Yikes. That's one grumpy judge... and one bad job lawyering. Enjoy the show. The issue there is whether or not there's a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude judgment at that point of the proceedings. The standing issue in the Democratic Underground case is the one I'm really interested in... Thanks for the link.
I'm neither a lawyer nor associated with Righthaven, my friend. I've no dog in this race. I admit that there may be something objectively wrong with this scheme. Maybe so, maybe not. You're barking up the wrong tree here. Yes, many criticize the scheme for moral reasons. Others see no problem morally. Me, I'm just interested in the legal arguments. The legal arguments are independent of the morality of it all. It's OK if you don't understand me. I feel no need to repeat myself as to my motives at this point.
No. I disagree. I think it's a gray area, and neither side is clearly correct. Copyright owners may assign ownership of their copyrights to another, including expressly the accreted right to sue. That assignee, as owner, may then grant exclusive licenses of those rights to another, and in doing so, they may retain and exercise the accreted right to sue that they now own. Standing alone, I see no problem with this arrangement. Where the agreement becomes less clear, for me, is the rest of the provisions between Righthaven and Stephens Media. The reversionary right is not problematic, so much, as is the right to control future lawsuits and the fee-splitting. In the end, did Righthaven gain enough rights that they can rightfully claim to be owner of the copyright, or did they cross some line where, despite their claims otherwise, the assignment is a sham? Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Looking at the parts, I see no problem. Looking at the whole, not so much. I see gray. What you won't find--I've looked--is any caselaw that this squarely falls into. It's one of those judgment calls where the judge will look at the totality of the circumstances. There's nothing black-and-white about it.
Do you get issued a tinfoil hat when you join the Crazy Club, or do you have to fashion your own?
Look, I've already stated that I think Righthaven appears to have made misrepresentations to the court and that I think they should be punished accordingly. The fact that you think I'm associated with Righthaven even after I've said that shows that you're a bit of a fanatic, to put it mildly.
We'll see what the judge says. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I don't pretend like it's cut and dry and Righthaven loses. Unlike you, I have some perspective on the matter. I see that it's a gray area. I'm not stuck with your tunnel vision.
Righthaven may win or they may lose. That judgment might be upheld or overturned on appeal. A judge in another case looking at this same evidence might come to a different conclusion than the judge comes to in the D.U. case. I'm just enjoying the show for the legal arguments. I find them interesting.
I know that's hard for you to understand, but that's all I'm in this for. I couldn't care less if Righthaven wins or loses.
Furthermore, I asked a friend of mine who is a copyright lawyer, and he agreed with my interpretation. I already posted his response. As far as I'm concerned, case closed.
I just have to add why this cracks me up no end. You've demonstrated over and over again, not only in this thread, but in every other thread we've ever had a debate about substantive copyright law, that you don't even grasp the fundamentals and you misread practically everything you read. Time and again you point to something saying that it means X, when really, it means Y. There exists no caselaw that you can't read and come away with exactly 180 degrees the wrong understanding. That you are so consistently wrong is a marvel unto itself.
Of course you think you've got it right. Of course you think your lawyer friend is backing you up. I can only imagine how many errors you've made in reaching this conclusion. What's simply amazing to me is that despite your errors being pointed out to you time and again, you just trudge along like you've got it all figured out. A smart person would realize that hey, maybe, just maybe, I don't quite have a grasp of what I speak. Not you. You speak with the authority of an expert while displaying the understanding of a noob. As I've said before, this makes you a fool.
I won't be debating you any more, Karl. Not because you're so smart and I can't keep up, but rather, because debating you is like talking to a brick wall. You rarely concede that you've got something wrong, despite the fact that you are wrong on so many things at so fundamentally a deep level. It's happened in this very thread. I've pointed out error after error that you've made with regard to the most basic things. And what do you do? You go on pretending like you've got the difficult parts all figured out. If you don't grasp the basics, why in the world do you think you've got the hard parts?
What's the point of me trying to explain anything to you? I've tried and tried, my friend, for about a year to get through to you, and it's always been the same result. More fruitless efforts from me would at this point make me the fool. Good luck to you and good luck with your "noise music." That genre seems so befitting of you. Your music, like your legal analysis, are the definition of cacophony.
