How would you feel if I took your picture and started using it on my business and making lots of money using your face on my advertising? You'd feel wronged right? You'd feel entitled to money right?
Of course not. That's ridiculous. It's not like having a face represents a lot of effort or investment on my part. As long as you try to let me know before the commercial starts airing I don't see the problem.
Yeah, that's why I wasn't concerned about the service before. When other posts said that a lot of the stuff on Pinterest didn't link back I figured that it was just users not getting it and it could be fixed by allowing artists to claim their work or an image matching service or something. But if, as Marjolein claims, Pinterest actually removes an image's meta data, that't not just ignorance anymore, it's the service actively working against proper attribution. If they won't even respect a license that's specifically designed to allow redistribution, they're being very unreasonable.
Oh. That's pretty bad. I thought this was just some artists wanting to control every instance of their work online, but if Pinterest won't even respect Creative Commons then that's definitely a problem.
I don't speak legal, so let me know if my interpretation's off, but after a bit of googling, I'm guessing that that means that the court ruling determined that X being successful with Y's stuff doesn't necessarily mean that Y was harmed, and so X can't be made to stop without other additional reasons. If that's right, it might not directly relate to fair use, but it does reduce the number of things that companies can be sued over, which is close enough. How wrong am I here?
What does an ongoing trial have to do with its current track record? If a large majority of the decided cases went against Perfect 10, then the statement is accurate. That's what "so far" means.
I've been a part of a number of fandoms in my life, which is how I know that making bad things is just something that fans will do. The things that ruin shows for fans are stuff like Rule 34 and Cupcakes, not just generically bad things. If something ends up being boring, then the people that were excited about it will shake their heads, lament the loss of a good opportunity, and move on (I've seen it happen). If it's worse than boring they'll just say "this sucks" and move on (I've seen that happen too), and if it's really, truly terrible it could end up beside the likes of My Immortal and Quarter-Life in the minds of fans (which, again, I've seen happen). Something without porn or gorn would have to be very precisely calibrated in order to destroy a fan's enthusiasm for the related show (I've never seen it happen, at least). For a show about a show within the show I don't think it would even be theoretically possible.
I've been a part of a number of fandoms in my life, which is how I know that making bad things is just something that fans will do. Anyone who's ever been in a fandom has likely seen some very bad things and knows how to cope. If something ends up being boring, then the people that were excited about it will shake their heads, lament the loss of a good opportunity, and move on (I've seen it happen). If it's worse than boring they'll just say "this sucks" and move on (I've seen that happen too), and if it's really, truly terrible it could end up beside the likes of My Immortal and Quarter-Life in the minds of fans (which, again, I've seen happen). Rule 34 can turn some people off of a show just through association, as can a detailed depiction of the dismemberment and disembowelment of one character by another, but I don't get the impression that that's what this is. Something without those things would have to be very precisely calibrated in order to destroy a fan's enthusiasm for the related show.
The casual pirate just has to talk to his slightly-less-casual friend to get initial access. Everyone has one; a classmate or coworker or something. You know what happens if a police officer asks their not-so-casual pirate friend for access to the darknet? They learn that their not-so-casual friend has access to the darknet. And that's it. That's what it means to be decentralized: even when you're in there's no center to go to to get everyone else in it. Each computer talks only to other computers that it knows, and utility comes from the principle of degrees of separation. The darknet as a whole isn't a secret at all. Each individual user's piece is its own secret. That's what makes it formidable, not a generalized Keep Out sign.
"Your favorite musicians might want to work on assuring that they can reach you all the time by (gasp) actually paying for a little bandwidth and a little server space. Then they can be sure to reach you."
I don't see why they should have to, since currently they're making files that they created available on services dedicated to making files available, and in no sane world would that be problematic.
"Perhaps that solution isn't cool enough for you?"
So far, Perfect 10 has lost almost all of its big cases -- including those against both payment processors and search engines. To be honest, in the long run, Perfect 10 may have done a lot of good in presenting cases that highlight the clear insanity of certain interpretations of copyright law, providing strong and clear precedents from court rulings that have been tremendously useful in other cases.
Wishful thinking makes me believe that that that's intentional. The company owner calls in his lawyers, tells them, "I need you to come up with as many different ways to sue for copyright infringement as possible, then sue companies that can afford a court battle. Do everything in your power to ensure that precedent comes out against us." And now he's beating his head against the wall because once again the Supreme Court has turned down the opportunity to set national precedent.
Come to think of it, has anyone infringed on Techdirt's copyright lately?
That's a good point. All factors must be considered. Still, the point remains: general accessibility contributes more to piracy than a particular website, and we've already seen what happens when Congress tries to decrease the accessibility of the Internet.
Not greenlighting it makes some sense. Limited resources, can't take every spinoff series a fan proposes, and if the original show was about to be canceled that means the network isn't going to be very enthusiastic about giving its offspring airtime. Even so, actively fighting it is just idiotic. Everyone except apparently NBC's lawyers knows that fans make things about their shows, and no one is going to get confused and think that NBC is raising money on Kickstarter.
There won't be any more legislation? What do you call ACTA and the TPP? It'd be nice if you were the policymaker at the RIAA, but unfortunately they seem to disagree with you.
It's nice that you can name three people that've been caught. And it only took you seven years to arrest Dotcom. That would be very impressive, if there were only five pirates in the world and a similar number of programmers. Unfortunately, there's a lot more. Copyright enforcement is up against anyone with a compiler and DSL. You're tightening those screws into a sand dune.
If knowing where something is on the Net helped combat it then the The Pirate Bay would've died a long time ago. As it turns out authorities being somewhere doesn't necessarily do much.
