1) no 2) no 3)no 4),5),6) a private citizen, no. Apparently, to hire a commercial entity to do this for you, they are indeed rebroadcasting content regardless if there is a cable or if it is over the internet. You are a customer and they are a business functioning as a cable company. I can give a person a ride and charge them a fee as a private citizen. If I do this same service as a business there are regulatory schemes I must follow, I must be a registered business, be registered with the state carry insurance, etc because I am no longer a private citizen doing this but a cabbie running a commercial business.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it is a cable company that rebroadcasts content without licensing. I find it interesting that if the design of the service performed is that of a cable company then the technology is simply irrelevant. This decision really falls in line with Grokster in that the purpose of the business is what is being evaluated not how it is technologically executed. And I do not believe the purpose of a service like Dropbox is similar to that of a cable company.
"You don't seem to understand much of what's being said here.The point is, even without a trademark on the Redskins name, 'everyone' won't be able to sell team merchandise because the team still has protection for all the *other* aspects of their brand."
Yes, you are correct. I do not understand much of what is being said here, by you. What other protections are there? I can only assume you mean the logo. However, how would they prevent me from selling a coffee mug with the name "Redskins" on it? Or a jacket? Please explain what other avenues of litigation they would take. If they would use trademark/Lanham Act litigation to stop this and "redskins" is no longer under trademark protection, how would they bring legal action. In May, the franchise presented a former player(Lavar Arrington)with a cease and desist letter because he referred to himself as a former "Redskins great" in an advert for his football camp. What legal action would they take to stop him from stating this now?
Native Americans......You have the Freedom to say it but you are confusing protecting a mark for commerce with free speech. I hope you see they are not related in the least.
"I live close to an area that has Indians, an I've heard plenty of derogatory terms for Indians"
Wow, you don't even get it. They call themselves Native Americans. Do you even know where the term indians comes from? A white guy thought he had reached India and called them that and other white people continued to do so.......so sad. I wonder if you would say something racist and proclaim because you didn't know it was ok to contiue using the term....oh wait you did.......
I fail to see why a list of items not caused by the willful actions of others would bring perspective on terrorism. But if you would like to argue more money should be spent combating them, I do not disagree.
Number of terrorist in 9/11= 19, number of deaths= 2,977, Number of non fatal injuries= 6,000, property damage $10 billion. Though I disagree with many governmental policies associated with national security, I would very much like to hear the author's definition of "the wholesale evisceration of freedom." In addition, if one could better define the "Security State" in which we live, I would better be able to grasp the author's argument. Because there aren't many terrorists we should....? Is the argument, there are less terrorist today than there where before? I would think the number would be about the same. I suppose labeling elected officials as "our rulers" is a bit more telling.....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
"Everyone is a creator of content. You're taking the narrow definition of only those that sell content are creators. Wake up. This is the age of user generated content."
Thank goodness there are professionals that make content or all I would have to watch are user generated cat videos..but seriously, yes anyone with a smartphone can take a picture but are you implying there is no distinction between a professional photographer's photo and picture shot by my aunt? Though my aunt's photo might be good, I think we can agree there is a distinction between the consistent quality of the two and a difference in value both aesthetically and economically. Just as there is a distinction between "reality television" and a motion picture, written by a writer and directed by a director etc. In addition, the creator of user generated content, (if they have not given their rights away by posting on certain platforms) retains the very same rights as those of creators that sell content.
"That's a very poor example."
No, it was a perfect example because you stated:
"If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant."
The whole point was to show a case where the current law would protect against this action and your interpretation of the law would leave no recourse. Because in my example the infringement IS "significant" yet not economically damaging. Your example was fair use, an allowance written into the statute. Because you can show an instance where someone can use a work without permission, makes my example no less valid. In fact, I would hope you would agree appropriating a work in the manner of my example should be actionable. Under current law, it is and I think the painter should be able to stop the use of the image under these circumstances.
"It's sad that you view fan fiction as a "form of infringement" rather than a compliment to the author they are emulating."
Why can't they be both? It is not sad, I am not alone in this view because that is what the law states. I did not say fan fiction was not a complement to the author. Rather, based on the law, it fits the definition of infringement. I also stated that not all infringement should be prosecuted. But what if a company starts selling the fan fiction? I suppose you feel the original author that created the characters, the very universe in which the story takes place, is not entitled to any of the money generated by that fan fiction? I disagree. My thoughts are not based on a theory of what rights copyright should or should not encompass rather, they are based on the statutory language that provides them. Whether or not you agree with the law is strictly personal and I concede great minds will often disagree.
