So as usual, it all boils down to what you think. You think you can rip off anyone's avatar and get away with it. You think you're entitled to bitch whenever someone might be infringing copyright in a way that gets your panties in a bundle. You think everyone else who doesn't share the same twisted views on copyright is a sick, filthy pirate, and that includes being a little concerned if the IFPI is being a little dumb with the information they gather and how they handle it.
Gads, but you're a self-centered, insufferable git.
Abusive much? (And, of course, your abuse isn't "reported.") It's not infringing. I don't need permission. Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder than that. Maybe you could try discussing the issues on the merits. I know it's TD, so the chances of that happening are quite slim, but I'm throwing it out anyway.
You just wrote a 100% truthful post. I'm sorry, but I must report you.
:)
Wow. Someone replies to my comment, I respond with a smiley face, and that comment gets "reported"? But, then, there isn't a single one of you who can admit that the "report" button gets abused? Sigh. I've got news for you: If you're "reporting" harmless comments like this, you're the troll.
This was for a sporting event, and it would just be for fun. It's hard to see how the use was "commercial" other than the fact that college football is big business.
It's hard to see how the use would be "commercial," except for the fact that it would be part of the huge commercial "big business" of a football game? I'm not following you on this one, Mike.
Between copyright law, road law, business law, and just insane law, I will find something to charge you with. Heck, you're probably breaking copyright law by using Techdirt's "Insider" graphic without permission as a derivative work. Do you know the artist that created that particular 'T' logo graphic? Did you ask permission to modify it? Maybe Mike should DMCA all your posts and save us the trouble!
I make it through the days without intentionally violating the property rights of others. It's not hard to not download a movie. Give me a break. As far as my avatar goes, I don't think it's infringing. I welcome any legal challenges Mike or Floor 64 want to bring my way over it. Can you imagine the irony of that?
Defending unlawful behavior - that's why you look like such an asshole.
I'm NOT defending unlawful behavior. How is it unlawful? My understanding is that the standard is subjective bad faith. And I'm pointing out that Mike never, ever says anything critical whatsoever about the pirates who intentionally break the law which is what leads to the notices in the first place. One single mistake by a rightholder = new TD post condemning them. A million intentional violations by a bunch of greedy children who don't want to pay a few bucks for a movie = total silence. So which one of us "defending unlawful behavior"? I think you have it backwards.
So as you say that it is not possible for the rightsholder to check to see if its infringement then when they report the url (without actually checking the file to see if its infringement or not) then what they report could well be something that they do not have the copyright on. Why do you think its acceptable for a copyright holder to take down a perfectly legitimate file that they do not have the copyright on?
Acceptable? Not exactly. I think the problem is so rampant that some automation is needed, and mistakes will be made. Efforts should be made to minimize those mistakes. I don't expect a perfect system, as many here presumably do. But the rest of my point is that it's strange to me how incredibly upset Mike gets at the thought of one erroneous notice, yet he appears to have no problem whatsoever with the millions of legitimate notices and all of the purposeful infringement they represent. If a rightholder makes a MISTAKE, that's criticized very, very heavily. But if an infringer INTENTIONALLY violates someone else's rights, that's not criticized at all. It's the silly double-standard that I'm commenting on.
Maybe the fact that you have a relatively small percentage of companies fighting against millions of people worldwide should indicate that they're doing something wrong.
So if a million people decide to violate your rights, you should just shut up and take it? Oh, and it's your fault, right? I'm not much for victim-blaming, so, no, I don't agree. Can you seriously not admit that the millions of people who make the conscious decision to violate someone else's rights are the ones "doing something wrong"? Amazing, if you can't.
Really? It's "not possible" to check that what you're demanding be taken down is actually yours?
Based on the conversations I've had with several rightholders, no, I don't think it's always possible, given the huge scale of piracy. Let me ask you this: Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law, yet Techdirt never bothers to mention or condemn that? If so, why do you think that is?
