"The clever folks at KPMG have hidden the important factors in the aggregate stats, looking at a big list of 34 services, and saying that as long as a film or TV title are available on one of them, it's "available." But this conveniently buries the more important stat, dug out by TorrentFreak, that the study actually shows over 80% of top film titles are not available on Netflix, which is, by far, the most popular streaming movie service."
Again, can you point to a single statement in the report that is "bogus and misleading"? Did they say something is available when it isn't? Did they say something is available on Netflix when it isn't? Etc. I understand that some people think everything should be on Netflix, but that doesn't make the report "bogus and misleading."
The court also makes one interesting note concerning the However, there's plenty of worrisome aspects to this new ruling as well. After the willful blindness issue, our biggest concern was the tertiary liability claims that EMI was making against Robertson. That is, we've now seen that secondary liability is a possible for copyright infringement (i.e., you can be guilty for someone else's infringement), even though that makes little sense. However, in this case, EMI advanced an even more tenuous argument: that Robertson was tertiarily liable for MP3Tunes' secondary liability of its users direct infringement. Unfortunately, the judge says this is fine, arguing that while the judge in the Napster case rejected such a theory, the judge in the Limewire case accepted it, and thus "tertiary liability" is a perfectly reasonable thing. That's going to have some serious chilling effects -- just wait and see.
There is no such thing as tertiary liability. The court didn't hold Robertson liable as a tertiary infringer; it held him liable applying regular secondary liability analysis. The court merely said that he is jointly and severally liable with the corporation that he ran as its principal--they're both secondary infringers together. And why is it that you think secondary liability "makes little sense"? I'd love to hear that. Do you only think that when it's copyright? Or do you think there should be no secondary liability generally, such as accomplice liability under criminal law?
It would be nice if the MPAA were legitimately interested in reducing infringement by improving innovation and allowing more services to flourish. But it has yet to show any honest intentions on that front, preferring bogus and misleading reports like this one.
You haven't shown how this particular report makes any claims that are "bogus and misleading." Can you?
It seems fairly clear that in your case, your overall trollish behavior leads to reporting. Perhaps if you didn't constantly troll, it wouldn't be an issue.
Challenging Mike on the merits is not trolling. Give me a break. And why no mention of Mike's behavior above? I'll let you in on a little secret. The angrier Mike gets, the more you know he's defensive because he's beat. He can't stand to be proved wrong (yet, it's so incredibly easy to do).
The only ones I've ever seen that way come from folks - like yourself - who regularly engage in trollish behavior. The downvotes appear to be because you have no shown yourself able to act in a non-trolling manner. Based on your past behavior, it seems rather obvious that any "good" behavior is merely an attempt to lure people in for trolling.
Its not a down-vote button. It's purpose is to report "abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate" comments. If the comment being reported isn't any of those, then the button is being abused. It's not a button for reporting people you don't like. The fact that people can't even stand to see anyone challenge the group-think here speaks volumes of their character. I have never seen a group of people so hostile to anyone who disagrees with them. And I've been on the internet a long time.
I love that link. It's the hilarious excuse for why Mike can't defend any of the ridiculous nonsense that he posts. I'm happy to go through that comment line-by-line with Mike, but he never wants to. Whenever Mike needs to duck out of an argument, he posts that link like it's a magic get-out-of-reality-free card. Of course, he can never link to where he (1) ever beat me in any discussion on the merits, or (2) ever gave us an honest answer about his personal beliefs about copyright.
The copyright clause of the Constitution mentions authors refusing to license their works?
It says that Congress can give authors exclusive rights, that is, rights to exclude others from using their works. Of course, authors can also choose not to exclude others if they want to.
I love how you guys can't even admit that non-trollish posts are reported regularly. Dissenting views here are hidden from view because you simply don't like the fact that someone has a different opinion.
Even Falkvinge said this is "bullshit." When something that purports to destroy the "copyright monopoly" is called "bullshit" by Falkvinge, you know it's dumb.
