Re: Balderdash-- only crooks lost their ability to tell other crooks where to look
I love how you think that shutting down a site offering pointers to unlicensed goods is somehow depriving the ability of that site to express an opinion.
Because there is never a valid reason to link to potentially infringing content? There is never a fair use reason to do so? Because a person that links to infringement is jsut as guilty as the person that actually infringed?
Are you serious?
Also, I highly doubt that MLK and Zenger would have supported the censorship of the internet. They were pretty darn supportive of open communication, due process and fair treatment of all people.
Why on earth would you type something like that? It's not at all what I typed or meant.
In the world we all live in there a 100000000's of bad laws.
We as citizens have a responsibility to fight bad laws. Why is bad copyright law any different?
Copyright Infringement does not = censorship Zac.
Should any of the videos or blogs (or other things) feel that their Uses was a fair-use the right to a counter is available and absolutely should be exercised.
That's what the counter is for.
I am not talking about clear copyright infringement. I am talking about the number of videos and blogs that have had DMCA take downs applied to them when the person sending the notice had ZERO rights to the content.
And whom do you suggest 'they' make their intentions clear to? The world wide web? Every person connected to the web?
Everybody?
If only we had a government body whose sole purpose was to manage copyrights and who controls them. That would be real nice now wouldn't it?
There is an amended complaint that you can view on their site Zac. Each union has 1000's of members as do the publishing companies, it's far more than a mere handful.
I will have to check out the docket then. As for the "1000s of members" none of them had their works made available through the Hathitrust. The Authors guild had to look outside their circle of members to find actual "harmed" authors.
Actually this began long before the libraries thought they would fair better. Google began the process in 2005.
I still have no idea why you hate the idea of preventing works from rotting in obscurity . That is the goal of Google's book project and the Hathitrust project. These are works that are rotting and need to be preserved and shared. Yet no one is doing anything about it because few are brave enough to tackle copyright law as it stands. Those that do are sued for their good will.
I don't think I did that bad considering I have only been around for half a year. My comment count as of the end of the year was roughly half the #10 spot on the most comments list. So I could get on that this coming year. Which will most likely put me up higher on the most insightful list. (unless of course my little brag fest here kills my chances)
Zachary whether the copyright act of 1978, the DMCA Act 1998, the Berne Convention, the TRIPP Agreement, the Extension Act, the WTO trade agreement(s) or any of the Acts/Bills and global Treaties "caused far more problems than it fixed." is irrelevant to the fact that all the laws exist. Because someone can not understand opt-out vs opt-in (no I do not mean you directly) does that mean it should be ignored completely?
Yes, just because a law is a law we should follow it. Got it. In your world, there are no bad laws.
When the DMCA Act was first introduced it was met with the same "censorship" and "freedom of Speech" concerns that the 2 new Bills are being attacked for presently.
The DMCA Act is 12 years old and freedom of speech is alive and well, censorship didn't happen either.
There are still plenty of videos, blogs, and other things being censored falsely under the DMCA. How you can deny that is beyond me.
Out of print does not mean void of copyrights Zac.
Maybe the rightful owners didn't want their Works published anymore? Is that not their right?
Then they need to make those intents clear. They should also make themselves easier to find when such an intent is not clearly available.
Reality is, it was not a mere "handful" of books that were included against the owners wishes, even hathitrust realized this.
Yet, the Authors Guild was only able to find a handful of authors willing to sue over this.
Orphaned works are a plague on copyright perpetuated and fueled by the insanity of modern copyright. The Hathitrust was trying to sooth the sore that is orphaned works and the Authors Guild would not have it. Why? Who knows, I guess they don't actually care that culture is wasting away in obscurity.
The copyright Act(s) covered that many years ago by making copyrights automatic.
Once again. This action caused far more problems than it fixed. In fact this was not a fix for any problem at all. There is no logical reason why making copyright "opt-out" (except you really can't opt-out) was actually good for anyone. It has made it far harder to keep track of who controls a copyright and has created the new problem of orphaned works.
Under the US' original copyright law, there was no such thing as an orphaned work as 1) copyrights had to be registered if they were wanted. 2) They only lasted 14 years unless reregistered. Under that system at most you had to wait 14 years to deal with a work that had an unfindable copyright holder. Now you ahve to wait at least 95 years. Hardly reasonable.
They didn't stop at making copies, they were ready to distribute the copies to the public.
Yes they were. But, those works were 1) out of print. 2) had copyright holders that could not be found (excepting a handful of cases where the copyright holders were found after the list was revealed).
Looks like the ostrich method of legislating is alive and well in Washington. Except, instead of burying his head in the sand he is burying it deep in his anus. Great going there Smith.
