While I do believe the headline and lede in this case are definitely non-factual, the argument about whether it falls into opinion or not is one that can be had. However, even if it is non-factual and presented as if it were a statement of fact, not opinion, it doesn't rise to the level of Defamation.
For me, the existing precedent of headlines not being valid for defamation is enough to side with the NYT. Surely we've had people only reading headlines in the past, and headlines have spread far and wide in the past, without people reading the full article. Yet defamation still requires us to consider the entire article. I believe this is only precedent and not written into the law itself, but I'm not sure on that point.
After all, newsies used to shout headlines from street corners. If that isn't defamatory, I cannot believe that printing headlines in search engines is defamatory.
What's funny to me is that Tetris is one of the first things an aspiring programmer implements as their first game. It's a fundamental game in many ways. So there's also billions of clones of Tetris.
And it really shouldn't be.
I used to work for a Tax Prep software company (not Intuit) and there are so many people who make money just filing others' taxes that I believe it's a very low chance that we'll ever manage to get a good Free File system provided by the IRS. And we should have one.
The most common person who has a tax return that they should actually take to a tax preparer is a farmer. Beyond that, a business owner with at least 10 employees is the next most common Individual filer who should find a tax preparer. Everyone whose only income shows up on a single W2 should be filing their own taxes, with a few rare exceptions. (Divorcees can get complicated.)
Legislation is then expertly interpreted by agencies charged with that authority by Congress -- such as the U.S. Copyright Office and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Weird, I thought the body charged with interpreting legislation was the Judicial branch, not Congress...
A youtube channel run by a lawyer, LegalEagle put out a video analyzing Oliver's segment. He also stated that having fee-shifting would help discourage these SLAPP suits, stating that the American Rule that each side always pays their own legal costs, is different from the British Rule where the loser will always pay the legal fees of the winner.
But, on the other hand, that's part of the point of some of the Anti-SLAPP laws, that they allow this fee-shifting.
What's really astounding is the very definition of API has the word "PROGRAMMING" in it and yet somehow this isn't covered by copyright?
Yes, because it's a set of programming instructions which isn't covered by copyright. You cannot copyright 'File, Edit, View' as a list of options, but you can copyright a specific visual appearance of File, Edit, and View menu options.
I guarantee if any programmer here takes the entire Microsoft API library and sells it under a new OS, call it "Panes", they will see the inside of a courtroom faster than they can say "infringement".
That's called WINE and it's existed for several years now. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding of what an API is. public static void main(int[] args); is an API. public static void main(int[] args) { System.out.println("Hello World"); return; } is not an API, and qualifies for copyright. (Though it really shouldn't, that we agree on.)
Compilers cannot be covered by copyright, because they rely on the ABI to perform their tasks taking programs written by people and the machine language required by the CPUs.
This is the exact same reason APIs cannot be covered by copyright. If APIs are copyrightable, then so are the ABIs, because an ABI is an API expressed in a different language. An API defines what sequence of letters will invoke a method. An ABI defines what sequence of numbers will invoke a CPU instruction.
Believe me, PUTTING ANY COPYRIGHT ON SOFTWARE IS FUCKING STUPID BEYOND WORDS, but this is the law and how it's written.
The problem is that the part of the law that says "Software can be copyrightable" does not overrule the other part of the law that says "Facts cannot be copyrightable." You're missing the forest for the trees.
If your argument is sufficient to make APIs copyrightable, then it would also make ABIs copyrightable.
Didn't the whole thing start because AT&T tried to sue and the courts said that doesn't work because the FCC doesn't technically have the right authority, come back if you're classified as Title II?
So basically this whole thing is a series of telecoms trying to pull fast ones and shooting themselves in the foot instead?
It is an undisputed fact in the case that the Java API is executable and that it meets the statutory definition of software.
Excuse me, what? Is it actually? Because I'm fairly certain this is, in fact, the disputed claim in the case... Those with more legal knowledge about this specific case: Has Google allowed this to be undisputed? Because that's a major, major problem.
I am constantly reminded that lawyers (and politicians) are not required to be truthful to the media or the public in general, only to a court.