Well, were a company to do this, and try to claim copyright infringement even lacking any actual copying then they'd run into a big problem, because their program, by their own argument, would have just **infringed** on every possible copyright. And they would know, mathematically, that would be true, so *willful infringement* at $150,000 per instance...
Ha! I was thinking the same thing. By their own logic, they're infringing lots of works that are already under copyright.
I'm talking about the action of the Hendrix estate in this case: that action is certainly not in line with the stated purpose of copyright. Does this make sense?
Not really. Your position turns on a refusal to license being contrary to the purpose of copyright, but the Copyright Clause makes clear that giving authors the choice of refusing to license is consistent with its purpose. That said, I do appreciate your willingness to defend Mike's position. It's too bad Mike's not willing to do the same.
No, I'm saying that if this is done for a purpose that lies outside of the goals of copyright, it's an abuse of the power. Using copyright as a backdoor to gaining some sort of publicity right is an abuse of copyright, for instance. Using copyright to prevent others from using your work in a competing fashion is not an abuse of copyright.
I'm just not following you. The Constitution says the way to promote the progress is to give authors exclusive rights so they can exclude others from using their works. It makes no mention of the reasons an author might have for choosing to exclude others. If I write the greatest spelling book in the world that teaches kids how to spell better than any other book, it's not contrary to the purpose of copyright for me to keep that book all to myself. This is because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that all uses which promote the progress have to be allowed. It says that authors get to chose which uses they want to permit--even if that individual choice doesn't promote the progress. What matters is whether the entire copyright system, taken as a whole, generally promotes progress. So, no, I don't agree that refusing to license Hendrix's works is contrary to the purpose of copyright, because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that the purpose of copyright is to be fulfilled by requiring authors to license all uses that promote the progress. The purpose of copyright gets fulfilled even if uses that would promote the progress are denied. Make sense?
Obviously. It's pretty simple, though. Copyright exists for a clearly stated purpose. Using copyright for reasons outside of that purpose is abuse of that power. Whether or not it's legal is beside the point.
The purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science. The means of copyright are the exclusive rights given to authors, that is, the right to exclude others from using their works. So you're suggesting that whenever an author exercises those exclusive rights and refuses to license, that's an abuse of power that's contrary to the purpose of copyright? That makes no sense. Why would the Framers say that exclusive rights are the way to promote the progress if the exercise of those rights was always contrary to that purpose?
I don't think anyone's arguing that the copyright holder doesn't have this power. We're arguing that using copyright in an attempt to control how the artist is portrayed is not the purpose that copyright exists for, and so using it in that way is an abuse of copyright.
Copyright gives the owner the power to licenses uses it likes and to refuse to license uses it doesn't like. You agree with that. But then when the owner refuses to license uses it doesn't like, you think that's abuse? That makes no sense to me.
My response concerning moral rights was to the guy who insisted this was what copyright law is supposed to be used for. He's wrong. And so are you.
Here's what the other guy said: "A lot of Hendrix's fans, family and friends are not happy about the way he is portrayed in the movie."
To which you responded: "So what? I'm sure a lot of fans, family and friends of other famous people (Jim Morrison, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, etc) aren't happy about those artists have been portrayed in movies. But that's not the point of copyright. It's not a right to block representations you don't like."
It's you, Mike, who are missing the point. The guy's claim was that they aren't licensing the rights because they don't like the film's portrayal of Hendrix. They aren't trying to prevent the film from being made. They're simply exercising their exclusive rights and refusing to license their property. Are you seriously suggesting that it's "not the point of copyright" that copyright owners can choose which uses they like and want to license and which uses they don't? They aren't trying "to block representations" they "don't like." They're refusing to license their works because they don't like the film.
Only one of us is digging, and it ain't me.
No, it's you. You can't seem to admit that copyright gives the owner the right to refuse to license uses it doesn't like. And this has nothing to do with moral rights, as you tried to spin it. It has to do with the rights under Section 106. I know the very thought that copyright owners get to decide how their property is used upsets you greatly--as you made clear in this post, you don't think the copyright owner should have these exclusive rights--but the reality is that copyright law lets copyright owners do just that. And that's what they did here. The horror! A property owner determined how it wanted its property to be used! Oh, no! Sigh.
