I think where you run into an issue is that Net Neutrality should not touch what a company does within their own "garden" on their network.
Zero rating an external product (say Netflix) would be a no-no. But having a zero rated internal product (Our Videos) would very likely fall outside of the scope of true Net Neutrality. Caps only really apply to traffic outside of the network (if they choose to measure it at the gateway and not at the user modem). It would seem to be a point that the ISPs could very much argue in the courts (and possibly win).
Most important point (and the type of thing Mike likes to use often): The commercial internet has 20 years of experience without net neutrality, and everything has worked out pretty well. We have gone from 110 and 300 baud dialups to multi megabyte connections, wifi, wireless, fiber... it's gone from amusing passtime for nerds with no life to giving everyone a chance at having no real life. All of this without a single real regulation.
The proof is there.
"As pointed out in another article local communities aren't trying to get into the municipal broadband sector because it's fun, they're doing so because the options currently available to them are crap and not serving their needs."
Muni broadband remains a really risky affair, and seems to be a model propped up by using existing passage and air rights granted to the municipal governments to install and operate - which isn't really a fair situation. Even then, networks like Sandynet still have to charge $60 a month for service just to break even, without having to pay any passage costs to setup. A standard business trying to set up the same network might have to charge twice that once they pay all the fees the municipal governments want for passage and pole access.
"Introducing caps and zero-rating their own stuff or the content of those that pay them for cap-exempt status. They're already doing what you say they wouldn't, so your claim here doesn't seem to hold up, it's just not a blatant as some claim it would be."
Caps are an issue but it does not suggest blocking of any sites. There is also no indication that NN would make caps go away - it might actually make them more prevalent as a way to drive revenue.
Stuff that exists inside a network should always be allowed to be zero rated because they don't have to peer to get it. If it's hosted inside their borders, it would be no different from AOL having their own content. There is no way you can regulate what happens within the ISP's private network. You can regulate how stuff comes into the network and assure it comes in freely, but beyond that, you are in trouble.
Best explanation: IPTV is essentially reserved bandwidth for a TV product. In your version of net neutrality, the ISP wouldn't be allowed to have an IPTV product, as they are clearly giving themselves "free" bandwidth and assured delivery that no outside party can have.
"it's not nearly as easy as you seem to be implying for someone else to enter the market and provide real competition."
It would be easier if the companies did not exercise levels of regulatory capture at the local, state, and federal levels. They do this in no small part because they don't piss off enough of the public for politicians to have to act. Cut off the vast majority of the internet for a large area, and watch the public outcry. The critters will work as fast as hell to get someone else approved to fiber up the area as quick as they can, blasting away any regulation in the way. You don't have competition because, like it or not, the incumbent companies do just enough to keep the public from screaming (loudly). The politicians have no desire to change anything (and lose their campaign funds) so we have status quo. But anything changes, it all goes out the window, and fast.
We know how quickly Google put fiber into most areas once they started working on it. Any move by an ISP puts about a 1 year clock on them facing stiff new competition.
"As the multiple stories about attempts at introducing municipal broadband have shown plenty of people are interested in alternatives, however often the current companies in the market do everything they can to shut them dow"
Municipal broadband is a horrible idea. Can you imagine your internet provided by the same people who can't keep less than 10% of the water from leaking out of the fresh water system?
Municipalities should be putting fiber to the home and making it available in switching cabinets to multiple providers. The last mile is the problem, so local governments should be working to get the cable from house to centralized point, and let the ISPs take over from there. Getting into actually providing internet access is a boondoggle in the making.
"It's not about cutting but rather to severly cripple everything that doesn't pay and give unfair advantage to their own, often crappy services."
Again, aside from random attack pieces, I haven't seen anyone or any thing that support this. Gets back to my main point, which is that they will not cripple or make internet access worse intentionally. That would create the public demand for competition that would wipe them out. These are long term survivor companies not interested in shooting themselves in the head.
"No. I'm trying to watch 4k content on a connection I'm paying to do whatever I want, including webpages and twitter. "
Exactly correct. But your internet connection is (say) 10 meg a second as a peak speed, not as a sustained long term speed. Your 10meg is on a network built to give you peak speed about 10% of the time (ie, in the pattern one might load a web page or perhaps a you tube video). ISPs did not build their network on a 1:1 basis that would give you 10 meg right to their peering and also give you 10 meg a second on each of their peers in case you want to go somewhere else. You can download your 4k video, but you have to assume that you are getting 1 to 2 meg a second average and not 10.
"Stop it. Peering arrangements are an issue of network topography and are common among infra-structure services. And again, Netflix offered to pay for the equipment in that infamous episode with Verizon. So it's NOT a NN issue. Stop."
But it is. What if the big companies all "pay for the equipment" to have exclusive very high speed peering for their sites only? That has exactly the same result as 'pay to play", they will have higher speed, exclusive connections to the ISP that other companies will not have. As soon as you allow companies to pay ISPs to connect them, you have broached NN rules.
"No, it's you who are in a let's-spew-crap-all-around campaign devoid of facts and real world basis."
