Re: But your position would just as automatically hang Universal Music when it IS their content!
"This is not difficult."
True, it shouldn't be difficult to see that the original video did caused zero harm (maybe even less than zero harm) to Universal or Prince, and yet here we are thanks to their actions.
"... if the EFF (I just checked: yup, EFF) wasn't providing free lawyering, then Lenz wouldn't bother. She has no real stake in this."
We all have a stake in this, because we're all affected by the DMCA and its abuses, so you the fact that Lenz probably would not have been able to fight this on her own is irrelevant.
"The amount of time squandered on this is ridiculous..."
Agreed, see my first point.
"I keep telling you boy-clowns, lawsuits can make the wrongs you see permanent! Don't mess with courts when fundamentals aren't at stake!"
Clearly some people believe the locking up of culture by corporates is a pretty important issue.
"...but to me Universal Music has not in any way abused DMCA."
The DMCA says fair use must be considered. Clearly Universal never consider fair use when doing mass, automated takedowns. Not sure how that's not abusing the DMCA.
"I predict that automated take-downs will become yet more entrenched de facto law. Can't see any other way to support copyright..."
The fact that you can't see any other way to support copyright is a reflection of your limited abilities, not a state of reality.
"The use of content gives Universal Music authority to DMCA without having to hem and haw over whether might be fair use."
The DMCA states the exact opposite, which is why this is such a bad ruling.
"To tell the truth, this is actually a non article, or something made up to seem like it actually is news."
Your opinion is not necessarily the truth.
"Even if that were not the case, what is wrong with a news organization asking if they can use the image."
The sheer ridiculous volume of tweets shown above show one thing wrong with it. As explained in the article, this would've been a major PITA for the recipients. The tweets mostly sound friendly and chummy, like they're doing you a solid by asking, but I'm sure these guys were pretty sick of the attention after a short while.
"They probably do have the legal right to use it anyway, fair use or not."
you sound a little confused here. If it's fair use then they have the legal right to use it. If it's not, then they don't.
"Politicians have the right to use certain parts of songs, but it is still a good idea to get permission."
Music licensing is a completely different (if equally frustrating) topic not at all related to fair use.
So by your reckoning, if an American citizen tweeted some pro-US rah rah, that makes him a legitimate target for an ISIS supporter to attack and kill. You cool with that?
"This decision basically stripped the trademarks that companies and businesses have registered in their names and placed them under the protection of the first amendment so that anyone can use those brand names without having to compensate the company for the right to do so."
It's a bit ironic that you would call the judge an idiot and then demonstrate your complete confusion of copyright and trademarks. These are two different sets of laws for two different purposes, and it's sad how often the two are incorrectly conflated under the guise of "intellectual property". You should learn the difference before making any more dire predictions about the fate of poor old Hollywood.
"A consumer won't confuse it with an actual Crunch Bar, but they certainly could think that these people obtained a license from Nestle for the Crunch name so they could sell a "healthier" version."
The tiny number of dimwitted people who would leap to that conclusion do not warrant this stupid lawsuit and it's resulting waste of everyone's time and money. Why do we always have to obsess over what the dummies might think! Do Nestle really think that (a) this lawsuit will somehow educate these dummies and they'll and stop accidentally buying a Fit Crunch under false pretenses, and (b) the resulting increase in revenue will cover the cost of the lawsuit?!
So can you explain why nobody who committed copyright infringement has ever been charged with theft? If they're the same, why have two different sets of laws?
"He is going after people who have unlimited data on their phones but limited data for tethering and are circumventing the limitation."
If there are limitations to your data use, it's not "unlimited". There are no explanations for using that word other as deliberately misleading marketing-speak. The word has a meaning, and they're using it in exactly the opposite manner. Why not call just call it the 20GB plan and get rid of the stupid tethering restrictions? Unless of course they're just trying to make the plan look better than it really is, which we know is the real truth.
"The article is misleading in that they are going after unlimited data users where they are clearly going after people violating the terms of their agreement."
But why are there even restrictions on tethering? From the carrier's point of view what's the difference between viewing content on my phone as opposed to viewing the same content on my non-cellular iPad via my phone? It's the same data! Instead of getting so aggressive about a terms of service violation they should perhaps realize people think their terms suck.
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
"Yet again tacitly implying that corporations can be trusted, don't need to be regulated or watched."
That's just your hyperactive imagination; Mike did not suggest or imply that that corporations don't need to be regulated or watched. And you know who watches them best? The consumers who are currently NOT complaining about Google being anti-competitive or over-dominant.
Re: Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.