I wonder if they'd understand a universal remote better.
An API is what lets universal remotes exist. You can have multiple remotes all work with all sorts of TVs, because there's an API in place that allows all of them to do the standard things of 'channel up' 'volume down' 'mute' 'on/off' and so forth.
The remotes aren't copies of each other, and can even have different buttons in different configurations.
The TVs aren't copies of each other, and can have different interpretations of what 'volume up' means to that TV, but all of them understand 'Volume Up' as part of their interface.
Re: Re: Re: Re: And API is not software, it's a contract.
The really stupid part?
You could actually have an API that is all paper and never actually is digitized into a computer.
An API just specifies how you're supposed to call other bits of code and the kinds of responses you're supposed to receive. If you just pass a paper with the list of those things around and code to that specification, the code would work.
Because API isn't code.
It would be annoying because it means you'd have to completely segment your code into different libraries without type-enforcement and it would confuse the compiler to no end... And your IDE would be zero help in making sure you're doing the right thing and would warn you about all the class casting you're doing...
But you could do it. And it will be what will be required if APIs are copyrightable. WHICH IS WHY THEY AREN'T.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad analogies should
It's only about 50 lines of code that you can actually execute in the frame loop before you get frame rate problems.
How can someone know these words and yet completely fail at understanding?
A CPU nowadays is measured in gigahertz, with the number varying but generally between 1 and 4Ghz.
What do you think that measures?
One 'hertz' is one 'cycle per second'.
For a CPU, one 'cycle' is how long it takes a single instruction to go from beginning to completion.
Typically, a line of human-readable code will contain multiple instructions to the CPU, but the order of magnitude is between 1-20, and in rare cases can get up to 100.
1 'giga' hertz is one billion hertz.
Now take all that information and think about what you said again.
It's only about 50 lines of code that you can actually execute in the frame loop before you get frame rate problems.
Framerate nowadays is 60fps standard, or to combine terms, 60hz. (Nowadays games push for 120fps at a minimum for VR, and some shoot for 140-160 to take advantage of gaming monitors, but universally, 60fps is The Minimum Required.)
You must generate 60 frames per second to avoid any framerate problems. A bad CPU can crunch 1,000,000,000 instructions per second. In order to actually have CPU-bound problems, you must have ~17 million instructions to perform per frame. Which is slightly more than 50. Even if each of those 50 lines were a maximum-case-never-seen 100 instructions each, you're still not in the same ballpark.
No, you will see framerate problems when you're dealing with memory or harddisk or network operations, not simply 'lines of code'.
Exactly this. I'm wondering if this argument was made:
"Is an API executable code?"
"Yes."
"Let's assume that's correct. If it is executable, then it depends on an existing architecture. For example, I could not take the executable code that runs on an x86 machine and have that code, without modification, still run on an ARM machine. However, I can demonstrate that my client's code does run on an ARM machine. Because your client's code cannot run on an ARM machine, that means that it cannot be a copy. Thus, copyright doesn't apply."
If you can opt out for a federal case instead, who would want to use this arbitration, that appears to be biased in favor of the rightsholders? That's right, no one. Both the innocent and the guilty wouldn't be interested in this arbitration. That means the only time it will get used is when someone isn't legally savvy.
That's why it's being brought up. Yes, all laws have this flaw, but this law specifically only functions when this flaw is in effect.
Oddly I thought something similar...
"Wait, did he ask the question because he didn't know, or because it needed to be something put in as a matter of public record? One of those two things is okay..."
Yep. That's Sen. Thom Tillis for you. He's routinely voting terribly on basically every technology policy issue, and tends to vote badly for other issues in general as well. Essentially just follows the worst parts of the party line. Really would like to elect someone else...
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 238: Larry Lessig Defends His 'Clickbait Defamation' Lawsuit
Unconvinced - Have to Overrule Precedent
While I do believe the headline and lede in this case are definitely non-factual, the argument about whether it falls into opinion or not is one that can be had. However, even if it is non-factual and presented as if it were a statement of fact, not opinion, it doesn't rise to the level of Defamation.