Hackers and fake files are also a problem with torrents. People figure out how to identify and defend against them. If the faulty pieces you propose as a solution ever become a real problem, the clients can be updated with them in mind. Maybe sacrifice some extra bandwidth to check pieces that are offered in isolation or something. It would be annoying, but not crippling. And with the web presence required to consistently interfere with millions of users, the content companies could start their own online services instead. You know, to compete.
People use Google to find free stuff because it's easy. If Google is no longer the easiest solution then people will no longer use it. What'll happen is the casual pirate will learn from their slightly-less-casual friend that there's this new program that lets you download movies for free, and it even has its own player. Or they'll google "how to get free movies" and find that there's this new program that lets you download movies for free, and it has its own search function. And then the casual pirate continues to casually pirate.
More people discovering freeware would be cool, but I'm not sure how anyone really benefits from that. The person still isn't paying, and the old companies still aren't getting paid, so the arrangement, from any perspective except a legal one, is exactly the same as piracy. And as they delve deeper into the wonderful world of freeware, they're increasingly likely to discover a darknet program, at which point we're back where we started, but now the pirate has a greater respect for the independent programmer and Creative Commons. And as long as the other legal alternatives remain as they are, it's going to take a lot of pushing to convince someone to pay 20 bucks for one movie.
File lockers are where I get most of my music, because that's where most of the musicians I listen to put their music. I fail to see how I'd be better off without them.
That too, yes, but I'm not a band. My focus is on the "let's see them try to claim that piracy hurts artists while they're suing an artist for promoting piracy" aspect.
Self-fulfilling means something happened because people thought it was going to happen, like how if everyone stops spending money because they think the economy's going to crash and then the economy crashes because no one is spending any money. This was just easily predictable.
On the post: Columnist Accuses EA Of 'Identity Theft' For Using Player Likenesses
Re: Re: Re:
Of course not. That's ridiculous. It's not like having a face represents a lot of effort or investment on my part. As long as you try to let me know before the commercial starts airing I don't see the problem.
On the post: Columnist Accuses EA Of 'Identity Theft' For Using Player Likenesses
Re:
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: Re: Re: You don't get it
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: You don't get it
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re: Imagine
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Perfect 10's Silly Lawsuit Against Google; Good Ruling Stands
Re:
What does an ongoing trial have to do with its current track record? If a large majority of the decided cases went against Perfect 10, then the statement is accurate. That's what "so far" means.
On the post: How The Runaway Success Of A Tiny $25 Computer Could Become A Big Problem For Oppressive Regimes
Re: Computer? What computer?
On the post: Sony & NBC Interfere With Fan-Funded Web Series, Accomplish Nothing
Re: Re: Re: 15 Seconds of fame
On the post: Sony & NBC Interfere With Fan-Funded Web Series, Accomplish Nothing
Re: Re: Re: 15 Seconds of fame
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re: Re: Re:
"Your favorite musicians might want to work on assuring that they can reach you all the time by (gasp) actually paying for a little bandwidth and a little server space. Then they can be sure to reach you."
I don't see why they should have to, since currently they're making files that they created available on services dedicated to making files available, and in no sane world would that be problematic.
"Perhaps that solution isn't cool enough for you?"
I don't think I understand the question.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Perfect 10's Silly Lawsuit Against Google; Good Ruling Stands
Wishful thinking makes me believe that that that's intentional. The company owner calls in his lawyers, tells them, "I need you to come up with as many different ways to sue for copyright infringement as possible, then sue companies that can afford a court battle. Do everything in your power to ensure that precedent comes out against us." And now he's beating his head against the wall because once again the Supreme Court has turned down the opportunity to set national precedent.
Come to think of it, has anyone infringed on Techdirt's copyright lately?
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony & NBC Interfere With Fan-Funded Web Series, Accomplish Nothing
Re:
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's nice that you can name three people that've been caught. And it only took you seven years to arrest Dotcom. That would be very impressive, if there were only five pirates in the world and a similar number of programmers. Unfortunately, there's a lot more. Copyright enforcement is up against anyone with a compiler and DSL. You're tightening those screws into a sand dune.
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re:
Hackers and fake files are also a problem with torrents. People figure out how to identify and defend against them. If the faulty pieces you propose as a solution ever become a real problem, the clients can be updated with them in mind. Maybe sacrifice some extra bandwidth to check pieces that are offered in isolation or something. It would be annoying, but not crippling. And with the web presence required to consistently interfere with millions of users, the content companies could start their own online services instead. You know, to compete.
People use Google to find free stuff because it's easy. If Google is no longer the easiest solution then people will no longer use it. What'll happen is the casual pirate will learn from their slightly-less-casual friend that there's this new program that lets you download movies for free, and it even has its own player. Or they'll google "how to get free movies" and find that there's this new program that lets you download movies for free, and it has its own search function. And then the casual pirate continues to casually pirate.
More people discovering freeware would be cool, but I'm not sure how anyone really benefits from that. The person still isn't paying, and the old companies still aren't getting paid, so the arrangement, from any perspective except a legal one, is exactly the same as piracy. And as they delve deeper into the wonderful world of freeware, they're increasingly likely to discover a darknet program, at which point we're back where we started, but now the pirate has a greater respect for the independent programmer and Creative Commons. And as long as the other legal alternatives remain as they are, it's going to take a lot of pushing to convince someone to pay 20 bucks for one movie.
File lockers are where I get most of my music, because that's where most of the musicians I listen to put their music. I fail to see how I'd be better off without them.
On the post: Sony & NBC Interfere With Fan-Funded Web Series, Accomplish Nothing
Re: 15 Seconds of fame
People wouldn't watch his web series for very long.
"How would that help the show?"
How would it hurt the show? How many shows have you stopped watching because a fan made something for it that turned out to not be very good?
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re: Re: Re: This is critical -
On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down
Re:
Next >>