Not necessarily true. There are plenty of situations where you might want be able to post on the internet and still retain your privacy. Plenty of people participate in online discussion groups and do not want their postings to go beyond a trusted community. Ashley Madison leaps to mind obviously but there are plenty of far less controversial examples. It would be a pretty sad world if we had to give up one of the greatest things about the internet – communicating with like minds – because we all decided it was too difficult to retain a level of privacy.
Re: Okay, so tell us what will get pirates to obey the law and stop stealing?
"Okay, so tell us what will get pirates to obey the law and stop stealing?"
At this point it's just a running joke how many times this dumb question has been asked and answered, but it's no surprise you're asking it again. Copyright infringement is about one day younger than copyright law. It has always been there and will always been there. The only proven way to reduce it is to offer people a better option. Obsessing about 'Stopping Piracy' is a huge waste of time and money. It's using resources that could instead be looking at all ways to maximize revenue, which can include accepting that piracy is often a zero-cost method of promotion. By far the best way of course is to provide affordable, convenient ways to access content, like Netflix, Spotify and iTunes.
"Jeering is easy. We've all got jeering down pat. You jeer at ALL methods industry tries. So you need to make some positive statements of what will work. "
Again, asked and answered many times. Most 'industry' methods are worth jeering at, because they all put the users' needs well behind the industries' needs (or greed) instead of coming up with platforms that people genuinely enjoy using. All the companies that have been truly successful at reducing piracy came from outside the traditional content industries (see examples above).
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 18th, 2015 @ 7:41am
"...so that MPAA or anyone defending their property rights are portrayed as evil criminals."
Your simple mind is showing again. Just like there are legal and illegal ways to defend real (as opposed to imaginary) property, there are ways to react to copyright infringement that are allowed in law and there are ways that clearly are not.
For someone who likes to scream and shout about the illegal activity of people you don't like, you seem quite happy to justify the MPAA trying to do the same.
On the post: Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
Re: Re: Who are the trolls here?
BS. How about a list of these artists? Why would they all post anonymously? And I presume these aren't who all sang a song supporting MegaUpload.
On the post: Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 16th, 2015 @ 11:02am
That's exactly the point being made. Due process is what's preventing the DOJ's ridiculous case from being successful.
"You pirates..."
Try not to hurt yourself leaping to uninformed conclusions.
"...just don't believe that copyright infringement is a crime."
The copyright infringement that took place on MegaUpload was a civil matter, not a crime.
On the post: Big, Confusing Mess Of A Fair Use Decision Over DMCA Takedowns
Re: But your position would just as automatically hang Universal Music when it IS their content!
True, it shouldn't be difficult to see that the original video did caused zero harm (maybe even less than zero harm) to Universal or Prince, and yet here we are thanks to their actions.
"... if the EFF (I just checked: yup, EFF) wasn't providing free lawyering, then Lenz wouldn't bother. She has no real stake in this."
We all have a stake in this, because we're all affected by the DMCA and its abuses, so you the fact that Lenz probably would not have been able to fight this on her own is irrelevant.
"The amount of time squandered on this is ridiculous..."
Agreed, see my first point.
"I keep telling you boy-clowns, lawsuits can make the wrongs you see permanent! Don't mess with courts when fundamentals aren't at stake!"
Clearly some people believe the locking up of culture by corporates is a pretty important issue.
"...but to me Universal Music has not in any way abused DMCA."
The DMCA says fair use must be considered. Clearly Universal never consider fair use when doing mass, automated takedowns. Not sure how that's not abusing the DMCA.
"I predict that automated take-downs will become yet more entrenched de facto law. Can't see any other way to support copyright..."
The fact that you can't see any other way to support copyright is a reflection of your limited abilities, not a state of reality.
"The use of content gives Universal Music authority to DMCA without having to hem and haw over whether might be fair use."
The DMCA states the exact opposite, which is why this is such a bad ruling.
On the post: The Crazy Permission-Asking Media Scrum That Descends When Photographic News Happens On Twitter
Re:
Your opinion is not necessarily the truth.
"Even if that were not the case, what is wrong with a news organization asking if they can use the image."
The sheer ridiculous volume of tweets shown above show one thing wrong with it. As explained in the article, this would've been a major PITA for the recipients. The tweets mostly sound friendly and chummy, like they're doing you a solid by asking, but I'm sure these guys were pretty sick of the attention after a short while.
"They probably do have the legal right to use it anyway, fair use or not."
you sound a little confused here. If it's fair use then they have the legal right to use it. If it's not, then they don't.
"Politicians have the right to use certain parts of songs, but it is still a good idea to get permission."
Music licensing is a completely different (if equally frustrating) topic not at all related to fair use.
On the post: The Crazy Permission-Asking Media Scrum That Descends When Photographic News Happens On Twitter
Re: TL;DR! You quote that mass of drivel and expect anyone to read it all?