You quite simply are one of the biggest fools that I've ever had the displeasure of meeting in my 20+ years on the internet. Like I said before, I was happy to teach you some things, but I can't teach you since you don't want to learn. I know you think there's nothing I can teach you, but that disregards the fact that I have systematically for the past year done nothing but point out flaw after flaw in your legal "analysis." You can pretend all you want that isn't what happened, but I know better. Don't take it too hard, though. Mike thinks your the bees knees. Your his go-to guy for hard hitting legal analysis.
Ah, techdirt. Normally one would have to be in maximum security lockup to meet such wonderful creatures.
Go ahead and get the last word. I won't even bother reading it. I wash my hands of your idiocy.
Alright, Karl. I'm not going to repeat myself any longer. Case closed indeed. Have a good weekend. If your friend stops by, I'm happy to chat with him...
LOL! OK, well, without talking to your friend directly, and without knowing what of my arguments he's heard and what he hasn't, it's hard to have a conversation with him through you. I'd be happy to chat with him if he stops by.
I don't think Stephens Media is the beneficial owner. I do think that an exclusive licensee has an ownership interest and is the copyright owner under the Act. But as the caselaw makes clear, an exclusive license is not total ownership. The licensor retains title ownership. The reason I've been using "title owner" is to avoid the confusion that arises the Act as I've explained a few times already, and as the Second Circuit explained in the part I quoted above. The fact is, if the copyright owner grants an exclusive license (but not the associated accrued right to sue), that licensor still has standing to sue for infringements that happened before the exclusive license was granted.
If he'd like to chat, send him on over. It would be more productive to talk with him directly.
I should also point out one thing. In copyright law, judges generally rule, not because of the specific language in the contract, but because of its intent. Ladas & Perry put it this way: "the overriding factor is the mutual intent of the parties to transfer an ownership interest in the copyright." See e.g. Armento v. Laser Image.
Absolutely. We agree on this. It doesn't matter what you call it, it matters what is really happening in the agreement.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would view the Agreement here as an intent to transfer ownership. They would see it as it is: an attempt to sell lawsuits.
I disagree. Ownership was clearly intended to be transferred. Righthaven obviously believes it has ownership. Hence they registered the copyrights listing themselves as owner, and they filed (and continue to file) lawsuits claiming the same. I believe that Righthaven honestly believes that they hold title.
The real question is whether, when you look at the bigger picture of who has what right and who has what duty, it really is an assignment as they believe it to be. Thinking along that line is where the debate is really at. We've been talking about generalities and about Righthaven/Stephens Media specifically. I believe that your general notions of things is flawed, but in the end, Righthaven may not actually hold title. Not for the reasons you've been stating in general, but for other reasons. Specifically, your idea that a copyright holder who grants an exclusive license for all of the 106 rights necessarily divests himself of title is flawed. That's not how it works. But when you look at all of the other provisions Righthaven and Stephens Media agreed to, the line isn't as clear. It's a gray area. Make sense?
You still haven't answered the main question: Prove to me that it is possible to transfer the title of a copyright, without transferring a single one of the rights in 106, nor any financial interest in the exploitation of those rights. To use your phrase: "crickets."
Why would I prove that? I never said that was true. Keep up. As I've indicated over and over and over again, ownership of the 106 rights transferred to Righthaven. Righthaven then, acting as owner, granted Stephens Media an exclusive license. Why are you making me repeat myself so much?
Righthaven was assigned nothing. Stephens "retained" the right to "exploit" the copyrights "for any lawful purpose whatsoever," and Righthaven was never assigned the "right or license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the Exploitation" of the copyrights. Other than, of course, "the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery" - which is not something that can be transferred independently.
Yet every judge who has looked at the copyright assignment alone has agreed that Righthaven was assigned the rights. What about the Strategic Alliance Agreement changes this fact? Just because Righthaven, whom the courts agree is assigned the rights, grants an exclusive license doesn't change this. Again, repeating myself.
Let's put it this way. If the agreement in the Silvers case was the same as this one, would they have ruled any differently? I have no doubt that they would not.
Really? No doubt? It's all black and white? LOL! At least I admit that this is a gray area.
Interesting. The Ninth Circuit seems to say that the beneficial owner of a copyright is the "title" owner, and that the only way to transfer the title is by divesting yourself of all interest in the copyright (both the ability to exploit the rights, and any financial interest in their exploitation).
