What would be funny is if Hulu responded by unblocking Boxee. "Well, now that Zucker has cleared up this little misunderstanding, we can go back to allowing access to Boxee users. And NBC would obviously not have a problem with this because Zucker testified to Congress that it was our decision to block in the first place, right?"
If I put up large glass windows in my building so that people walking in front of it can see the mural behind, have I infringed on that mural artist's copyright?
I think your analogy is not accurate in the sense that people looking out your window would not naturally assume that you painted the mural. Not so with imbedding.
Agreed. While at a technical level, there may be no distinction between linking and imbedding, imbedding just seems wrong to me. Maybe it's closer to copyright than infringement because you're potentially confusing the user as to the source of the content. A moron in a hurry knows that if they click on a link, they're moving to a new location on the WWW. But I think quite a few people, when viewing imbedded content, would look at the address bar in their browser and assume (quite naturally I think) that the source of that content is that site. I supposed you could mitigate that issue by how you imbed the content, but the idea of imbedding more content that would be allowed as a fair use snippet just seems to problematic to me.
For the record, I am against copyrights lasting beyond the life of the artist. It is perverse and absurd, and in no way actually promotes the progress of the arts and science, as required by the constitution.
To use your phrasing, "Actually, that is not correct." The reason that extending copyright beyond the life of the artist "promotes the progress" is because the net present value of their copyrighted work is greater under this scheme because they have longer to recoup their investment and it's less risky. For example, if I write a book about my experiences as a heroin addict who has constant unprotected sex with prosititues and want to sell the rights to a publisher, how much do you think they're going to give me if they know that as soon as I kick the bucket, that the content of all the books they manufactured, distributed, and promoted will suddenly fall into the public domain?
To the extent that copyright itself makes any sense, the "beyond the life of the artist" clause makes sense too. It promotes the progress by providing a more definitive net present value to copyrighted work, thus incentivizing the creation of new copyright works.
Note that the above is not a justification for extending the duration of copyright after the fact. When a publisher purchases the rights of a book, the price is based on the NPV calculation at the time of the purchase. Changing it after the fact is a flat out corruption of the system which serves only to line the pockets of the publishers.
If you asked a group of reasonably well-educated people to name some fundamental principles of a good judicial system, along with common answers like habeas corpus and double jeopardy, I bet one of the top answers would the grandfather clause. People just intuitively know that it's unfair to change the rules of the game after the game has started. Some -- maybe even most -- aspects of copyright are quite complex, but this isn't one of them.
How could the EU possibly think it was a good thing to make a book that was "owned" by the public one day suddenly owned by a private party the next? Mind boggling.
You're right. Of course the reason they cooperated is obvious. But this just underscores why they shouldn't have been given immunity. Just because someone in a black suit comes to you and waves a shiny badge in front of your face, it doesn't mean that you should be off the hook. If you're afraid that not cooperating with the one group of the government is going to get you in trouble, then we should have a system in place where you'd be even more afraid you'd get in trouble with another group of the government, namely the judicial branch.
"TeliaSonera also pointed out that the court doesn't seem to understand the most basic technical aspects of BitTorrent, in that it spoke of 'the material that is uploaded on the website in referring to SweTorrents."
Ha! I love that part. Legal systems are based on technicalities, so I hope that as the professionals in the legal systems get more tech savvy, we'll see more of this kind of thing.
Defense lawyer: "My client is being sued for hosting infringing content on his web site, but he doesn't host any content."
Judge: Looking at web site, "Hmmm. Right you are. Case dismissed."
"Welcome to the Italian Communications Ministry. Your wait time is...10 years, 211 days, 15 hours, and 27 minutes."
Part of me feels pity for the Italian people who are led by an administration that would even consider this as a good idea. But there's another part that says, fine. Implement your insane restrictions and see what happens. At best Itally will just remove itself from the global conversation. At worst, the people will finally push back, having had enough. Maybe it would be a good example to the world of government censorship run amok.
(BTW, I picture there being one person at this Communications Ministry dedicated to approving new videos. He'd look like Sam Lowry, the main character from Brazil who had to fight for his share of half a desk.)