While I respect your security expert stuff, I have to say that your understanding of all of the implications of Net Neutrality appears to be stuck squarely behind Mike's ass. You can't see anything other than what's coming out at you.
If a company can "pay" an ISP for an exclusive connection, explain to me how that doesn't violate NN rules.
"This key difference means that without the strong protections of common carrier regulations, the broadband providers of 2017 have both the means and motivation to discriminate and profit from playing the internet gatekeeper, "
This is the same arm waving we read here on Techdirt all the time. It isn't making a ton of sense. The broadband providers have little real motivation to cut anyone off or to play favorites from outside of their networks. They do have motivation to provide additional "in network" services, which may not be subject to net neutrality rules as written anyway.
The real issue is that the nature of what is being offered by some on the internet has changed. Netflix is trying to stuff 4K full length movies down an internet connection that is made for webpages, facebook, youtube, and twitter. They use up all of the available peering and clog the networks, and then get mad because their consumers are upset that they cannot download at full speed (all at the same time).
Making ISPs common carriers or enforcing net neutrality won't change that situation one iota. In fact, it might actually move things backwards for companies like Netflix and Google, who might have to give up their preferential peering arrangements.
Wyden is off on a scare tactic campaign. it might play well here on Techdirt, but it's pretty laughable in the overall scheme of things.
"No, it's much older than that. This was one episode of the ISP abusing its last mile dominance to screw Netflix by refusing to add a 20k equipment that would provide better services to thousands of customers. Netflix offered to pay for the equipment. Level 3 had a very thorough explanation of how they had shitloads of capacity to spare and the culprit was Verizon (if memory serves)."
Wait, so you think Netflix (and other big bandwidth users) should be allowed to obligate an ISP to add equipment, maintain it, and so on just because Netflix business model depends on it?
I think you miss a really important point here: net neutrality doesn't suddenly mean an ISP will be obligated to add peering or connectivity. NN requires everyone to get an equal chance, but it doesn't specify that an ISP has to build up it's network in support of it.
Nor for that matter can NN force an ISP to peer with anyone. So if Netflix chooses to use only level3, and your ISP chooses not to directly peer with them, then your connection to them might not be that good. The ISP isn't obligated by law to peer.
"Of course, that would be going too far. But charging a toll to be delivered in time, with no throttling? Without NN they can. That's almost like having to ask permission but with money."
An ISP who fails to deliver the internet reasonably runs the risk of competition in their marketplace. If the public is outraged, the politicians won't be able to run interference for them. Instead, the elected critters might actually make it easier for competition to come in.
Moreover, and this is key: Not a single ISP has even suggested anything like this.
" If we want NN ISPs should be forbidden from providing content while owning the pipe and should be mandated via regulations to provide equal paths to whoever was using their structure. The customers PAID to get the pipe and they should use it the way they desire."
This is another area I think you are half right and half wrong on. I don't think ISPs should be content companies, but that ship sailed a very, very, very long time ago and there isn't any coming back from it. Forced divestiture isn't in the cards any time soon.
As for "paid for the pipe" you have to remember that no ISP sells you access with any assumption of 24 hour per day 100% usage. Generally they run anywhere from 6 to 1 to 100 to 1 on connectivity depending on the ISP. That means as an example they may sell 1000 customers on 10 meg per second modems, connected to one CO that is connection with a 1 gig connection. They have a 10 to 1 ratio. Most of the time it's not an issue, but certain apps such as Netflix and other video streaming technology tend to push the limits for many consumers. That overloads the network (both at the peering and all through the distribution network of the ISP themselves). It's not an easy fix without throwing a whole lot of money at it.
Simple truth is that Google, with absolute bucket loads of cash came in, tried to be an ISP, and quickly figured out it was expensive to do and a real money loser for them. Google usually keeps bad things going for years, but they have stopped Fiber dead in it's tracks, and there have been some suggestions they may even be trying to offload the whole thing back to one of the incumbent players. Being a bare ISP isn't all it's cracked up to be.
While I have to say your comments are truly from the heart, I also think that you start from a position that isn't supported by the facts.
There is nothing (and I mean nothing) out there that suggests you would have to ask permission for an ISP to "carry" your website. It seems to be one of the little lies that net neutrality supporters play with, the idea that ISPs are suddenly going to block off huge parts of the internet and make much of it inaccessible, while selling you over priced "over the top" services.
The truth is much more in business common sense. An ISP who did such a thing would be creating the perfect atmosphere for competition to move in. It would also very likely put them in a position where all the paid politicians in the world wouldn't be able to justify supporting them. All of the regulatory capture that you and Karl (especially Karl) go on and on about would disappear under intense pressure from the public to get their internet back.
The ISPs have little choice. As a monopoly or near monopoly player, they cannot afford to take the chance of screwing things up and having to deal with true competition. You could picture local politicians fast tracking new service setups and waving all sorts of regulation to move forward with muni internet services or to permit a new player (ala Google Fiber or Amazon whatever it might be) to swoop in and upend the market. It would almost certainly assure the politicians who do it re-election.
