Personally, I don't see the inability of "surfing" to be much of a loss when you gain so much with the internet.
I disagree. One of the pleasures of TV in general, and surfing in particular, is the passivity. After a hard day at the office, you don't want to think any more, not even to select a particular show from a list of your favorites. Sometimes you just want to turn the TV on and veg.
That's why I think that, in the age of Internet TV, the role of surfing will be met by a "what's playing" stream, much like what you'd see when you turn the TV on at a hotel. You can sit on your couch after work and watch a compilation of brief snippets about what shows are available for that particular "channel". If you see something you like, hit the Watch button and you're set.
It doesn't matter if Harper saw the CD, it only matters that she could have seen the CD, i.e., she had access. That's how courts interpret § 402(d).
Really? Don't lawyers usually use some fancy latin term to distinguish a fine legal point from normal language i.e. "access"? Because, to me, "access" means that it's in my possession or very easilly could be. Not that I could drive to one of the few malls that still have a store that sells CDs, find the exact CD that I'm going to download when I get home, and read its copyright notice. This definition is so broad as to render the clause meaningless.
RIAA, "People don't know that it's illegal to download copyrighted songs from the Internet, so we'll have a PR campaign based on suing thousands of individuals. To make sure that the message has the most impact, we'll prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that each person we sue knew that downloading copyrighted material from the Internet was illegal so that we can maximize the damages. Wait...oh shit. We've made a huge mistake."
"If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages . . . ."
If I read this correctly, it appears to be saying that, if you have access to a CD, but don't own the CD, and the CD has a copyright notice on it and you download songs from that CD, damages can't be reduced based on "innocent infringement". But as Mike points out, "she never saw the CDs of the music she downloaded" as I'm sure the vast majority of downloaders didn't.
So, how is 17 U.S.C. § 402(d) even relevant here? It seems like for this section to be relevant, you'd have to prove that the defendant either saw someone else's copy of the CD or actually owned the CD themselves.
Couldn't you have barracades set up to direct a peaceful flow of traffic, like at amusement parks?
Maybe they could charge extra for renting these baricades and all of the additional security to handle a potentially rowdy crowd. Maybe we could call this extra charge a "convenience fee".
So, you're dismissing an entire business model because it's possible that the venue is incapable of performing crowd control correctly?
In so many words, yes.
Seems a little bit of a flimsy excuse, based on an accident that happened over 30 years ago in a venue that was probably pretty primitive by today's standards in many ways.
Every year, there are people trampled, sometimes to death, when a crowd of people are trying to get into stores with large holiday sales. So, it's not just one event, thirty years ago.
Why is it such a controversial idea to suggest it's a bad idea to tempt fate? If you have a potentially large groups of people trying to gain access to a limited resource, it's a dangerous situation. If you have good crowd control, you can avoid problems, but it's an inherently dangerous situation. There are plenty of other business models that don't involve the risk of people being trampled to death.
You're still identifying the problem as properly organised crowd control and communication, not the methods by which tickets are sold.
The artist can't always guarantee that the venue will provide the right level of crowd control. But what they can control, at least in this case, is setting up a scenario where a lack of good crowd control can lead to a tragic event. I'm not saying that The Who concert was caused exclusively by festival seating, just that it was a large contributing factor.
The Warfield is also nowhere near the size of the former Riverfront Coliseum.
I think you're making my point for me. I would think that a large number of people trying to get into a smaller venue would be even more likely to be a problem than a large stadium.
So, the only problem with that is that people rush to try and get the best seat, which is a problem when combined with poor crowd control and communication.
I don't think how the seats are allocated is the relevant similarity. The problem, in both festival/general seating, is that you have a huge crowd of people who are incentivized to be "first".
With festival or general seating, you don't have any seat assignments, so in order to get a good seat, you have to get in the door first.
With selling tickets at the door, you don't have any advanced tickets, so in order to get a good seat, you have to get to the box office first.
Think of all the big holiday sales. People getting trampled on because their trying to rush the door. Yes, in theory, they're supposed to form an orderly queue, but in reality, the first people in the door get the good stuff. All I'm saying is that having a huge number of people standing around all trying to get a limited resource is a bad idea.
You realize that the method of selling seats has nothing to do with how those seats are distributed, right?
1) Festival seating - People buy their tickets in advance, but there is no seating assignment. People form up in a huge queue and rush to get in the door so they can get a good seat.
2) Selling tickets at the door - People form up in a huge queue in front of the door so they can be first to buy a ticket for a good seat.