Please feel free to correct me, but as I understand the system all connections must flow through some form of an ISP. So already there is a gatekeeper who decides who gets through and who does not through its servers.
ISPs are not gatekeepers in the traditional sense because they don't decide who can use their services or not. "Pay me $30 a month and we'll give you high speed Internet access" isn't a decision. If you have the money, you get the service. Of course, the big content owners want ISPs to be gatekeepers and to make decisions for their subscribers, but that's not the job of the ISP.
No court has said that internet bans are unlawful. In each instance where access to the internet has been banned, courts have concerned themselves with they type of crime involved and the reasonableness of conditions and length of time associated with a ban.
I think you're mincing words here. Maybe the courts haven't said that any kind of Internet ban is unlawful, but they do appear to be veering away from this kind of punishment for what is inarguably one of the worst offenses. So, the question in the headline seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's basically pointing out that the RIAA/MPAA must believe copyright infringment is, based on recent court cases, worse than child molestation.
However, the real issue seems to be that Medicare and Medicaid have required the use of these codes, meaning that pretty much everyone needs to use them... and then has to pay up for them.
There's a parallel in the financial industry. I can't remember the exact details, but I believe that there is a federal law in place that stipulates that certain kinds of companies must have a certain percentage of their assets in stocks of a certain rating. And who rates the stocks? Why, for-profit companies of course. So, in both situations you have the government requiring the use of (and payment to) non-government organizations in order to comply with government mandates. Maybe this makes sense in some cases, but I don't see how it does in either of these cases.
Now, they may have had to buy the list of CPT codes in med school, but i don't think our business had to buy one directly.
Shhhh! Shut up or you'll have AMA agents knocking at your boss's door asking for this year's licensing fees and all previous years' fees too! "So, we hear that you haven't been paying CPT code licensing fees, Dr. Senshikazesboss."
Oh, and even some docotors don't have to pay for the licensing directly, all of the American public had to pay for them indirectly.
That's actually a very good point. If your new business model for making money from your infinite good is to sell related scarce goods, isn't this business model undermined by not being able to control the scarce good? With more advanced devices, like the iPhone, it's not so easy to be a copy cat. You may be able to copy some of the features, but it's harder to copy other things, like customer support levels or even the prestige from owning a particular product. But what about (looooooots of) t-shirts? Doesn't something as simple as a t-shirt lend itself to being copied? Nobody needs support for a t-shirt and the "prestige" comes from what's on the t-shirt, not the t-shirt itself.
Sure, there are other scarce items which can't be copied that can be sold, such as lunch with the artist or a chance to sing on the album. But, it does seems like not being able to control your trademark removes one of the popular pillars of the new "sell scarce products" model.
(The issue of course is where to draw the line. "Go cats!" on a t-shirt? Meh, seems OK. "Go UC Bearcats!" on a t-shirt? That gets a little more murky.)
If it's such a problem, maybe Sony should just use DVD Discs that self-destruct (with oxygen) in 24 hours.
Because...you can't rip a disc in the first 24 hours that you have a screener?
I actually meant "Little Miss Sunshine" and not "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" Not that it matters to this crowd.
Damn, dude. Why the hate? You don't think that people who are interested in the legal aspects of technology and media would be interested in movies too?
I seems weird that New Zealand is implementing this kind of surveillance. I'm no exert on Kiwi culture, but the people from New Zealand (and Ausutralia, for that matter) seem to lean more towards the liberal and open-minded end of the spectrum. So why would people of this mindset allow such onerous surveillance?
This is just my experience, but I think it has something to do with their views of the government. In America, we have a natural distrust of the government. There's no conflict between loving your country and viewing politicians as egomaniacal bastards that are more concerned about their own career than the welfare of their constituants. But -- again, in my experience -- New Zealanders and Australians seem to view their government in much more of a positive, almost paternal manner. In short, they seem to trust their government more. Maybe this explains the contradiction.
In other words, the claim is only relevant when Tasers are used as replacements for guns. However, in most situation they are used to enforce mere compliance.
Agreed. The rule-of-thumb for using a taser should be "If I didn't have a taser, would I use my hand gun?" If the answer is no, then don't tase him, bro. Is there some grey area in there between shooting a suspect and tasing them? Perhaps, but it does seem that there are too many examples where people are tased just for mouthing off or being an asshole.