The comment I was responding to indicated that the purpose of copyright was to block a version of the events that the family did not approve of. I said that's not a purpose of copyright. You said it is.
If you knew the slightest bit about copyright, you'd know that what he was talking about -- the right to block someone from doing something you don't like -- is called "moral rights" and they're not part of US copyright law (for music, at least). So, yes, we were talking about moral rights, because the original commenter falsely suggested that the purpose of copyright is what is commonly known as moral rights.
You then, incorrectly, insisted that I was wrong that that moral rights were the purpose of copyright law, though it's now clear that you're so unfamiliar with even rudimentary copyright law that you don't know what moral rights are.
I think you're just playing word games. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights to determine certain uses of their works. This means that authors can permit certain uses if they like them and deny certain uses if they don't. The owners of the exclusive rights here are doing just that--denying certain uses they don't like. They aren't invoking any moral rights. They're invoking their exclusive rights under Section 106. They don't need moral rights to do this because the exclusive rights under Section 106 already give them this power.
In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Please go away now.
You're such a friendly guy. By the way, I'm glad you explicitly said you don't think the copyright owners here should have the right to exclude this particular use of their property. I have yet to see you ever indicate that you think any copyright owner should have any exclusive rights, and so I've wondered whether you support any such rights. I know you're too scared and/or dishonest to ever just tell us what you really think. But posts like this are nice because we can figure it out through the process of elimination. You won't tell us what rights you support, but if you tell us enough about the rights you don't, like you've done here, I imagine we'll get to the point where we can say definitively that there's no rights you support--there will be none left. Of course, we all know what you really believe. You're not fooling anyone. I'd actually respect you a lot more if you were just honest and upfront about it. It's the dishonestly and obfuscation that gets to me, not your underlying beliefs.
Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
Where in my view articles like this one fall short is that they make no attempt to examine the rationale associated with FAA rules to identify pros and cons. Superficial analysis is not particularly helpful in educating the public about the myriad of issues/concerns associated with remotely controlled piloted vehicles.
"Superficial analysis" is, unfortunately, Mike's bread and butter. It's not about identifying the "pros and cons" or giving any sort of balanced and nuanced reasoning, it's merely about smearing "Hollywood" and making unprovable assertions that this decision will be detrimental to "innovation."
Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
Are you dense or something? You can't understand the difference between a movie set in a well controlled are and a football stadium with 100,000 unsuspecting people in it?
But, but, but... there's a special rule for Hollywood! Argh!
Do you have your head so far up the IFPI's ass that you're too ignorant to get it?
Oh, look, more abuse that won't be "reported." I'm referring to the actual legal standard. You know, the actual standard that actually determines whether these notices are actually unlawful. Try and keep up!
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re:
Again, can you point to a single statement in the report that is "bogus and misleading"? Did they say something is available when it isn't? Did they say something is available on Netflix when it isn't? Etc. I understand that some people think everything should be on Netflix, but that doesn't make the report "bogus and misleading."
On the post: Judge Adjusts MP3Tunes Ruling, Blasts Everyone
There is no such thing as tertiary liability. The court didn't hold Robertson liable as a tertiary infringer; it held him liable applying regular secondary liability analysis. The court merely said that he is jointly and severally liable with the corporation that he ran as its principal--they're both secondary infringers together. And why is it that you think secondary liability "makes little sense"? I'd love to hear that. Do you only think that when it's copyright? Or do you think there should be no secondary liability generally, such as accomplice liability under criminal law?
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
You haven't shown how this particular report makes any claims that are "bogus and misleading." Can you?
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Challenging Mike on the merits is not trolling. Give me a break. And why no mention of Mike's behavior above? I'll let you in on a little secret. The angrier Mike gets, the more you know he's defensive because he's beat. He can't stand to be proved wrong (yet, it's so incredibly easy to do).
