That's actually kind of funny since more than half of that comment is opinion.
But anyways, do you care to cite a civil case where the court upheld a case based on "intent to commit a tort" in which the tort never actually occurred? Like I said, I would love to read that one.
Recordings of those performances are copyrighted..
Yes and I should have made that clearer in my comment when I said "but no one is saying that they are not copyrightable."
I always laugh at the legalese they put into sports broadcasts where they claim that "disseminating the accounts and descriptions without express permission is prohibited" because besides being a load of hogwash, it's also copyfraud.
Sports events are performances, just like live theatre. Thus copyright laws imply.
Where in the article does it say that copyright laws do not apply here? The first couple of comments may have questioned whether a sports event should be copyrightable, but no one is saying that they are not copyrightable.
Someone stating that they intend to break the law is absolutely something you can have a lawsuit about to try to prevent.
Is it? I mean, I know that any idiot can sue anyone for any reason, but do you have any citation where such a case was actually upheld by the court? I would be interested in reading that.
You want the benefits, great, then you get to pay some fees and do some work to get them.
Another way to think about is to consider the exclusive rights that copyright provides creators (at the expense of public's rights no less) as a privilege.
For example, if want the privilege of driving a car on public streets you have to register and pay a fee.
is that same as Gwiz beggin some "Blue" for attention?
Lol. I refer to "out_of_the_blue" as "Blue", but I wouldn't say "beggin for attention". Blue has a history of spouting nonsense, ignoring any rebuttals and then claiming that his points stand and he won the exchange. It's a hallmark of someone arguing from a weak position, really.
old man yells at cloud?
Not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I will admit that, yes, I could be considered an old man by some (and most definitely by the AARP who now send me application every month or so). I usually tend to rebut the cloud shouters though.
Copyright is not defined in terms of technology...
Yes it is. Take a look through the statues and it's full of terms like "digital audio recording device" and "technological measure" and "semiconductor chip product" and many others.
...I see no reason why fair use exception need to be either.
Same thing with some of the Fair Use common law rulings. Take a look at the Cablevison ruling, the whole thing revolves around the technology being used and very little to do with the principals of Fair Use since the concept of home taping via the VCR had already been established.
An opt in system would automatically exclude those that were unaware or unable to pay the cost of registration, unless of course this registration were free. All are free to create.
Yes all are free to create, but the opt-in copyright would be for those who wish to monetize and protect their creations.
As for registration, I like Derek Khanna's idea of a sliding scale. Free for the first year, but at an increasing cost for substantial renewals. If you are still earning income from your work then you should be willing to pay for such exclusive rights. If not, then the work goes into the Public Domain.
I guess I just don't understand why creators are so against the registration of copyrights. If you value the exclusive rights granted to you via copyright so much then you should also be willing to expend a little extra energy and little extra money to receive those exclusive rights.
Also, I would fear that such a list would inhibit innovation to a degree. Let's say I invent something completely new that should be considered Fair Use, but isn't covered on the list because no one thought of it before. It would automatically be considered as infringement and I would have no recourse until Congress gets around to updating the list (if ever, since lobbying dollars would come into play here). How is that beneficial to society?
It can easily be defined in terms of technology-agnostic principles.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that.
Take my example, how do you foresee a need for a exemption on format-shifting for personal use at a time when the ability to format-shift required a investment equal to a small country's GDP?
Technology in the future could cause the need for exemptions that we can't even fathom today. 3d printing is heading down paths we might need exemptions for already. What if we develop something that transmits media directly into brainwaves or something like that?
I should think that spelling out the exceptions and exemptions is better.
I disagree. Statutes always lag behind technology. I'm of the opinion that the determination of Fair Use should be, at the very least, something that has the ability to be fluid and adaptable.
For example, how do you carve out exceptions for time-shifting or format-shifting of digital products when most advanced technology of the day is the piano roll?
This claim falls apart when they advocate for a particular point of view which is shared by a particular political group even though that group may not align with either of the mainstream political parties.
You are confusing partisanship with advocating an idea on it's own merits.
The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
If one is using "partisan" in the colloquial sense, than yes, the fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats makes them absolutely non-partisan.
Also from Google, in reference to politics, which the way most people use this term:
Partisan (political)
In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.
I just wrote response to this comment and it has gotten caught in the spam filter and is now awaiting moderation.
See Blue, even the regulars with registered accounts have comments that get caught in the spam filter on occasion. There really is no grand conspiracy to silence you at all.
Hey Blue, I was involved in that discussion with GobberedUp. Do you care to point to which of my arguments were "false" or "baseless assertions" or even an ad hom attack?
As for GooberedUp having "20 years of IP law experience" which may or not be true, I can only say that he must not be very good at his job to toss out silly generalizations like this:
However, the copyright holder has the rights to dictate how you consume the copyrighted content.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
Just because something is in the copyright database doesn't mean any particular upload is infringing and should be blocked.
I agree. Such a database wouldn't be much help in determining Fair Use. It would be a start though, IMO, especially if it included who was "officially" licensed to use the content at any given time and was consistently and constantly updated by the rightsholders.
