Exposed, But Aren't Necessarily Protected By Shield Laws
Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Considered One Of The Worst Places To Work In The Federal Government
Re: Re: Focus on morale? Ha!
Might I point out that the United States constitution does NOT apply to American citizens, so they have no constitutional rights either.
The constitution of the United States applies to the United States Government, and if the constitution says the government shall not do something, then it shall not do that something. The citizenship status of the people involved simply does not apply.
Next >>