Some of the details may be different, but they're similar enough that it seems like the net effect could be the same.
Of course, the downside to this is that if too many people show up (a decent possibility) you might not get in at all
Or you might just get killed. The Who concert tragedy in Cincinnati was a big part in the elimination of "festival seating" where people got seats on a first come, first served basis. Wouldn't selling tickets at the door be, in effect, the same thing as festival seating? Maybe this would work for local bar bands, but for big name artists like Bob Dylan, it could spell trouble
You make a very good point. (Some might even say "insightful".) However, with the VCR, you could reasonably make the case that you were copying the content for personal use. But where would you draw the line with a Google cache of similar content which is available to anyone? Would it be OK to "cache" all of the content on Hulu? From a moral and legal standpoint, I don't think so.
Wait wait... How would they do that? Don't the browsers already have the content, in plain text, since they need it to show to the reader?
I think the key word is "limit". They didn't say "absolutely prevent", but just "limit". In other words, if you don't make any attempt to prevent copying/caching, then you are implying that you think it's OK for people to copy or cache. But if you do something to prevent copying/caching, you may not prevent all cases, but at least you've conveyed your intent that you don't want this to happen.
It would be nice to know what legal rights he alleges he holds because he would somehow have to assert such rights against what Disney has done.
Agreed. Aren't the documents used to file a lawsuit very explicit about which law is actually being broken? Or do the lawyers just make up terms like "decoration fee" and hope that no one notices they didn't actually cite a law which was broken?
This is really good news, but something in the article made me realize there's probably a long way to go before this attitude catches on...
"This one makes sense. The development of reliable and valid measures of Alzheimer's disease requires such large science with such limited returns on the investment that it was in no one company's interest to pursue it."
Wait, just this one makes sense? I get the feeling that the person who said this really doesn't think that being open with information and increased cooperation will work with many other kinds of research. Hopefully, the organizations who provide funding for researach, like the Michael J. Fox foundation, will demand this same type of openness for their studies after they see the results.
On an intellectual level, it's a shame to see Australian collection agencies warping copyright law to their own advantage, but the real shame, the thing that hits at an emotional level is the affect on music itself. In my experience, Australia is a giant engine that cranks out great music and great musical artists. No small part of this is the culture of live bands playing at the local pubs. There are (or at least were) so many venues for live bands that a huge number of people could cut their teeth on playing in front of a live audience. If the Australian collection agencies continue as they are, I fear they'll destroy the very thing which makes Australia a musical powerhouse. It would be another example of the triumph of short term profits over long term profitability.
Hello new TechDirt reader! See below for replies...
It's not censorship when I stop you from repeating my work verbatim.
Well, actually it is. TechDirt has provided examples in the past of people who were critiquing a something (books, movies, songs) and included a snippet of that something, only to be sent a nastygram by a lawyer. Preventing people from copying your entire work verbatim isn't cencorship. Preventing people from excerpting your work using copyright as a pretense because you don't like what they say is most definatelly censorship.
If a film maker can't recover the production costs, the film maker can't make a film.
As has been pointed out many times on TechDirt, just because an artist can't make money in one business model, doesn't mean there aren't other models where they can make money.
But you guys are just grasping for any sophistic argument to justify taking without paying, for gaining all of the advantages of someone else's work without contributing to the development costs.
Please cite one instance where a TechDirt author promotes illegal copyright infringement. You won't find it. What you will find is an acknowledgement that in spite of copyright infringement being illegal, it's a reality that has to be dealt with if you wish to continue to make money as an artist today. No sophistry or justification; just an acknowledgement of reality.
The Framers had qualms about granting copyright certainly, but this grant was wholly independent of the progress clause.
Could you provide some information that supports this statement? To me, the "promote the progress" seems very clear and unambiguous. You're saying that they didn't add this clause in to ensure that people understood the fundamental purpose of copyright wasn't to protect artists? Why?
but the ethics of granting the privilege at all - and consequently the ethics of leaving the privilege on the statute books.
Also, just to clarify, you think that Loren is a "misguided soul" not because she is critical of what copyright has become, but that she doesn't go far enough i.e. propose the elimination of copyright? It just seems weird that you start off with an attack of her, but you actually agree with her on what the problem is, but disagree on what the solution is.
Loren's article looks very interesting and I plan to read it in its entirety, but a couple of items jumped out at me from the excepts...