On the post: MPAA Gets Court To Block Popcorn Time Websites In UK, Despite Judge Admitting The Sites Don't Actually Infringe
Re:
No, not really:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150129/06555929849/anti-piracy-group-so-desperate-to-go-a fter-popcorn-time-that-it-threatens-blog-software-maker.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 711/18044627859/mpaa-stretches-dmca-to-breaking-point-with-questionable-take-down-request-popcorn-ti me-repositories.shtml
On the post: MPAA Gets Court To Block Popcorn Time Websites In UK, Despite Judge Admitting The Sites Don't Actually Infringe
Re:
What if you use Popcorn Time only view Public Domain movies?
On the post: MPAA Gets Court To Block Popcorn Time Websites In UK, Despite Judge Admitting The Sites Don't Actually Infringe
Re: "jointly liable" is not a slippery slope. Overt acts with sole purpose to infringe.
If I defend Ford Motor Company, does that make me bank robber?
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: Re: Re:
That's actually kind of funny since more than half of that comment is opinion.
But anyways, do you care to cite a civil case where the court upheld a case based on "intent to commit a tort" in which the tort never actually occurred? Like I said, I would love to read that one.
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: Re:
Yes and I should have made that clearer in my comment when I said "but no one is saying that they are not copyrightable."
I always laugh at the legalese they put into sports broadcasts where they claim that "disseminating the accounts and descriptions without express permission is prohibited" because besides being a load of hogwash, it's also copyfraud.
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re:
Where in the article does it say that copyright laws do not apply here? The first couple of comments may have questioned whether a sports event should be copyrightable, but no one is saying that they are not copyrightable.
Someone stating that they intend to break the law is absolutely something you can have a lawsuit about to try to prevent.
Is it? I mean, I know that any idiot can sue anyone for any reason, but do you have any citation where such a case was actually upheld by the court? I would be interested in reading that.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Overhead comparable to damages.
Another way to think about is to consider the exclusive rights that copyright provides creators (at the expense of public's rights no less) as a privilege.
For example, if want the privilege of driving a car on public streets you have to register and pay a fee.
On the post: UK Green Party Speculates On Idea To Shorten Copyright To 14 Years... Leading To Mass Freakout
Re: Re: Re
Lol. I refer to "out_of_the_blue" as "Blue", but I wouldn't say "beggin for attention". Blue has a history of spouting nonsense, ignoring any rebuttals and then claiming that his points stand and he won the exchange. It's a hallmark of someone arguing from a weak position, really.
old man yells at cloud?
Not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I will admit that, yes, I could be considered an old man by some (and most definitely by the AARP who now send me application every month or so). I usually tend to rebut the cloud shouters though.
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say that originally OWS protests were non-partisan. Their stated mission was against social and economic inequality worldwide.
That's not to say that the movement wasn't eventually co-opted into a political partisan issue by those on both sides.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it is. Take a look through the statues and it's full of terms like "digital audio recording device" and "technological measure" and "semiconductor chip product" and many others.
...I see no reason why fair use exception need to be either.
Same thing with some of the Fair Use common law rulings. Take a look at the Cablevison ruling, the whole thing revolves around the technology being used and very little to do with the principals of Fair Use since the concept of home taping via the VCR had already been established.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
Yes all are free to create, but the opt-in copyright would be for those who wish to monetize and protect their creations.
As for registration, I like Derek Khanna's idea of a sliding scale. Free for the first year, but at an increasing cost for substantial renewals. If you are still earning income from your work then you should be willing to pay for such exclusive rights. If not, then the work goes into the Public Domain.
I guess I just don't understand why creators are so against the registration of copyrights. If you value the exclusive rights granted to you via copyright so much then you should also be willing to expend a little extra energy and little extra money to receive those exclusive rights.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that.
Take my example, how do you foresee a need for a exemption on format-shifting for personal use at a time when the ability to format-shift required a investment equal to a small country's GDP?
Technology in the future could cause the need for exemptions that we can't even fathom today. 3d printing is heading down paths we might need exemptions for already. What if we develop something that transmits media directly into brainwaves or something like that?
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re:
I disagree. Statutes always lag behind technology. I'm of the opinion that the determination of Fair Use should be, at the very least, something that has the ability to be fluid and adaptable.
For example, how do you carve out exceptions for time-shifting or format-shifting of digital products when most advanced technology of the day is the piano roll?
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: If defending Megaupload, you're for out and out PIRACY.
I'm not really sure how you are defining "copyright moderate", so I won't use that term.
I will say that I am a "copyright minimalist" using the terms defined by Karl on his blog.
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are confusing partisanship with advocating an idea on it's own merits.
The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
If one is using "partisan" in the colloquial sense, than yes, the fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats makes them absolutely non-partisan.
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also from Google, in reference to politics, which the way most people use this term:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 19th - 25th
Re: Reasonable reaction.
See Blue, even the regulars with registered accounts have comments that get caught in the spam filter on occasion. There really is no grand conspiracy to silence you at all.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 19th - 25th
Re: Reasonable reaction.
As for GooberedUp having "20 years of IP law experience" which may or not be true, I can only say that he must not be very good at his job to toss out silly generalizations like this:
On the post: Recording Industry's Latest Plan To Mess Up The Internet: Do Away With Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
I agree. Such a database wouldn't be much help in determining Fair Use. It would be a start though, IMO, especially if it included who was "officially" licensed to use the content at any given time and was consistently and constantly updated by the rightsholders.
Next >>