Your argument regarding "appropriating the work-product of authors" makes works of human creativity into some form of cold, calculated factory output and artists into factory workers and robots. Humans aren't machines. The expression of creativity isn't equivalent to screwing a fastener into a board. I doubt you are yourself artistic since you appear to think human creativity is just work. You ignore that no piece of art or any human creation is generated in a vacuum. All human beings who create have absorbed the culture around them and filtered it according to their own internal identity and produce it to communicate their perspective to the world.
That's hilarious. My view is that authors have a moral claim to the fruits of their labors. I think they are humans, and I resent those who think they are robots. IMO, Techdirt often treats authors like robots. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
You apparently have a different definition of "studied" than I do. I usually consider this to mean comprehension.
No need for the personal insults. Just a suggestion, but, considering that you haven't studied law, perhaps you should be more open to the possibility that maybe it's you who doesn't understand the concepts you've never spent any time studying.
If you read the Crow v. Wainright decision you linked it rather specifically points out that statues that treat copyrighted material as theft are invalid under federal law.
I think you're missing my point. The state supreme court said that what the guy did was theft under state law. The federal courts said that those same acts which constituted theft under state law were in fact copyright infringement under federal law. Thus, copyright infringement = theft. Those state theft laws are preempted by the Copyright Act, so that's why you won't see a lot of cases where an infringer is charged with theft. It's not because infringement isn't theft, it's because theft IS infringement.
Either way it doesn't fit with the actual definition of theft, which is "the taking of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it." You cannot permanently deprive someone of intellectual property by infringement. Therefore, by definition, copyright infringement cannot be theft. It doesn't matter how many idiots have made stupid laws that attempt to change reality.
This is where your complete lack of law studying really shows. Many states in fact have theft statutes that apply to intangible property. This is so because deprivation doesn't necessarily mean deprivation of something tangible. It can also mean acting in a way that is inconsistent with someone's rights. Your "reality" is just an incomplete understanding of the actual law.
Ultimately, though, this is all a straw man argument, because the original article never said anything about ignoring author's rights. It simply said it was in the best interest of authors to permit it, due to economics. You're arguing against an imaginary point that you think the author is making.
Please link to the comment where I said that OP said she wants to ignore author's rights. Otherwise, the straw man is completely yours.
But this is even more troubling in that it basically means any prankster can probably get the IFPI to start removing... just about anything. If there were real punishments for sending bogus DMCA takedowns, this sort of practice would stop, but since there isn't, the IFPI can just keep doing this, and pranksters can "guide" the IFPI into taking down plenty of legitimate content. It's yet another example of copyright as censorship, rather than having anything to do with legitimate copyright purposes.
And it's yet another Techdirt post complaining about a handful of illegitimate notices in a sea of legitimate ones. I agree that these notices are unfortunate, but I think they need to be put into perspective: It's only because piracy is so rampant that's it's not possible to put the time and resources into each notice that you seem to think rightholders should. Why no mention of that? And why is there NEVER any mention about "real punishment" for the infringers represented by the legitimate notices? Those infringers don't even get a slap on the wrist, but, of course, Techdirt never complains about that. I'd ask you to explain why your posts are so lopsided, but we both know (1) why that's so, and (2) that you won't talk about it. But, yeah, you're not anti-copyright. No, not at all. (I'm sure this comment will get "reported" because my views aren't popular here, and I think that's just sad. You guys should welcome dissenting views, not "report" them as "abusive" simply because you disagree with them.)
The same way you say the judge doesn't get the subject or is clueless when you don't agree with them?
The judge very clearly throughout the opinion discusses the intangible copyright rights in a sound recording, so the premise that he doesn't know the difference is just wrong. And it's not the same with me: When I disagree with what a judge says, I explain why I disagree and I back it up with precedent, statutes, etc.