The point of the quote was that a license is less than an assignment. The court wasn't speaking of beneficial owners specifically. But yes, transferring title means divesting yourself of ownership.
Yep. It includes assignment. 17 USC 201 is very, very clear on this point: In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination [...] All transfers in 201 are applicable. The only exception is a "work made for hire" (and a work transferred by will - I'll admit I forgot to mention that one, but it's not relevant here). I'm really surprised you didn't know this. That's why artists were so up in arms when Mitch Glazier (then a congressional staffer, now VP of the RIAA) inserted language into an unrelated bill, without congressional approval, categorizing every "sound recording" as a "work for hire." It would rob artists of the right to terminate their contracts (which "assigned" the rights to sound recordings).
I said nope because you missed my entire point. You're missing it still.
Nope. The whole point of that case is that any transfer of ownership under 201 does not automatically transfer resale rights. The court was quite clear on this point: ***
If you believe that the transfer of a "title" always means the transfer of resale rights, then nothing in 201 automatically transfers "the title." THAT was the point of Nike.
The point was that an exclusive license is less than full ownership. The licensor holds title. I don't believe that title always means transfer of resale rights. Never said that. I was trying to get you to understand that an exclusive licensee doesn't have full ownership as you were claiming.
I'm just repeating myself at this point, Karl. And you have yet to prove that a copyright holder who grants exclusive licenses for all 5 rights has divested his title. That was your claim and you have yet to back it up.
Appellants contend that, if a licensee of exclusive rights under the copyright is characterized by the 1976 Act as an “owner” of those rights under § 201(d)(2), then it must follow that such “ownership” carries with it an unrestricted right to freely transfer the license. However, Appellants' argument ignores the plain language of § 201(d)(2), which states that the owner of such exclusive rights is entitled only to “the protection and remedies” accorded the copyright owner under the 1976 Act. This explicit language limits the rights afforded to an owner of exclusive rights.
They didn't just limit themselves to "licensees," but included all transfers of copyright ownership. So, my interpretation seems like the logical one.
Sigh. The problem here is that you're so confused, you don't even realize it when your errors are being pointed out to you.
All the Ninth Circuit is saying there is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. An exclusive licensee is a "copyright owner" for the purposes of "protections and remedies" under the Act. The whole point of that case, which seems to go right over your head, is that the exclusive licensee is not the true title owner of the thing they license. If they were, they could sub-license the work to another. But since they are not the title owner of the work--their licensor holds title--the licensee cannot sub-license the work. That only proves my point.
Your confusion about all of this is quite remarkable. That Mike's anointed you to do his legal arguing for him is hilarious. I'm literally laughing my ass off at this point. The fact that Mike thinks you're the thread winner only shows that Mike has no idea about these things either.
Good grief. You still haven't answered the main question: Prove that once you grant an exclusive license of all five rights under 106, you no longer hold title. That is your claim, and you have yet to supply ANY proof of this claim. The claim is wrong, and that's why you're having trouble proving it.
I'm sure that Mike is glad that you're back in this thread to do his arguing for him. God knows he's not up to it. At least you're trying. Mike just declared victory with no explanation. I'll give you props for that. You're more of a man than Mike.
Sigh. Let's look at the rest of your nonsense...
The decision could be interpreted that the transfer of title does not, automatically, transfer the right to resell that title. In fact, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense.
Nope. If you hold title to something, you can transfer that title to another. Exclusive licensees do not hold title, and that's why they can't transfer title to another. That's what makes the most sense.
I'd also like to point out that you missed this: The Morris court held that an exclusive copyright licensee is the owner only with respect to the particular rights that are licensed.
This is consistent with my distinction between exclusive licenses. The "owner" is the person who has the exclusive use of the rights that are transferred. They are not the owner of rights that are not transferred.
Yes, they are the "copyright owner" as defined under Section 101. That means they are entitled to the "protections and remedies" of the Act. They are NOT the title owner, as is obvious since they don't have the right to divest title. If they truly owned title, they could transfer that title. I've explained this many times in this thread, quoting circuit courts and Nimmer who all agree with what I'm saying.
And pay attention to the Nimmer quote: Nimmer contemplates that the assignment of an exclusive copyright license is a transfer of ownership for certain limited purposes only (e.g., standing to sue) and not a complete alienation of rights
If you're interpreting it correctly, it means that Righthaven was not the "owner" of the title either, since it was an "assignment" (ostensibly) - in fact, it would mean that you can't transfer a title by assignment at all. But I don't think you're interpreting it correctly.
