Perhaps they are intending to argue that the viewer is the one who instigates the manufacturing of a copy - now that it has been established that hosting or making the video available is not a copyright infringement. They may argue that YouTube doesn't 'stream' video, but transmits files, though usually ephemeral.
Unfortunately, I suspect Viacom realises copyright would be abolished faster than a snowflake in a sauna if they attempted to sue viewers of YouTube.
Or are they going to sue Google for transmitting files to viewers?
If the data is necessary for justice to be seen to be done, then publish the data for all to see.
When the law is perverted to violate privacy in the name of protecting publications from unauthorised redistribution to the public, such perverse measures are necessary.
Viacom wants a competitive advantage from the parlous discovery process the US has adopted? That advantage can be removed by Google providing the requested information to the public, which includes Viacom's competitors.
Better still, ditch copyright and restore the right to privacy.
The securing of exclusive rights means that no-one else has the liberty to search, inspect, reproduce, seize, or otherwise appropriate someone's intellectual property (writings, discoveries, etc.) from their private domain (unless a greater right is at stake, say the right to life), and that restitution and/or penalties may be exacted against those who violate this right.
Without such a securing, authors and inventors would have no protection or remedy against their exclusive writings and discoveries being inspected, copied, or stolen - aside from the paltry value of any material theft.
This exclusive right, applying to mortal authors and inventors, should be limited in time to the normal human lifespan.
Of course, society places a high value on original writings and discoveries, but the ethical encouragement of their publication is exchange in a free market, not the incentive obtained by granting unethical monopolies - no matter how highly prized those monopolies are to those enjoying them.
It is a sleight of hand that persuades people that because exclusive privileges stem from exclusive rights that the power to grant those privileges is sanctioned by the power to secure the rights from which they stem. This does not actually follow.
It is also incredibly cheeky to recognise the founders' wish to avoid granting monopolies to court favourites in goods or businesses in the very same breath as claiming they sanctioned the power to grant such monopolies.
You may be offended by a more correct interpretation of the constitution, and find it rather absurd to be at such odds with the conventional interpretation you've accepted for so long, but these things happen. There is understandably intense commercial pressure to maintain the conventional interpretation.
There are uncountable business ventures that never get off the drawing board because those that considered them doubted they'd be competitive. However, that doesn't sanction the state granting those businesses a monopoly to enable them to be established and operate without competition - by tying the hands of potential competitors - even for a limited time.
Certainly, kings have granted such monopolies in the past to those whose business they wished to favour, but this doesn't make it ethical or without greater cost to others.
The constitution limits the state to the protection of its citizen's rights, and is careful to avoid giving sanction for such monarchical excesses as the granting of privileges - especially the elevation of favoured merchants above others, even as a reward for their originality or discovery.
That we still have such privileges in the form of copyright and patent just goes to show how corrupting these commercially lucrative powers can be.
It is constitutional to secure an author's or inventor's exclusive rights as this security promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. It is, however, unconstitutional to then grant authors or inventors privileges of exclusive manufacture or reproduction as rewards or incentives for the release of their works - even if it is considered that such rewards may further promote the progress.
So, you're making an inference based on a hypothesis of a contemplation? That's even flakier than quibbling about whether 'progress' is an aspiration or a precondition.
The constitution specifies the securing of an exclusive right. This sanctions legislation that recognises and secures this pre-existing right.
It can't possibly be about securing paradoxically pre-existing statutory legislation such as copyright - even if it was observed to pre-exist in Europe.
It doesn't even sanction the creation of such commercial privileges, even if those privileges are then incorrectly termed 'exclusive rights'.
Admittedly, copyright secures an author's exclusive right, but it also grants a commercial privilege of exclusive reproduction to incentivise the release of works from that exclusive right. That privilege, necessarily compromising other citizens' right to liberty, is certainly not sanctioned by the constitution.
