I really love how they dance around the difficult question and stick to one thing (other than jurisdiction and venue shopping) that comes down to "the monkey knew there was a relation of cause and effect between its reflection and the shutter" (which makes no sense by itself).
The main fact that it doesn't know the shutter results in a picture is irrelevant to them despite the fact that it's the core of the question: creating art must be intentional to be qualified for copyright. It's not enough that you "intentionally" push the shutter if you don't intend to make the picture. There must be choice, decision, you can't create a random picture or text through algorithm, even with "intentional actions" (you have to program the random picture/text generator) and pretend for copyright.
Moreover, "Naruto" will not be able to explain that he intentionally pressed the shutter button as opposed to pressing it accidentally or blindly mimicking what the human did.
That's why copyright can only go to humans, not animals... at least until we can communicate with them about our legal standards.
Then again, if we want to apply human laws to animals, I feel like we might have to answer for a lot more than a few copyright issues. Deforestation? That's basically destruction of their private property. Hunting or slaughter? Roughly equals murder. And we can go on with slavery, discrimination, genocide... Does PETA really want to go that route? Then again, after what I heard about them, that might not even be surprising.
that explicitly expects them to not only enforce the law, but follow it as well. Maybe someone forgot to tell them the second part. It's not like it's obvious for everyone that enforcing the law implies that you set a good example yourself. (And I'm only half-sarcastic here, watching all the real-life examples of abuse of power everywhere.)
(...) while some senators were proposing a bill that would let the Justice Department censor "pirate sites" worldwide, even while one among them was aggressively opposing internet censorship by other countries (...) Remember this, boys: it's censorship only when bad guys do it. /sarc
Does that mean that asking Netflix and others to pay the ISPs is like asking New York, for example, to pay railroads for the "privilege" of bringing passengers into the city? No, more like Netflix wants to "ship" something to a customer and the carrier asks both Netflix and the customer to pay the full shipping fees.
It seems the problem is that every new business model or technology (actually innovating ones, I mean) fits in no existing model that's already regulated. Rather than accepting innovation and try to change their thinking, existing businesses want those new competitors to be forcefully brought into existing models and rules. This cannot work for long, but the complicity of regulators help them delay the inevitable.
Why are these people in positions of power again? Ambition. They are in power because they want the power. Most people don't want power because it comes with responsibility... supposedly. These people want the power because they know they can waive of the responsibilities.
That reminds me of a philosopher who said that power should only be granted to those who don't want it.
Thanks for the additional details. DMCA is not really great, particularly with the lack of accountability for wrongful claims, but it's not as bad as what was originally reported.
Then again DMCA actually has some degree of accountability built-in... "on penalty of perjury" or something like that... but no implementation in national law and private agreements actually enforces that part.
And this guy has clearly no idea how to run this kind of war. You just do not win a "war on idea" by using you opponent's ideas.
Theory: The terrorists' ideas are "we kill anyone with opposing speech or ideas to make our point." The US ideas is supposed to be "our civilization regards killing as criminal, democracy is about free speech."
Application: Terrorists kill people who express opposing ideas. The US kill people who express opposing ideas.
Whose ideas win, regardless of whose kill count is highest?
“We are borrowing from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of America and others that have come after it and we have designed an amendment where the ISP will be liable under certain circumstances for infringements that happen through their channels.” Except, that's the exact opposite approach of the DMCA, whose safe harbors protect ISPs from liability,(...)
Both are right, but not opposite. The DMCA does place liability on some service providers (mostly content-hosting services) when they do not remove infringing media they have been notified of. The basic protection from liability can then be lifted... "under certain circumstances". (which are basically "being notified" and "keep hosting content".) Dotcom will appreciate knowing he is "protected".
Not saying that Kenya is actually copying DMCA correctly. We just need more details on who can be liable and under what circumstances. This article lacks details in that regard.
On the other hand, the comparison with Nigeria is pertinent: even if Kenya does copy DMCA correctly, that is definitely not the way to copy Nigeria and enjoy the same culture spread it experienced.