The only ones I've ever seen that way come from folks - like yourself - who regularly engage in trollish behavior. The downvotes appear to be because you have no shown yourself able to act in a non-trolling manner. Based on your past behavior, it seems rather obvious that any "good" behavior is merely an attempt to lure people in for trolling.
Its not a down-vote button. It's purpose is to report "abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate" comments. If the comment being reported isn't any of those, then the button is being abused. It's not a button for reporting people you don't like. The fact that people can't even stand to see anyone challenge the group-think here speaks volumes of their character. I have never seen a group of people so hostile to anyone who disagrees with them. And I've been on the internet a long time.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
I love that link. It's the hilarious excuse for why Mike can't defend any of the ridiculous nonsense that he posts. I'm happy to go through that comment line-by-line with Mike, but he never wants to. Whenever Mike needs to duck out of an argument, he posts that link like it's a magic get-out-of-reality-free card. Of course, he can never link to where he (1) ever beat me in any discussion on the merits, or (2) ever gave us an honest answer about his personal beliefs about copyright.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It says that Congress can give authors exclusive rights, that is, rights to exclude others from using their works. Of course, authors can also choose not to exclude others if they want to.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trollish bleating: hidden
See a pattern?
My posts are reported even when there's nothing at all trollish about them.
For example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140926/12251828651/jimi-hendrix-biopic-opens-today-without-any-j imi-hendrix-music-thanks-to-copyright.shtml?threaded=true#c1104
I love how you guys can't even admit that non-trollish posts are reported regularly. Dissenting views here are hidden from view because you simply don't like the fact that someone has a different opinion.
On the post: New 'Company' Claims It Uses Algorithms To Create Content Faster Than Creators Can, Making All Future Creations 'Infringing'
Re:
On the post: New 'Company' Claims It Uses Algorithms To Create Content Faster Than Creators Can, Making All Future Creations 'Infringing'
Re:
Even Falkvinge said this is "bullshit." When something that purports to destroy the "copyright monopoly" is called "bullshit" by Falkvinge, you know it's dumb.
On the post: New 'Company' Claims It Uses Algorithms To Create Content Faster Than Creators Can, Making All Future Creations 'Infringing'
Re:
Ha! I was thinking the same thing. By their own logic, they're infringing lots of works that are already under copyright.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha! OK, then. I'm glad you're defending your own position. Blah blah blah Mike. ;)
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Your position turns on a refusal to license being contrary to the purpose of copyright, but the Copyright Clause makes clear that giving authors the choice of refusing to license is consistent with its purpose. That said, I do appreciate your willingness to defend Mike's position. It's too bad Mike's not willing to do the same.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just not following you. The Constitution says the way to promote the progress is to give authors exclusive rights so they can exclude others from using their works. It makes no mention of the reasons an author might have for choosing to exclude others. If I write the greatest spelling book in the world that teaches kids how to spell better than any other book, it's not contrary to the purpose of copyright for me to keep that book all to myself. This is because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that all uses which promote the progress have to be allowed. It says that authors get to chose which uses they want to permit--even if that individual choice doesn't promote the progress. What matters is whether the entire copyright system, taken as a whole, generally promotes progress. So, no, I don't agree that refusing to license Hendrix's works is contrary to the purpose of copyright, because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that the purpose of copyright is to be fulfilled by requiring authors to license all uses that promote the progress. The purpose of copyright gets fulfilled even if uses that would promote the progress are denied. Make sense?
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science. The means of copyright are the exclusive rights given to authors, that is, the right to exclude others from using their works. So you're suggesting that whenever an author exercises those exclusive rights and refuses to license, that's an abuse of power that's contrary to the purpose of copyright? That makes no sense. Why would the Framers say that exclusive rights are the way to promote the progress if the exercise of those rights was always contrary to that purpose?
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright gives the owner the power to licenses uses it likes and to refuse to license uses it doesn't like. You agree with that. But then when the owner refuses to license uses it doesn't like, you think that's abuse? That makes no sense to me.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what the other guy said: "A lot of Hendrix's fans, family and friends are not happy about the way he is portrayed in the movie."