So, let's abolish copyright, revise legislation such that it only secures the author's and inventor's exclusive right (without granting them any privilege to incentivise the publication of their work), and restore the people's right to liberty.
Actually, copyright is NOT a constitutional right. The US constitution doesn't say anything about creating such a privilege, only the securing of exclusive rights. Such rights must necessarily already exist, i.e. be self-evident. The constitution doesn't create them, it recognises and stipulates their protection.
Just because you enact a privilege and call it a right doesn't make it a right.
See Constitutional Sanction for what a constitutional protection of authors' and inventors' exclusive rights would look like.
Authors and Inventors have a natural and self-evident exclusive right to their writings and discoveries WHILST THEY ARE EXCLUSIVE. If those authors and inventors choose to make them non-exclusive by sharing or publishing them, then clearly that natural right has dissolved. Of course, the enactment of copyright may attempt to legislate a continuance where the natural right ceased, but that isn't sanctioned by the constitution. Frankly, it's unethical let alone unconstitutional.
It is copyright that provides the greatest inducement for musicians to avoid crediting or acknowledging their sources or influences - for fear of litigation.
Without copyright, people can freely build upon each other's work, use the same or similar melodies, and credit each other with respect and honour.
Actually, copyright is NOT a constitutional right. The US constitution doesn't say anything about creating such a privilege, only the securing of exclusive rights. Such rights must necessarily already exist, i.e. be self-evident. The constitution doesn't create them, it recognises and stipulates their protection.
Just because you enact a privilege and call it a right doesn't make it a right.
See Constituional Sanction for what a constitutional protection of authors' and inventors' exclusive rights would look like.
Authors and Inventors have a natural and self-evident exclusive right to their writings and discoveries WHILST THEY ARE EXCLUSIVE. If those authors and inventors choose to make them non-exclusive by sharing or publishing them, then clearly that natural right has dissolved. Of course, the enactment of copyright may attempt to legislate a continuance where the natural right ceased, but that isn't sanctioned by the constitution. Frankly, it's unethical let alone unconstitutional.
Many of us use 'artist' in the general sense to mean any producer of art, whether that art is in the composition of music, the writing of lyrics, the use of a musical instrument, vocal performance, or any other creative activity - however nuanced.
Even the author of an original blog post is an artist.
However, I must admit ignorance of the term 'singwriter'. I deduce that it is a contraction of singer/songwriter?
For such a general audience as Techdirt it is probably best to expect more general interpretations of terms than those distorted meanings peculiar to specialist fields such as music licensing (which should be explained if you prefer them).
We're common people discussing the impact of music licensing on common people. We're not specialists discussing a specialist field from the specialist's perspective using specialist jargon.
Given this, do you still believe Mike is ignorant?
As long as artists can opt out, collection societies shouldn't hinder the future of unencumbered cultural works, which have the advantage that they can be performed without royalty.
There's nothing worse than a radio station, disco, diner, or pub being sued or prosecuted by collection societies for broadcasting, streaming or performing the works of artists who aren't its members.
Collection societies are obviously unhappy about artists who would bypass their expensive services, but if they believe they provide an indispensable service with a glorious future, then musicians, songwriters, performers and those who promote them through public performance of recordings shouldn't be compelled to utilise their services.
Thus collection societies should compete with free, i.e. those artists who feel they'd do better without them.
After all, if half of the lobbyists were represented by mortal people instead of immortal corporations it might not be so bad.
It's very difficult to prevent money entering into the system.
However, the reason the corporations are in the ascendant is because it's easy for their money to enter the system to fund lobbyists. If it was also easy for people to fund lobbyists (en masse rather than just the odd plutocrat) then things would be slightly more balanced.
Perhaps someone will find a way to make it easy for ordinary punters to pledge a dollar to their favoured lobbies?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
Using or building upon the creative ideas of others still requires that you have obtained those ideas legitimately, i.e. those ideas have been legitimately communicated to you.