We already live in an age where the consumer doesn't have the ability to control or modify their own vehicle's electronics courtesy of DRM and copyright,
That's slightly wrong. DRM and copyright never removed from people the "ability" to do anything. DRM make things more difficult and copyright make it illegal, but people still have the ability to control and modify their vehicles (and other appliances) electronics.
What has really been removed from the public is the right to do so... or maybe only the right to do so without risking more or less justified legal threats and actions.
BTW, would I get a free pass on a crime saying in court: "sorry, that's not how I understood the law. I promise I won't break this specific law again."
(...) because the police officers who kept him detained past the point of the stop's "objective" were well within the expansive confines of the good faith exception.
This "good faith" exception reeks of abuse potential. If I understand it well, it means that any case based on LEO evidence that was acquired on "not-quite-legal-but-close" procedures is deemed valid as long as the procedure hasn't been tried and deemed invalid at least once before this case.
Which means one of two things: - either LEO can act in bad faith and pretend to "good faith" as long as their evidence collecting procedure hasn't been deemed invalid in court... and even then they get a free pass to all cases before that decision, including the case in question. So, as long as they make minor changes to the now invalid procedure, they can do it again, pretending that they thought the new procedure was valid. - or the law is written in such a way that the very people who are supposed to enforce it can't understand it properly. That is worrying as we who are not supposed to be professionals of the law are the ones who are supposed to "not ignore it", which can only work when the law is easy to understand. (Obviously, those two options are not mutually exclusive. One can act on bad faith based on badly written law.)
The first case is easy to fix: remove "good faith exception". You might not want to sanction LEO acting on good faith, but you can't allow wrongly collected evidence either. This breaks the link of trust (which already shows signs of distrust) in the whole legal procedure. When the Supreme Court itself rejects a procedure based on constitutional grounds, how can the evidence be used in a trial?
The second case is way more difficult to fix as it means rewriting the whole code of Law to make it clear and easy to understand to anyone, at the very least removing any uncertainty there could be for anyone whose job is to work with the law... and preferably for anyone, period.
It is acknowledged that the transfer of data, storing of the physical data locally on a hard drive and facilitation and redistribution of the stolen data to others may or may not be a “physical taking” under Oregon law. His point can be taken in one of two interpretations: - either he's trying to b***t his way through a law that is very clearly not made for this case (applying "physical taking" to digital information) - or the law is not clear enough (allowing "copy of digital information" to be seen as "physical taking").
I very clearly think it's the first case, but when lawyers can even try and twist the meaning of words to that extend without being instantly laughed (and possibly fined) out of courts, then the law is not clear enough.
Remember "1984"? Newspeak, where inconsistencies are a feature. It particularly includes the notion of "doublethink" which describes how people can accept two contradictory statements as both valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
It is an anomaly. It's a great game developed for gamers. That is sadly quite rare nowadays. Not completely exceptional, but rare. That it sells well "despite" (or "thanks to" depending on the point of view) the absence of DRM is therefore surprising to those who have so much faith in that broken technology.
I'm saying that the attitude of the US government and law enforcement is in contradiction with their stated purpose, which gives their opponents - here ISIS - more conviction and supporters. Even if US manage to nuke ISIS, other terrorists will rise and the US themselves will have validated terrorism as a legitimate strategy.
The only way to stop terrorists is the long term is to show them another way. To show them that there is another way to live with people of different opinions than simply crushing them with violence.
For me, that sounds like advocating pacifism by punching anyone who states that violence is good. You're just proving them right.
In a war of ideas (here "democracy versus terrorism"), the means are not important than the stated idea you fight for. Physically winning the war by using the opponents ideas just makes you lose the actual was: you end up proving that your beaten enemy was right.
It's different than a war for simple survival, where any mean is right as long as you're the one standing in the end, obviously... But the "war on terror"is not of this kind.
On the post: PETA Defends Its Rights To Represent The Selfie-Taking Monkey In Court
The main fact that it doesn't know the shutter results in a picture is irrelevant to them despite the fact that it's the core of the question: creating art must be intentional to be qualified for copyright. It's not enough that you "intentionally" push the shutter if you don't intend to make the picture. There must be choice, decision, you can't create a random picture or text through algorithm, even with "intentional actions" (you have to program the random picture/text generator) and pretend for copyright.
