If the program actually circumvents things in violation of the DMCA, then why does it "seem[] crazy that anyone would actually make such a claim," Mike?
VLC doesn't actually remove any DRM, it simply plays DRM-protected content.
Technically, any device that can play DRM-protected content could be said to violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention laws.
Of course, under that theory, nearly all media players are illegal. Which is why a purely technical reading of the law is a bad idea.
Are you saying that you support things that violate the DMCA?
I can't speak for Mike, but I certainly support some of those things. Things like jailbreaking a cell phone, modding an XBox. You know, things that don't infringe upon a consumer's inalienable property rights. Plus, of course, the aforementioned VLC, if anyone ever does seriously claim that it violates the DMCA.
Well, since every form of expression is automatically copyrighted, this would mean that the Internet would only be allowed to present raw, non-expressive facts.
The Internet would essentially become nothing more than a phone book.
A lot of wrong on this thread (mainly by Wally). I'll attempt to set folks straight, with my admittedly non-lawyer understanding of the law.
First, there's confusion among the terms. Defamation is the general term that covers libel and slander. Libel is defamation that is published in written form. Slander is verbal defamation made to the public.
Now, to be defamation, a number of conditions must be met:
1. It must consist of false statements;
2. It must be stated as fact, not opinion;
3. It must actually cause measurable harm to the subject.
Furthermore, there is a far higher bar if the person is a public official or public figure.
It is absolutely clear that none of the kid's statements could be considered defamatory. They are obviously statements of opinion, not statements of fact. (In fact, how would you prove the truth or falsehood that someone is a "bitch?") And there is no way that they actually caused measurable harm to the subjects.
Also, most states have recognized teachers as public officials. It would thus be the burden of the teacher to show that the kid knew his statements were factually false, and directly intended to cause measurable harm to the teacher (e.g. that the kid deliberately published false statements specifically to get the teacher fired).
The fact that the kid's tweets could only be read by people following him, actually acts against the notion that it is defamation, because it is not deliberately spread to the general public, and especially because none of his followers are likely to be in a position to get the teachers fired (thus no showing of actual harm).
In any case, if it were truly libel, the appropriate action would be a lawsuit - not suspension. It is unlawful to suspend a student for speech activities carried on outside of school grounds.
There is no question that the school is in the wrong here.
In layman's terms, that tactic is called the "heckler's veto." You're attempting to drown out the speaker by a massive wave of disruptive comments. It's what William B. Allen calls "verbal terrorism."
In other words, it is you who is trying to suppress speech.
I say "trying," because it's never succeeded. Everyone who can read knows that you're just being a childish, lying, disruptive asshole.
By the way - I'm not saying, necessarily, that copyright is always out-and-out bad. Just that it has nothing to do with a free market - in the same way that minimum-wage laws have nothing to do with a free market.
No matter how you look at it, that's not free market capitalism.
Indeed, "intellectual property" actually makes a free market impossible. It is, by definition, a government-granted monopoly, something that is as far away from a free market as you can possibly get.
In fact, the entire reason that statutory royalty rates were established, was to prevent the monopoly trusts that copyright creates. From the House Report on the 1909 Copyright Act:
It was at first thought by the committee that the copyright proprietors of musical compositions should be given the exclusive right to do what they pleased with the rights it was proposed to give them to control and dispose of all rights of mechanical reproduction, but the hearings disclosed that the probable effect of this would be the establishment of a mechanical-music trust. It became evident that there would be serious danger that if the grant of right was made too broad, the progress of science and useful arts would not be promoted, but rather hindered, and that powerful and dangerous monopolies might be fostered which would be prejudicial to the public interests. This danger lies in the possibility that some one company might secure, by purchase or otherwise, a large number of copyrights of the most popular music, and by controlling these copyrights monopolize the business of manufacturing the selling music producing machines, otherwise free to the world. [...]
