I'm of the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone and everyone who has dealings with the US government.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen" used. The words used are "person" or "persons". The word "citizen" is used specifically in later Amendments to limit their application to actual citizens.
Obviously, many courts do not agree with my contention.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
To continue on with my last point. Copyright is not a common-law right and nor is it a natural right.
Congress and the Supreme Court have made this clear:
That an author at common law has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against anyone who deprives him of it or by obtaining a copy endeavors to realize a profit by its publication cannot be doubted, but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work after the author shall have published it to the world.
The argument that a literary man is as much entitled to the product of his labor as any other member of society cannot be controverted. And the answer is that he realizes this product in the sale of his works when first published.[...]
Congress, then, by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right, as contended for, created it.
- Wheaton v. Peters
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will [be] promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
The first emphasis is SCOTUS recognizing that copyright differs from traditional property rights for the exact reason I stated - it extends past the transfer of ownership.
The next two emphases are SCOTUS and Congress stating that copyright is purely a creature of statute, as I also stated.
Re: Re: Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
"Common law" is a concept that applies in the English and American legal systems, and refers to the body of case law (either in general, or on a particular subject). It is generally subordinate to statutory law (i.e., law passed by the legislature), but may (at least in the US) supersede the statute if a constitutional question is involved.
Yes. I do know this. Blue uses (based on previous exchanges) the term "common law copyright" more in reference to the "natural right" aspect of copyright and not the in terms of existing caselaw.
Your last paragraph is nonsense. Copyright can indeed be a common-law right, and in fact was a common-law right (as the wikipedia link you provided notes)...
I disagree with this. Copyright has always been a creature of statute. It was created wholly from statute withing the last couple hundred of years, as opposed to traditional common law, which were based on laws from ancient civilizations, religious teachings and common beliefs.
Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
To begin with, courts are pretty broadly still going by common law on copyright,...
As you've been told multiple times before "common law copyright" or "natural right copyright" has been repudiated by both the US and the UK very early in the existence of copyright laws.
There is a good reason for this. Common law property rights do not extend past the point you sell something. For example, I chop down trees on my property and make a chair. I have full property rights to that chair. If I sell that chair to someone else, they now have full property rights to that chair. Copyright goes against common law property rights by extending certain rights of the creator (or rights holder) well beyond the transfer of ownership. Copyright cannot be considered a common law right because it goes against the grain of traditional common law property rights.
Everyone who's ever needed to take out a loan to buy a house or a car--pretty much everyone, that is, because if you haven't, you're likely still young enough that it's directly affecting you because it directly affects your parents--their lives are immensely influenced by a secret algorithm that they have zero insight into or power over.
I haven't given a shit about my credit score since about 2001 when I defaulted on some credit card debt because I was unemployed at the time. The only credit I carry now is my house note, which I refinanced in 2005 without any problems. I simply told them I didn't give a crap about credit scores, this is what my property is worth, this is what I have in equity and this is what I still owe, do you want to give me loan or not. They did. Everything else I pay cash for. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.
Re: So you're still okay with Google spying and tracking everyone all over the web for targeted advertising and giving NSA "direct access"?
Gwiz wrote: "Google turned me into a newt." -- That's just what I thought. You were a worm before and you love Google for raising you to newt. -- A separate "sheesh" just for you. What are you, thirteen? Feeble and unnecessary "funny" shows inability to deal with facts.
I guess you are simply too dimwitted to pick-up on the obvious popular culture reference to jumping on the witchhunt bandwagon.
My apologies if my sense of humor is too sophisticated for you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What else do you expect them to do?
That's what I said "Stealing copyrighted material is called infringement".
And that's wrong.
Stealing involves taking another's property without permission. If I make a copy of a book I have legally purchased, I have committed copyright infringement, but I have not stolen anything.
Stealing and copyright infringement have completely different legal definitions and conflating them is simply an appeal to emotion used by the copyright maximalists.
Stealing copyrighted material is called infringement.
Fixed.
Not close nor fixed.
Stealing copyrighted material is called theft, just like stealing anything is called theft. An example would be pilfering a book from someone's backpack on the subway.
Copyright infringement refers specifically to violating the enumerated rights granted to the copyright holder in 17 USC § 106 through 17 USC § 122. An example would be if you Xerox'ed pages from the book you pilfered on the subway.
this is the reason why people should register to get copyright protection. There is no such thing as automatic copyright.
