In the 1990s, the Federal Circuit opened the door to patents on methods of doing business. While the Supreme Court tried to undo some of that damage, financial institutions are still hit with patent lawsuits. Many of these suits come from trolls that don't produce anything.
Patent trolls on one side, Wall Street on the other. This is another one of those "I don't know which one to root for" scenarios.
Reacting to extortion in the wrong way is something blameworthy, because it legitimizes the extortion and empowers it. YouTube refusing to stand up for their rights--for our rights--to flip the script and take the fight to the enemy, and choosing to appease them and collude with them instead, is directly responsible for a large part of the mess we find ourselves in today.
There's a reason why phrases like "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" and "we do not negotiate with terrorists" are a thing. Because when you go outside of that mindset, this is what happens.
There's a guy I used to know. He was one of the worst bullies at my high school. In the same year as me, and he was like that for all four years I was there. I was new in town Freshman year, so I wasn't there for middle school, but there's no good reason to believe that he wasn't like that in middle school too. That kind of behavior doesn't come out of nowhere.
He's dead today. He did something really stupid not that long after graduation and it blew up on him.
I can't help but think, maybe if he had gotten arrested in middle school and had a bit of "scared straight" pounded into his head, maybe if he hadn't been able to use his charm and athletic talent to escape all responsibility for his misdeeds, just maybe his life would have ended up on a better path.
To be fair, if he were alive today, doing the things he did, he would be called a terrorist, and rightly so. While the ideas he stood for may have debatably been noble ones, his methods were anything but. The guy was a pretty horrible person when it comes down to it.
When you begin to conflate data with manufacturing, it becomes clear that you're either arguing in bad faith or simply have no idea what you're talking about. Either way, the rest of us are now justified in completely ignoring anything else you have to say.
Where the rights holder can quickly go out of business trying to block all the copies of his product.
When the fundamental rules change, those who aren't able to adapt do tend to go out of business. That's the way it's always been.
Copyright was originally intended to be a tool for authors to keep abusive publishers in line. It's been perverted, mostly over the last 50 years or so, into a weapon for abusive publishers to wield against everyone else. But in a time when it's not just publishers who can make high-quality copies of a work, but literally any Joe Random Citizen at all, it's time to ask if the fundamental idea still makes any sense anymore. Techdirt has run plenty of articles over the years highlighting various different people and companies that have managed to find financial success in their creative endeavors without needing to rely on copyright.
I'm well aware that my proposal makes copyright enforcement at scale ruinously expensive. That is, as they say, "a feature, not a bug."
I don't want to "open up" the DMCA; I want to do away with it, and any other concept of extrajudicial takedown processes. I want to get rid of the insane notion we've got right now of copyright as a trump card that all other considerations must give way before.
Also, I don't believe that it would replace it with "something much, much worse." If publishing interests had to go to court to get things taken down, we would inevitably see three positive effects just from the nature of the judicial system:
There would be a lot less of it, because trying to file a takedown would no longer be free. This would put an immediate end to the type of carpet-bombing seen in this article.
If takedowns had to go through the legal system rather than an extralegal system, penalties for false accusations would apply.
If takedowns had to go through the legal system rather than an extralegal system, protections from vexatious litigants would apply.
That would be significantly better than the current regime.
For years, the RIAA and MPAA have pointed to the millions upon millions of takedown notices sent to Google as "evidence" that the DMCA notice-and-takedown process doesn't work.
And they're right. It doesn't work. It never has, and we ought to get rid of it and replace it with proper jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Which is why it will fail. The entire history of civilization is the story of the human race's collective attempt to be better and stronger than the force of natural selection. And it's working!
To give just one obvious example, just look at all of the good that's been done by people who wear glasses. People who, in an earlier time, would have been considered blind and helpless, their potential to contribute to society nullified by the inferiority of their weak genes. We've beaten that, and we're better off for it. And we'll beat this and be better off for it too.
What "stuff" exactly? Refusing to be extorted? I would certainly hope judges respond well to that; if not, there's something wrong with the judge in question!
“We are troubled by the way the announcement was made; namely the impolitic choice to use social media to share such a message that effectively ended the careers of hundreds of players, content creators, casters, production crews overnight - and broke the hearts of countless fans,” wrote Darrie, the general manager of an esports team called Method, on Twitter this morning
Wait... one particular game gets shut down, and this guy thinks it will "effectively end the careers" of everyone involved? It's not like this was the only game around of interest in the esports world! Anyone with a modicum of talent and skill will be able to pick up another one with a bit of practice.
It was necessary to show some proactive filtering to avoid a situation where a court found them liable for encouraging infringement.