How to protect him in these rights without establishing a great music monopoly was the practical question the committee had to deal with. The only way to effect both purposes, as it seemed to the committee, was, after giving the composer the exclusive right to prohibit the use of his music by the mechanical reproducers, to provide that if he used or permitted the use of his music for such purpose then, upon the payment of a reasonable royalty, all who desired might reproduce the music.
In other words, they were trying to prevent exactly the situation we have now.
That's quite interesting. Most of it is pretty much what I expected, except for one bit of trivia: there are over twice as many Techdirt readers with graduated degrees than there are readers without any college degree.
I knew the Techdirt readership was smart, but I didn't know they were that smart.
If there was ever a hope for physical media, it would have been in multi-channel audio. Most of the compressed formats (at least in the early years) were geared towards streaming media over an Internet connection, and it only used two channels (sometimes not even two).
Until recently, multi-channel audio file sizes were larger than anyone could comfortably download. It simply would have been more convenient to buy a disk, exactly the same way it was more convenient to buy a DVD when that format came out.
In fact, the only people who were seriously developing multi-channel audio were the movie industry, who wanted to be able to offer 5.1 audio. If the music industry was smart, they would have worked with the movie industry to supply a single, unified multi-channel audio format that worked in DVD players as well.
It still would have been a fairly niche market, but it would still have been better than the stuff they're peddling now.
Of course, with bandwidth speeds the way they are, that opportunity has long passed.
The only way they'd get a determination that the entire project is fair use would be to litigate the case as a class action, right? Otherwise, the court would only look at the specific works at issue.
No, that's not really true. The use of a work is what is important when considering fair use. It matters little which work was the raw material for that use.
Let's say Google's use of a book is fair use. If that use is the same no matter what the book - and in this case, it is - then it is most likely fair use for all books.
There was absolutely nothing "just fine" about the music industry prior to the Internet. It was a horrible cesspool where even gold-record artists made next to nothing, and consumers had almost no choices whatsoever.
I don't claim to understand anything about internet advertising, but can't imagine anyone dumb enough to agree to an arrangement where my adversaries were advertising on my site.
Here's how Internet advertising works in general.
1. Website signs up with an ad provider (AdSense, AdBrite, Bidvertiser, etc).
2. Ad provider gives website owner a bit of code to put somewhere on their webpage.
3. Ad provider software scans the page for keywords.
4. Advertisers sign up with ad provider.
5. Advertisers (like Viacom) bid on keywords that they want their ads to appear next to.
6. Ad provider matches bids to keywords algorithmically, no human interaction required.
7. Money from advertisers is split between ad provider and website owner.
You'll notice a couple of things about this setup:
Advertisers don't know the actual pages their ads will end up on.
Website owners don't know whose advertisements will appear on their sites. They certainly don't sign any kind of agreement with the advertisers.
Ad providers don't know who is being matched with whom unless they examine their logs; everything is done in software.
So, yeah, if you'd actually take the time to learn about how Internet advertising works, you'd realize just how idiotic your accusations are.
Just because you can take something doesn't make that taking right.
You realize that the entire friggin' point of the article was that it's not taking, right?
You may have copied that expression, but you haven't divulged the original author of that expression, so you haven't "taken" anything.
What you have done is infringed upon a statutory monopoly right; a government-granted right to a limited post-publication monopoly on a work that you authored. That is much different than "taking," both legally and morally.
Furthermore, the only reason authors were granted that monopoly in the first place was to "promote the progress." In the words of the Supreme Court, copyright "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
People who infringe aren't "taking" anything. They're doing exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage in the first place.
Also: plagiarism and copyright infringement are totally different. If your use is a fair use, it's still a fair use even if you don't credit the original author.
On the post: HBO's Latest DMCA Abuse: Issues Takedown To Google Over Popular VLC Media Player
Re:
VLC doesn't actually remove any DRM, it simply plays DRM-protected content.
Technically, any device that can play DRM-protected content could be said to violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention laws.
Of course, under that theory, nearly all media players are illegal. Which is why a purely technical reading of the law is a bad idea.