Quite simply, the internet isn't suddenly going to stop being open and free. The 20 plus years of public internet access has shown otherwise, and this without any regulation and any oversight except the pressure of public demand.
Will ISPs have "over the top" services that will have better connections? Yes. They have those now. Many companies from Netflix to Facebook and Google have all built out private networks and provide private peering to ISPs. Some of them have appliances inside ISP data centers to serve content and do other things for them, without any need for peering. This is not a new thing, this is not something special.
Remember, the Net Neutrality fight started because Netflix (and it's bandwidth intensive business model) couldn't get enough peering because they chose to use a single provider that wasn't always well liked by ISPs. Some ISPs had no direct peering (so traffic had to go to another peer before getting to the ISP, or the ISP had limited peering because it is a "pay for access" peering situation.
Since then Netflix has moved aggressively to build out their network and make deals with ISPs to improve their lot in life.
If you want true net neutrality, it should work like this: ISPs should be obligated to obtain peering via third party companies. These companies would be the only sources of internet connections. Nothing could exist inside the ISP network that does not come through these peers. Netflix and all other internet services would be required to use these companies on an equal footing to get their products to the consumer. They would not be allowed to deal with the ISPs in any manner.
Since we have already jumped that shark, net neutrality really isn't possible without some huge clawbacks that nobody wants to deal with.
If course, the problem you have here is that they borrowed quite a bit too much to get to the finish line. They didn't borrow just a style, they literally borrowed the whole song.
Yes, they used a different key - mostly because Thicke's vocal range is smaller than most (I was going to say smaller than Leigh's family treasure, but that would be mean). It's basically been moved to where he could sing it.
As always, the line between "inspired by" and "wholesale replication" is blurred. I think the jury saw it correctly, it's not homage when it's way too close.
Honestly, I don't know what you expect here. The answers given are reasonably vague, but they point in the same general direction as all law enforcement: We don't mind encryption as long as we know what is inside.
It's perhaps more encouraging that he wants to spend more time talking with the private sector trying to come up with a better answer, whatever that answer may be.
I suspect the President could nominate a ham sandwich, and it would pretty much say the same.
Google, Facebook, and twitter have between them created huge networks for distribution of information. In all cases, they are the distribution of other people's information.
Under normal circumstances, if I have a distribution system that really works and I am looking for things to distribute, I sign contracts and agree to pay for the content I will be distributing. This is especially true as I would be making income including my ads with their content.
None of these companies has the slightest interest in paying for the content they profit from. Instead, they have been a huge sucking sound source, taking the money out of the publishing world. Google along has snarfed up billions.
Now, telling the newspapers to "nerd harder" is a nice idea, but it's not backed up with reality. Techdirt itself is a perfect example: You get plenty of visitors, but your own ad revenues are down 90% by your own admissions, corporate sponsors are nowhere to be seen, and you are pretty much down to flogging t-shirts and "daily deals" to make enough money to keep a very few people employed. Clearly the business model of "get lots of traffic from GoogFaceTwitReddit isn't working out all that well, you have lots of visitors but not much income to show.
However, those other guys sending you the traffic? They are making bank using your site content to keep people coming back to them. Google and Facebook are literally swimming in cash and working hard as hell to find ways to get it off shore and out of the American system as quick as they can. Do you honestly think it's right? Can you look at this with a straight face and say "news harder"?
Think of it the same way as you might think of airline tickets. They are often price quoted without local sales tax, and airport fees and such. Is that illegal? Nope.
The cable companies are doing what everyone else does, and it's entirely legal. That why I said if you want to fix it, then change state laws.
If you think the cable companies have a moral obligation to be more up front, I will remind you that moral discussions are not part of Techdirt. We only deal with the black and white of legal and illegal here. Morals are for your momma :)
One of the main reasons companies in many industries move to below the line costs is to assign blame where it belongs. The $6 fee in this case is because local broadcast TV channels are greedy and insist on getting paid extra for the use of their (already broadcast) signal. So when you have to pay $26 instead of $20, they can point to the item and blame the responsible party.
Advertising a lower price is also key, naturally. They want to be able to put the lowest possible price in their ads. It is however probably not the best thing to do, as consumers who do take on the product remember not how much was in the ad, but how much they actually had to pay.
It's really a problem of consumer protection laws. Advertised prices should be the full amount the consumer must pay each month, and not just a highlight number from the middle of the discussion. But if the states involved have weak consumer laws, you get this.
Rather than blame the cable companies, why not push the states to improve their consumer protection laws?
I was joking - an appeal is generally only on what was already in the case, he can't bring in new experts to add testimony. Appealing a loss is pretty much a given in the US legal system, right?
My point is only that clearly Mike's "expert" either has it right and should have been at trial (and the experts at the trial were bad) or he's just plain wrong in some manner. Clearly the judgement went the other way, for obvious reasons.
Yes, I apologize that you clearly didn't catch the difference between "ARE COPYRIGHT" and "ARE COPYRIGHTABLE". That Marvin Gaye or his arranger or composer didn't include appropriate sheet music for certain parts of his song is a pretty major oversight on their part, but likely not unusual I guess.
