Just as you can legally record shows off of TV (thank you Supreme Court), you should be able to record stuff on YouTube (related: shame on Google for blocking such tools as well).
Your reading of Sony is a bit of wishful thinking. It's not that simple. Even Prof. Goldman in the linked-to article says it's murky. I'll take his analysis over yours on that point.
There will always be services for sharing legitimate files, and the ones that do it best will be rewarded by the market. The law will always have a pull on technology. Less money being poured into questionable services isn't really a bad thing, IMO. That means the system is working. Sorry, but not all innovation is good innovation. Innovators need to take the law into account.
And they'll go right on innovating. Innovation doesn't mean doing whatever you can think of. It also means thinking about what you're doing. It's not only what can be done--it's also what should be done.
We've talked a few times about how attacks on new innovations in the name of protecting copyright can create massive chilling effects. For example, the increasingly questionable arguments against Megaupload have created a real chill for online cloud storage providers. That was likely manifest last week in the news that Dropbox was killing off its "public folders" feature in deference to its link feature, basically making the product less useful.
Yeah, it's terrible if tech companies have to think about other people's rights when choosing what features they provide. Not.
LOL! If you speak for the artists, Mike, then why is your core fan base a bunch of pirates? Lowery speaks for the artists. You aren't qualified to tie his shoes.
LOL! Really? Where is Mike's evidence that the licensing scheme for teachers that this article is about "doesn't actually do much to benefit the public." He has zero evidence. He's just done here like he always does--jump to conclusions.
You can just imagine the "logic" that went into this post:
1. Person who knows some math wanted to teach but could not since she didn't have a license.
2. OMG, licensing scheme! Old guard! Not in the public interest! Whine! Whine! Rabble! Rabble!
There's no analysis of why teachers are licensed. No substance at all. Just faith-based, idiotic whining. This blog obviously caters to nonthinkers, N.B., 12 year old boys.
Ding, ding. Of course he's trying to stretch this into some nonsense about artificial restrictions that serve no purpose but to protect the old guard. What hogwash. I'm a certified/licensed math teacher, and I can assure you that the licensing process is about more than ensuring that teachers know the substance of their given field. I also had to take classes on child psychology, pedagogical techniques, classroom management, etc. One can know a lot of math, yet not know how to be an effective teacher. To say it's about limiting supply is just idiotic, Masnickian, 12-year-old-boy logic. It's faith-based whining.
Oh, so you don't want people to have respect and trust for your blogging? Give me a break. You explicitly don't claim it's journalism, but clearly you want the same respect and trust that journalists get. The difference is that you don't want to earn it. Don't worry, Mike. I get it. You can't have it both ways, but both ways is how you want it. Makes sense to me.
Hey, Mike's the one who wants the respect and trust of a real journalist, but without the hassle of doing actual journalism. His shortcomings are his own.
Kudos to you for calling out Mike on his shoddy "reporting." He's in such a rush a publish the next hit piece, that I think he "forgets" about things like reaching out to folks and doing actual journalism.
The irony/hypocrisy was in the statement made by average_joe. Who said that permission is required to quote articles made by others.
That's not what I said (this is a_joe). What I said was sometimes it makes sense. When quoting you here and now, for example, it makes no sense. But if I were writing a book and using large chunks of someone else's copyrighted book, for example, the publisher may require me to get a license rather than risk it. This isn't hypocritical at all. What's stupid is pretending like it always or never makes sense to ask permission. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. You guys are so itching to catch me in some childish "gotcha!" bullshit, but you can't refute my point that sometimes getting permission is the less riskier, better option. I understand that getting fair use is not always necessary, hence my complete ease in quoting you, for example. You guys think in silly extremes, no nuance.
Unless the property is in the public domain then it belongs to every single person in the world. That's a funny kind of property that belongs to every single person in the world.
Did you negotiate with Techdirt to determine if you were allowed to quote that paragraph?