Are you saying that you support things that violate the DMCA?
I can't speak for Mike, but I certainly support some of those things. Things like jailbreaking a cell phone, modding an XBox. You know, things that don't infringe upon a consumer's inalienable property rights. Plus, of course, the aforementioned VLC, if anyone ever does seriously claim that it violates the DMCA.
On the post: Google, Microsoft And Other Ad Networks Agree To 'Best Practices' To Stop Ads From Appearing On 'Pirate' Sites
Re:
Well, since every form of expression is automatically copyrighted, this would mean that the Internet would only be allowed to present raw, non-expressive facts.
The Internet would essentially become nothing more than a phone book.
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not as big as the one your mom needs to wash out her cavernous vajayjay. Which she got from giving birth to the largest crybaby on the planet.
Hey, look, I can have a "substantive debate on the merits" too!
On the post: 'Cyberbullied' School Administration May Have Violated Student's First Amendment Rights By Suspending Him
Libel, slander, and defamation
First, there's confusion among the terms. Defamation is the general term that covers libel and slander. Libel is defamation that is published in written form. Slander is verbal defamation made to the public.
Now, to be defamation, a number of conditions must be met:
1. It must consist of false statements;
2. It must be stated as fact, not opinion;
3. It must actually cause measurable harm to the subject.
Furthermore, there is a far higher bar if the person is a public official or public figure.
It is absolutely clear that none of the kid's statements could be considered defamatory. They are obviously statements of opinion, not statements of fact. (In fact, how would you prove the truth or falsehood that someone is a "bitch?") And there is no way that they actually caused measurable harm to the subjects.
Also, most states have recognized teachers as public officials. It would thus be the burden of the teacher to show that the kid knew his statements were factually false, and directly intended to cause measurable harm to the teacher (e.g. that the kid deliberately published false statements specifically to get the teacher fired).
The fact that the kid's tweets could only be read by people following him, actually acts against the notion that it is defamation, because it is not deliberately spread to the general public, and especially because none of his followers are likely to be in a position to get the teachers fired (thus no showing of actual harm).
In any case, if it were truly libel, the appropriate action would be a lawsuit - not suspension. It is unlawful to suspend a student for speech activities carried on outside of school grounds.
There is no question that the school is in the wrong here.
Hope that clears things up.
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. And all he has to do to bypass moderation is just not go off about how Mike is "running away" every time one of his comments isn't replied to.
In other words, if he actually had any substantive arguments or criticisms, they would get posted automatically, no approval needed.
What a giant, lying douche.
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hm. It turns out that phrase does trigger moderation.
And it's about goddamn time, too. There's nothing in any of your comments that amounts to "criticism."
Instead, it's a blatant attempt to spam unrelated Techdirt posts with personal insults and lies:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-t echdirt.shtml#c1210
In layman's terms, that tactic is called the "heckler's veto." You're attempting to drown out the speaker by a massive wave of disruptive comments. It's what William B. Allen calls "verbal terrorism."
In other words, it is you who is trying to suppress speech.
I say "trying," because it's never succeeded. Everyone who can read knows that you're just being a childish, lying, disruptive asshole.
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The phrase run away, you mean?
Yeah, nobody actually believes Mike is blocking you. Here's a hint: you can't connect to the Internet on a see-and-say.
On the post: Swedish Rights Holders Order Police Raid To Shut Down Fan Translation Site
Re: Hollywood is not "anti-pirates", they're creators and owners.
Only a complete moron would believe that fans providing translations, for free, is "facilitating piracy."
...Oh, sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Re:
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Re: Free market?
On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?
Free market?
Indeed, "intellectual property" actually makes a free market impossible. It is, by definition, a government-granted monopoly, something that is as far away from a free market as you can possibly get.
In fact, the entire reason that statutory royalty rates were established, was to prevent the monopoly trusts that copyright creates. From the House Report on the 1909 Copyright Act:
In other words, they were trying to prevent exactly the situation we have now.