I accept your apology for going off on me for not noticing the difference. Either way, I accept your apology and hope that you'll be more careful in the future.
There you go again. It's fun to watch you go really hard to try to prove me wrong. But in some ways you fail.
First off, let me be clear: I haven't spent hours and hours (as you clearly have) reading every word of the judge's rulings, I worked from what I know, see, hear, and various stories here and in other music related sites discussing the case.
My points were based on what SHOULD be copyright, and not what may or may not have specifically been in this case. That the composition copyright failed to include the backing vocal lyrics, or the percussion track is an oversight of the composer or arranger.
Your link to the "expert" is actually quite funny. If his information is exactly true, either Thicke had a terrible attorney and couldn't afford experts, or your quoted expert is perhaps overstating things a little bit.
Quick, call Robin Thicke, he got the wrong expert! He needs to appeal.
Now as for some of your other stuff: "So, let's make it clear: "bass line, beat, vocal style, crowd sounds..." ARE COPYRIGHTABLE as part of the composition. "
Notice "ARE COPYRIGHTABLE", I didn't say they were in this particular case. A musical composition for this type of music may have a number of sections, with arrangements for each instrument as part of it. So the bass line (as written in the arrangement) is part of the composition), as would be the percussion and all if it was included. In this case apparently they didn't include those things, which is too bad for them! If they are not part of the composition as published, then they are not copyright.
"This was discussed in the case. You seem to be ignorant of that fact, but are mouthing off like an expert. You are wrong."
Well, apparently your "expert" is wrong too, as the judge decided otherwise. Perhaps you should call him out for "mouthing off like an expert" because clearly, the courts found him wrong as well.
PS: no mention of Shiva these days. Settlement talks progressing?
A couple of things, it's Brook Baker or sometimes Brooke K Baker (male) and not Brooke K Baker (that would be a female name). The unlinked story is here:
It would also be good to qualify the opinion of Mr Baker by perhaps pointing out that he has been a pretty strong opponent of almost every trade agreement under the sun. The rest of his stories on that site are all pretty monotone. So it's not surprising that he has an opinion about the Canadian Supreme Court being pushed, but with seemingly nothing more to work from than his own feelings and paranoia. If he posted them here, PaulT would rip him a new one.
With all due respect, I understand that each of those elements BY ITSELF is not copyrightable. However, they are the easiest parts for people to listen to in order to follow along with the composition to see how it's just the same song.
The bass, drums, and vocal patterns are all part of the composition - unless you are trying to deny that each can be written music (and for those who don't think drums can be written, go find the sheet music to Frank Zappa's The Black Page to understand more).
"Only if you have no clue about the law... or are deliberately misrepresenting it."
I actually think you are misrepresenting it here. How is composition defined for music?
"Musical composition can refer to an original piece of music, either a song or an instrumental music piece, the structure of a musical piece, or the process of creating or writing a new song or piece of music. People who create new compositions are called composers in classical music."
The composition is made up various parts, generally written out as a musical score. That would include (and not be limited to) musical notations for each of the instruments that appears in the song. It would indicate things like tempo, pace, and structure, and would determine the interplay between the instruments.
In modern music, the use of samples and / or repeating sounds is part of the composition of the song. All of those things can be written in mustical notation and thus are part of the composition.
Now, playing the finished result (which is copyright in and of itself as a musical performance) and comparing it to another finished product (itself copyright) isn't anything more than an easy way for people who are perhaps less skilled in the art of composition to hear the finished products and compare them. If it had no meaning, then the two songs would never have been played in court because it would be (in your opinion) a non-relevant comparison.
So, let's make it clear: "bass line, beat, vocal style, crowd sounds..." ARE COPYRIGHTABLE as part of the composition. They cannot be copyrighted individually but as part of a composition, they could be. Not the "sounds" but the musical notes, pattern, and pacing as part of the composition.
After all, a composition is a collection of parts.
Put another way:
"A Musical Composition consists of music, including any accompanying words, and is normally registered as a work of performing arts. The author of a musical composition is generally the composer and the lyricist, if any. A musical composition may be in the form of a notated copy (for example, sheet music) or in the form of a phonorecord (for example, cassette tape, LP, or CD)."
So, as an example, if there was no specific sheet music for the Marvin Gaye song, then the recording can serve the same purpose for proof of composition. That recording would reflect things like notes played, pacing, and the interplay between the instruments set up as part of the composition.
Listen to them back to back. Listen to some of the examples that play them back and forth, it's pretty clear stuff. They are effectively interchangeable.
As for you insults, well, if that's your only answre, I guess you are agreeing with my point (and yes, I am wise enough to know that, idiot!)
Inspiration is not the same as duplication. You can be inspired by an artist without risk - unless of course you are reusing their music with slightly more modern sounds.
Blurred Lines case wasn't really hard to understand, it's not inspiration as much as duplication. It's more than a homage, it's all of the same things (bass line, beat, vocal style, "crowd sounds", and so on) just given a slightly modern sound. Aside from the lyrics being different (but presented in nearly the exact same phrasing) the songs are pretty much identical.
