Copyright can only exist by enforcement via a court of law. By it's very nature, copyright involves a state actor (ie: the courts).
I might have misspoke here. The State Action Doctrine in relation to copyright can be a bit confusing and there's not whole lot of material covering it out there.
According to this analysis, private enforcement of copyright isn't considered a state action:
Thus, in principle, a court’s order restricting speech in a case brought by a private party could trigger First Amendment rights. But because the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that copyright and the First Amendment are not in conflict, a court order enforcing copyright cannot violate an infringer’s free speech rights—even though there is state action arguably “restricting” speech. Source
But taken as a whole, copyright without Fair Use would be a Free Speech violation anyways because of the wording of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
Freedom of Expression does not allow you to use the property of a private party. Freedom of Expression protects you against interference by the government, not from a private party.
Copyright can only exist by enforcement via a court of law. By it's very nature, copyright involves a state actor (ie: the courts).
Your right to Freedom of Expression is not interfered with because I do not permit you to make speeches from my front lawn.
Not a real good analogy there. No, you have no responsibility to provide a platform for Speech. But that's not we are talking about with Fair Use. It's about using your works for commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and things like that.
Similarly, your right to Freedom of Expression is not interfered with because I do not permit you to use my blog post in your speech.
200 years or so of copyright case law and the Copyright Act of 1976 of disagree with you on this point. The necessity of Fair Use to keep copyright laws from running afoul of the First Amendment has been upheld in court rulings almost since the inception of copyright.
My blog post is my private property and I have the sole and exclusive right to decide who uses it, subject only the fair use exception, which is not a right.
Freedom of Speech is most definitely a right and Fair Use keeps copyright from impeding that right. How else is someone able to rebut your writings without referencing them (just like I am doing right now with your comments)?
What you wrote in your sentences is something that happens all the time, so you really kind of proved the opposite of what you were intending to prove.
If it was a right, you would be able to sue the author for declaratory judgment for a court order giving you the right to use the book under your presumed fair use.
Incorrect. A party can most definitely sue for a declaratory judgment concerning fair use.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what GoldieBlox did concerning the use of The Beastie Boys music. They ended up settling before it went to court:
A right is a legally enforceable claim against another that he should do some act or refrain from doing some act.
You are limiting yourself to the legal definition of a right. Inalienable or natural rights are not derived from laws.
We've had a similar discussion concerning jury nullification. You claimed that the right to jury nullification doesn't exist because the courts have prohibited it. I argued that jury nullification is most definitely a natural right because it still exists whether it's prohibited or not.
Because if we want Tech news, we read TechDirt. If we want to hear about some idiot murderer taking a selfie of himself with his victim, standard news outlets cover it just fine.
I know what you mean. I keep going to The Onion looking for stories about Vidalias, Bermudas, Scallions and other yummy onions and all I see are humorous articles about other stuff.
Instructing my computer to lie about its identity in order to break into a network that someone in authority had deliberately locked me out of would never even cross my mind; that is the act of a criminal, not "a computer-literate person".
I spoof a random MAC address every time my laptop boots on general privacy principles. I guess that makes me "criminal" in your mind.
He thought that he could break the law and not be punished.
Personally, I doubt that Aaron thought he was breaking law in this instance (with the possible exception of the physical trespassing - but even there I'm not sure - was there a "No Admittance" sign on the door or was it locked?)
Aaron would have learned from his previous encounter with the DOJ concerning PACER.
MIT was running a network that, as you point out, was open to the public, even guests. In the real world, if you run a business that is open to the general public, but one specific person causes trouble and management tells them to leave because they aren't welcome, and then they come back, no one would find it unreasonable to call the police and have them arrested for trespassing.
MIT didn't "ask a person to leave", they blocked his MAC address. A MAC address doesn't equal a person any more so than an IP address does. Aaron simply spoofed his MAC address, like any computer literate person would do when a device isn't connecting to a network.
Would you see it differently if Aaron had purchased a dozen laptops and used those instead of spoofing his MAC address? To me they are one and the same.
The physical trespassing charge for entering the wiring closet was the only legit charge against Aaron, if you ask me.
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.
Yes, the government alleges there is a "conspiracy" and that is fine. I question the DOJ's use of phrase "Mega Conspiracy", complete with the capitol letters.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
As far as I can tell, it's not really copyright law that the DOJ is trying to enforce in the MegaUpload case. They have mixed and matched civil and criminal statutes when and wherever it suits them.
They are basically trying to make up new laws to enforce, IMHO.
Did the DOJ actually call this a "Mega Conspiracy" or did Dotcom coin that?
The DOJ started calling them that in the original indictment. They have been trying to negatively influence potential jurors from the get go. Just another reason to think their case isn't as strong as they would like everyone to believe, if you ask me.
Dude I thought i'd let you know the website you used as refence is not the real website, that's a rip off.
Are you referring to the image that was prefaced with: ...which apparently used to be the site for Walter's Scorpion computer Services.?
The link you provided appears, not once, but twice within the body of the article. Not sure what you are trying to prove (or disprove) with your comment.
On the post: Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
On the post: Have You Been Debating What Color Some Random Dress Is All Day? Thank Fair Use
Re: Oh, me! I know the answer!
I'm with ya on that.
Although, Brian Williams just reported that the dress originally belonged to him and he sold it to Bill O'Reilly years ago.