I'd say the problem is conflating physical property with intellectual (intangible) property. But then again if this sticks the copyright crew is screwed because they can't meddle with the hardware we acquire and will not be able to prevent people from tinkering with their software.
But, again, the judge makes no such conflation. "Sound recording" can refer to either the physical recording or the recording in the incorporeal sense. Given that the judge repeatedly mentions that it's the copyright rights at issue, and given that his holding is explicitly about the intangible right of public performance, I see no such conflation. I think you guys are just desperate to think the judge got this one wrong, but since you can't discuss the actual substance of his reasoning, you're focusing on this perceived conflation.
for starters, he doesn't know the difference between "ownership of copyright" and "ownership of sound recordings"
The holding of the case is that ownership of the incorporeal sound recording includes the exclusive right to public performance. It's amazing to me you guys are nitpicking like this. Can you actually criticize the judge's reasoning?
If that does not qualify the judge as an idiot, then he is a corrupt agent of the copyright industry, which is worse.
It's strange how quickly you guys jump to the conclusion that judges you disagree with are corrupt idiots. Honestly, it just makes you guys seem like idiots.
There is no such thing as "ownership of a sound recording". You own copyrights; nobody owns sounds. For the judge to state that is an absolute misrepresentation of reality.
Of course there is. You can own a physical sound recording. I own many of them. But there's also ownership of the sound recording in the incorporeal sense, which is what the judge is talking about in the opinion. I'll ask you same question: Can you comment on the substance of the judge's reasoning? I know he found that an artist has certain exclusive rights (gasp!), but I'd like to know specifically what in his opinion you think is wrong.
If he knows the difference why does he not refer to the intangible rights directly instead of using a sloppy (if common) conflation between two different things?
From the second paragraph of the opinion: "Today, Flo & Eddie owns all rights to The Turtles’ master sound recordings." Seems to me like he knows it's about the rights. I read the judges references to the "sound recordings" as referring to them in the incorporeal sense. For example, he says: "Flo & Eddie contends that, in California, copyright ownership of a pre-1972 sound recording includes the exclusive right to publicly perform the recording; therefore, if anyone wishes to publicly perform such a recording, they must first seek authorization from the recording’s owner." He's not talking about ownership of the physical recording, he's talking about "copyright ownership" of those recordings which include the "exclusive rights."
Regardless, can you get past this nitpicking and actually discuss the substance of the judge's reasoning?
Yes I am aware that this argument has been unsuccessful in the courts - however that probably refelects their reluctance to upset a well established apple cart.
Or, it could just be their honest interpretation of the Constitution. Shocking thought!
anyone able to clarify why it is that in the main, the judges who sit on copyright cases seem to have actually no knowledge of copyright or the laws that are already in place or manage to ignore everything and bring in their own personal take on the subject?
Are you saying that's what the judge did here? If so, could you explain why you think this?
But the law does not grant them exclusive ownership of a sound recording; it grants them exclusive ownership of the copyright over that recording. The judge has conflated two different things there.
Did you read the opinion? Before calling the judge an "idiot," I would hope so. It seems clear to me that the judge knows the difference between copies and copyrights. He's referring to the intangible rights in the sound recording.
On my reading of your constitution state level copyright laws are unconstitutionsl.
One of the original intentions of the copyright clause was to forestall the development of a messy, inconsistent, morass of state copyright laws (as was beginning to develop).
Constitutionally the right to make copyright law is reserved to Congress.
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:
Gads, but you're a self-centered, insufferable git.
Abusive much? (And, of course, your abuse isn't "reported.") It's not infringing. I don't need permission. Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder than that. Maybe you could try discussing the issues on the merits. I know it's TD, so the chances of that happening are quite slim, but I'm throwing it out anyway.
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:
:)
Wow. Someone replies to my comment, I respond with a smiley face, and that comment gets "reported"? But, then, there isn't a single one of you who can admit that the "report" button gets abused? Sigh. I've got news for you: If you're "reporting" harmless comments like this, you're the troll.