That makes zero sense. Notice how they are talking about the assignment OF A LICENSE. Righthaven was not assigned a license, Righthaven was assigned the copyright. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Title may be transferred by assignment. Title is not transferred by license. There is all sorts of information out there about the difference between a license and an assignment. You should read up, since you don't seem to grasp this most fundamental point.
Says the Ninth Circuit: "By licensing rather than assigning his interest in the copyright, the owner reserves certain rights, including that of collecting royalties." Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir. 1984).
This idea is really off the mark, I think: And perhaps most obvious of all, if an exclusive licensee gets title ownership, then why does his licensor have the power to terminate his license under the Copyright Act?
If this is the case, then title ownership can never be transferred. Every original author has this power, no matter how he transfers ownership. The only exception is a work for hire, which I'm sure we agree doesn't apply in this case.
Nope. You don't grasp the fundamentals so it's no surprise you reach erroneous conclusions with such regularity.
Finally, I'd like you to pay close attention to Silvers: Frank & Bob Films retained ownership of the underlying copyright to "The Other Woman" script, but assigned to Silvers "all right, title and interest in and to any claims and causes of action against Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Columbia TriStar, and any other appropriate persons or entities, with respect to the screenplay 'The Other Woman?' and the motion picture 'Stepmom.'" *** Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
So what? This does no work for your argument. They tried to assign only the right to sue. The Ninth Circuit said no dice. That doesn't apply here since Righthaven was not just assigned the right to sue. Righthaven was assigned title ownership of all the 106 rights. Silvers only helps Righthaven.
You know, there are good arguments that Righthaven is doing something wrong, but you're not making them. The fact that you don't understand the difference between an assignment and an exclusive license is your biggest problem.
You continue to prove nothing. I'll be waiting for you to prove your theory that once you grant an exclusive license of all five 106 rights, the licensor magically loses title. Noticeably, you haven't even tried to prove this. You can't prove it, since it's not true.
[Mike. If you're going to adopt someone else's arguments as your own (and that's all you ever do with your legal arguments anyway), you might want to adopt arguments of someone that knows what they're talking about.]
The reason the "crickets" thing bothers you so much is because you know I'm right. It's totally hilarious. I've called you out and you look like an idiot. I know it. You know it. Everyone reading this knows it. You haven't answered a thing. You just keep making all of these vague posts.
Stop stalling, Mike. Just give us your answer. Straight up. No bullshit. A direct answer. Answer ANY of the questions that have been asked of you.
No more bullshit about calling me a child. You're the child. A real man would just admit he doesn't have the answer. But no, not you. You'll either respond by calling me a child. Or you won't respond at all. The last thing you'll do is ACTUALLY answer the question.
Shall I make a list of every single point in this thread that you have not responded to? How about a list of every claim for which you provided no proof? We can go through it line by line... or you can just admit that you haven't the goods.
Do you have any actual data about the relative transparency of the Presidents, or are you just going with a faith-based and one-sided FUD piece? I suspect it's the latter. You did say "seem" after all, so you left yourself wiggle room as is your method. Wouldn't want anyone to pin you down when you're just making shit up.
Of course Facebook didn't make the decision in a vacuum. I just don't understand the hyper-focus on the negative without any explanation of scope or context. It's whining. What percentage of takedown notices are abusive? What's the bigger picture? It's just another hit piece on IP in general.
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
If it's anything like that transcript, Mangano will get eaten alive by the judge. Classic. Thanks for sharing.
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
I haven't read the transcript. If you have a link, I'll give it a read.
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
Look, I've already stated that I think Righthaven appears to have made misrepresentations to the court and that I think they should be punished accordingly. The fact that you think I'm associated with Righthaven even after I've said that shows that you're a bit of a fanatic, to put it mildly.
We'll see what the judge says. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I don't pretend like it's cut and dry and Righthaven loses. Unlike you, I have some perspective on the matter. I see that it's a gray area. I'm not stuck with your tunnel vision.
Righthaven may win or they may lose. That judgment might be upheld or overturned on appeal. A judge in another case looking at this same evidence might come to a different conclusion than the judge comes to in the D.U. case. I'm just enjoying the show for the legal arguments. I find them interesting.