Moreover, "Naruto" will not be able to explain that he intentionally pressed the shutter button as opposed to pressing it accidentally or blindly mimicking what the human did.
That's why copyright can only go to humans, not animals... at least until we can communicate with them about our legal standards.
Then again, if we want to apply human laws to animals, I feel like we might have to answer for a lot more than a few copyright issues. Deforestation? That's basically destruction of their private property. Hunting or slaughter? Roughly equals murder. And we can go on with slavery, discrimination, genocide...
Does PETA really want to go that route? Then again, after what I heard about them, that might not even be surprising.
On the post: 71% Of Americans Oppose Civil Asset Forfeiture. Too Bad Their Representatives Don't Care.
Remember, citizens: it's only wrong when the bad guys do it.
On the post: London's Metropolitan Police Houses A Bunch Of Criminals Who Are More Interested In Harassing Journalists Than Chasing Criminals
Maybe someone forgot to tell them the second part.
It's not like it's obvious for everyone that enforcing the law implies that you set a good example yourself.
(And I'm only half-sarcastic here, watching all the real-life examples of abuse of power everywhere.)
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 20th - 26th
Relativity
Remember this, boys: it's censorship only when bad guys do it.
/sarc
On the post: The Wall Street Journal Doubles Down On Dumb: Falsely Claims Net Neutrality ('Obamanet') Has Crushed Broadband Investment
No, more like Netflix wants to "ship" something to a customer and the carrier asks both Netflix and the customer to pay the full shipping fees.
On the post: No Library For You: French Authorities Threatening To Close An App That Lets People Share Physical Books
This cannot work for long, but the complicity of regulators help them delay the inevitable.
On the post: Having Lost The Debate On Backdooring Encryption, Intelligence Community Plans To Wait Until Next Terrorist Attack
Ambition. They are in power because they want the power.
Most people don't want power because it comes with responsibility... supposedly.
These people want the power because they know they can waive of the responsibilities.
That reminds me of a philosopher who said that power should only be granted to those who don't want it.
On the post: One Man Troll Army Arrested For Supporting Terrorists: Where's The Line Between Trolling And Terrorism?
Too much time to waste
On the post: Kenya Pushes New Copyright Law Which Will Blame ISPs For Not Magically Stopping Piracy
Re: Updated
DMCA is not really great, particularly with the lack of accountability for wrongful claims, but it's not as bad as what was originally reported.
Then again DMCA actually has some degree of accountability built-in... "on penalty of perjury" or something like that... but no implementation in national law and private agreements actually enforces that part.
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
"War of ideas"
And this guy has clearly no idea how to run this kind of war. You just do not win a "war on idea" by using you opponent's ideas.
Theory:
The terrorists' ideas are "we kill anyone with opposing speech or ideas to make our point."
The US ideas is supposed to be "our civilization regards killing as criminal, democracy is about free speech."
Application:
Terrorists kill people who express opposing ideas.
The US kill people who express opposing ideas.
Whose ideas win, regardless of whose kill count is highest?
On the post: Kenya Pushes New Copyright Law Which Will Blame ISPs For Not Magically Stopping Piracy
Both are right, but not opposite.
The DMCA does place liability on some service providers (mostly content-hosting services) when they do not remove infringing media they have been notified of. The basic protection from liability can then be lifted... "under certain circumstances". (which are basically "being notified" and "keep hosting content".)
Dotcom will appreciate knowing he is "protected".
Not saying that Kenya is actually copying DMCA correctly. We just need more details on who can be liable and under what circumstances. This article lacks details in that regard.
On the other hand, the comparison with Nigeria is pertinent: even if Kenya does copy DMCA correctly, that is definitely not the way to copy Nigeria and enjoy the same culture spread it experienced.
On the post: Should Police Have The Right To Take Control Of Self-Driving Cars?
Lack of ability? really?
That's slightly wrong. DRM and copyright never removed from people the "ability" to do anything. DRM make things more difficult and copyright make it illegal, but people still have the ability to control and modify their vehicles (and other appliances) electronics.
