He does NOT really believe that replying to an email with quotes is infringement.
Can you show me where in the statutes or relevant case law that says emails are not copyrighted the moment they are created? Is there some exemption that I am missing or something?
Replying to an email with quoted text? Infringement!" Do you really believe that, Mike?
Isn't that the letter of the law, though?
My email is copyrighted the moment it's fixed to a tangible medium, right? If someone replies with my text quoted then they have committed copyright infringement. You not believing it doesn't change the facts there, AJ.
Do you care to explain why you think it's NOT infringement?
Your analysis on copyright proves you are not educated enough about copyright.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
If EVER, there is EVER another example of doubt about copyright like this one, the true copyright expert would use the precautionary principle and keep quiet and not promote the stealing of this image to others around the world.
Quite a few "copyright experts" have already stated their opinions that this photo is public domain. Your use of the word "stealing" instead of "infringement" says quite a bit about your (lack) knowledge of concerning copyright.
Mike Masnick, as owner of this site, is culpable of not just copyright infringement and abuse of Fair Use, but a criminal under Common Law also.
Nope. Absolutely not. Even if this photo is under copyright, Mike's use to comment on the issues surrounding are absolutely Fair Use. Once again your lack of knowledge concerning copyright is showing.
This is the result of believing a silly self-promotionist working for a wider agenda, that I promise, is not in your interest. He is well paid for YOUR ignorance and pathetic attempt to climb the ladder of the Free-Rights leadership party.
Blah, blah, blah. Quite a conspiracy theory you got going there, my friend. What are you going to say next - that we didn't land on the moon and aliens actually shot Kennedy?
Obviously there are areas of copyright law that need reform, but rather than engage in meaningful dialogue, Mike uses a tone that simply degrades copyright law. This only serves to further polarize what are already opposing interests in the debate. And I think that does a major disservice.
I've read Mike's writings for awhile now and I think that he, like the majority of those who comment here (including me), would be classified as a "Copyright Minimalists" using Karl's (another long-time commenter here) classifications:
A Copyright Minimalist doesn't seek to end copyright, but to bring it back in-line with what Framers had in mind when they wrote the Copyright Clause.
As with all things, change require compromise, so when entering the debate against Copyright Maximalists (whose livelihoods usually depend on copyright) a Minimalist must push to the extreme so the the final compromise ends up somewhere in the middle.
Since I don't speak for Mike, nor can I read his mind, I don't really know this for sure, but that's the way it looks to me.
Maybe you need to do research rather than guesswork to support your ideology? Maybe try reading this to start!
I have read that. Seems like his story has changed some since this went viral, in my opinion.
And just so you know, I have no agenda or "ideology" that I am pushing regarding this issue. The legal aspects of copyright are an interest of mine, nothing more, nothing less. This story caught my interest and I believe the legal analyses that indicate this photo is public domain are correct. Other than that, I couldn't give a shit whether this particular photograph is under copyright or not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
How can a monkey determine the composition if it was on a tripod?
Slater admits that the animals were "monkeying around" with the camera. And based on all the other photos I've seen from this shoot the camera was not left in place on the tripod. The monkeys moved it. Slater certainly didn't determine the composition of these photos.
You're saying that because the piano player mechanically creates a performance, as opposed to being a recording of a performance, there is difference. I can see your point, but I'm not sure the difference is significant enough to warrant your attacks on Mike.
The designed purpose of a piano roll and a vinyl record are basically the same - to bring popular music to the masses without actually having the musicians present.
There is also the part about Congress's concern that musical reproductions (which would include both the piano roll and sound recordings, IMHO) are not "writings" and therefore copyright on them wouldn't be Constitutional as a reason for not covering them.
However, when you say that Congress specifically excluded sound recordings from the 1909 Act, believing it to be unconstitutional, when in reality, there just wasn't an industry yet for sound recordings, you make yourself sound extremely ignorant, uninformed, biased, and willing to say whatever you need to say, changing history if you have to in order to push your agenda.