Homage and duplication are often close. This one is not hard to see as being over the line.
"That would be a good counterpoint if anyone was claiming that something like that happens. All that's being said is that the person committing the copyright infringement should be responsible, that protections for innocent parties shouldn't be removed just because what came out the other side was a T shirt instead of a stream."
Well, see, there's the rub. On a t-shirt, it's no longer digital, it's physical. DMCA no longer applied.
But more importantly, it's Zazzle's position in all of this. They print the shirts, they sell them, they collect the money, and they pay a commission. They are not an "innocent service provider" they are a willing partner in every transaction.
"Yet another example of "I'll construct a threadbare scarecrow and attack that rather than address anyone's real point"."
The real point is exactly what Zazzle is and does in the transaction. They are not an innocent service provider. The images once printed are real world items subject to regular copyright laws. It's not difficult, unless you are trying to be really, really obtuse (and generally, you do a great job)
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wyden goes "over the top"
Zero rating an external product (say Netflix) would be a no-no. But having a zero rated internal product (Our Videos) would very likely fall outside of the scope of true Net Neutrality. Caps only really apply to traffic outside of the network (if they choose to measure it at the gateway and not at the user modem). It would seem to be a point that the ISPs could very much argue in the courts (and possibly win).
Most important point (and the type of thing Mike likes to use often): The commercial internet has 20 years of experience without net neutrality, and everything has worked out pretty well. We have gone from 110 and 300 baud dialups to multi megabyte connections, wifi, wireless, fiber... it's gone from amusing passtime for nerds with no life to giving everyone a chance at having no real life. All of this without a single real regulation.
The proof is there.
"As pointed out in another article local communities aren't trying to get into the municipal broadband sector because it's fun, they're doing so because the options currently available to them are crap and not serving their needs."
Muni broadband remains a really risky affair, and seems to be a model propped up by using existing passage and air rights granted to the municipal governments to install and operate - which isn't really a fair situation. Even then, networks like Sandynet still have to charge $60 a month for service just to break even, without having to pay any passage costs to setup. A standard business trying to set up the same network might have to charge twice that once they pay all the fees the municipal governments want for passage and pole access.
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wyden goes "over the top"
Caps are an issue but it does not suggest blocking of any sites. There is also no indication that NN would make caps go away - it might actually make them more prevalent as a way to drive revenue.
Stuff that exists inside a network should always be allowed to be zero rated because they don't have to peer to get it. If it's hosted inside their borders, it would be no different from AOL having their own content. There is no way you can regulate what happens within the ISP's private network. You can regulate how stuff comes into the network and assure it comes in freely, but beyond that, you are in trouble.
Best explanation: IPTV is essentially reserved bandwidth for a TV product. In your version of net neutrality, the ISP wouldn't be allowed to have an IPTV product, as they are clearly giving themselves "free" bandwidth and assured delivery that no outside party can have.
"it's not nearly as easy as you seem to be implying for someone else to enter the market and provide real competition."
It would be easier if the companies did not exercise levels of regulatory capture at the local, state, and federal levels. They do this in no small part because they don't piss off enough of the public for politicians to have to act. Cut off the vast majority of the internet for a large area, and watch the public outcry. The critters will work as fast as hell to get someone else approved to fiber up the area as quick as they can, blasting away any regulation in the way. You don't have competition because, like it or not, the incumbent companies do just enough to keep the public from screaming (loudly). The politicians have no desire to change anything (and lose their campaign funds) so we have status quo. But anything changes, it all goes out the window, and fast.
We know how quickly Google put fiber into most areas once they started working on it. Any move by an ISP puts about a 1 year clock on them facing stiff new competition.
"As the multiple stories about attempts at introducing municipal broadband have shown plenty of people are interested in alternatives, however often the current companies in the market do everything they can to shut them dow"
Municipal broadband is a horrible idea. Can you imagine your internet provided by the same people who can't keep less than 10% of the water from leaking out of the fresh water system?
Municipalities should be putting fiber to the home and making it available in switching cabinets to multiple providers. The last mile is the problem, so local governments should be working to get the cable from house to centralized point, and let the ISPs take over from there. Getting into actually providing internet access is a boondoggle in the making.
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Wyden goes "over the top"
Again, aside from random attack pieces, I haven't seen anyone or any thing that support this. Gets back to my main point, which is that they will not cripple or make internet access worse intentionally. That would create the public demand for competition that would wipe them out. These are long term survivor companies not interested in shooting themselves in the head.
"No. I'm trying to watch 4k content on a connection I'm paying to do whatever I want, including webpages and twitter. "
Exactly correct. But your internet connection is (say) 10 meg a second as a peak speed, not as a sustained long term speed. Your 10meg is on a network built to give you peak speed about 10% of the time (ie, in the pattern one might load a web page or perhaps a you tube video). ISPs did not build their network on a 1:1 basis that would give you 10 meg right to their peering and also give you 10 meg a second on each of their peers in case you want to go somewhere else. You can download your 4k video, but you have to assume that you are getting 1 to 2 meg a second average and not 10.