For me, the existing precedent of headlines not being valid for defamation is enough to side with the NYT. Surely we've had people only reading headlines in the past, and headlines have spread far and wide in the past, without people reading the full article. Yet defamation still requires us to consider the entire article. I believe this is only precedent and not written into the law itself, but I'm not sure on that point.
After all, newsies used to shout headlines from street corners. If that isn't defamatory, I cannot believe that printing headlines in search engines is defamatory.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Buy: The Tetris Edition
Re:
What's funny to me is that Tetris is one of the first things an aspiring programmer implements as their first game. It's a fundamental game in many ways. So there's also billions of clones of Tetris.
On the post: Getting Better, Finally: Intuit's Shady Actions For Free File Program Lead To Change In IRS Deal
Tax Preparation is an Industry
And it really shouldn't be.
I used to work for a Tax Prep software company (not Intuit) and there are so many people who make money just filing others' taxes that I believe it's a very low chance that we'll ever manage to get a good Free File system provided by the IRS. And we should have one.
The most common person who has a tax return that they should actually take to a tax preparer is a farmer. Beyond that, a business owner with at least 10 employees is the next most common Individual filer who should find a tax preparer. Everyone whose only income shows up on a single W2 should be filing their own taxes, with a few rare exceptions. (Divorcees can get complicated.)
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
That's odd
Weird, I thought the body charged with interpreting legislation was the Judicial branch, not Congress...
On the post: John Oliver Takes On SLAPP Suits And Anti-SLAPP Laws With A Grand Musical Number
Re: Re: Re:
A youtube channel run by a lawyer, LegalEagle put out a video analyzing Oliver's segment. He also stated that having fee-shifting would help discourage these SLAPP suits, stating that the American Rule that each side always pays their own legal costs, is different from the British Rule where the loser will always pay the legal fees of the winner.
But, on the other hand, that's part of the point of some of the Anti-SLAPP laws, that they allow this fee-shifting.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re:
Yes, because it's a set of programming instructions which isn't covered by copyright. You cannot copyright 'File, Edit, View' as a list of options, but you can copyright a specific visual appearance of File, Edit, and View menu options.
That's called WINE and it's existed for several years now. You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding of what an API is.
public static void main(int[] args);is an API.public static void main(int[] args) { System.out.println("Hello World"); return; }is not an API, and qualifies for copyright. (Though it really shouldn't, that we agree on.)This is the exact same reason APIs cannot be covered by copyright. If APIs are copyrightable, then so are the ABIs, because an ABI is an API expressed in a different language. An API defines what sequence of letters will invoke a method. An ABI defines what sequence of numbers will invoke a CPU instruction.
The problem is that the part of the law that says "Software can be copyrightable" does not overrule the other part of the law that says "Facts cannot be copyrightable." You're missing the forest for the trees.
If your argument is sufficient to make APIs copyrightable, then it would also make ABIs copyrightable.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a thought...
Stallman and emacs was, uh... Quite a bit longer ago than yesterday.
WAIT! That's it! Tp's a time traveller. What year do you think it is? Because for us it's 2019.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Wheeler Says New Court Ruling Won't Stop Net Neutrality
This sounds familiar
Didn't the whole thing start because AT&T tried to sue and the courts said that doesn't work because the FCC doesn't technically have the right authority, come back if you're classified as Title II?
So basically this whole thing is a series of telecoms trying to pull fast ones and shooting themselves in the foot instead?
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
This is what I'm worried about
Ms. Hurst says:
Excuse me, what? Is it actually? Because I'm fairly certain this is, in fact, the disputed claim in the case... Those with more legal knowledge about this specific case: Has Google allowed this to be undisputed? Because that's a major, major problem.
I am constantly reminded that lawyers (and politicians) are not required to be truthful to the media or the public in general, only to a court.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a thought...
I wonder if they'd understand a universal remote better.
An API is what lets universal remotes exist. You can have multiple remotes all work with all sorts of TVs, because there's an API in place that allows all of them to do the standard things of 'channel up' 'volume down' 'mute' 'on/off' and so forth.
The remotes aren't copies of each other, and can even have different buttons in different configurations.