I know that's hard for you to understand, but that's all I'm in this for. I couldn't care less if Righthaven wins or loses.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just have to add why this cracks me up no end. You've demonstrated over and over again, not only in this thread, but in every other thread we've ever had a debate about substantive copyright law, that you don't even grasp the fundamentals and you misread practically everything you read. Time and again you point to something saying that it means X, when really, it means Y. There exists no caselaw that you can't read and come away with exactly 180 degrees the wrong understanding. That you are so consistently wrong is a marvel unto itself.
Of course you think you've got it right. Of course you think your lawyer friend is backing you up. I can only imagine how many errors you've made in reaching this conclusion. What's simply amazing to me is that despite your errors being pointed out to you time and again, you just trudge along like you've got it all figured out. A smart person would realize that hey, maybe, just maybe, I don't quite have a grasp of what I speak. Not you. You speak with the authority of an expert while displaying the understanding of a noob. As I've said before, this makes you a fool.
I won't be debating you any more, Karl. Not because you're so smart and I can't keep up, but rather, because debating you is like talking to a brick wall. You rarely concede that you've got something wrong, despite the fact that you are wrong on so many things at so fundamentally a deep level. It's happened in this very thread. I've pointed out error after error that you've made with regard to the most basic things. And what do you do? You go on pretending like you've got the difficult parts all figured out. If you don't grasp the basics, why in the world do you think you've got the hard parts?
What's the point of me trying to explain anything to you? I've tried and tried, my friend, for about a year to get through to you, and it's always been the same result. More fruitless efforts from me would at this point make me the fool. Good luck to you and good luck with your "noise music." That genre seems so befitting of you. Your music, like your legal analysis, are the definition of cacophony.
You quite simply are one of the biggest fools that I've ever had the displeasure of meeting in my 20+ years on the internet. Like I said before, I was happy to teach you some things, but I can't teach you since you don't want to learn. I know you think there's nothing I can teach you, but that disregards the fact that I have systematically for the past year done nothing but point out flaw after flaw in your legal "analysis." You can pretend all you want that isn't what happened, but I know better. Don't take it too hard, though. Mike thinks your the bees knees. Your his go-to guy for hard hitting legal analysis.
Ah, techdirt. Normally one would have to be in maximum security lockup to meet such wonderful creatures.
Go ahead and get the last word. I won't even bother reading it. I wash my hands of your idiocy.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: From an actual lawyer
I don't think Stephens Media is the beneficial owner. I do think that an exclusive licensee has an ownership interest and is the copyright owner under the Act. But as the caselaw makes clear, an exclusive license is not total ownership. The licensor retains title ownership. The reason I've been using "title owner" is to avoid the confusion that arises the Act as I've explained a few times already, and as the Second Circuit explained in the part I quoted above. The fact is, if the copyright owner grants an exclusive license (but not the associated accrued right to sue), that licensor still has standing to sue for infringements that happened before the exclusive license was granted.
If he'd like to chat, send him on over. It would be more productive to talk with him directly.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. We agree on this. It doesn't matter what you call it, it matters what is really happening in the agreement.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would view the Agreement here as an intent to transfer ownership. They would see it as it is: an attempt to sell lawsuits.
I disagree. Ownership was clearly intended to be transferred. Righthaven obviously believes it has ownership. Hence they registered the copyrights listing themselves as owner, and they filed (and continue to file) lawsuits claiming the same. I believe that Righthaven honestly believes that they hold title.
The real question is whether, when you look at the bigger picture of who has what right and who has what duty, it really is an assignment as they believe it to be. Thinking along that line is where the debate is really at. We've been talking about generalities and about Righthaven/Stephens Media specifically. I believe that your general notions of things is flawed, but in the end, Righthaven may not actually hold title. Not for the reasons you've been stating in general, but for other reasons. Specifically, your idea that a copyright holder who grants an exclusive license for all of the 106 rights necessarily divests himself of title is flawed. That's not how it works. But when you look at all of the other provisions Righthaven and Stephens Media agreed to, the line isn't as clear. It's a gray area. Make sense?
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would I prove that? I never said that was true. Keep up. As I've indicated over and over and over again, ownership of the 106 rights transferred to Righthaven. Righthaven then, acting as owner, granted Stephens Media an exclusive license. Why are you making me repeat myself so much?