"This fundamental misunderstanding is perpetuated by the stern FBI warnings at the beginning of video tapes"
"The most recent example of this shift is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, sign by the President on October 28, 1998."
This makes me wonder if the article is a reprint or something she's had laying around for years. The copyright notice says 2011, but come on...video tapes? And "the President"? You mean the president as of 12 years ago? After a quick skim of her article, I don't see any reference after 1998. Not a huge deal, but it just struck me as kind of odd.
Mr. Jasper, I know I'm a bit late in replying, but I'd like to say thanks for the clarification. As a frequent reader of TechDirt, I see so many instances of companies trying to twist the wording in laws, contracts, or other agreements beyond all recognition, it's hard not to look at things like the excerpt from your privacy statement with cynicism. But as another poster pointed out, if you'd like to differentiate yourself from the other ISPs who don't take privacy as seriously as you do, I would humbly suggest that you change the wording to be more definitive.
On the post: TV, Cable Companies Convincing Themselves People Don't Want To Cut The Cable
Re: Re:
I disagree. One of the pleasures of TV in general, and surfing in particular, is the passivity. After a hard day at the office, you don't want to think any more, not even to select a particular show from a list of your favorites. Sometimes you just want to turn the TV on and veg.
That's why I think that, in the age of Internet TV, the role of surfing will be met by a "what's playing" stream, much like what you'd see when you turn the TV on at a hotel. You can sit on your couch after work and watch a compilation of brief snippets about what shows are available for that particular "channel". If you see something you like, hit the Watch button and you're set.
On the post: Did The RIAA Just Destroy Its Own Argument Concerning Innocent Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Really? Don't lawyers usually use some fancy latin term to distinguish a fine legal point from normal language i.e. "access"? Because, to me, "access" means that it's in my possession or very easilly could be. Not that I could drive to one of the few malls that still have a store that sells CDs, find the exact CD that I'm going to download when I get home, and read its copyright notice. This definition is so broad as to render the clause meaningless.
On the post: Did The RIAA Just Destroy Its Own Argument Concerning Innocent Infringement?
Re:
On the post: Did The RIAA Just Destroy Its Own Argument Concerning Innocent Infringement?
Re:
If I read this correctly, it appears to be saying that, if you have access to a CD, but don't own the CD, and the CD has a copyright notice on it and you download songs from that CD, damages can't be reduced based on "innocent infringement". But as Mike points out, "she never saw the CDs of the music she downloaded" as I'm sure the vast majority of downloaders didn't.
So, how is 17 U.S.C. § 402(d) even relevant here? It seems like for this section to be relevant, you'd have to prove that the defendant either saw someone else's copy of the CD or actually owned the CD themselves.
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Festival seating
Maybe they could charge extra for renting these baricades and all of the additional security to handle a potentially rowdy crowd. Maybe we could call this extra charge a "convenience fee".
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Festival seating
In so many words, yes.
Seems a little bit of a flimsy excuse, based on an accident that happened over 30 years ago in a venue that was probably pretty primitive by today's standards in many ways.
Every year, there are people trampled, sometimes to death, when a crowd of people are trying to get into stores with large holiday sales. So, it's not just one event, thirty years ago.
Why is it such a controversial idea to suggest it's a bad idea to tempt fate? If you have a potentially large groups of people trying to gain access to a limited resource, it's a dangerous situation. If you have good crowd control, you can avoid problems, but it's an inherently dangerous situation. There are plenty of other business models that don't involve the risk of people being trampled to death.
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Re: Re: Festival seating
The artist can't always guarantee that the venue will provide the right level of crowd control. But what they can control, at least in this case, is setting up a scenario where a lack of good crowd control can lead to a tragic event. I'm not saying that The Who concert was caused exclusively by festival seating, just that it was a large contributing factor.
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Festival seating
I think you're making my point for me. I would think that a large number of people trying to get into a smaller venue would be even more likely to be a problem than a large stadium.
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Festival seating
I don't think how the seats are allocated is the relevant similarity. The problem, in both festival/general seating, is that you have a huge crowd of people who are incentivized to be "first".
With festival or general seating, you don't have any seat assignments, so in order to get a good seat, you have to get in the door first.
With selling tickets at the door, you don't have any advanced tickets, so in order to get a good seat, you have to get to the box office first.
Think of all the big holiday sales. People getting trampled on because their trying to rush the door. Yes, in theory, they're supposed to form an orderly queue, but in reality, the first people in the door get the good stuff. All I'm saying is that having a huge number of people standing around all trying to get a limited resource is a bad idea.