It generally safe to say you can use, share or build upon the (voluntarily) published intellectual works, writings, inventions, and ideas of others.
If someone invites you into their garage, where they've shown you a neat idea of theirs, they have brought you into their confidence. You are nevertheless at liberty to break that confidence and share or build upon their otherwise unpublished ideas.
However, if you have not been invited, and break into the garage in the middle of the night and then share or build upon those unpublished ideas - you have thus illegitimately obtained - this is IP theft and is inherently wrong.
The US constitution is not in error. Authors and inventors do have a self-evident exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, that should be secured for their limited natural lifetime.
One might forgive some artists for finding an audience's attentions an irritation, and to attempt to remain indifferent and aloof to their affections and tributes.
However, when an artist actually attacks their audience, and artists among them, for nothing more than enjoying, performing, sharing and building upon their art then they have truly lost sight of what it means to be an artist among artists.
They have been corrupted by the cult leaders of their corporate record labels to turn against the very people who love them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
This needs a little more care.
There's nothing inherently wrong with copying or making any use of an intellectual work you have legitimately obtained - and as long as such use doesn't violate the rights of others.
Copyright is not a right but a privilege that suspends the right to make copies or certain uses such as public performance.
Therefore copying a CD you have purchased doesn't violate anyone else's rights only the copyright holder's privilege to suspend your right to make copies.
Even without copyright, you still have no right to make copies of someone else's intellectual property without their permission, e.g. taking a CD burner into someone else's house and ripping their CD collection whilst they're not looking.
This is the difference between copyright infringement and IP theft. It's predictable why the RIAA/MPAA would like the two concepts conflated because one is clearly wrong whereas the other is perfectly natural, however, they are distinct actions.
However, it's pretty despicable to steal an artist's work and publish it such that the market for their considerable labour is almost completely destroyed.
This is the difference between IP nihilism and IP naturalism. Both abhor copyright. Only one abhors IP theft.
On the post: Viacom Gets To Find Out What YouTube Videos You Watched
Re: Why?
Unfortunately, I suspect Viacom realises copyright would be abolished faster than a snowflake in a sauna if they attempted to sue viewers of YouTube.
Or are they going to sue Google for transmitting files to viewers?
On the post: Viacom Gets To Find Out What YouTube Videos You Watched
Google should publish
When the law is perverted to violate privacy in the name of protecting publications from unauthorised redistribution to the public, such perverse measures are necessary.
Viacom wants a competitive advantage from the parlous discovery process the US has adopted? That advantage can be removed by Google providing the requested information to the public, which includes Viacom's competitors.
Better still, ditch copyright and restore the right to privacy.
On the post: History Locked Up... Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right
Without such a securing, authors and inventors would have no protection or remedy against their exclusive writings and discoveries being inspected, copied, or stolen - aside from the paltry value of any material theft.
This exclusive right, applying to mortal authors and inventors, should be limited in time to the normal human lifespan.
Of course, society places a high value on original writings and discoveries, but the ethical encouragement of their publication is exchange in a free market, not the incentive obtained by granting unethical monopolies - no matter how highly prized those monopolies are to those enjoying them.
On the post: History Locked Up... Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right
It is also incredibly cheeky to recognise the founders' wish to avoid granting monopolies to court favourites in goods or businesses in the very same breath as claiming they sanctioned the power to grant such monopolies.
You may be offended by a more correct interpretation of the constitution, and find it rather absurd to be at such odds with the conventional interpretation you've accepted for so long, but these things happen. There is understandably intense commercial pressure to maintain the conventional interpretation.
On the post: Supreme Court Decision On Guns May Cut Promoting Progress Out Of The Constitution
Re: sense
Certainly, kings have granted such monopolies in the past to those whose business they wished to favour, but this doesn't make it ethical or without greater cost to others.
The constitution limits the state to the protection of its citizen's rights, and is careful to avoid giving sanction for such monarchical excesses as the granting of privileges - especially the elevation of favoured merchants above others, even as a reward for their originality or discovery.