Righthaven was assigned nothing. Stephens "retained" the right to "exploit" the copyrights "for any lawful purpose whatsoever," and Righthaven was never assigned the "right or license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the Exploitation" of the copyrights. Other than, of course, "the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery" - which is not something that can be transferred independently.
Yet every judge who has looked at the copyright assignment alone has agreed that Righthaven was assigned the rights. What about the Strategic Alliance Agreement changes this fact? Just because Righthaven, whom the courts agree is assigned the rights, grants an exclusive license doesn't change this. Again, repeating myself.
Let's put it this way. If the agreement in the Silvers case was the same as this one, would they have ruled any differently? I have no doubt that they would not.
Really? No doubt? It's all black and white? LOL! At least I admit that this is a gray area.
Interesting. The Ninth Circuit seems to say that the beneficial owner of a copyright is the "title" owner, and that the only way to transfer the title is by divesting yourself of all interest in the copyright (both the ability to exploit the rights, and any financial interest in their exploitation).
The point of the quote was that a license is less than an assignment. The court wasn't speaking of beneficial owners specifically. But yes, transferring title means divesting yourself of ownership.
Yep. It includes assignment. 17 USC 201 is very, very clear on this point: In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination [...] All transfers in 201 are applicable. The only exception is a "work made for hire" (and a work transferred by will - I'll admit I forgot to mention that one, but it's not relevant here). I'm really surprised you didn't know this. That's why artists were so up in arms when Mitch Glazier (then a congressional staffer, now VP of the RIAA) inserted language into an unrelated bill, without congressional approval, categorizing every "sound recording" as a "work for hire." It would rob artists of the right to terminate their contracts (which "assigned" the rights to sound recordings).
I said nope because you missed my entire point. You're missing it still.
Nope. The whole point of that case is that any transfer of ownership under 201 does not automatically transfer resale rights. The court was quite clear on this point: ***
If you believe that the transfer of a "title" always means the transfer of resale rights, then nothing in 201 automatically transfers "the title." THAT was the point of Nike.
The point was that an exclusive license is less than full ownership. The licensor holds title. I don't believe that title always means transfer of resale rights. Never said that. I was trying to get you to understand that an exclusive licensee doesn't have full ownership as you were claiming.
I'm just repeating myself at this point, Karl. And you have yet to prove that a copyright holder who grants exclusive licenses for all 5 rights has divested his title. That was your claim and you have yet to back it up.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
Appellants contend that, if a licensee of exclusive rights under the copyright is characterized by the 1976 Act as an “owner” of those rights under § 201(d)(2), then it must follow that such “ownership” carries with it an unrestricted right to freely transfer the license. However, Appellants' argument ignores the plain language of § 201(d)(2), which states that the owner of such exclusive rights is entitled only to “the protection and remedies” accorded the copyright owner under the 1976 Act. This explicit language limits the rights afforded to an owner of exclusive rights.
They didn't just limit themselves to "licensees," but included all transfers of copyright ownership. So, my interpretation seems like the logical one.
Sigh. The problem here is that you're so confused, you don't even realize it when your errors are being pointed out to you.
All the Ninth Circuit is saying there is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. An exclusive licensee is a "copyright owner" for the purposes of "protections and remedies" under the Act. The whole point of that case, which seems to go right over your head, is that the exclusive licensee is not the true title owner of the thing they license. If they were, they could sub-license the work to another. But since they are not the title owner of the work--their licensor holds title--the licensee cannot sub-license the work. That only proves my point.
Your confusion about all of this is quite remarkable. That Mike's anointed you to do his legal arguing for him is hilarious. I'm literally laughing my ass off at this point. The fact that Mike thinks you're the thread winner only shows that Mike has no idea about these things either.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
I'm sure that Mike is glad that you're back in this thread to do his arguing for him. God knows he's not up to it. At least you're trying. Mike just declared victory with no explanation. I'll give you props for that. You're more of a man than Mike.
Sigh. Let's look at the rest of your nonsense...
The decision could be interpreted that the transfer of title does not, automatically, transfer the right to resell that title. In fact, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense.
Nope. If you hold title to something, you can transfer that title to another. Exclusive licensees do not hold title, and that's why they can't transfer title to another. That's what makes the most sense.
