Personally, I think the issue is less about forgetting and more about forgiving. A lot of these right-to-forget advocates underestimate the ability of society to grow more tolerant of dumb-stuff-in-the-past.
In America, just compare Doug Ginsburg's, whose nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 tanked over marijuana usage in the 70s, with Barack Obama, who did cocaine and marijuana and yet managed to become president.
As time goes on, almost everyone will have something on the Internet about themselves they wish wasn't there. We'll all learn to live with it, and that's a good thing.
Eh, I realized the subject line of my comment might be confusing, so I'll clarify.
If musicians do give exclusive rights to someone, they should reserve a wide range of exceptions to said exclusivity. Personal use and sharing with friends and family are obvious ones, but maybe musicians should start including exceptions like "I reserve the right to license my music to any upstart artist frustrated by your own licensing system."
Or musicians can just not give exclusivity altogether -- that's probably easier.
I think you're also underestimating the ability of creative plaintiffs to estimate damages here. Get enough experts to say there's a 95% chance that damages exceeded X dollars, and that might be enough for the court.
I don't know how the British handle these things, but the U.S. has long accepted such "fuzzy math" as sufficient to prove actual damages.
Most famously, see the Texaco v. Pennzoil case, where Joe Jamail somehow proved that Texaco's interference with Pennzoil's attempt to purchase Getty Oil merited $7.5 in actual damages (this does not include punitive damages).
I accept your point that the effects are hard to measure, but that doesn't mean the Lucas proposal isn't sensible. The reason I reach a different conclusion than you is that for me, having the majority of file-sharing cases fall apart or result in vastly lower damages is an acceptable one.
For me, the scenario is not that there's clearly some sort of damage and we just have a hard time getting a precise number. It's that it's not clear that there's any actual damage at all.
Let's flip the logic around. The file-sharing could lead to millions in lower sales, but it could also lead to a slight gain in sales. And how do you value the additional publicity, concert revenue, and endorsement opportunities that the file sharing gave you?
I think Lord Lucas's point is that if you can't prove what the actual damages are, it's better to err on the side of restraint.
Well, I can't just alter the Nike logo a little and say that now I'm free and clear. It's still likely to confuse someone.
But if I use the Nike logo on something that says "Screw Nike," then I guess it's sufficiently "transformative" because no one except a moron in a hurry would accept that as being official Nike gear.
It's actually pretty easy to filter out French IP addresses. Granted, if a French user really wanted to access an external website, it'd be easy enough to use a proxy, but for accounting purposes, anonymous users being routed through Switzerland don't count as French.
Depends on the site -- if the majority of my advertising is targeted at Americans, it make sense to filter out the handful of French users who visit my site just to avoid the hassle of having to hire a French accountant to figure out how much of that tiny piece of revenue I owe the government.
The Zelnick Report says the tax would kick in anytime an online ad or sponsored link is clicked in France. One of the most controversial items in the report is that it calls for a company to be taxed regardless of where it is based.
If that's legal, it's rather frightening. Nearly any website with ads could be taxed if visited by the French. Just wait for sites to start setting up IP filtering that blocks all French users.
I'd like to see something about ad blockers are partially a response to advertising practices that border on fraud.
So much of advertising is about maximizing the number of impressions and clicks. That's why you see ads that are super flashy or expand to cover up content. An accidental click is still a click.
1) You don't want to set bad precedent. You wouldn't want the Douglas Adams estate suing over references to the number 42 for instance. Sure, Google could just avoid not using the references, but these are engineers for crying out loud. Quirky references is what they thrive on.
2)The lawyer's fees are offset by the increase in publicity. Prior to the lawsuit, I didn't see the connection between Nexus One and PKD, but now I do, and that connection is probably going to increase my subconscious desire for an Android phone now.
On the post: Explaining The Copyright Bubble... And Why Big Corporations Want To Keep ACTA Secret
Bailout!
On the post: Can The US Continue To Innovate At A Necessary Rate Without Causing Complete Social Upheaval?
On the post: Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed
Re: It's a TREATY
On the post: Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed
Re: Oregon
On the post: France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets
Forgive not Forget
http://www.amazon.com/Delete-Virtue-Forgetting-Digital-Age/dp/0691138613/ref=wl_it_dp_ o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3W2S92JZ4C656&colid=3IOU5RED7X1MW
Personally, I think the issue is less about forgetting and more about forgiving. A lot of these right-to-forget advocates underestimate the ability of society to grow more tolerant of dumb-stuff-in-the-past.
In America, just compare Doug Ginsburg's, whose nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 tanked over marijuana usage in the 70s, with Barack Obama, who did cocaine and marijuana and yet managed to become president.
As time goes on, almost everyone will have something on the Internet about themselves they wish wasn't there. We'll all learn to live with it, and that's a good thing.
On the post: Artist Thinking vs. Lawyer Thinking
Re: Musician Exceptions
If musicians do give exclusive rights to someone, they should reserve a wide range of exceptions to said exclusivity. Personal use and sharing with friends and family are obvious ones, but maybe musicians should start including exceptions like "I reserve the right to license my music to any upstart artist frustrated by your own licensing system."
Or musicians can just not give exclusivity altogether -- that's probably easier.
On the post: Artist Thinking vs. Lawyer Thinking
Musician Exceptions
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know how the British handle these things, but the U.S. has long accepted such "fuzzy math" as sufficient to prove actual damages.
Most famously, see the Texaco v. Pennzoil case, where Joe Jamail somehow proved that Texaco's interference with Pennzoil's attempt to purchase Getty Oil merited $7.5 in actual damages (this does not include punitive damages).
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re: Re: Re:
I accept your point that the effects are hard to measure, but that doesn't mean the Lucas proposal isn't sensible. The reason I reach a different conclusion than you is that for me, having the majority of file-sharing cases fall apart or result in vastly lower damages is an acceptable one.
For me, the scenario is not that there's clearly some sort of damage and we just have a hard time getting a precise number. It's that it's not clear that there's any actual damage at all.
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re:
I think Lord Lucas's point is that if you can't prove what the actual damages are, it's better to err on the side of restraint.
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Defamation
On the post: Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm
Re: Re:
But if I use the Nike logo on something that says "Screw Nike," then I guess it's sufficiently "transformative" because no one except a moron in a hurry would accept that as being official Nike gear.
Or see the South Butt example. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/2350107352.shtml
On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels
Re: Re: Where the company's based
On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels
Re: Re: Where the company's based
On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels
Where the company's based
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Flash Ads
So much of advertising is about maximizing the number of impressions and clicks. That's why you see ads that are super flashy or expand to cover up content. An accidental click is still a click.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
42
2)The lawyer's fees are offset by the increase in publicity. Prior to the lawsuit, I didn't see the connection between Nexus One and PKD, but now I do, and that connection is probably going to increase my subconscious desire for an Android phone now.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Re: PKD
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Science Fiction
"Look, we've invented the Holodeck!"
"You can't call it that -- the term Holodeck is trademarked by the Star Trek franchise."
"But ... that's exactly what it is. There's no better term to describe it."
"Sorry, pick something else."
"Ok, how about Holodick?"
Next >>