That we still have such privileges in the form of copyright and patent just goes to show how corrupting these commercially lucrative powers can be.
It is constitutional to secure an author's or inventor's exclusive rights as this security promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. It is, however, unconstitutional to then grant authors or inventors privileges of exclusive manufacture or reproduction as rewards or incentives for the release of their works - even if it is considered that such rewards may further promote the progress.
Secure rights, but go no further.
On the post: History Locked Up... Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Right
The constitution specifies the securing of an exclusive right. This sanctions legislation that recognises and secures this pre-existing right.
It can't possibly be about securing paradoxically pre-existing statutory legislation such as copyright - even if it was observed to pre-exist in Europe.
It doesn't even sanction the creation of such commercial privileges, even if those privileges are then incorrectly termed 'exclusive rights'.
Admittedly, copyright secures an author's exclusive right, but it also grants a commercial privilege of exclusive reproduction to incentivise the release of works from that exclusive right. That privilege, necessarily compromising other citizens' right to liberty, is certainly not sanctioned by the constitution.
So, let's abolish copyright, revise legislation such that it only secures the author's and inventor's exclusive right (without granting them any privilege to incentivise the publication of their work), and restore the people's right to liberty.
On the post: Supreme Court Decision On Guns May Cut Promoting Progress Out Of The Constitution
It is more critical to examine 'Exclusive Rights'
I might as well repost my earlier comment.
Actually, copyright is NOT a constitutional right. The US constitution doesn't say anything about creating such a privilege, only the securing of exclusive rights. Such rights must necessarily already exist, i.e. be self-evident. The constitution doesn't create them, it recognises and stipulates their protection.
Just because you enact a privilege and call it a right doesn't make it a right.
See Constitutional Sanction for what a constitutional protection of authors' and inventors' exclusive rights would look like.
Authors and Inventors have a natural and self-evident exclusive right to their writings and discoveries WHILST THEY ARE EXCLUSIVE. If those authors and inventors choose to make them non-exclusive by sharing or publishing them, then clearly that natural right has dissolved. Of course, the enactment of copyright may attempt to legislate a continuance where the natural right ceased, but that isn't sanctioned by the constitution. Frankly, it's unethical let alone unconstitutional.
On the post: The Songs Coldplay Didn't Write?
Copyright Induces Plagiarism
Without copyright, people can freely build upon each other's work, use the same or similar melodies, and credit each other with respect and honour.
On the post: History Locked Up... Thanks To Copyright
Re: Constitutional Right
Just because you enact a privilege and call it a right doesn't make it a right.
See Constituional Sanction for what a constitutional protection of authors' and inventors' exclusive rights would look like.
Authors and Inventors have a natural and self-evident exclusive right to their writings and discoveries WHILST THEY ARE EXCLUSIVE. If those authors and inventors choose to make them non-exclusive by sharing or publishing them, then clearly that natural right has dissolved. Of course, the enactment of copyright may attempt to legislate a continuance where the natural right ceased, but that isn't sanctioned by the constitution. Frankly, it's unethical let alone unconstitutional.
On the post: History Locked Up... Thanks To Copyright
Ghost Works Survey
On the post: Europe Looks To Get Rid Of Monopoly On Royalty Collection Societies
Re:
Even the author of an original blog post is an artist.
However, I must admit ignorance of the term 'singwriter'. I deduce that it is a contraction of singer/songwriter?
For such a general audience as Techdirt it is probably best to expect more general interpretations of terms than those distorted meanings peculiar to specialist fields such as music licensing (which should be explained if you prefer them).
We're common people discussing the impact of music licensing on common people. We're not specialists discussing a specialist field from the specialist's perspective using specialist jargon.
Given this, do you still believe Mike is ignorant?