I'd also like to point out that you missed this: The Morris court held that an exclusive copyright licensee is the owner only with respect to the particular rights that are licensed.
This is consistent with my distinction between exclusive licenses. The "owner" is the person who has the exclusive use of the rights that are transferred. They are not the owner of rights that are not transferred.
Yes, they are the "copyright owner" as defined under Section 101. That means they are entitled to the "protections and remedies" of the Act. They are NOT the title owner, as is obvious since they don't have the right to divest title. If they truly owned title, they could transfer that title. I've explained this many times in this thread, quoting circuit courts and Nimmer who all agree with what I'm saying.
And pay attention to the Nimmer quote: Nimmer contemplates that the assignment of an exclusive copyright license is a transfer of ownership for certain limited purposes only (e.g., standing to sue) and not a complete alienation of rights
If you're interpreting it correctly, it means that Righthaven was not the "owner" of the title either, since it was an "assignment" (ostensibly) - in fact, it would mean that you can't transfer a title by assignment at all. But I don't think you're interpreting it correctly.
That makes zero sense. Notice how they are talking about the assignment OF A LICENSE. Righthaven was not assigned a license, Righthaven was assigned the copyright. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Title may be transferred by assignment. Title is not transferred by license. There is all sorts of information out there about the difference between a license and an assignment. You should read up, since you don't seem to grasp this most fundamental point.
Says the Ninth Circuit: "By licensing rather than assigning his interest in the copyright, the owner reserves certain rights, including that of collecting royalties." Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir. 1984).
This idea is really off the mark, I think: And perhaps most obvious of all, if an exclusive licensee gets title ownership, then why does his licensor have the power to terminate his license under the Copyright Act?
If this is the case, then title ownership can never be transferred. Every original author has this power, no matter how he transfers ownership. The only exception is a work for hire, which I'm sure we agree doesn't apply in this case.
Nope. You don't grasp the fundamentals so it's no surprise you reach erroneous conclusions with such regularity.
Finally, I'd like you to pay close attention to Silvers: Frank & Bob Films retained ownership of the underlying copyright to "The Other Woman" script, but assigned to Silvers "all right, title and interest in and to any claims and causes of action against Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Columbia TriStar, and any other appropriate persons or entities, with respect to the screenplay 'The Other Woman?' and the motion picture 'Stepmom.'" *** Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
So what? This does no work for your argument. They tried to assign only the right to sue. The Ninth Circuit said no dice. That doesn't apply here since Righthaven was not just assigned the right to sue. Righthaven was assigned title ownership of all the 106 rights. Silvers only helps Righthaven.
You know, there are good arguments that Righthaven is doing something wrong, but you're not making them. The fact that you don't understand the difference between an assignment and an exclusive license is your biggest problem.
You continue to prove nothing. I'll be waiting for you to prove your theory that once you grant an exclusive license of all five 106 rights, the licensor magically loses title. Noticeably, you haven't even tried to prove this. You can't prove it, since it's not true.
[Mike. If you're going to adopt someone else's arguments as your own (and that's all you ever do with your legal arguments anyway), you might want to adopt arguments of someone that knows what they're talking about.]
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
Stop stalling, Mike. Just give us your answer. Straight up. No bullshit. A direct answer. Answer ANY of the questions that have been asked of you.
Not sure what question? You can start here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01084413924/unsealed-document-reveals-sham-copyright-assig nments-to-righthaven.shtml#c2567
No more bullshit about calling me a child. You're the child. A real man would just admit he doesn't have the answer. But no, not you. You'll either respond by calling me a child. Or you won't respond at all. The last thing you'll do is ACTUALLY answer the question.
Yeah, you've got the goods. Crickets.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
Be straight up. What is your answer? Precisely, please.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
On the post: White House Punishes Pool Reporter For Posting Video Of Bradley Manning Supporters Protesting Obama
Do you have any actual data about the relative transparency of the Presidents, or are you just going with a faith-based and one-sided FUD piece? I suspect it's the latter. You did say "seem" after all, so you left yourself wiggle room as is your method. Wouldn't want anyone to pin you down when you're just making shit up.
On the post: Bogus Infringement Takedowns And The Danger Of Relying On Third Party Services With No Backbone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked Documents Show How The RIAA Plans To Spend The Limewire Settlement
Re: Re:
Next >>