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Re: Festival seating
1) Festival seating - People buy their tickets in advance, but there is no seating assignment. People form up in a huge queue and rush to get in the door so they can get a good seat.
2) Selling tickets at the door - People form up in a huge queue in front of the door so they can be first to buy a ticket for a good seat.
Some of the details may be different, but they're similar enough that it seems like the net effect could be the same.
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Festival seating
Or you might just get killed. The Who concert tragedy in Cincinnati was a big part in the elimination of "festival seating" where people got seats on a first come, first served basis. Wouldn't selling tickets at the door be, in effect, the same thing as festival seating? Maybe this would work for local bar bands, but for big name artists like Bob Dylan, it could spell trouble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_The_Who_concert_disaster
On the post: Could The Legality Of Google's Cache Kill Righthaven's Copyright Claims?
Re:
On the post: Could The Legality Of Google's Cache Kill Righthaven's Copyright Claims?
Re: Technical means?
I think the key word is "limit". They didn't say "absolutely prevent", but just "limit". In other words, if you don't make any attempt to prevent copying/caching, then you are implying that you think it's OK for people to copy or cache. But if you do something to prevent copying/caching, you may not prevent all cases, but at least you've conveyed your intent that you don't want this to happen.
On the post: Chair Designer Sues Disney Over Chair Used In Alice In Wonderland Movie
Re:
Agreed. Aren't the documents used to file a lawsuit very explicit about which law is actually being broken? Or do the lawyers just make up terms like "decoration fee" and hope that no one notices they didn't actually cite a law which was broken?
On the post: And Of Course: 'Surprising' Openness And Sharing Of Data Leads To Advancements In Alzheimer's Research
Precedent or anomoly?
"This one makes sense. The development of reliable and valid measures of Alzheimer's disease requires such large science with such limited returns on the investment that it was in no one company's interest to pursue it."
Wait, just this one makes sense? I get the feeling that the person who said this really doesn't think that being open with information and increased cooperation will work with many other kinds of research. Hopefully, the organizations who provide funding for researach, like the Michael J. Fox foundation, will demand this same type of openness for their studies after they see the results.
On the post: More And More People Seeing How Collection Societies Have Distorted Copyright
Corner pubs
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Nah. Copyright!=censorship
It's not censorship when I stop you from repeating my work verbatim.
Well, actually it is. TechDirt has provided examples in the past of people who were critiquing a something (books, movies, songs) and included a snippet of that something, only to be sent a nastygram by a lawyer. Preventing people from copying your entire work verbatim isn't cencorship. Preventing people from excerpting your work using copyright as a pretense because you don't like what they say is most definatelly censorship.
If a film maker can't recover the production costs, the film maker can't make a film.
As has been pointed out many times on TechDirt, just because an artist can't make money in one business model, doesn't mean there aren't other models where they can make money.
But you guys are just grasping for any sophistic argument to justify taking without paying, for gaining all of the advantages of someone else's work without contributing to the development costs.
Please cite one instance where a TechDirt author promotes illegal copyright infringement. You won't find it. What you will find is an acknowledgement that in spite of copyright infringement being illegal, it's a reality that has to be dealt with if you wish to continue to make money as an artist today. No sophistry or justification; just an acknowledgement of reality.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
Could you provide some information that supports this statement? To me, the "promote the progress" seems very clear and unambiguous. You're saying that they didn't add this clause in to ensure that people understood the fundamental purpose of copyright wasn't to protect artists? Why?
but the ethics of granting the privilege at all - and consequently the ethics of leaving the privilege on the statute books.
Also, just to clarify, you think that Loren is a "misguided soul" not because she is critical of what copyright has become, but that she doesn't go far enough i.e. propose the elimination of copyright? It just seems weird that you start off with an attack of her, but you actually agree with her on what the problem is, but disagree on what the solution is.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Reprint?
"This fundamental misunderstanding is perpetuated by the stern FBI warnings at the beginning of video tapes"
"The most recent example of this shift is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, sign by the President on October 28, 1998."
This makes me wonder if the article is a reprint or something she's had laying around for years. The copyright notice says 2011, but come on...video tapes? And "the President"? You mean the president as of 12 years ago? After a quick skim of her article, I don't see any reference after 1998. Not a huge deal, but it just struck me as kind of odd.
On the post: Which ISPs Hand Private Surfing Info Over To Secretive Private Group Who Monitors It For The Feds?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sonic.net
Next >>