I am simply refuting the idea that it is easy to determine what is covered by copyright and who controls that copyright. You seem to think it is easy as pie to determine that information when facts say otherwise.
That said, moving back to an opt-in system where works must be registered to get copyright and must be reregistered to maintain copyright would be far better and would completely eliminate (or at least reduce the number of) the problem of orphaned works.
Wrong - the list included copyright protected Works as well.
Seriously? You are still confused on what an orphaned work is? Hasn't that been explained to you at least twice before you made this comment?
Wrong - they released a release date for the project.
The list was complied by a 3rd party who brought the copyright infringements to their attention.
Please cite this source. So far everything I have read has shown that the Hathitrust themselves released the list of works they planned on making available in its program.
Wrong - there were as many in-copyright Works as there were "orphaned" Works. Hathitrust (i'm going to assume here) was going through with the project under a "fair use" idea, and if that didn't work they knew Sovereign immunity would prevent them from being sued for money.
Of course the release of orphaned works (which are still copyrighted) is fair use. No one was denying that. Considering that copyright holders, if they came forward at any time, could have simply requested their works to be removed, there was no need for a lawsuit.
Wrong - the scanning was done. In fact court records show it cost the libraries $100.00 per book. Nice pay day for google!
Google provided a service. Seems reasonable to charge for said service. As for the scanning itself, the scans had not been made available so they were not being distributed. Even if they had been there is still a fair use defense to be made.
The project is down, not a good start for the people claiming they did no wrong
Most people will stop and action while they are being sued over it regardless of its eventual legality. It completely sucks really and as has been pointed out to you, Veoh was killed by a lawsuit even though it was eventually vindicated.
I am not saying it is a problem. I am saying 1) Having a copyright on the crayon drawing from a 5 year-old is pointless. 2) The Copyright Office will not have any copyright information on that work and billions of other copyrighted works.
And when said work does not contain any copyright information? What then? It is still covered by copyright but the creator's information is not available. How are you supposed to go about that?
Not only that but my 5 year-old's drawing of a cat is covered by copyright. I am pretty darn sure that the Copyright Office does not have a record of it though.
The Copyright office does not have a full list of copyrighted works. Remember, everything under the sun that is fixed in a medium is covered by copyright. The only list the Copyright office has are those that registered their copyright in order to qualify for statutory damages in a lawsuit.
So no, the information is not always available nor is it always accurate and up to date.
1) The Hathitrust was organized to preserve and allow for the reading of orphaned works.
2) They attempted to make sure that all works were truly orphaned.
3) The released a list of books they were planning to release.
4) The Authors Guild found a couple of authors on the list, which the Hathitrust was hoping to happen.
5) The Authors Guild freaked out and sued the Hathitrust for this program, which is a bit over the top considering nothing was infringed upon at that time.
6) The lawsuit is still going with no decision as of yet.
On the post: NinjaVideo Admin Phara Gets 22 Months In Jail, 500 Hours Of Community Service & Has To Pay MPAA $210k
Re:
Then you have the deniers that will rail against any charge.
Then you have the ones that are guilty of a lesser crime (whether in their minds or reality) railing against a trumped up charge.
Then you have the innocent who will also rail against any charge.
In any case, the charges should be true, accurate and the punishment should fit the crime.
On the post: MPAA Boss Chris Dodd Denies That Copyright Law Today Has Created Any Free Speech Issues
Re: Balderdash-- only crooks lost their ability to tell other crooks where to look
Because there is never a valid reason to link to potentially infringing content? There is never a fair use reason to do so? Because a person that links to infringement is jsut as guilty as the person that actually infringed?
Are you serious?
Also, I highly doubt that MLK and Zenger would have supported the censorship of the internet. They were pretty darn supportive of open communication, due process and fair treatment of all people.
On the post: Techdirt 2011: The Numbers.
Re: Re:
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the world we all live in there a 100000000's of bad laws.
We as citizens have a responsibility to fight bad laws. Why is bad copyright law any different?
Copyright Infringement does not = censorship Zac.
Should any of the videos or blogs (or other things) feel that their Uses was a fair-use the right to a counter is available and absolutely should be exercised.
That's what the counter is for.
I am not talking about clear copyright infringement. I am talking about the number of videos and blogs that have had DMCA take downs applied to them when the person sending the notice had ZERO rights to the content.
And whom do you suggest 'they' make their intentions clear to? The world wide web? Every person connected to the web?
Everybody?
If only we had a government body whose sole purpose was to manage copyrights and who controls them. That would be real nice now wouldn't it?
There is an amended complaint that you can view on their site Zac. Each union has 1000's of members as do the publishing companies, it's far more than a mere handful.