On the post: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
It's hard to see how the use would be "commercial," except for the fact that it would be part of the huge commercial "big business" of a football game? I'm not following you on this one, Mike.
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:
:)
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:
I make it through the days without intentionally violating the property rights of others. It's not hard to not download a movie. Give me a break. As far as my avatar goes, I don't think it's infringing. I welcome any legal challenges Mike or Floor 64 want to bring my way over it. Can you imagine the irony of that?
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:
I'm NOT defending unlawful behavior. How is it unlawful? My understanding is that the standard is subjective bad faith. And I'm pointing out that Mike never, ever says anything critical whatsoever about the pirates who intentionally break the law which is what leads to the notices in the first place. One single mistake by a rightholder = new TD post condemning them. A million intentional violations by a bunch of greedy children who don't want to pay a few bucks for a movie = total silence. So which one of us "defending unlawful behavior"? I think you have it backwards.
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:
Acceptable? Not exactly. I think the problem is so rampant that some automation is needed, and mistakes will be made. Efforts should be made to minimize those mistakes. I don't expect a perfect system, as many here presumably do. But the rest of my point is that it's strange to me how incredibly upset Mike gets at the thought of one erroneous notice, yet he appears to have no problem whatsoever with the millions of legitimate notices and all of the purposeful infringement they represent. If a rightholder makes a MISTAKE, that's criticized very, very heavily. But if an infringer INTENTIONALLY violates someone else's rights, that's not criticized at all. It's the silly double-standard that I'm commenting on.
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:
So if a million people decide to violate your rights, you should just shut up and take it? Oh, and it's your fault, right? I'm not much for victim-blaming, so, no, I don't agree. Can you seriously not admit that the millions of people who make the conscious decision to violate someone else's rights are the ones "doing something wrong"? Amazing, if you can't.
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:
Based on the conversations I've had with several rightholders, no, I don't think it's always possible, given the huge scale of piracy. Let me ask you this: Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law, yet Techdirt never bothers to mention or condemn that? If so, why do you think that is?
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's hilarious. My view is that authors have a moral claim to the fruits of their labors. I think they are humans, and I resent those who think they are robots. IMO, Techdirt often treats authors like robots. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No need for the personal insults. Just a suggestion, but, considering that you haven't studied law, perhaps you should be more open to the possibility that maybe it's you who doesn't understand the concepts you've never spent any time studying.
If you read the Crow v. Wainright decision you linked it rather specifically points out that statues that treat copyrighted material as theft are invalid under federal law.
I think you're missing my point. The state supreme court said that what the guy did was theft under state law. The federal courts said that those same acts which constituted theft under state law were in fact copyright infringement under federal law. Thus, copyright infringement = theft. Those state theft laws are preempted by the Copyright Act, so that's why you won't see a lot of cases where an infringer is charged with theft. It's not because infringement isn't theft, it's because theft IS infringement.
Either way it doesn't fit with the actual definition of theft, which is "the taking of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it." You cannot permanently deprive someone of intellectual property by infringement. Therefore, by definition, copyright infringement cannot be theft. It doesn't matter how many idiots have made stupid laws that attempt to change reality.
This is where your complete lack of law studying really shows. Many states in fact have theft statutes that apply to intangible property. This is so because deprivation doesn't necessarily mean deprivation of something tangible. It can also mean acting in a way that is inconsistent with someone's rights. Your "reality" is just an incomplete understanding of the actual law.
Ultimately, though, this is all a straw man argument, because the original article never said anything about ignoring author's rights. It simply said it was in the best interest of authors to permit it, due to economics. You're arguing against an imaginary point that you think the author is making.
Please link to the comment where I said that OP said she wants to ignore author's rights. Otherwise, the straw man is completely yours.