Not true. Copyright in the US is assigned the moment the work is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" or in laymans terms, when you take the photo.
When you make draw or paint something and display it on Flickr or DeviantArt, it's open season for art thieves and they take your work and put it on sites like Red Bubble to sell it. It's called an "orphan work".
Also not true. Unless you assign your copyright via a contract (possibly in the "terms of use" on the particular website) you retain your copyright. "Orphan works" is something completely different. That refers to works where the copyright holder cannot be found or determined. An example would be an author who has died without an heir and has never assigned the copyright to anyone else.
Artists should stop being lazy and get their work registered. It only cost $35 to your work registered for copyright protection. Is that really expensive to you?
You receive copyright protections whether the work is registered or not. The advantage of pre-registering is that you can sue an infringer for statutory damages and/or attorney’s fees as opposed to just actual damages and profits.
No, I don't think it really has. It's simply moving to less centralized areas. Do a search on Btdigg.org and you can see for yourself what the swarm is sharing these days.
Rojadirect?
Do you mean Rojadirecta? That site seems to be up and running just fine. I guess you don't remember that the US government gave up on that case and had to return the domain names.
On the post: Windows 10 Reserves The Right To Block Pirated Games And 'Unauthorized' Hardware
Re: Re: Good to know
Being a bit lazy, I would prefer something with a user GUI so I can actually see what connections are doing what.
On the Linux side, I was using Firestarter and just recently realized that it doesn't seem to do anything for IPv6 connections.
On the post: Virginia Police Force BBC Reporters To Delete Camera Footage Of Police Pursuit Of Shooter
Re: Re:
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen" used. The words used are "person" or "persons". The word "citizen" is used specifically in later Amendments to limit their application to actual citizens.
Obviously, many courts do not agree with my contention.
On the post: Windows 10 Reserves The Right To Block Pirated Games And 'Unauthorized' Hardware
Re:
On the post: Latest TVEyes Ruling A Mixed Bag: Archiving & Sharing Privately Is Fair Use; Downloading & Sharing Publicly Is Not
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
Congress and the Supreme Court have made this clear:
The first emphasis is SCOTUS recognizing that copyright differs from traditional property rights for the exact reason I stated - it extends past the transfer of ownership.
The next two emphases are SCOTUS and Congress stating that copyright is purely a creature of statute, as I also stated.
On the post: Latest TVEyes Ruling A Mixed Bag: Archiving & Sharing Privately Is Fair Use; Downloading & Sharing Publicly Is Not
Re: Re: Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
Yes. I do know this. Blue uses (based on previous exchanges) the term "common law copyright" more in reference to the "natural right" aspect of copyright and not the in terms of existing caselaw.
Your last paragraph is nonsense. Copyright can indeed be a common-law right, and in fact was a common-law right (as the wikipedia link you provided notes)...
I disagree with this. Copyright has always been a creature of statute. It was created wholly from statute withing the last couple hundred of years, as opposed to traditional common law, which were based on laws from ancient civilizations, religious teachings and common beliefs.
On the post: Latest TVEyes Ruling A Mixed Bag: Archiving & Sharing Privately Is Fair Use; Downloading & Sharing Publicly Is Not
Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
As you've been told multiple times before "common law copyright" or "natural right copyright" has been repudiated by both the US and the UK very early in the existence of copyright laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright
There is a good reason for this. Common law property rights do not extend past the point you sell something. For example, I chop down trees on my property and make a chair. I have full property rights to that chair. If I sell that chair to someone else, they now have full property rights to that chair. Copyright goes against common law property rights by extending certain rights of the creator (or rights holder) well beyond the transfer of ownership. Copyright cannot be considered a common law right because it goes against the grain of traditional common law property rights.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 39: Technology's Impact On Democracy
Re:
I haven't given a shit about my credit score since about 2001 when I defaulted on some credit card debt because I was unemployed at the time. The only credit I carry now is my house note, which I refinanced in 2005 without any problems. I simply told them I didn't give a crap about credit scores, this is what my property is worth, this is what I have in equity and this is what I still owe, do you want to give me loan or not. They did. Everything else I pay cash for. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.