The TVs aren't copies of each other, and can have different interpretations of what 'volume up' means to that TV, but all of them understand 'Volume Up' as part of their interface.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re: Re: Re: And API is not software, it's a contract.
The really stupid part?
You could actually have an API that is all paper and never actually is digitized into a computer.
An API just specifies how you're supposed to call other bits of code and the kinds of responses you're supposed to receive. If you just pass a paper with the list of those things around and code to that specification, the code would work.
Because API isn't code.
It would be annoying because it means you'd have to completely segment your code into different libraries without type-enforcement and it would confuse the compiler to no end... And your IDE would be zero help in making sure you're doing the right thing and would warn you about all the class casting you're doing...
But you could do it. And it will be what will be required if APIs are copyrightable. WHICH IS WHY THEY AREN'T.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad analogies should
How can someone know these words and yet completely fail at understanding?
A CPU nowadays is measured in gigahertz, with the number varying but generally between 1 and 4Ghz.
What do you think that measures?
One 'hertz' is one 'cycle per second'.
For a CPU, one 'cycle' is how long it takes a single instruction to go from beginning to completion.
Typically, a line of human-readable code will contain multiple instructions to the CPU, but the order of magnitude is between 1-20, and in rare cases can get up to 100.
1 'giga' hertz is one billion hertz.
Now take all that information and think about what you said again.
No, you will see framerate problems when you're dealing with memory or harddisk or network operations, not simply 'lines of code'.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re:
Exactly this. I'm wondering if this argument was made:
"Is an API executable code?"
"Yes."
"Let's assume that's correct. If it is executable, then it depends on an existing architecture. For example, I could not take the executable code that runs on an x86 machine and have that code, without modification, still run on an ARM machine. However, I can demonstrate that my client's code does run on an ARM machine. Because your client's code cannot run on an ARM machine, that means that it cannot be a copy. Thus, copyright doesn't apply."
On the post: The CASE Act: The Road To Copyright Trolling Is Paved With Good Intentions
Re: Re:
Say that again, but slowly.
If you can opt out for a federal case instead, who would want to use this arbitration, that appears to be biased in favor of the rightsholders? That's right, no one. Both the innocent and the guilty wouldn't be interested in this arbitration. That means the only time it will get used is when someone isn't legally savvy.
That's why it's being brought up. Yes, all laws have this flaw, but this law specifically only functions when this flaw is in effect.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 217: Public Interest Tech, With Bruce Schneier
Re:
Oddly I thought something similar...
"Wait, did he ask the question because he didn't know, or because it needed to be something put in as a matter of public record? One of those two things is okay..."
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 215: Experimenting With Twitch
League of Legends
Dennis, if you send a friend invite to CrushU, I'll play games with you and help teach. :D
I'm also trying to get streaming started, it's pretty difficult/saturated right now...
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 215: Experimenting With Twitch
Re: Live content just still feels "old-fashioned" to me.
Twitch archives the livestream for a certain period of time, and you can move that video to another platform if you want it preserved.
Otherwise, the main draw of Twitch is the interaction with the streamer(s). Sort of like a call-in radio show, I suppose.
On the post: Shallow Fakes: Why Facebook Was Right Not To Delete The Doctored Video Of Nancy Pelosi
Re: Re: Re: Shallow Fakes
Verifiably incorrect. Context (and thus, circumstances) matters. This rule would cause takedowns of news/reporting discussing the fake video as well.
On the post: Congress Now Pushing 'Bring Back The Patent Trolls' Bill
Yeah, that's Tillis for you
Yep. That's Sen. Thom Tillis for you. He's routinely voting terribly on basically every technology policy issue, and tends to vote badly for other issues in general as well. Essentially just follows the worst parts of the party line. Really would like to elect someone else...
On the post: If Epic Vs Steam Is To Be A PR War, Epic's Boss Just Issued A Brilliant Retaliatory Strike
Re: Re:
It is incredibly likely that Epic-only games would have been Windows-only anyway.
And if you aren't using WINE or some other Windows emulator on Linux to play games with, I'm very surprised.
It's one of the few unequivocally good things Steam has done: Support Linux games development.
Next >>