I understand the difference between correlation and causation. What I'm saying is that there is causation. I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that it can take a while for social norms to catch up with the new possibilities permitted by technology and that, in the mean time, human behavior can be affected. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that causation = blame. Why is it ridiculous to acknowledge that technology causes a situation to exist that can change how people behave?
While the article goes into the ridiculousness department by suggesting this means that Facebook is "fueling" divorce (rather than recognizing it's probably just a symptom)
I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that Facebook is "fueling" divorce. Facebook and the Internet as a whole has changed our lives by making information much more available to us. This information sometimes happens to include evidence of inappropriate behavior by our loved ones. We can admit when more information has a positive impact, so why can't we admit when more information has a negative impact?
Note that I'm not suggesting that Facebook is to blame for divorce. "Blame" is a judgement word that is almost always irrelevant in these kinds of discussions. However, the Internet does have an effect on our lives. It may take a while for people to adjust to the new social landscape brought about by the Internet -- i.e., there might be a spike of people "blaming" Facebook for their divirce -- but why is it ridiculous to suggest that Facebook has uncovered information that would have previously remained hidden and that this has an effect on divorce?
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Voir dire for dummies
Isn't the purpose of jury selection to weed out the smart people?
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Unblock Boxee then
On the post: Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think your analogy is not accurate in the sense that people looking out your window would not naturally assume that you painted the mural. Not so with imbedding.
On the post: Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Brian Eno Explains How The Recording Industry Is Like Whale Blubber
Trim the blubber
On the post: NY Times Takes Up The Case Of Sherlock Holmes And The Lost Public Domain... But Gets It Wrong
Re:
To use your phrasing, "Actually, that is not correct." The reason that extending copyright beyond the life of the artist "promotes the progress" is because the net present value of their copyrighted work is greater under this scheme because they have longer to recoup their investment and it's less risky. For example, if I write a book about my experiences as a heroin addict who has constant unprotected sex with prosititues and want to sell the rights to a publisher, how much do you think they're going to give me if they know that as soon as I kick the bucket, that the content of all the books they manufactured, distributed, and promoted will suddenly fall into the public domain?
To the extent that copyright itself makes any sense, the "beyond the life of the artist" clause makes sense too. It promotes the progress by providing a more definitive net present value to copyrighted work, thus incentivizing the creation of new copyright works.
Note that the above is not a justification for extending the duration of copyright after the fact. When a publisher purchases the rights of a book, the price is based on the NPV calculation at the time of the purchase. Changing it after the fact is a flat out corruption of the system which serves only to line the pockets of the publishers.
On the post: NY Times Takes Up The Case Of Sherlock Holmes And The Lost Public Domain... But Gets It Wrong
Re:
How could the EU possibly think it was a good thing to make a book that was "owned" by the public one day suddenly owned by a private party the next? Mind boggling.
On the post: Once Again, FBI Caught Breaking The Law In Gathering Phone Call Info; But Real Issue Is Why Telcos Let Them
Re: Fairly obvious
You're right. Of course the reason they cooperated is obvious. But this just underscores why they shouldn't have been given immunity. Just because someone in a black suit comes to you and waves a shiny badge in front of your face, it doesn't mean that you should be off the hook. If you're afraid that not cooperating with the one group of the government is going to get you in trouble, then we should have a system in place where you'd be even more afraid you'd get in trouble with another group of the government, namely the judicial branch.
On the post: Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules
Technical technicalities
Ha! I love that part. Legal systems are based on technicalities, so I hope that as the professionals in the legal systems get more tech savvy, we'll see more of this kind of thing.
Defense lawyer: "My client is being sued for hosting infringing content on his web site, but he doesn't host any content."
Judge: Looking at web site, "Hmmm. Right you are. Case dismissed."
On the post: Proposal In Italy Would Require Gov't Authorization To Upload Any Video
"Welcome to the Italian Communications Ministry. Your wait time is...10 years, 211 days, 15 hours, and 27 minutes."
(BTW, I picture there being one person at this Communications Ministry dedicated to approving new videos. He'd look like Sam Lowry, the main character from Brazil who had to fight for his share of half a desk.)
