I'm a big fan of this place, but I think "Mike is not trying to render a judgment that may be used as a precedent in future cases" is wrong. I mean, no offense to anyone, but do you really think that's true?
Yea--unfortunately, word up on this one. Trouble Funk is, as the term's been used above, seminal. Saw them in DC before I even saw the Beasties. But if they're backing this suit or even taking a hands-off approach and letting it run its course without objecting, they can expect a COD shipment of all my Trouble Funk vinyl, sent to them c/o Tuf America, whatever Tuf America is.
Statute of limitations is longer: 5 years crim, 3 years civ. So the one-year period is immaterial.
And there is no lnoger a de minimis exception for infringement--the "3 to 10 seconds" discussed here. Should there be? Sure. Is there right now? No. And "de minimis" and "fair use" are two different concepts that are being muddled together here (not illogically, just incorrectly).
Is the use fair? Seems so to me. Seems that he's making transformative use of the song snips to make a new work, not taking too much, making a new and distinct thing, not injuring the market for the original (especially if he, himself, purchased the songs he used), etc. etc.
But is Sony's takedown CopyFraud? Let's see: there is no de minimis exception, so a takedown isn't over-reaching there. Is the use fair? Well, we'd have to take that to a court to find out--it's a defense. I'm not going to beat this dead horse here anymore, but I firmly believe that "CopyFraud" should not be trotted out whenever a content owner asserts infringement that may, after analysis in court, be successfully defended by a claim of fair use. The dead horse was killed here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/18163418570/chilling-effects-copyfraud-blocking-researcher -fair-use-scaring-him-into-staying-quiet-about-it.shtml, for anyone who missed it.
No, dude: when you're doing a lot of the things you mention, you're not necessarily alone. When you're doing them alone, then you know you're alone. My point was that social media can give the impression that you're not alone when, in many ways, you are--and that, generally speaking, reading books does not have the same illusionary aspect.
Like, just for example, when reading a book, you can't lie about your height, race or location to the author or anyone around you at the moment and expect that they'll believe you. Being able to do that, say on social media, makes you pretty much alone. I mean, unless you're dangerously psychotic enough to believe that you're your avatar.
I love Nabokov, and I don't love inane Tweets like "I just ate ANOTHER bowl of cereal!"
I don't love Jackie Collins, and I love boingboing, this blog and the Volokh Conspiracy.
And you know what? Sometimes I like Stephen King and reddit, and sometimes I can't stand Thomas Pynchon or Don Delillo. And sometimes vice-versa.
So anyone making this a binary world where a book-reader can't Tweet and a Tweeter can't read books is just a grad student trying to shoehorn her thesis into the real world where, of course, one of these choices does not foreclose the other.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud
By "you," I am usually referring to the commenter I'm replying to. If I mean a group "you," it's because there is most definitely a group who has chosen and favors this word over others--as you point out yourself, the word is "widely used in THESE CIRCLES," so you can't really disown your choice of it. Just because someone else coined it doesn't mean that you're not responsible for how you choose to apply it.
Look, man: I support the same things you do, generally speaking. I hate the locking up of creative works, inventions and words beyond the point of usefulness and reason. And I own Mazzone's book--bought it without ever bothering to view the free bits, simply because I wanted to support. What I'm arguing for here is a reasonable lexicon that avoids hyperbole. You know how we all laugh when certain people are called "pirates?" This is kind of the same thing, to me. I'm not even arguing against the term per se--just that it should be used sparingly and that this post does not present a situation where it's warranted. The publisher does not have an affirmative duty--the fact that you chose to tell people who ask for a license what you tell them is your choice, not a duty). And this is not one of Mazzone's paradigmatic Copyfraud of phony copyright notices or baseless lawsuits--both of which heartily deserve the label, in my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud
"This is not a law blog. This is only a tangentially legal discussion."