No it wasn't. What was necessary was to push back and say "this is what the law requires, this is all the law requires, and screw you if you want more than that." Instead, they tried to appease the extortionists, and the result was... well... exactly what you'd expect from someone who tries to appease extortionists. And we're all worse off for it.
What I'd prefer is a situation that puts copyright back in its proper place, with its proper perspective, rather than the inside-out insanity of the current regime.
What I'd prefer is for principles of Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, which are quite uncontroversial in other contexts, to be applied here: that content accused of copyright violation is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
What I'd prefer is for great power to actually come with an unavoidable great responsibility, rather than bringing with it the power to dodge responsibility, as is all too often the case.
On the post: Stupid Patent of the Month: Trading By Tweet
Patent trolls on one side, Wall Street on the other. This is another one of those "I don't know which one to root for" scenarios.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reacting to extortion in the wrong way is something blameworthy, because it legitimizes the extortion and empowers it. YouTube refusing to stand up for their rights--for our rights--to flip the script and take the fight to the enemy, and choosing to appease them and collude with them instead, is directly responsible for a large part of the mess we find ourselves in today.
There's a reason why phrases like "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" and "we do not negotiate with terrorists" are a thing. Because when you go outside of that mindset, this is what happens.
On the post: County Agrees To Pay $390,000 To Students Arrested By A Sheriff 'Just To Prove A Point'
He's dead today. He did something really stupid not that long after graduation and it blew up on him.
I can't help but think, maybe if he had gotten arrested in middle school and had a bit of "scared straight" pounded into his head, maybe if he hadn't been able to use his charm and athletic talent to escape all responsibility for his misdeeds, just maybe his life would have ended up on a better path.
On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
Re: Che Guevara = "known terrorist"
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. Nothing's perfect. This set of problems is significantly less bad than the current set, though. I find it a worthwhile tradeoff.
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re:
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the fundamental rules change, those who aren't able to adapt do tend to go out of business. That's the way it's always been.
Copyright was originally intended to be a tool for authors to keep abusive publishers in line. It's been perverted, mostly over the last 50 years or so, into a weapon for abusive publishers to wield against everyone else. But in a time when it's not just publishers who can make high-quality copies of a work, but literally any Joe Random Citizen at all, it's time to ask if the fundamental idea still makes any sense anymore. Techdirt has run plenty of articles over the years highlighting various different people and companies that have managed to find financial success in their creative endeavors without needing to rely on copyright.
I'm well aware that my proposal makes copyright enforcement at scale ruinously expensive. That is, as they say, "a feature, not a bug."
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re:
I don't want to "open up" the DMCA; I want to do away with it, and any other concept of extrajudicial takedown processes. I want to get rid of the insane notion we've got right now of copyright as a trump card that all other considerations must give way before.
Also, I don't believe that it would replace it with "something much, much worse." If publishing interests had to go to court to get things taken down, we would inevitably see three positive effects just from the nature of the judicial system:
That would be significantly better than the current regime.
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
And they're right. It doesn't work. It never has, and we ought to get rid of it and replace it with proper jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
Re: Re: Re:
Which is why it will fail. The entire history of civilization is the story of the human race's collective attempt to be better and stronger than the force of natural selection. And it's working!
To give just one obvious example, just look at all of the good that's been done by people who wear glasses. People who, in an earlier time, would have been considered blind and helpless, their potential to contribute to society nullified by the inferiority of their weak genes. We've beaten that, and we're better off for it. And we'll beat this and be better off for it too.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Blizzard's Sudden Shuttering Of Heroes Of The Storm Demonstrates Why eSports Needs Its Next Evolutionary Step
Wait... one particular game gets shut down, and this guy thinks it will "effectively end the careers" of everyone involved? It's not like this was the only game around of interest in the esports world! Anyone with a modicum of talent and skill will be able to pick up another one with a bit of practice.
On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
They sure seem to be tolerating plenty of it from Adrian Harrop...
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it wasn't. What was necessary was to push back and say "this is what the law requires, this is all the law requires, and screw you if you want more than that." Instead, they tried to appease the extortionists, and the result was... well... exactly what you'd expect from someone who tries to appease extortionists. And we're all worse off for it.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re:
What I'd prefer is a situation that puts copyright back in its proper place, with its proper perspective, rather than the inside-out insanity of the current regime.
What I'd prefer is for principles of Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, which are quite uncontroversial in other contexts, to be applied here: that content accused of copyright violation is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
What I'd prefer is for great power to actually come with an unavoidable great responsibility, rather than bringing with it the power to dodge responsibility, as is all too often the case.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re:
You say that like it's a bad thing. I, for one, would love to see them get smacked around for inflicting it on us!
On the post: Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites
On the post: Canada Outlaws Settlement Threat Letters Sent Through ISPs
Shouldn't that be "proscribed" by regulation?
On the post: Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
Re: Re:
Next >>