"I'm not ignoring the fact, but you're failing to realize that content doesn't have to be a product to be a sustainable business."
No, content doesn't have to be a product, but there is nothing wrong with content being a product. In fact, the law allows it and many many businesses are built on it being so. I return to the computer program. I fail to see the fault in a computer program being a product. In fact I believe many video game producers see no problem with this either.
Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
"The whole argument against infringement has been about economic damage at its core."
Sometimes you just have the right to do what you want with what you created. I find it is often the non-creator stating that they have a right to do what they will with the creation of another. The law says otherwise.
"If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant."
I disagree. I paint a painting and display it in a gallery. You take a photo of my painting and place that photo, of the painting, on a website promoting the kidnapping of girls and their sale as child brides. I obviously disagree with this idea. In your construct of copyright, this is "not significant" and I have no recourse.
"Expressions and information are intangible things. You can pretend that it isn't, but sooner or later, people will start to do what they've always done with culture. They share it."
Intangible things have value. If they did not you would have no desire for them. I find your statement one often used to support piracy and because intangible things do have value, I cannot agree. Items have value beyond scarcity, a computer program is just one example of a good that has no physical scarcity but has "tangible" value.
Not all forms of infringement need to be prosecuted. Some such as fan fiction may benefit the original author or copyright holder but I find the "people due what they always have done they share" as utopian, and ignoring the fact the increasingly ideas and there expression are a significant portion of the economy as the production of physical goods shifts to growing economies where labor is less expensive.
"In order to pursue a copyright infringement suit, what if proof of actual (not hypothetical) economic damage were required?"
I cannot agree. It would imply that People have a right to infringe if it is not causing economic harm. The creator has a right to decide when to release their work, where to release it, how many copies to make, how to distribute it etc... A perfect example and this really happened....A photographer takes a picture of a same sex couple kissing. He supports equal rights for all. His photo is appropriated for an ad for a political campaign of a candidate who vehemently opposes same sex marriage. Have real economic damages occurred? Are they calculable? Not likely... The photographer would have no grounds to sue to enjoin the use of his photograph by the political campaign under your proposed enforcement of copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault
"That said, Levison still should shoulder some of the blame."
I think this statement is more than clear and I feel the same. Yes he should shoulder SOME of the blame. How can you truly safeguard a client's information if you don't have a contingency plan when there is a legal challenge to acquire it. I am not implying what the government did should be condoned, but business doesn't operate on a moral compass. On the contrary, to truly be prepared in a business setting, you should at least have an idea of what to do when something goes wrong, especially legally. To do anything less could imply the client's information and privacy are not a top priority.
"In order to pursue a copyright infringement suit, what if proof of actual (not hypothetical) economic damage were required?"
This would imply someone has the right to infringe unless causing economic damage. Ownership of one's creation and the right to decide what to do with it, when to release it, how to display it,how many copies to make etc... are concepts separate from damages. People do not have a right to appropriate your expression of an idea how they would like.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can give a person a ride and charge them a fee as a private citizen. If I do this same service as a business there are regulatory schemes I must follow, I must be a registered business, be registered with the state carry insurance, etc because I am no longer a private citizen doing this but a cabbie running a commercial business.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you are correct. I do not understand much of what is being said here, by you. What other protections are there? I can only assume you mean the logo. However, how would they prevent me from selling a coffee mug with the name "Redskins" on it? Or a jacket? Please explain what other avenues of litigation they would take. If they would use trademark/Lanham Act litigation to stop this and "redskins" is no longer under trademark protection, how would they bring legal action. In May, the franchise presented a former player(Lavar Arrington)with a cease and desist letter because he referred to himself as a former "Redskins great" in an advert for his football camp. What legal action would they take to stop him from stating this now?
On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
Re: Re:
On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
Re: This I don't Understand
Wow, you don't even get it. They call themselves Native Americans. Do you even know where the term indians comes from? A white guy thought he had reached India and called them that and other white people continued to do so.......so sad. I wonder if you would say something racist and proclaim because you didn't know it was ok to contiue using the term....oh wait you did.......
On the post: Wil Wheaton Discusses TV, Cord-Cutting, Piracy... And Trying Desperately To Make Sure Fans Can Watch His Show
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think
Re: Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think
Re: For a little perspective:
On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think
Though I disagree with many governmental policies associated with national security, I would very much like to hear the author's definition of "the wholesale evisceration of freedom." In addition, if one could better define the "Security State" in which we live, I would better be able to grasp the author's argument. Because there aren't many terrorists we should....? Is the argument, there are less terrorist today than there where before? I would think the number would be about the same. I suppose labeling elected officials as "our rulers" is a bit more telling.....