Right: and cookbooks are really about the science of heat and how it acts upon organic matter depending on the mixture. Look: this may be "techdirt," but it covers so many legal issues that it's impossible to disclaim the legal nature of many of its posts and comment threads. SOPA? PIPA? Fair Use? Come on. Saying that this is "only a tangentially legal discussion" is just a copout when you don't want to examine the aptness of what's being said about the law, or do any real research of your own.
If you remove the legal portions of this conversation, for example, you're left with "A professor really wanted to do something and a mean lady said no!" Is that the conversation we want to be having?
And, again, maybe if you want to stop someone from doing something, you might want to choose your words more carefully. Maybe a legal mechanism already exists that approximates what's being called "copyfraud," like "copyright misuse," and maybe, if you were less attached to rhetoric and posturing and more interested in results, you'd scale back on the rhetoric and try to figure out whether this actual legal defense could apply here.
It's like when you're discussing the relative merits of Affirmative Action, and there's someone in favor of extending it who, every time someone criticizes the program, screams "RACIST!" Yea, so that's not so effective. People against Affirmative Action don't wake up in the morning saying "Ahhhh--beautiful day. Wonder how I can be racist today?" And that publisher didn't wake up wondering how she could deny someone legitimate rights to use work in an academic setting--so calling her behavior "fraud," whether you mean that in a legal sense or not--does not move the needle in the direction I think you want.
My point was simply about who has what duty when. Cops arrest you when they have a reasonable belief that you're doing something illegal--it's then up to you to defend yourself. So in fact that the Florida cops did NOT arrest Zimmerman immediately has been held up as a police error in that case--in our academic/publisher case, an immediate arrest would be the equivalent of the publisher saying "no" to the academic's request, based on the fact that the publisher owns rights it didn't believe should be used in a particular way. And prosecutors are not responsible for making defendants' cases for them--they have to take into account all evidence presented and available--but to bring the analogy back to this academic and the publisher, it doesn't seem like the publisher had (or had any affirmative duty to have) a complete dossier on the work in question, the use the academic was describing that he wanted to make, and an informed legal analysis of those two things at hand in order to make an informed decision whether to agree to the use.
A "no, we don't agree to that use" seems such a far cry from fraud it's just silly. And at this point, I'm not really going to go along with Fraud vs. CopyFraud. If that's the term that's been chosen in place of "copyright misuse" but to mean the same thing, I think it's a rhetorical mistake--overplaying the hand.
Ok. I've trotted out George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. I think that's the marker that my wits are at their ends. This has been a fun one, though. Thanks to everyone who's made it so.
On the post: Can You Understand How Technology Works Without Understanding Code?
Re: Re: "Programming Hero"
On the post: Something Is Wrong When A Judge Needs 350 Pages To Decide If A College's Digital Archives Are Fair Use
Re: Re:
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
Re: Fair use and sampling
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
Notable: lack of trolls on this post
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
Re: What's the difference
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
Re: Let them know...
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Paulo Coelho Ebook Sales Jump Way Up Thanks To $0.99 Sale
Re: Re: Re: ~_~
On the post: Paulo Coelho Ebook Sales Jump Way Up Thanks To $0.99 Sale
Re:
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infringement and theft
Can you lay out the tortious interference thought for me? It's an interesting one, and I'd like to hear more from you on it.
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infringement and theft
And there is no lnoger a de minimis exception for infringement--the "3 to 10 seconds" discussed here. Should there be? Sure. Is there right now? No. And "de minimis" and "fair use" are two different concepts that are being muddled together here (not illogically, just incorrectly).
Is the use fair? Seems so to me. Seems that he's making transformative use of the song snips to make a new work, not taking too much, making a new and distinct thing, not injuring the market for the original (especially if he, himself, purchased the songs he used), etc. etc.
But is Sony's takedown CopyFraud? Let's see: there is no de minimis exception, so a takedown isn't over-reaching there. Is the use fair? Well, we'd have to take that to a court to find out--it's a defense. I'm not going to beat this dead horse here anymore, but I firmly believe that "CopyFraud" should not be trotted out whenever a content owner asserts infringement that may, after analysis in court, be successfully defended by a claim of fair use. The dead horse was killed here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/18163418570/chilling-effects-copyfraud-blocking-researcher -fair-use-scaring-him-into-staying-quiet-about-it.shtml, for anyone who missed it.