On the post: It's Not An Open vs. Closed Internet, But Ours vs. Theirs
Re:
ISPs are not gatekeepers in the traditional sense because they don't decide who can use their services or not. "Pay me $30 a month and we'll give you high speed Internet access" isn't a decision. If you have the money, you get the service. Of course, the big content owners want ISPs to be gatekeepers and to make decisions for their subscribers, but that's not the job of the ISP.
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re:
I think you're mincing words here. Maybe the courts haven't said that any kind of Internet ban is unlawful, but they do appear to be veering away from this kind of punishment for what is inarguably one of the worst offenses. So, the question in the headline seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's basically pointing out that the RIAA/MPAA must believe copyright infringment is, based on recent court cases, worse than child molestation.
On the post: Copyright Monopolies In The Middle Of Health Care Reform Debate As Well
Unfunded mandates
There's a parallel in the financial industry. I can't remember the exact details, but I believe that there is a federal law in place that stipulates that certain kinds of companies must have a certain percentage of their assets in stocks of a certain rating. And who rates the stocks? Why, for-profit companies of course. So, in both situations you have the government requiring the use of (and payment to) non-government organizations in order to comply with government mandates. Maybe this makes sense in some cases, but I don't see how it does in either of these cases.
On the post: Copyright Monopolies In The Middle Of Health Care Reform Debate As Well
Re:
Shhhh! Shut up or you'll have AMA agents knocking at your boss's door asking for this year's licensing fees and all previous years' fees too! "So, we hear that you haven't been paying CPT code licensing fees, Dr. Senshikazesboss."
Oh, and even some docotors don't have to pay for the licensing directly, all of the American public had to pay for them indirectly.
On the post: You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License
Re:
Sure, there are other scarce items which can't be copied that can be sold, such as lunch with the artist or a chance to sing on the album. But, it does seems like not being able to control your trademark removes one of the popular pillars of the new "sell scarce products" model.
(The issue of course is where to draw the line. "Go cats!" on a t-shirt? Meh, seems OK. "Go UC Bearcats!" on a t-shirt? That gets a little more murky.)
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
Because...you can't rip a disc in the first 24 hours that you have a screener?
I actually meant "Little Miss Sunshine" and not "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" Not that it matters to this crowd.
Damn, dude. Why the hate? You don't think that people who are interested in the legal aspects of technology and media would be interested in movies too?
On the post: New Zealand Decides To Spy On An Awful Lot Of Your Online Activity
Contradictory Kiwis
This is just my experience, but I think it has something to do with their views of the government. In America, we have a natural distrust of the government. There's no conflict between loving your country and viewing politicians as egomaniacal bastards that are more concerned about their own career than the welfare of their constituants. But -- again, in my experience -- New Zealanders and Australians seem to view their government in much more of a positive, almost paternal manner. In short, they seem to trust their government more. Maybe this explains the contradiction.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Tasers Can Be Excessive Force
Re:
Agreed. The rule-of-thumb for using a taser should be "If I didn't have a taser, would I use my hand gun?" If the answer is no, then don't tase him, bro. Is there some grey area in there between shooting a suspect and tasing them? Perhaps, but it does seem that there are too many examples where people are tased just for mouthing off or being an asshole.
On the post: One In Five Divorce Petitions Mention Facebook?
Re: Re:
On the post: One In Five Divorce Petitions Mention Facebook?
I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that Facebook is "fueling" divorce. Facebook and the Internet as a whole has changed our lives by making information much more available to us. This information sometimes happens to include evidence of inappropriate behavior by our loved ones. We can admit when more information has a positive impact, so why can't we admit when more information has a negative impact?
Note that I'm not suggesting that Facebook is to blame for divorce. "Blame" is a judgement word that is almost always irrelevant in these kinds of discussions. However, the Internet does have an effect on our lives. It may take a while for people to adjust to the new social landscape brought about by the Internet -- i.e., there might be a spike of people "blaming" Facebook for their divirce -- but why is it ridiculous to suggest that Facebook has uncovered information that would have previously remained hidden and that this has an effect on divorce?
Next >>