What has really been removed from the public is the right to do so... or maybe only the right to do so without risking more or less justified legal threats and actions.
On the post: Dennys Rodriguez's Supreme Court Win Fails To Help Dennys Rodriguez
Re: Good faith?
"sorry, that's not how I understood the law. I promise I won't break this specific law again."
On the post: Dennys Rodriguez's Supreme Court Win Fails To Help Dennys Rodriguez
Good faith?
This "good faith" exception reeks of abuse potential. If I understand it well, it means that any case based on LEO evidence that was acquired on "not-quite-legal-but-close" procedures is deemed valid as long as the procedure hasn't been tried and deemed invalid at least once before this case.
Which means one of two things:
- either LEO can act in bad faith and pretend to "good faith" as long as their evidence collecting procedure hasn't been deemed invalid in court... and even then they get a free pass to all cases before that decision, including the case in question. So, as long as they make minor changes to the now invalid procedure, they can do it again, pretending that they thought the new procedure was valid.
- or the law is written in such a way that the very people who are supposed to enforce it can't understand it properly. That is worrying as we who are not supposed to be professionals of the law are the ones who are supposed to "not ignore it", which can only work when the law is easy to understand.
(Obviously, those two options are not mutually exclusive. One can act on bad faith based on badly written law.)
The first case is easy to fix: remove "good faith exception". You might not want to sanction LEO acting on good faith, but you can't allow wrongly collected evidence either. This breaks the link of trust (which already shows signs of distrust) in the whole legal procedure. When the Supreme Court itself rejects a procedure based on constitutional grounds, how can the evidence be used in a trial?
The second case is way more difficult to fix as it means rewriting the whole code of Law to make it clear and easy to understand to anyone, at the very least removing any uncertainty there could be for anyone whose job is to work with the law... and preferably for anyone, period.
On the post: Movie Studio & Copyright Troll Claim 'Mere Possession' Of Popcorn Time Is Illegal And Could Result In A Year In Jail
Reasonable theory vs complete b***t
His point can be taken in one of two interpretations:
- either he's trying to b***t his way through a law that is very clearly not made for this case (applying "physical taking" to digital information)
- or the law is not clear enough (allowing "copy of digital information" to be seen as "physical taking").
I very clearly think it's the first case, but when lawyers can even try and twist the meaning of words to that extend without being instantly laughed (and possibly fined) out of courts, then the law is not clear enough.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Which Hyped Up 'Harm' Of Hack, Now Tells Court No Harm Done To Employees
Newspeak, where inconsistencies are a feature.
It particularly includes the notion of "doublethink" which describes how people can accept two contradictory statements as both valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
On the post: The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3
Re:
It's a great game developed for gamers. That is sadly quite rare nowadays. Not completely exceptional, but rare.
That it sells well "despite" (or "thanks to" depending on the point of view) the absence of DRM is therefore surprising to those who have so much faith in that broken technology.
On the post: American Teen Gets 11 Year Sentence For Pro-ISIS Tweets That Taught People How To Use Bitcoin
Re: Re: Re: And then some
I'm saying that the attitude of the US government and law enforcement is in contradiction with their stated purpose, which gives their opponents - here ISIS - more conviction and supporters. Even if US manage to nuke ISIS, other terrorists will rise and the US themselves will have validated terrorism as a legitimate strategy.
The only way to stop terrorists is the long term is to show them another way. To show them that there is another way to live with people of different opinions than simply crushing them with violence.
On the post: American Teen Gets 11 Year Sentence For Pro-ISIS Tweets That Taught People How To Use Bitcoin
Re: Re: And then some
On the post: American Teen Gets 11 Year Sentence For Pro-ISIS Tweets That Taught People How To Use Bitcoin
Re: And then some
In a war of ideas (here "democracy versus terrorism"), the means are not important than the stated idea you fight for. Physically winning the war by using the opponents ideas just makes you lose the actual was: you end up proving that your beaten enemy was right.
It's different than a war for simple survival, where any mean is right as long as you're the one standing in the end, obviously... But the "war on terror"is not of this kind.
Next >>