Based on the silly insults you are tossing about, I'm guessing I'm talking Lowery or one of his sycophants. So let me toss out a music related analogy:
I purchase a copy of "Low", but I don't care for the bass line very much so I set my audio equalizer on my stereo to cut out the low end and record that for my use. How is this different than re-editing a purchased DVD for my personal use (aside from violating copyright law by circumventing the DVD DRM, of course)?
The original artistic statement. I know you pirate-types are dense when it comes to art, but you really should understand a basic concept like that.
That's not a zero sum game. The original artistic statement remains with the original and the transformative artistic statement is with the transformed work. Nothing is subtracted there, only added.
Heh, I use the name "Hugh Dontneedthis" when I have to supply a name for something. Most everything I log into welcomes me with a "Welcome, Hugh" message.
As an aside, I believe that Michael Brown's stepfather, Louis Head, shouting "Burn this motherfucker down" and "Burn this bitch down" to the crowd after the Ferguson grand jury ruling was announced is a perfect example of what Brandenburg v. Ohio decrees as unprotected speech. Louis Head should be held accountable for this speech.
Why? Because that's your personal view on what free speech should be allowed.
Nope. It's what we as a society here in the US have decided (via our highest court, see Brandenburg v. Ohio) is the line between protected free speech and unprotected speech that is "directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action".
I don't agree with your definition and I do not believe western countries should continue to permit preaching of hate and killing, even if it is abstract such as "kill for Allah".
And thanks to the First Amendment you are free to say this on a US website - even if you are wrong.
I know I'm late to this discussion, but there are few things I feel I need to respond to.
They simply found a hole in copyright law, and proceeded to push Mr Slater straight into it.
I'm not really sure what "loophole" you are referring to, but Techdirt's use of the photo to comment on the story surrounding it is clearly fair use. In the US, fair use is most certainly not a "loophole" by any stretch of the imagination. Without the fair use defense against infringement, copyright could not exist in the US without running afoul of the First Amendment.
I'll ask you consider the very real scenario in which an artist has a team of apprentices who do all the actual painting. The artist still claims copyright for the images, though he or she never touched the canvas.
That would most likely be considered a "work for hire" scenario and is usually covered by contracts between the parties where the individual artist relinquishes their copyrights in exchange for wages. This is how big production movies are handled. All of the cameramen don't end up with the copyright of the movie even though they are the ones actually affixing it to a tangible medium.
For all of you trying to beg money from the dot com millionaire in this story, please take note that this article is almost 15 years old.
And for all those of trying to solicit loans on this page, you might as well say that you are some Nigerian Prince who needs help reclaiming his money because that is about as much trust I would put in someone who solicits loans in the comment section of a tech blog.
Because malice (ie being a dick) opens the door to punitive damages.
Really? Do you have any citations where someone was hit with additional punitive damages for publishing court documents and commenting about their own involvement in the case?
I'd love to read though that, assuming you can actually supply a reference.
Isn't there a sense of entitlement behind thinking you can host a defamatory website and not be held accountable for it?
No more so than thinking you can rent a to car someone who uses it to rob a bank and not be held accountable.
Place blame on those responsible, not on the tool or the tool provider. This isn't rocket science and it's how it's been throughout history. We've never blamed the blacksmith for providing swords that are used to commit murder.
Small businesses are more connected to their neighbors and society than large ones, and tend to be better about being good neighbors and societal contributors. And so on.
I just noticed this while re-reading this thread.
Not so sure that's really true. I sell signs and a lot of those signs are for charity organizations and you know what names appear as sponsors more often then the others? The ones from the companies around here that our government has already declared "too big to fail" and handed bailout money to.
You keep saying that and I don't believe you are correct. I've had plenty of discussions with people right here on Techdirt who do actually believe we need to keep corporations from getting "too big" (well, to be fair, one of them was OOTB and he doesn't count much). I'll bet you a dollar that if you asked that question at an "Occupy Wallstreet" rally you would find plenty of people advocating just that.
What people do believe in is penalizing abuse, and simply because a corporation has to become successful before having enough power to get away with being abusive still doesn't turn that into penalizing success.
I have no problem curtailing corporations that are abusing their power. I have a problem with setting some arbitrary limit to a corporation's size just to keep them from getting too big.
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I purchase a copy of "Low", but I don't care for the bass line very much so I set my audio equalizer on my stereo to cut out the low end and record that for my use. How is this different than re-editing a purchased DVD for my personal use (aside from violating copyright law by circumventing the DVD DRM, of course)?
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol. Yeah, the insults STILL do not make your weak arguments any better.
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not a zero sum game. The original artistic statement remains with the original and the transformative artistic statement is with the transformed work. Nothing is subtracted there, only added.