On the post: Europe Looks To Get Rid Of Monopoly On Royalty Collection Societies
Opt Out
There's nothing worse than a radio station, disco, diner, or pub being sued or prosecuted by collection societies for broadcasting, streaming or performing the works of artists who aren't its members.
Collection societies are obviously unhappy about artists who would bypass their expensive services, but if they believe they provide an indispensable service with a glorious future, then musicians, songwriters, performers and those who promote them through public performance of recordings shouldn't be compelled to utilise their services.
Thus collection societies should compete with free, i.e. those artists who feel they'd do better without them.
On the post: Why Compulsory Licenses Are Bad: A Look At The Sausage Making Process
Re: Commercial interests
After all, if half of the lobbyists were represented by mortal people instead of immortal corporations it might not be so bad.
It's very difficult to prevent money entering into the system.
However, the reason the corporations are in the ascendant is because it's easy for their money to enter the system to fund lobbyists. If it was also easy for people to fund lobbyists (en masse rather than just the odd plutocrat) then things would be slightly more balanced.
Perhaps someone will find a way to make it easy for ordinary punters to pledge a dollar to their favoured lobbies?
On the post: Why Compulsory Licenses Are Bad: A Look At The Sausage Making Process
See also
If there's one thing worse than a state enforced monopoly to reward publishers it's a tax to replace it.
On the post: Don't Blame Rick752 For Blocking Ads; Blame Those Who Made Ads Annoying
I don't have advertisements on my site
Ad free - always has been, always will be.
Doesn't stop me advertising my site of course. ;-)
NB By 'ad' I mean space turned over to advertisers such that I effectively sell my audience's eyeballs to them.
I don't believe in selling one's audience to advertisers.
It's an indication of contempt.
On the post: Is That The Best Cato Can Do In Defense Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
It generally safe to say you can use, share or build upon the (voluntarily) published intellectual works, writings, inventions, and ideas of others.
If someone invites you into their garage, where they've shown you a neat idea of theirs, they have brought you into their confidence. You are nevertheless at liberty to break that confidence and share or build upon their otherwise unpublished ideas.
However, if you have not been invited, and break into the garage in the middle of the night and then share or build upon those unpublished ideas - you have thus illegitimately obtained - this is IP theft and is inherently wrong.
The US constitution is not in error. Authors and inventors do have a self-evident exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, that should be secured for their limited natural lifetime.
See Constitutional Sanction.
On the post: Prince Sues Musicians For Making A Tribute Album For His Birthday
Indifference vs Antagonism
However, when an artist actually attacks their audience, and artists among them, for nothing more than enjoying, performing, sharing and building upon their art then they have truly lost sight of what it means to be an artist among artists.
They have been corrupted by the cult leaders of their corporate record labels to turn against the very people who love them.
On the post: Is That The Best Cato Can Do In Defense Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
There's nothing inherently wrong with copying or making any use of an intellectual work you have legitimately obtained - and as long as such use doesn't violate the rights of others.
Copyright is not a right but a privilege that suspends the right to make copies or certain uses such as public performance.
Therefore copying a CD you have purchased doesn't violate anyone else's rights only the copyright holder's privilege to suspend your right to make copies.
Even without copyright, you still have no right to make copies of someone else's intellectual property without their permission, e.g. taking a CD burner into someone else's house and ripping their CD collection whilst they're not looking.
This is the difference between copyright infringement and IP theft. It's predictable why the RIAA/MPAA would like the two concepts conflated because one is clearly wrong whereas the other is perfectly natural, however, they are distinct actions.
On the post: Doesn't The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N' Roses Album?
Re: Re: Privy vs Theft
However, it's pretty despicable to steal an artist's work and publish it such that the market for their considerable labour is almost completely destroyed.
This is the difference between IP nihilism and IP naturalism. Both abhor copyright. Only one abhors IP theft.
On the post: Doesn't The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N' Roses Album?
Privy vs Theft
If you are not privy, you are an IP thief and should indeed be sought and apprehended by the FBI for such a heinous crime.
Next >>