"Stop it. Peering arrangements are an issue of network topography and are common among infra-structure services. And again, Netflix offered to pay for the equipment in that infamous episode with Verizon. So it's NOT a NN issue. Stop."
But it is. What if the big companies all "pay for the equipment" to have exclusive very high speed peering for their sites only? That has exactly the same result as 'pay to play", they will have higher speed, exclusive connections to the ISP that other companies will not have. As soon as you allow companies to pay ISPs to connect them, you have broached NN rules.
"No, it's you who are in a let's-spew-crap-all-around campaign devoid of facts and real world basis."
While I respect your security expert stuff, I have to say that your understanding of all of the implications of Net Neutrality appears to be stuck squarely behind Mike's ass. You can't see anything other than what's coming out at you.
If a company can "pay" an ISP for an exclusive connection, explain to me how that doesn't violate NN rules.
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Wyden goes "over the top"
This is the same arm waving we read here on Techdirt all the time. It isn't making a ton of sense. The broadband providers have little real motivation to cut anyone off or to play favorites from outside of their networks. They do have motivation to provide additional "in network" services, which may not be subject to net neutrality rules as written anyway.
The real issue is that the nature of what is being offered by some on the internet has changed. Netflix is trying to stuff 4K full length movies down an internet connection that is made for webpages, facebook, youtube, and twitter. They use up all of the available peering and clog the networks, and then get mad because their consumers are upset that they cannot download at full speed (all at the same time).
Making ISPs common carriers or enforcing net neutrality won't change that situation one iota. In fact, it might actually move things backwards for companies like Netflix and Google, who might have to give up their preferential peering arrangements.
Wyden is off on a scare tactic campaign. it might play well here on Techdirt, but it's pretty laughable in the overall scheme of things.
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Re: Re: Your comment here....
Wait, so you think Netflix (and other big bandwidth users) should be allowed to obligate an ISP to add equipment, maintain it, and so on just because Netflix business model depends on it?
I think you miss a really important point here: net neutrality doesn't suddenly mean an ISP will be obligated to add peering or connectivity. NN requires everyone to get an equal chance, but it doesn't specify that an ISP has to build up it's network in support of it.
Nor for that matter can NN force an ISP to peer with anyone. So if Netflix chooses to use only level3, and your ISP chooses not to directly peer with them, then your connection to them might not be that good. The ISP isn't obligated by law to peer.
"Of course, that would be going too far. But charging a toll to be delivered in time, with no throttling? Without NN they can. That's almost like having to ask permission but with money."
An ISP who fails to deliver the internet reasonably runs the risk of competition in their marketplace. If the public is outraged, the politicians won't be able to run interference for them. Instead, the elected critters might actually make it easier for competition to come in.
Moreover, and this is key: Not a single ISP has even suggested anything like this.
" If we want NN ISPs should be forbidden from providing content while owning the pipe and should be mandated via regulations to provide equal paths to whoever was using their structure. The customers PAID to get the pipe and they should use it the way they desire."
This is another area I think you are half right and half wrong on. I don't think ISPs should be content companies, but that ship sailed a very, very, very long time ago and there isn't any coming back from it. Forced divestiture isn't in the cards any time soon.
As for "paid for the pipe" you have to remember that no ISP sells you access with any assumption of 24 hour per day 100% usage. Generally they run anywhere from 6 to 1 to 100 to 1 on connectivity depending on the ISP. That means as an example they may sell 1000 customers on 10 meg per second modems, connected to one CO that is connection with a 1 gig connection. They have a 10 to 1 ratio. Most of the time it's not an issue, but certain apps such as Netflix and other video streaming technology tend to push the limits for many consumers. That overloads the network (both at the peering and all through the distribution network of the ISP themselves). It's not an easy fix without throwing a whole lot of money at it.
Simple truth is that Google, with absolute bucket loads of cash came in, tried to be an ISP, and quickly figured out it was expensive to do and a real money loser for them. Google usually keeps bad things going for years, but they have stopped Fiber dead in it's tracks, and there have been some suggestions they may even be trying to offload the whole thing back to one of the incumbent players. Being a bare ISP isn't all it's cracked up to be.
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Your comment here....
There is nothing (and I mean nothing) out there that suggests you would have to ask permission for an ISP to "carry" your website. It seems to be one of the little lies that net neutrality supporters play with, the idea that ISPs are suddenly going to block off huge parts of the internet and make much of it inaccessible, while selling you over priced "over the top" services.
The truth is much more in business common sense. An ISP who did such a thing would be creating the perfect atmosphere for competition to move in. It would also very likely put them in a position where all the paid politicians in the world wouldn't be able to justify supporting them. All of the regulatory capture that you and Karl (especially Karl) go on and on about would disappear under intense pressure from the public to get their internet back.
The ISPs have little choice. As a monopoly or near monopoly player, they cannot afford to take the chance of screwing things up and having to deal with true competition. You could picture local politicians fast tracking new service setups and waving all sorts of regulation to move forward with muni internet services or to permit a new player (ala Google Fiber or Amazon whatever it might be) to swoop in and upend the market. It would almost certainly assure the politicians who do it re-election.