I will have to check out the docket then. As for the "1000s of members" none of them had their works made available through the Hathitrust. The Authors guild had to look outside their circle of members to find actual "harmed" authors.
Actually this began long before the libraries thought they would fair better. Google began the process in 2005.
I still have no idea why you hate the idea of preventing works from rotting in obscurity . That is the goal of Google's book project and the Hathitrust project. These are works that are rotting and need to be preserved and shared. Yet no one is doing anything about it because few are brave enough to tackle copyright law as it stands. Those that do are sued for their good will.
On the post: Techdirt 2011: The Numbers.
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, just because a law is a law we should follow it. Got it. In your world, there are no bad laws.
When the DMCA Act was first introduced it was met with the same "censorship" and "freedom of Speech" concerns that the 2 new Bills are being attacked for presently.
The DMCA Act is 12 years old and freedom of speech is alive and well, censorship didn't happen either.
There are still plenty of videos, blogs, and other things being censored falsely under the DMCA. How you can deny that is beyond me.
Out of print does not mean void of copyrights Zac.
Maybe the rightful owners didn't want their Works published anymore? Is that not their right?
Then they need to make those intents clear. They should also make themselves easier to find when such an intent is not clearly available.
Reality is, it was not a mere "handful" of books that were included against the owners wishes, even hathitrust realized this.
Yet, the Authors Guild was only able to find a handful of authors willing to sue over this.
Orphaned works are a plague on copyright perpetuated and fueled by the insanity of modern copyright. The Hathitrust was trying to sooth the sore that is orphaned works and the Authors Guild would not have it. Why? Who knows, I guess they don't actually care that culture is wasting away in obscurity.
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again. This action caused far more problems than it fixed. In fact this was not a fix for any problem at all. There is no logical reason why making copyright "opt-out" (except you really can't opt-out) was actually good for anyone. It has made it far harder to keep track of who controls a copyright and has created the new problem of orphaned works.
Under the US' original copyright law, there was no such thing as an orphaned work as 1) copyrights had to be registered if they were wanted. 2) They only lasted 14 years unless reregistered. Under that system at most you had to wait 14 years to deal with a work that had an unfindable copyright holder. Now you ahve to wait at least 95 years. Hardly reasonable.
They didn't stop at making copies, they were ready to distribute the copies to the public.
Yes they were. But, those works were 1) out of print. 2) had copyright holders that could not be found (excepting a handful of cases where the copyright holders were found after the list was revealed).
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ESA Officially Supports SOPA, VGVN Members Left In The Cold
Re: Re: List of ESA members
On the post: Rep. Lamar Smith Decides Lying About, Insulting And Dismissing Opposition To SOPA Is A Winning Strategy
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, moving back to an opt-in system where works must be registered to get copyright and must be reregistered to maintain copyright would be far better and would completely eliminate (or at least reduce the number of) the problem of orphaned works.
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously? You are still confused on what an orphaned work is? Hasn't that been explained to you at least twice before you made this comment?
Wrong - they released a release date for the project.
The list was complied by a 3rd party who brought the copyright infringements to their attention.
Please cite this source. So far everything I have read has shown that the Hathitrust themselves released the list of works they planned on making available in its program.
Wrong - there were as many in-copyright Works as there were "orphaned" Works. Hathitrust (i'm going to assume here) was going through with the project under a "fair use" idea, and if that didn't work they knew Sovereign immunity would prevent them from being sued for money.
Of course the release of orphaned works (which are still copyrighted) is fair use. No one was denying that. Considering that copyright holders, if they came forward at any time, could have simply requested their works to be removed, there was no need for a lawsuit.
Wrong - the scanning was done. In fact court records show it cost the libraries $100.00 per book. Nice pay day for google!
Google provided a service. Seems reasonable to charge for said service. As for the scanning itself, the scans had not been made available so they were not being distributed. Even if they had been there is still a fair use defense to be made.
The project is down, not a good start for the people claiming they did no wrong
Most people will stop and action while they are being sued over it regardless of its eventual legality. It completely sucks really and as has been pointed out to you, Veoh was killed by a lawsuit even though it was eventually vindicated.
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So no, the information is not always available nor is it always accurate and up to date.
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The Hathitrust was organized to preserve and allow for the reading of orphaned works.
2) They attempted to make sure that all works were truly orphaned.
3) The released a list of books they were planning to release.
4) The Authors Guild found a couple of authors on the list, which the Hathitrust was hoping to happen.
5) The Authors Guild freaked out and sued the Hathitrust for this program, which is a bit over the top considering nothing was infringed upon at that time.
6) The lawsuit is still going with no decision as of yet.
Am I missing anything?
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>