Does this suck? Sure it does.
On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?
Re: Re: Insight Free?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/28/the-power-of-young-adult-fiction/adults-sh ould-read-adult-books
On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?
Re: Gawd ...
Like, just for example, when reading a book, you can't lie about your height, race or location to the author or anyone around you at the moment and expect that they'll believe you. Being able to do that, say on social media, makes you pretty much alone. I mean, unless you're dangerously psychotic enough to believe that you're your avatar.
On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?
Re:
I don't love Jackie Collins, and I love boingboing, this blog and the Volokh Conspiracy.
And you know what? Sometimes I like Stephen King and reddit, and sometimes I can't stand Thomas Pynchon or Don Delillo. And sometimes vice-versa.
So anyone making this a binary world where a book-reader can't Tweet and a Tweeter can't read books is just a grad student trying to shoehorn her thesis into the real world where, of course, one of these choices does not foreclose the other.
On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?
Knowing/not knowing
On the post: Patent Office Exploring Keeping Patents Secret If They're 'Economically Significant'
Re:
http://movieclips.com/rpCVb-animal-house-movie-double-secret-probation/
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud
Look, man: I support the same things you do, generally speaking. I hate the locking up of creative works, inventions and words beyond the point of usefulness and reason. And I own Mazzone's book--bought it without ever bothering to view the free bits, simply because I wanted to support. What I'm arguing for here is a reasonable lexicon that avoids hyperbole. You know how we all laugh when certain people are called "pirates?" This is kind of the same thing, to me. I'm not even arguing against the term per se--just that it should be used sparingly and that this post does not present a situation where it's warranted. The publisher does not have an affirmative duty--the fact that you chose to tell people who ask for a license what you tell them is your choice, not a duty). And this is not one of Mazzone's paradigmatic Copyfraud of phony copyright notices or baseless lawsuits--both of which heartily deserve the label, in my opinion.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud
Right: and cookbooks are really about the science of heat and how it acts upon organic matter depending on the mixture. Look: this may be "techdirt," but it covers so many legal issues that it's impossible to disclaim the legal nature of many of its posts and comment threads. SOPA? PIPA? Fair Use? Come on. Saying that this is "only a tangentially legal discussion" is just a copout when you don't want to examine the aptness of what's being said about the law, or do any real research of your own.
If you remove the legal portions of this conversation, for example, you're left with "A professor really wanted to do something and a mean lady said no!" Is that the conversation we want to be having?
And, again, maybe if you want to stop someone from doing something, you might want to choose your words more carefully. Maybe a legal mechanism already exists that approximates what's being called "copyfraud," like "copyright misuse," and maybe, if you were less attached to rhetoric and posturing and more interested in results, you'd scale back on the rhetoric and try to figure out whether this actual legal defense could apply here.
It's like when you're discussing the relative merits of Affirmative Action, and there's someone in favor of extending it who, every time someone criticizes the program, screams "RACIST!" Yea, so that's not so effective. People against Affirmative Action don't wake up in the morning saying "Ahhhh--beautiful day. Wonder how I can be racist today?" And that publisher didn't wake up wondering how she could deny someone legitimate rights to use work in an academic setting--so calling her behavior "fraud," whether you mean that in a legal sense or not--does not move the needle in the direction I think you want.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re:
A "no, we don't agree to that use" seems such a far cry from fraud it's just silly. And at this point, I'm not really going to go along with Fraud vs. CopyFraud. If that's the term that's been chosen in place of "copyright misuse" but to mean the same thing, I think it's a rhetorical mistake--overplaying the hand.
Ok. I've trotted out George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. I think that's the marker that my wits are at their ends. This has been a fun one, though. Thanks to everyone who's made it so.
Next >>