Quite simply, the internet isn't suddenly going to stop being open and free. The 20 plus years of public internet access has shown otherwise, and this without any regulation and any oversight except the pressure of public demand.
Will ISPs have "over the top" services that will have better connections? Yes. They have those now. Many companies from Netflix to Facebook and Google have all built out private networks and provide private peering to ISPs. Some of them have appliances inside ISP data centers to serve content and do other things for them, without any need for peering. This is not a new thing, this is not something special.
Remember, the Net Neutrality fight started because Netflix (and it's bandwidth intensive business model) couldn't get enough peering because they chose to use a single provider that wasn't always well liked by ISPs. Some ISPs had no direct peering (so traffic had to go to another peer before getting to the ISP, or the ISP had limited peering because it is a "pay for access" peering situation.
Since then Netflix has moved aggressively to build out their network and make deals with ISPs to improve their lot in life.
If you want true net neutrality, it should work like this: ISPs should be obligated to obtain peering via third party companies. These companies would be the only sources of internet connections. Nothing could exist inside the ISP network that does not come through these peers. Netflix and all other internet services would be required to use these companies on an equal footing to get their products to the consumer. They would not be allowed to deal with the ISPs in any manner.
Since we have already jumped that shark, net neutrality really isn't possible without some huge clawbacks that nobody wants to deal with.
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re: smart jury
Yes, they used a different key - mostly because Thicke's vocal range is smaller than most (I was going to say smaller than Leigh's family treasure, but that would be mean). It's basically been moved to where he could sing it.
As always, the line between "inspired by" and "wholesale replication" is blurred. I think the jury saw it correctly, it's not homage when it's way too close.
On the post: Trump's Pick For FBI Head Sounds A Lot Like The Guy He Fired When It Comes To Encryption
Not Much Can Be Different
It's perhaps more encouraging that he wants to spend more time talking with the private sector trying to come up with a better answer, whatever that answer may be.
I suspect the President could nominate a ham sandwich, and it would pretty much say the same.
On the post: All Out Of Ideas, Legacy News Providers Ask US Gov't For The Right To Collude Against Google & Facebook
Distribution versus Content
Under normal circumstances, if I have a distribution system that really works and I am looking for things to distribute, I sign contracts and agree to pay for the content I will be distributing. This is especially true as I would be making income including my ads with their content.
None of these companies has the slightest interest in paying for the content they profit from. Instead, they have been a huge sucking sound source, taking the money out of the publishing world. Google along has snarfed up billions.
Now, telling the newspapers to "nerd harder" is a nice idea, but it's not backed up with reality. Techdirt itself is a perfect example: You get plenty of visitors, but your own ad revenues are down 90% by your own admissions, corporate sponsors are nowhere to be seen, and you are pretty much down to flogging t-shirts and "daily deals" to make enough money to keep a very few people employed. Clearly the business model of "get lots of traffic from GoogFaceTwitReddit isn't working out all that well, you have lots of visitors but not much income to show.
However, those other guys sending you the traffic? They are making bank using your site content to keep people coming back to them. Google and Facebook are literally swimming in cash and working hard as hell to find ways to get it off shore and out of the American system as quick as they can. Do you honestly think it's right? Can you look at this with a straight face and say "news harder"?
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re:
On the post: Charter Spectrum 'Competes' With New $20 Streaming TV Service Featuring $6 In Entirely Bogus Fees
Re: Re: Below the Line For a Reason
The cable companies are doing what everyone else does, and it's entirely legal. That why I said if you want to fix it, then change state laws.
If you think the cable companies have a moral obligation to be more up front, I will remind you that moral discussions are not part of Techdirt. We only deal with the black and white of legal and illegal here. Morals are for your momma :)
On the post: Charter Spectrum 'Competes' With New $20 Streaming TV Service Featuring $6 In Entirely Bogus Fees
Below the Line For a Reason
Advertising a lower price is also key, naturally. They want to be able to put the lowest possible price in their ads. It is however probably not the best thing to do, as consumers who do take on the product remember not how much was in the ad, but how much they actually had to pay.
It's really a problem of consumer protection laws. Advertised prices should be the full amount the consumer must pay each month, and not just a highlight number from the middle of the discussion. But if the states involved have weak consumer laws, you get this.
Rather than blame the cable companies, why not push the states to improve their consumer protection laws?
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point is only that clearly Mike's "expert" either has it right and should have been at trial (and the experts at the trial were bad) or he's just plain wrong in some manner. Clearly the judgement went the other way, for obvious reasons.
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I accept your apology for going off on me for not noticing the difference. Either way, I accept your apology and hope that you'll be more careful in the future.
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, let me be clear: I haven't spent hours and hours (as you clearly have) reading every word of the judge's rulings, I worked from what I know, see, hear, and various stories here and in other music related sites discussing the case.
My points were based on what SHOULD be copyright, and not what may or may not have specifically been in this case. That the composition copyright failed to include the backing vocal lyrics, or the percussion track is an oversight of the composer or arranger.