I know Mike claims that everything he publishes is public domain. I'm not convinced that that's so, though, because he hasn't explicitly abandoned his rights in this particular article, for example. But regardless, even if it is copyrighted, it's not infringement for me to quote him in my response. I'm not concerned about it because I know my rights. But sometimes it's not as clear, and it does make sense to get permission just to be safe. Depends on your risk tolerance really. The chances of Mike suing me for quoting him in the comments for the purpose of commenting on what he said is as close to zero as you'll ever get. As much as he hates me, he would never sue me for quoting him in the comments. Cute, but not exactly comparable to some other less clear cases of fair use.
I'm really not quite sure how to respond to such people, because explaining to them what fair use is seems to only make them more upset. The whole point of fair use is that we don't need permission. We certainly don't need to come to a mutually agreed upon definition of what that person considers fair use (since he outright rejected my definition, despite my offer to send citations showing that my definition is the legal one). Once you're talking about permission or negotiating, you're no longer talking about fair use.
Fair use is a right, but it's a right to use someone else's property. The reason people negotiate over it is because if an agreement is made, then there is no concern about infringement. The problem with fair use is that the person exercising their fair use rights always runs the risk that his assessment of what use is fair may turn out to be incorrect. Since fair use means using someone else's property, there is always a chance that the use could turn out to be infringing. You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one. It's riskier to claim fair use later than it is to negotiate a license up front.
On the post: RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs
Your reading of Sony is a bit of wishful thinking. It's not that simple. Even Prof. Goldman in the linked-to article says it's murky. I'll take his analysis over yours on that point.
On the post: The Chilling Effects On Innovation Caused By Bad Copyright Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Chilling Effects On Innovation Caused By Bad Copyright Law
Re: Re:
On the post: The Chilling Effects On Innovation Caused By Bad Copyright Law
Re: Re:
On the post: The Chilling Effects On Innovation Caused By Bad Copyright Law
Yeah, it's terrible if tech companies have to think about other people's rights when choosing what features they provide. Not.
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so fast
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can just imagine the "logic" that went into this post:
1. Person who knows some math wanted to teach but could not since she didn't have a license.
2. OMG, licensing scheme! Old guard! Not in the public interest! Whine! Whine! Rabble! Rabble!
There's no analysis of why teachers are licensed. No substance at all. Just faith-based, idiotic whining. This blog obviously caters to nonthinkers, N.B., 12 year old boys.
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is lying
Never claimed that my blogging was journalism.
Oh, so you don't want people to have respect and trust for your blogging? Give me a break. You explicitly don't claim it's journalism, but clearly you want the same respect and trust that journalists get. The difference is that you don't want to earn it. Don't worry, Mike. I get it. You can't have it both ways, but both ways is how you want it. Makes sense to me.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is lying
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re: Re: The EFF is lying
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what I said (this is a_joe). What I said was sometimes it makes sense. When quoting you here and now, for example, it makes no sense. But if I were writing a book and using large chunks of someone else's copyrighted book, for example, the publisher may require me to get a license rather than risk it. This isn't hypocritical at all. What's stupid is pretending like it always or never makes sense to ask permission. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. You guys are so itching to catch me in some childish "gotcha!" bullshit, but you can't refute my point that sometimes getting permission is the less riskier, better option. I understand that getting fair use is not always necessary, hence my complete ease in quoting you, for example. You guys think in silly extremes, no nuance.
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re: Re:
If it's in the public domain, no one owns it.
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re: Re:
I know Mike claims that everything he publishes is public domain. I'm not convinced that that's so, though, because he hasn't explicitly abandoned his rights in this particular article, for example. But regardless, even if it is copyrighted, it's not infringement for me to quote him in my response. I'm not concerned about it because I know my rights. But sometimes it's not as clear, and it does make sense to get permission just to be safe. Depends on your risk tolerance really. The chances of Mike suing me for quoting him in the comments for the purpose of commenting on what he said is as close to zero as you'll ever get. As much as he hates me, he would never sue me for quoting him in the comments. Cute, but not exactly comparable to some other less clear cases of fair use.
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Fair use is a right, but it's a right to use someone else's property. The reason people negotiate over it is because if an agreement is made, then there is no concern about infringement. The problem with fair use is that the person exercising their fair use rights always runs the risk that his assessment of what use is fair may turn out to be incorrect. Since fair use means using someone else's property, there is always a chance that the use could turn out to be infringing. You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one. It's riskier to claim fair use later than it is to negotiate a license up front.
Next >>