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re:
I don't know about "guaranteed", but it seems quite possible:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140124/10564825981/nsa-interception-action-tor-develope rs-computer-gets-mysteriously-re-routed-to-virginia.shtml
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Copyright is Private Property
I might have misspoke here. The State Action Doctrine in relation to copyright can be a bit confusing and there's not whole lot of material covering it out there.
According to this analysis, private enforcement of copyright isn't considered a state action:
But taken as a whole, copyright without Fair Use would be a Free Speech violation anyways because of the wording of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Copyright is Private Property
Oof. Double negative there. I meant to say:
Yes, you have no responsibility to provide a platform for Speech.
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Copyright is Private Property
Copyright can only exist by enforcement via a court of law. By it's very nature, copyright involves a state actor (ie: the courts).
Your right to Freedom of Expression is not interfered with because I do not permit you to make speeches from my front lawn.
Not a real good analogy there. No, you have no responsibility to provide a platform for Speech. But that's not we are talking about with Fair Use. It's about using your works for commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and things like that.
Similarly, your right to Freedom of Expression is not interfered with because I do not permit you to use my blog post in your speech.
200 years or so of copyright case law and the Copyright Act of 1976 of disagree with you on this point. The necessity of Fair Use to keep copyright laws from running afoul of the First Amendment has been upheld in court rulings almost since the inception of copyright.
My blog post is my private property and I have the sole and exclusive right to decide who uses it, subject only the fair use exception, which is not a right.
Freedom of Speech is most definitely a right and Fair Use keeps copyright from impeding that right. How else is someone able to rebut your writings without referencing them (just like I am doing right now with your comments)?
On the post: Google Gets Prude: Says No More Adult Content On Blogger
Re: support
So you think your "normal" should be the baseline for everyone else?
God complex much?
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you wrote in your sentences is something that happens all the time, so you really kind of proved the opposite of what you were intending to prove.
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect. A party can most definitely sue for a declaratory judgment concerning fair use.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what GoldieBlox did concerning the use of The Beastie Boys music. They ended up settling before it went to court:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/17002425340/missed-opportunity-beastie-boys-should- have-supported-viral-parody-girls-song-rather-than-claiming-infringement.shtml
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re:
You are limiting yourself to the legal definition of a right. Inalienable or natural rights are not derived from laws.
We've had a similar discussion concerning jury nullification. You claimed that the right to jury nullification doesn't exist because the courts have prohibited it. I argued that jury nullification is most definitely a natural right because it still exists whether it's prohibited or not.
On the post: Judge Tosses 16 Kilos Of Meth Because CBP Couldn't Be Bothered To Obtain Consent For Its X-Ray Search
Re: Re: Re: Interesting, but...
I know what you mean. I keep going to The Onion looking for stories about Vidalias, Bermudas, Scallions and other yummy onions and all I see are humorous articles about other stuff.
On the post: Nominee For Attorney General Tap Dances Around Senator Franken's Question About Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re:
I spoof a random MAC address every time my laptop boots on general privacy principles. I guess that makes me "criminal" in your mind.
On the post: Nominee For Attorney General Tap Dances Around Senator Franken's Question About Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I doubt that Aaron thought he was breaking law in this instance (with the possible exception of the physical trespassing - but even there I'm not sure - was there a "No Admittance" sign on the door or was it locked?)
Aaron would have learned from his previous encounter with the DOJ concerning PACER.
On the post: Nominee For Attorney General Tap Dances Around Senator Franken's Question About Aaron Swartz
Re:
MIT didn't "ask a person to leave", they blocked his MAC address. A MAC address doesn't equal a person any more so than an IP address does. Aaron simply spoofed his MAC address, like any computer literate person would do when a device isn't connecting to a network.
Would you see it differently if Aaron had purchased a dozen laptops and used those instead of spoofing his MAC address? To me they are one and the same.
The physical trespassing charge for entering the wiring closet was the only legit charge against Aaron, if you ask me.
On the post: Megaupload Programmer Takes Plea Deal, Though It's Still Unclear What Criminal Law He Violated
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf
On the post: Megaupload Programmer Takes Plea Deal, Though It's Still Unclear What Criminal Law He Violated
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the government alleges there is a "conspiracy" and that is fine. I question the DOJ's use of phrase "Mega Conspiracy", complete with the capitol letters.
MegaUpload_Indictment
On the post: Megaupload Programmer Takes Plea Deal, Though It's Still Unclear What Criminal Law He Violated
Re:
As far as I can tell, it's not really copyright law that the DOJ is trying to enforce in the MegaUpload case. They have mixed and matched civil and criminal statutes when and wherever it suits them.
They are basically trying to make up new laws to enforce, IMHO.
On the post: Megaupload Programmer Takes Plea Deal, Though It's Still Unclear What Criminal Law He Violated
Re:
The DOJ started calling them that in the original indictment. They have been trying to negatively influence potential jurors from the get go. Just another reason to think their case isn't as strong as they would like everyone to believe, if you ask me.
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
Re: Bad references
Are you referring to the image that was prefaced with: ...which apparently used to be the site for Walter's Scorpion computer Services.?
The link you provided appears, not once, but twice within the body of the article. Not sure what you are trying to prove (or disprove) with your comment.
On the post: Twitter Bot 'Issues' Death Threat, Police Investigate
Re:
Nah. It would just calculate for 7.5 million years and then spit out an answer of 42.
Next >>