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it's not. You are being silly now.
It's no longer what the artist intended.
So what? If I purchase a DVD and use it as a frisbee for my dog, I'm sure the artist didn't intend for that either, but like I said, so what?
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re: Re: Re:
Care to explain how re-editing a copy destroys the original? You are making very little sense.
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re:
Just make sure you are using your own legally purchased copy of Mike's house or else your analogy isn't even close to the same thing.
On the post: Unlisted Publishing And The Burner Account: Responses To Online Surveillance?
Re: Re:
On the post: France Celebrates Its New Reverence For Free Speech By Arresting Comedian For His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech != terrorists propaganda
On the post: France Celebrates Its New Reverence For Free Speech By Arresting Comedian For His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Free speech != terrorists propaganda
Nope. It's what we as a society here in the US have decided (via our highest court, see Brandenburg v. Ohio) is the line between protected free speech and unprotected speech that is "directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action".
I don't agree with your definition and I do not believe western countries should continue to permit preaching of hate and killing, even if it is abstract such as "kill for Allah".
And thanks to the First Amendment you are free to say this on a US website - even if you are wrong.
On the post: Unlisted Publishing And The Burner Account: Responses To Online Surveillance?
On the post: DOJ Steps Into Redskins Trademark Lawsuit, Saying It Doesn't Violate First Amendment To Deny 'Disparaging' Trademark
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: I don't understand big words that end in "ism".
On the post: Broadcasters Working Hard To Cripple Dish's Consumer Friendly Sling TV
Re: Typo?
On the post: Broadcasters Working Hard To Cripple Dish's Consumer Friendly Sling TV
Typo?
Wait, why does ABC care about ad-skipping of CBS content?
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They simply found a hole in copyright law, and proceeded to push Mr Slater straight into it.
I'm not really sure what "loophole" you are referring to, but Techdirt's use of the photo to comment on the story surrounding it is clearly fair use. In the US, fair use is most certainly not a "loophole" by any stretch of the imagination. Without the fair use defense against infringement, copyright could not exist in the US without running afoul of the First Amendment.
I'll ask you consider the very real scenario in which an artist has a team of apprentices who do all the actual painting. The artist still claims copyright for the images, though he or she never touched the canvas.
That would most likely be considered a "work for hire" scenario and is usually covered by contracts between the parties where the individual artist relinquishes their copyrights in exchange for wages. This is how big production movies are handled. All of the cameramen don't end up with the copyright of the movie even though they are the ones actually affixing it to a tangible medium.
On the post: Dot Com Millionaire to Give Away Most of His Money
For all of you trying to beg money from the dot com millionaire in this story, please take note that this article is almost 15 years old.
And for all those of trying to solicit loans on this page, you might as well say that you are some Nigerian Prince who needs help reclaiming his money because that is about as much trust I would put in someone who solicits loans in the comment section of a tech blog.
Just sayin'
On the post: EasyDNS Sued For Refusing To Take Down Website Without Court Order; Then Hit Again For Writing About The Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Do you have any citations where someone was hit with additional punitive damages for publishing court documents and commenting about their own involvement in the case?
I'd love to read though that, assuming you can actually supply a reference.
On the post: EasyDNS Sued For Refusing To Take Down Website Without Court Order; Then Hit Again For Writing About The Lawsuit
Re: Re: No Way
No more so than thinking you can rent a to car someone who uses it to rob a bank and not be held accountable.
Place blame on those responsible, not on the tool or the tool provider. This isn't rocket science and it's how it's been throughout history. We've never blamed the blacksmith for providing swords that are used to commit murder.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's definitely some food for thought.
I'm still not 100% convinced that "too big to fail" is really such a concern, but I've never studied economics that deeply, so I really don't know.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re:
I just noticed this while re-reading this thread.
Not so sure that's really true. I sell signs and a lot of those signs are for charity organizations and you know what names appear as sponsors more often then the others? The ones from the companies around here that our government has already declared "too big to fail" and handed bailout money to.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep saying that and I don't believe you are correct. I've had plenty of discussions with people right here on Techdirt who do actually believe we need to keep corporations from getting "too big" (well, to be fair, one of them was OOTB and he doesn't count much). I'll bet you a dollar that if you asked that question at an "Occupy Wallstreet" rally you would find plenty of people advocating just that.
What people do believe in is penalizing abuse, and simply because a corporation has to become successful before having enough power to get away with being abusive still doesn't turn that into penalizing success.
I have no problem curtailing corporations that are abusing their power. I have a problem with setting some arbitrary limit to a corporation's size just to keep them from getting too big.
Next >>