That explains your very poor understanding of the topic, demonstrated by your unrelated Dan Bull reference.
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
Re:
On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism
Re:
It's a bit ironic that you would call the judge an idiot and then demonstrate your complete confusion of copyright and trademarks. These are two different sets of laws for two different purposes, and it's sad how often the two are incorrectly conflated under the guise of "intellectual property". You should learn the difference before making any more dire predictions about the fate of poor old Hollywood.
On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism
Re:
On the post: FTC Spotlights The Reputation Hole Machinima Dug For Itself With Undisclosed Paid Xbox Pimp-Posts
Re: Microsoft?
On the post: More Experts Realizing That The TPP Is A Horrible And Dangerous Deal On Copyright
Re:
On the post: Nestle Sues Fit Crunch Over Identical Trade Dress That Isn't Remotely Identical
Re: Re: I'd have sued too
And that's are far as it should ever go. These lawsuits benefit nobody but the lawyers.
On the post: Nestle Sues Fit Crunch Over Identical Trade Dress That Isn't Remotely Identical
Re: Re: Re: I buy it
The tiny number of dimwitted people who would leap to that conclusion do not warrant this stupid lawsuit and it's resulting waste of everyone's time and money. Why do we always have to obsess over what the dummies might think! Do Nestle really think that (a) this lawsuit will somehow educate these dummies and they'll and stop accidentally buying a Fit Crunch under false pretenses, and (b) the resulting increase in revenue will cover the cost of the lawsuit?!
On the post: Movie Studio & Copyright Troll Claim 'Mere Possession' Of Popcorn Time Is Illegal And Could Result In A Year In Jail
Re: Re: theft by a physical taking
On the post: T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans
Re: Re: Misleading
If there are limitations to your data use, it's not "unlimited". There are no explanations for using that word other as deliberately misleading marketing-speak. The word has a meaning, and they're using it in exactly the opposite manner. Why not call just call it the 20GB plan and get rid of the stupid tethering restrictions? Unless of course they're just trying to make the plan look better than it really is, which we know is the real truth.
"The article is misleading in that they are going after unlimited data users where they are clearly going after people violating the terms of their agreement."
But why are there even restrictions on tethering? From the carrier's point of view what's the difference between viewing content on my phone as opposed to viewing the same content on my non-cellular iPad via my phone? It's the same data! Instead of getting so aggressive about a terms of service violation they should perhaps realize people think their terms suck.
On the post: As India Goes After Google, A Simple Question: Do You Really Want Governments Deciding Search Results?
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
That's just your hyperactive imagination; Mike did not suggest or imply that that corporations don't need to be regulated or watched. And you know who watches them best? The consumers who are currently NOT complaining about Google being anti-competitive or over-dominant.
On the post: Complaint To FTC Says It’s 'Deceptive' For Google To Not Recognize 'Right To Be Forgotten' In US
Re: Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.
On the post: Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns
Re: Honest mistakes happen too -- just like on "file sharing" sites -- and Youtube is not about to attempt judging!
On the post: Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
Re: Okay, so tell us what will get pirates to obey the law and stop stealing?
At this point it's just a running joke how many times this dumb question has been asked and answered, but it's no surprise you're asking it again. Copyright infringement is about one day younger than copyright law. It has always been there and will always been there. The only proven way to reduce it is to offer people a better option. Obsessing about 'Stopping Piracy' is a huge waste of time and money. It's using resources that could instead be looking at all ways to maximize revenue, which can include accepting that piracy is often a zero-cost method of promotion. By far the best way of course is to provide affordable, convenient ways to access content, like Netflix, Spotify and iTunes.
"Jeering is easy. We've all got jeering down pat. You jeer at ALL methods industry tries. So you need to make some positive statements of what will work. "
Again, asked and answered many times. Most 'industry' methods are worth jeering at, because they all put the users' needs well behind the industries' needs (or greed) instead of coming up with platforms that people genuinely enjoy using. All the companies that have been truly successful at reducing piracy came from outside the traditional content industries (see examples above).
On the post: Under Armour Demands Tiny Clothier 'Armor And Glory' Change Name Or Face Legal Siege
Re: Re: Wrong on all counts
On the post: After Internet Companies Protest, MPAA Declares Victory And Walks Away From Attempt To Backdoor SOPA
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 18th, 2015 @ 7:41am
Your simple mind is showing again. Just like there are legal and illegal ways to defend real (as opposed to imaginary) property, there are ways to react to copyright infringement that are allowed in law and there are ways that clearly are not.
For someone who likes to scream and shout about the illegal activity of people you don't like, you seem quite happy to justify the MPAA trying to do the same.
Next >>