On the post: Google Lobbied Against Real Net Neutrality In India, Just Like It Did In The States
Re: So you're still okay with Google spying and tracking everyone all over the web for targeted advertising and giving NSA "direct access"?
I guess you are simply too dimwitted to pick-up on the obvious popular culture reference to jumping on the witchhunt bandwagon.
My apologies if my sense of humor is too sophisticated for you.
On the post: Google Lobbied Against Real Net Neutrality In India, Just Like It Did In The States
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What else do you expect them to do?
Nothing was stolen in my example, so no, I don't "see".
I'm done with this thread. If you wish to be obtuse, that's fine. I'm choosing not to indulge you anymore. Have a nice life.
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re: Re: Re: Re: What else do you expect them to do?
And that's wrong.
Stealing involves taking another's property without permission. If I make a copy of a book I have legally purchased, I have committed copyright infringement, but I have not stolen anything.
Stealing and copyright infringement have completely different legal definitions and conflating them is simply an appeal to emotion used by the copyright maximalists.
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re: Re: What else do you expect them to do?
Stealing copyrighted material is called infringement.
Fixed.
Not close nor fixed.
Stealing copyrighted material is called theft, just like stealing anything is called theft. An example would be pilfering a book from someone's backpack on the subway.
Copyright infringement refers specifically to violating the enumerated rights granted to the copyright holder in 17 USC § 106 through 17 USC § 122. An example would be if you Xerox'ed pages from the book you pilfered on the subway.
On the post: Twitter's Excuse For Shutting Down Services That Highlight Deleted Politicians' Tweets Is Painfully Ridiculous
Re: Re: "suspended API access" = the hazard of relying on "open source": CAN BE CUT OFF ENTIRELY AT ANY TIME.
Because Blue's cognitive skills have been deteriorating rapidly lately.
Wouldn't surprise me if he started blaming the recent influx of gray squirrels in his neighborhood on Twitter or Google.
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re:
Care to point out the "anti-artist propaganda" in this article? I didn't see any.
On the post: No, Inglewood Cannot Claim Copyright On City Council Meetings And Sue A Critic For Commenting On Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fundamentally outrageous
Meh. Whatever. Since I have no idea what you trying to convey by posting random quotes without explanation, I'll just say: Have a nice life.
On the post: No, Inglewood Cannot Claim Copyright On City Council Meetings And Sue A Critic For Commenting On Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fundamentally outrageous
On the post: Photographer Loses Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Mapmaker That Used His Photo With His Explicit Permission
Re:
Not true. Copyright in the US is assigned the moment the work is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" or in laymans terms, when you take the photo.
When you make draw or paint something and display it on Flickr or DeviantArt, it's open season for art thieves and they take your work and put it on sites like Red Bubble to sell it. It's called an "orphan work".
Also not true. Unless you assign your copyright via a contract (possibly in the "terms of use" on the particular website) you retain your copyright. "Orphan works" is something completely different. That refers to works where the copyright holder cannot be found or determined. An example would be an author who has died without an heir and has never assigned the copyright to anyone else.
Artists should stop being lazy and get their work registered. It only cost $35 to your work registered for copyright protection. Is that really expensive to you?
You receive copyright protections whether the work is registered or not. The advantage of pre-registering is that you can sue an infringer for statutory damages and/or attorney’s fees as opposed to just actual damages and profits.
On the post: The Day Someone Signed Me Up For An Ashley Madison Account (That Day Would Be Yesterday)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sarcasm baseline adjustment in progress...please wait [/]
Ok. Better now. Sometimes it gets misaligned from reading too many Anonymous Coward posts.
On the post: World Is Catching On That Creativity And Creative Jobs Have Been Growing, Not Disappearing, Post-Napster
Re:
No, I don't think it really has. It's simply moving to less centralized areas. Do a search on Btdigg.org and you can see for yourself what the swarm is sharing these days.
Rojadirect?
Do you mean Rojadirecta? That site seems to be up and running just fine. I guess you don't remember that the US government gave up on that case and had to return the domain names.
On the post: The Day Someone Signed Me Up For An Ashley Madison Account (That Day Would Be Yesterday)
Re: Re:
I don't have access to the Crystal Ball, but my guess is that Techdirt rarely (if ever) lacks material for stories.
People/companies/governments are constantly doing/saying stupid shit these days.
Next >>