On the post: Metropolitan Museum Of Art Claims Copyright Over Massive Trove Of Public Domain Works
Re:
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/50-great-photographers-you-should-know/
On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
Thank goodness there are professionals that make content or all I would have to watch are user generated cat videos..but seriously, yes anyone with a smartphone can take a picture but are you implying there is no distinction between a professional photographer's photo and picture shot by my aunt? Though my aunt's photo might be good, I think we can agree there is a distinction between the consistent quality of the two and a difference in value both aesthetically and economically. Just as there is a distinction between "reality television" and a motion picture, written by a writer and directed by a director etc. In addition, the creator of user generated content, (if they have not given their rights away by posting on certain platforms) retains the very same rights as those of creators that sell content.
"That's a very poor example."
No, it was a perfect example because you stated:
"If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant."
The whole point was to show a case where the current law would protect against this action and your interpretation of the law would leave no recourse. Because in my example the infringement IS "significant" yet not economically damaging. Your example was fair use, an allowance written into the statute. Because you can show an instance where someone can use a work without permission, makes my example no less valid. In fact, I would hope you would agree appropriating a work in the manner of my example should be actionable. Under current law, it is and I think the painter should be able to stop the use of the image under these circumstances.
"It's sad that you view fan fiction as a "form of infringement" rather than a compliment to the author they are emulating."
Why can't they be both? It is not sad, I am not alone in this view because that is what the law states. I did not say fan fiction was not a complement to the author. Rather, based on the law, it fits the definition of infringement. I also stated that not all infringement should be prosecuted. But what if a company starts selling the fan fiction? I suppose you feel the original author that created the characters, the very universe in which the story takes place, is not entitled to any of the money generated by that fan fiction? I disagree. My thoughts are not based on a theory of what rights copyright should or should not encompass rather, they are based on the statutory language that provides them. Whether or not you agree with the law is strictly personal and I concede great minds will often disagree.
"I'm not ignoring the fact, but you're failing to realize that content doesn't have to be a product to be a sustainable business."
No, content doesn't have to be a product, but there is nothing wrong with content being a product. In fact, the law allows it and many many businesses are built on it being so. I return to the computer program. I fail to see the fault in a computer program being a product. In fact I believe many video game producers see no problem with this either.
On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder
Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
Sometimes you just have the right to do what you want with what you created. I find it is often the non-creator stating that they have a right to do what they will with the creation of another. The law says otherwise.
"If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant."
I disagree. I paint a painting and display it in a gallery. You take a photo of my painting and place that photo, of the painting, on a website promoting the kidnapping of girls and their sale as child brides. I obviously disagree with this idea. In your construct of copyright, this is "not significant" and I have no recourse.
"Expressions and information are intangible things. You can pretend that it isn't, but sooner or later, people will start to do what they've always done with culture. They share it."
Intangible things have value. If they did not you would have no desire for them. I find your statement one often used to support piracy and because intangible things do have value, I cannot agree. Items have value beyond scarcity, a computer program is just one example of a good that has no physical scarcity but has "tangible" value.
Not all forms of infringement need to be prosecuted. Some such as fan fiction may benefit the original author or copyright holder but I find the "people due what they always have done they share" as utopian, and ignoring the fact the increasingly ideas and there expression are a significant portion of the economy as the production of physical goods shifts to growing economies where labor is less expensive.
On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder
Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
I cannot agree. It would imply that People have a right to infringe if it is not causing economic harm. The creator has a right to decide when to release their work, where to release it, how many copies to make, how to distribute it etc... A perfect example and this really happened....A photographer takes a picture of a same sex couple kissing. He supports equal rights for all. His photo is appropriated for an ad for a political campaign of a candidate who vehemently opposes same sex marriage. Have real economic damages occurred? Are they calculable? Not likely... The photographer would have no grounds to sue to enjoin the use of his photograph by the political campaign under your proposed enforcement of copyright.
On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault
I think this statement is more than clear and I feel the same. Yes he should shoulder SOME of the blame. How can you truly safeguard a client's information if you don't have a contingency plan when there is a legal challenge to acquire it. I am not implying what the government did should be condoned, but business doesn't operate on a moral compass. On the contrary, to truly be prepared in a business setting, you should at least have an idea of what to do when something goes wrong, especially legally. To do anything less could imply the client's information and privacy are not a top priority.
On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder
Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
This would imply someone has the right to infringe unless causing economic damage. Ownership of one's creation and the right to decide what to do with it, when to release it, how to display it,how many copies to make etc... are concepts separate from damages. People do not have a right to appropriate your expression of an idea how they would like.
Next >>