Your link to the "expert" is actually quite funny. If his information is exactly true, either Thicke had a terrible attorney and couldn't afford experts, or your quoted expert is perhaps overstating things a little bit.
Quick, call Robin Thicke, he got the wrong expert! He needs to appeal.
Now as for some of your other stuff: "So, let's make it clear: "bass line, beat, vocal style, crowd sounds..." ARE COPYRIGHTABLE as part of the composition. "
Notice "ARE COPYRIGHTABLE", I didn't say they were in this particular case. A musical composition for this type of music may have a number of sections, with arrangements for each instrument as part of it. So the bass line (as written in the arrangement) is part of the composition), as would be the percussion and all if it was included. In this case apparently they didn't include those things, which is too bad for them! If they are not part of the composition as published, then they are not copyright.
"This was discussed in the case. You seem to be ignorant of that fact, but are mouthing off like an expert. You are wrong."
Well, apparently your "expert" is wrong too, as the judge decided otherwise. Perhaps you should call him out for "mouthing off like an expert" because clearly, the courts found him wrong as well.
PS: no mention of Shiva these days. Settlement talks progressing?
On the post: Canada Capitulates: Supreme Court Throws Away Government's Great Pharma Patent Victory
Couple of things
http://infojustice.org/archives/38424 - and is a couple of weeks old already.
It would also be good to qualify the opinion of Mr Baker by perhaps pointing out that he has been a pretty strong opponent of almost every trade agreement under the sun. The rest of his stories on that site are all pretty monotone. So it's not surprising that he has an opinion about the Canadian Supreme Court being pushed, but with seemingly nothing more to work from than his own feelings and paranoia. If he posted them here, PaulT would rip him a new one.
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re:
The bass, drums, and vocal patterns are all part of the composition - unless you are trying to deny that each can be written music (and for those who don't think drums can be written, go find the sheet music to Frank Zappa's The Black Page to understand more).
"Only if you have no clue about the law... or are deliberately misrepresenting it."
I actually think you are misrepresenting it here. How is composition defined for music?
"Musical composition can refer to an original piece of music, either a song or an instrumental music piece, the structure of a musical piece, or the process of creating or writing a new song or piece of music. People who create new compositions are called composers in classical music."
The composition is made up various parts, generally written out as a musical score. That would include (and not be limited to) musical notations for each of the instruments that appears in the song. It would indicate things like tempo, pace, and structure, and would determine the interplay between the instruments.
In modern music, the use of samples and / or repeating sounds is part of the composition of the song. All of those things can be written in mustical notation and thus are part of the composition.
Now, playing the finished result (which is copyright in and of itself as a musical performance) and comparing it to another finished product (itself copyright) isn't anything more than an easy way for people who are perhaps less skilled in the art of composition to hear the finished products and compare them. If it had no meaning, then the two songs would never have been played in court because it would be (in your opinion) a non-relevant comparison.
So, let's make it clear: "bass line, beat, vocal style, crowd sounds..." ARE COPYRIGHTABLE as part of the composition. They cannot be copyrighted individually but as part of a composition, they could be. Not the "sounds" but the musical notes, pattern, and pacing as part of the composition.
After all, a composition is a collection of parts.
Put another way:
"A Musical Composition consists of music, including any accompanying words, and is normally registered as a work of performing arts. The author of a musical composition is generally the composer and the lyricist, if any. A musical composition may be in the form of a notated copy (for example, sheet music) or in the form of a phonorecord (for example, cassette tape, LP, or CD)."
So, as an example, if there was no specific sheet music for the Marvin Gaye song, then the recording can serve the same purpose for proof of composition. That recording would reflect things like notes played, pacing, and the interplay between the instruments set up as part of the composition.
The internet is a great resource if you use it!
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Re:
Listen to them back to back. Listen to some of the examples that play them back and forth, it's pretty clear stuff. They are effectively interchangeable.
As for you insults, well, if that's your only answre, I guess you are agreeing with my point (and yes, I am wise enough to know that, idiot!)
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Blurred Lines case wasn't really hard to understand, it's not inspiration as much as duplication. It's more than a homage, it's all of the same things (bass line, beat, vocal style, "crowd sounds", and so on) just given a slightly modern sound. Aside from the lyrics being different (but presented in nearly the exact same phrasing) the songs are pretty much identical.
Homage and duplication are often close. This one is not hard to see as being over the line.
On the post: Court Says DMCA Safe Harbors Disappear Once Infringing Images Are Printed On Physical Items
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, see, there's the rub. On a t-shirt, it's no longer digital, it's physical. DMCA no longer applied.
But more importantly, it's Zazzle's position in all of this. They print the shirts, they sell them, they collect the money, and they pay a commission. They are not an "innocent service provider" they are a willing partner in every transaction.
"Yet another example of "I'll construct a threadbare scarecrow and attack that rather than address anyone's real point"."
The real point is exactly what Zazzle is and does in the transaction. They are not an innocent service provider. The images once printed are real world items subject to regular copyright laws. It's not difficult, unless you are trying to be really, really obtuse (and generally, you do a great job)
Next >>