On the post: The Most Popular Posts Of 2013 So Far
Re: Re: Re: Subject
That's quite interesting. Most of it is pretty much what I expected, except for one bit of trivia: there are over twice as many Techdirt readers with graduated degrees than there are readers without any college degree.
I knew the Techdirt readership was smart, but I didn't know they were that smart.
On the post: The Most Popular Posts Of 2013 So Far
Re: Re: Subject
If masturbating to pictures of Linus Torvalds is a crime, then let me be a criminal!
...Oh, wait, you meant me pirating stuff? I don't do that.
On the post: The Most Popular Posts Of 2013 So Far
Subject
Piracy.
More evidence of how the "pro-piracy" accusation is a big, fat lie.
On the post: Universal Music's Latest Bet On The Future: People Will Buy Music On Plastic Discs, Right?
Multi-channel Audio
Until recently, multi-channel audio file sizes were larger than anyone could comfortably download. It simply would have been more convenient to buy a disk, exactly the same way it was more convenient to buy a DVD when that format came out.
In fact, the only people who were seriously developing multi-channel audio were the movie industry, who wanted to be able to offer 5.1 audio. If the music industry was smart, they would have worked with the movie industry to supply a single, unified multi-channel audio format that worked in DVD players as well.
It still would have been a fairly niche market, but it would still have been better than the stuff they're peddling now.
Of course, with bandwidth speeds the way they are, that opportunity has long passed.
On the post: Appeals Court Hints VERY Strongly That Google Books Is Fair Use, Even Though It Wasn't Asked About That
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not really true. The use of a work is what is important when considering fair use. It matters little which work was the raw material for that use.
Let's say Google's use of a book is fair use. If that use is the same no matter what the book - and in this case, it is - then it is most likely fair use for all books.
On the post: Pandora's Fed Up With The Lies The RIAA Has Been Spreading About It: Presents Some Facts
Re: Re: Re: missing the point
There was absolutely nothing "just fine" about the music industry prior to the Internet. It was a horrible cesspool where even gold-record artists made next to nothing, and consumers had almost no choices whatsoever.
On the post: SOPA Didn't Die, It Just Emigrated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't worry, knowing this guy, I'm pretty sure you've still got plenty of opportunities ahead of you.
On the post: SOPA Didn't Die, It Just Emigrated
Re: Re: Re:
Here's how Internet advertising works in general.
1. Website signs up with an ad provider (AdSense, AdBrite, Bidvertiser, etc).
2. Ad provider gives website owner a bit of code to put somewhere on their webpage.
3. Ad provider software scans the page for keywords.
4. Advertisers sign up with ad provider.
5. Advertisers (like Viacom) bid on keywords that they want their ads to appear next to.
6. Ad provider matches bids to keywords algorithmically, no human interaction required.
7. Money from advertisers is split between ad provider and website owner.
You'll notice a couple of things about this setup:
Advertisers don't know the actual pages their ads will end up on.
Website owners don't know whose advertisements will appear on their sites. They certainly don't sign any kind of agreement with the advertisers.
Ad providers don't know who is being matched with whom unless they examine their logs; everything is done in software.
So, yeah, if you'd actually take the time to learn about how Internet advertising works, you'd realize just how idiotic your accusations are.
On the post: Prometheus, Meet Thomas Jefferson: On Fire, Stealing And Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Ideas can't be copyrighted
You realize that the entire friggin' point of the article was that it's not taking, right?
You may have copied that expression, but you haven't divulged the original author of that expression, so you haven't "taken" anything.
What you have done is infringed upon a statutory monopoly right; a government-granted right to a limited post-publication monopoly on a work that you authored. That is much different than "taking," both legally and morally.
Furthermore, the only reason authors were granted that monopoly in the first place was to "promote the progress." In the words of the Supreme Court, copyright "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
People who infringe aren't "taking" anything. They're doing exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage in the first place.
Also: plagiarism and copyright infringement are totally different. If your use is a fair use, it's still a fair use even if you don't credit the original author.
Next >>