I think you are the one attempting to revise history here. According to Peter Jaszi's analysis Mike is spot on:
Although Congress subjected federal copyright protection to an overhaul by enacting the 1909 Copyright Act, it still failed to grant statutory copyright protection to sound recordings. Despite efforts by some members of Congress to raise the issue of sound recordings, the final bill declined to extend protection. Indeed, the report released with the Copyright Act expressly stated that Congress did not intend to protect sound recordings: "It is not the intention of the committee to extend the right of copyright to the mechanical reproductions themselves, but only to give the composer or copyright proprietor the control, in accordance with the provisions of the bill, of the manufacture and use of such devices." According to one commentator, Congress had two principal concerns about sound recordings, leading it to decline to protect them. First, Congress wondered about the constitutional validity of such protection. The Constitution allows Congress to protect "writings," and Congress was uncertain as to whether a sound recording could constitute a writing. Second, Congress worried that allowing producers to exclusively control both the musical notation and the sound recording could lead to the creation of a music monopoly.
And what if the person, for example, says "oh, I have $8,000 in the till. I better deposit now instead of waiting until tonight."
In this case the business owner had a legit, valid reason for making deposits before the amount reached $10,000. His insurance policy against theft only covers amounts under $10,000.
Yes, you are correct that Slater left the camera on a tripod. But he also admits that the animals were "monkeying around with it" and that "One hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it".
Basically, Slater admitted that the monkey determined the creative elements and actually took the picture.
In 2011, Slater said he used a tripod and he stated this in many publications.
Fair enough. But as the kids say today: [citation] or it didn't happen.
Why do you blinkered fools believe stories and quotes from a single tabloid in the UK?
I used that citation because it quotes Slater's own words. Are you trying to imply that the Daily Mail made up those quotes? If you are, then prove it.
Does it serve your freeloading agenda to cherry pick tabloids? Really! Do you actually believe tabloids report properly? This site is so up its own arse it is unbelievable.
Thus far, that only thing you have brought to this discussion are childish insults. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?
Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
You really should not believe the owner of this rather silly site repeating constantly that the monkey ran off with the camera and the camera was left unattended.
Why do you believe is didn't happen that way? The photographer stated it as fact himself:
Masnick wants a public domain to serve the Communists...err, Community.
Not even sure what you are trying to convey here. Detailed analysis by copyright experts say the monkey picture is public domain. Do you actually have a counter argument to that?
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong deduction
Can you show me where in the statutes or relevant case law that says emails are not copyrighted the moment they are created? Is there some exemption that I am missing or something?
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re:
Isn't that the letter of the law, though?
My email is copyrighted the moment it's fixed to a tangible medium, right? If someone replies with my text quoted then they have committed copyright infringement. You not believing it doesn't change the facts there, AJ.
Do you care to explain why you think it's NOT infringement?
On the post: Here Are The Companies That Want To Charge You $2,500-$100,000 For Negative Reviews
Re: Libel requires falsehood
Wait. I thought the cake was a lie. I'm confused now.
On the post: The Mythical And Almost Certainly Made Up 'Legend' Of Walter O'Brien Continues To Grow
Re: Re: THANK YOU - The author sounds jealous
Not quite. More along the lines of 500,000 unique visits per month and over a million page views per month.
https://www.quantcast.com/techdirt.com
I'd even venture a guess that are more people that have read Techdirt then there are people who have viewed Scorpion.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re:
Nope. I've simply grown bored with baiting you into displaying your ignorance on these subjects.
I'd much rather my intellectual sparring is with an armed individual. Have a nice life. :)
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: Cult of Masnick
Nope. Mike's use is most definitely Fair Use under US law where Techdirt is located.
Google will collect the royalties from Techdirt if it wishes to promote itself using a third party works.
Why would Google collect anything from anybody concerning this? You have officially crossed over into crazyland. now.
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: You Self Serving blinkered fools
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
If EVER, there is EVER another example of doubt about copyright like this one, the true copyright expert would use the precautionary principle and keep quiet and not promote the stealing of this image to others around the world.
Quite a few "copyright experts" have already stated their opinions that this photo is public domain. Your use of the word "stealing" instead of "infringement" says quite a bit about your (lack) knowledge of concerning copyright.
Mike Masnick, as owner of this site, is culpable of not just copyright infringement and abuse of Fair Use, but a criminal under Common Law also.
Nope. Absolutely not. Even if this photo is under copyright, Mike's use to comment on the issues surrounding are absolutely Fair Use. Once again your lack of knowledge concerning copyright is showing.
This is the result of believing a silly self-promotionist working for a wider agenda, that I promise, is not in your interest. He is well paid for YOUR ignorance and pathetic attempt to climb the ladder of the Free-Rights leadership party.