To which you responded: "So what? I'm sure a lot of fans, family and friends of other famous people (Jim Morrison, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, etc) aren't happy about those artists have been portrayed in movies. But that's not the point of copyright. It's not a right to block representations you don't like."
It's you, Mike, who are missing the point. The guy's claim was that they aren't licensing the rights because they don't like the film's portrayal of Hendrix. They aren't trying to prevent the film from being made. They're simply exercising their exclusive rights and refusing to license their property. Are you seriously suggesting that it's "not the point of copyright" that copyright owners can choose which uses they like and want to license and which uses they don't? They aren't trying "to block representations" they "don't like." They're refusing to license their works because they don't like the film.
Only one of us is digging, and it ain't me.
No, it's you. You can't seem to admit that copyright gives the owner the right to refuse to license uses it doesn't like. And this has nothing to do with moral rights, as you tried to spin it. It has to do with the rights under Section 106. I know the very thought that copyright owners get to decide how their property is used upsets you greatly--as you made clear in this post, you don't think the copyright owner should have these exclusive rights--but the reality is that copyright law lets copyright owners do just that. And that's what they did here. The horror! A property owner determined how it wanted its property to be used! Oh, no! Sigh.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me too. That's what keeps me coming back for more. It's hilarious how much he freaks out when anyone challenges his nonsense.
mega-naire deviants
Haha! I'm going to borrow that one.
All of his problems are, fittingly, products of his own poor life choices and his alone. Not anyone else.
No doubt. Yet, I'm sure he'll always be stuck in denial.
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you knew the slightest bit about copyright, you'd know that what he was talking about -- the right to block someone from doing something you don't like -- is called "moral rights" and they're not part of US copyright law (for music, at least). So, yes, we were talking about moral rights, because the original commenter falsely suggested that the purpose of copyright is what is commonly known as moral rights.
You then, incorrectly, insisted that I was wrong that that moral rights were the purpose of copyright law, though it's now clear that you're so unfamiliar with even rudimentary copyright law that you don't know what moral rights are.
I think you're just playing word games. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights to determine certain uses of their works. This means that authors can permit certain uses if they like them and deny certain uses if they don't. The owners of the exclusive rights here are doing just that--denying certain uses they don't like. They aren't invoking any moral rights. They're invoking their exclusive rights under Section 106. They don't need moral rights to do this because the exclusive rights under Section 106 already give them this power.
In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Please go away now.
You're such a friendly guy. By the way, I'm glad you explicitly said you don't think the copyright owners here should have the right to exclude this particular use of their property. I have yet to see you ever indicate that you think any copyright owner should have any exclusive rights, and so I've wondered whether you support any such rights. I know you're too scared and/or dishonest to ever just tell us what you really think. But posts like this are nice because we can figure it out through the process of elimination. You won't tell us what rights you support, but if you tell us enough about the rights you don't, like you've done here, I imagine we'll get to the point where we can say definitively that there's no rights you support--there will be none left. Of course, we all know what you really believe. You're not fooling anyone. I'd actually respect you a lot more if you were just honest and upfront about it. It's the dishonestly and obfuscation that gets to me, not your underlying beliefs.
On the post: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
"Superficial analysis" is, unfortunately, Mike's bread and butter. It's not about identifying the "pros and cons" or giving any sort of balanced and nuanced reasoning, it's merely about smearing "Hollywood" and making unprovable assertions that this decision will be detrimental to "innovation."
On the post: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
But, but, but... there's a special rule for Hollywood! Argh!
On the post: Revealed: How To Get The IFPI To Issue Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Just About Anything, With No Questions Asked And No Review
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple - IT'S NOT THEIRS!
Do you have your head so far up the IFPI's ass that you're too ignorant to get it?
Oh, look, more abuse that won't be "reported." I'm referring to the actual legal standard. You know, the actual standard that actually determines whether these notices are actually unlawful. Try and keep up!
Next >>