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
And it's yet another Techdirt post complaining about a handful of illegitimate notices in a sea of legitimate ones. I agree that these notices are unfortunate, but I think they need to be put into perspective: It's only because piracy is so rampant that's it's not possible to put the time and resources into each notice that you seem to think rightholders should. Why no mention of that? And why is there NEVER any mention about "real punishment" for the infringers represented by the legitimate notices? Those infringers don't even get a slap on the wrist, but, of course, Techdirt never complains about that. I'd ask you to explain why your posts are so lopsided, but we both know (1) why that's so, and (2) that you won't talk about it. But, yeah, you're not anti-copyright. No, not at all. (I'm sure this comment will get "reported" because my views aren't popular here, and I think that's just sad. You guys should welcome dissenting views, not "report" them as "abusive" simply because you disagree with them.)
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The judge is an idiot.
The judge very clearly throughout the opinion discusses the intangible copyright rights in a sound recording, so the premise that he doesn't know the difference is just wrong. And it's not the same with me: When I disagree with what a judge says, I explain why I disagree and I back it up with precedent, statutes, etc.
I'd say the problem is conflating physical property with intellectual (intangible) property. But then again if this sticks the copyright crew is screwed because they can't meddle with the hardware we acquire and will not be able to prevent people from tinkering with their software.
But, again, the judge makes no such conflation. "Sound recording" can refer to either the physical recording or the recording in the incorporeal sense. Given that the judge repeatedly mentions that it's the copyright rights at issue, and given that his holding is explicitly about the intangible right of public performance, I see no such conflation. I think you guys are just desperate to think the judge got this one wrong, but since you can't discuss the actual substance of his reasoning, you're focusing on this perceived conflation.
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: Re:
The holding of the case is that ownership of the incorporeal sound recording includes the exclusive right to public performance. It's amazing to me you guys are nitpicking like this. Can you actually criticize the judge's reasoning?
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: Re: The judge is an idiot.
It's strange how quickly you guys jump to the conclusion that judges you disagree with are corrupt idiots. Honestly, it just makes you guys seem like idiots.
There is no such thing as "ownership of a sound recording". You own copyrights; nobody owns sounds. For the judge to state that is an absolute misrepresentation of reality.
Of course there is. You can own a physical sound recording. I own many of them. But there's also ownership of the sound recording in the incorporeal sense, which is what the judge is talking about in the opinion. I'll ask you same question: Can you comment on the substance of the judge's reasoning? I know he found that an artist has certain exclusive rights (gasp!), but I'd like to know specifically what in his opinion you think is wrong.
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: Re: The judge is an idiot.
From the second paragraph of the opinion: "Today, Flo & Eddie owns all rights to The Turtles’ master sound recordings." Seems to me like he knows it's about the rights. I read the judges references to the "sound recordings" as referring to them in the incorporeal sense. For example, he says: "Flo & Eddie contends that, in California, copyright ownership of a pre-1972 sound recording includes the exclusive right to publicly perform the recording; therefore, if anyone wishes to publicly perform such a recording, they must first seek authorization from the recording’s owner." He's not talking about ownership of the physical recording, he's talking about "copyright ownership" of those recordings which include the "exclusive rights."
Regardless, can you get past this nitpicking and actually discuss the substance of the judge's reasoning?
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: Re: Constitution
Or, it could just be their honest interpretation of the Constitution. Shocking thought!
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re:
Are you saying that's what the judge did here? If so, could you explain why you think this?
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: The judge is an idiot.
Did you read the opinion? Before calling the judge an "idiot," I would hope so. It seems clear to me that the judge knows the difference between copies and copyrights. He's referring to the intangible rights in the sound recording.
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Constitution
One of the original intentions of the copyright clause was to forestall the development of a messy, inconsistent, morass of state copyright laws (as was beginning to develop).
Constitutionally the right to make copyright law is reserved to Congress.
The Supreme Court held otherwise in Goldstein v. California: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3043821630623021343
Next >>