Blah, blah, blah. Quite a conspiracy theory you got going there, my friend. What are you going to say next - that we didn't land on the moon and aliens actually shot Kennedy?
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
Lol.
On the post: RESPECT Act Should Be HYPOCRISY Act After How Often Labels Screwed Over Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gross mischaracterization
I've read Mike's writings for awhile now and I think that he, like the majority of those who comment here (including me), would be classified as a "Copyright Minimalists" using Karl's (another long-time commenter here) classifications:
http://tritonester.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/normative-views-on-copyright/
A Copyright Minimalist doesn't seek to end copyright, but to bring it back in-line with what Framers had in mind when they wrote the Copyright Clause.
As with all things, change require compromise, so when entering the debate against Copyright Maximalists (whose livelihoods usually depend on copyright) a Minimalist must push to the extreme so the the final compromise ends up somewhere in the middle.
Since I don't speak for Mike, nor can I read his mind, I don't really know this for sure, but that's the way it looks to me.
On the post: Here Are The Companies That Want To Charge You $2,500-$100,000 For Negative Reviews
Re:
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: You Self Serving blinkered fools
I have read that. Seems like his story has changed some since this went viral, in my opinion.
And just so you know, I have no agenda or "ideology" that I am pushing regarding this issue. The legal aspects of copyright are an interest of mine, nothing more, nothing less. This story caught my interest and I believe the legal analyses that indicate this photo is public domain are correct. Other than that, I couldn't give a shit whether this particular photograph is under copyright or not.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Cult of Masnick
Just because it's in the public domain, doesn't mean Slater can't sell it. Just means he can't stop others from using it too.
By the way, you may not be aware that the little snowflakes next to your name indicate the IP address you post from Ian/John Kaslik/David Slater.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Slater admits that the animals were "monkeying around" with the camera. And based on all the other photos I've seen from this shoot the camera was not left in place on the tripod. The monkeys moved it. Slater certainly didn't determine the composition of these photos.
On the post: RESPECT Act Should Be HYPOCRISY Act After How Often Labels Screwed Over Artists
Re: Re: Re: Gross mischaracterization
You're saying that because the piano player mechanically creates a performance, as opposed to being a recording of a performance, there is difference. I can see your point, but I'm not sure the difference is significant enough to warrant your attacks on Mike.
The designed purpose of a piano roll and a vinyl record are basically the same - to bring popular music to the masses without actually having the musicians present.
There is also the part about Congress's concern that musical reproductions (which would include both the piano roll and sound recordings, IMHO) are not "writings" and therefore copyright on them wouldn't be Constitutional as a reason for not covering them.
On the post: RESPECT Act Should Be HYPOCRISY Act After How Often Labels Screwed Over Artists
Re: Gross mischaracterization
I think you are the one attempting to revise history here. According to Peter Jaszi's analysis Mike is spot on:
On the post: IRS Drops Its Asset Forfeiture Case Against Owner Of Small, Cash-Only Restaurant
Re: The IRS Was Correct
In this case the business owner had a legit, valid reason for making deposits before the amount reached $10,000. His insurance policy against theft only covers amounts under $10,000.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/shutter-happy-monkey-photographer
Yes, you are correct that Slater left the camera on a tripod. But he also admits that the animals were "monkeying around with it" and that "One hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it".
Basically, Slater admitted that the monkey determined the creative elements and actually took the picture.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Fair enough. But as the kids say today: [citation] or it didn't happen.
Why do you blinkered fools believe stories and quotes from a single tabloid in the UK?
I used that citation because it quotes Slater's own words. Are you trying to imply that the Daily Mail made up those quotes? If you are, then prove it.
Does it serve your freeloading agenda to cherry pick tabloids? Really! Do you actually believe tabloids report properly? This site is so up its own arse it is unbelievable.
Thus far, that only thing you have brought to this discussion are childish insults. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
That's not what he said in 2011:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrow s-photographers-camera.html
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
Why do you believe is didn't happen that way? The photographer stated it as fact himself:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-bor rows-photographers-camera.html
Masnick wants a public domain to serve the Communists...err, Community.
Not even sure what you are trying to convey here. Detailed analysis by copyright experts say the monkey picture is public domain. Do you actually have a counter argument to that?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we-subpoena-monkey-why-monkey-self-p ortraits-are-likely-public-domain.shtml
Since you fail so spectacularly to grasp the basics of this situation, the rest of your comment is just mindless gibberish
Next >>