The decision actually says there's no requirement to listen, but it distinguishes between muting as a way for them to simply ignore an account, and blocking as a way to prevent that account from participating in the forum.
I think the argument would be something like the most-adjacent human? The monkey took the photo, but with my camera in the place where I left it, so I came closest to having some creative input in the process. Because we just can't abide by works without owners.
Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around how this all works, even now. It isn't hard to come up with edge cases, like say I give a bunch of cameras to a group of babies; do they each own the copyright to their photos, even though they can't be said to have a creative role in any traditional sense? Or do I for setting it up?
Or what if I set up an installation where people play with an object that they don't realize is a camera, but that takes pictures based on some action they take? They'd be the most-adjacent human to the actual act of creation, but it doesn't seem like they're doing the creative work.
• Copyright law provides an economic incentive to create art. • Copyright law does not apply to non-human animals. • Non-human animals produce far less art, per capita, than humans do • Animals are almost exclusively driven by financial concerns.
Since all of those statements are obviously true, I'm going to have to side with PETA on this one.
Except that melody has always been considered copyrightable, while feel is so vague that it's always been seen as outside the scope. Land Down Under absolutely should have been fair use/dealing, but it was also absolutely making (entirely justifiable) use of a copyrighted portion of a song. It was a bad fusion, but blurred lines is much worse.
That's because they're using two analogies in one, so that they can advocate their interests and sound homespun and folksy at the same time.
Analogy 1 (the folksy one): The sidewalk is the internet infrastructure/ISP, the mailman is data, the mayor is regulators, and the home is you, the user. The FCC is trying to take over your whole property, when all they care about is the sidewalk! But this doesn't make sense, because the government isn't trying to confiscate anything from the public, it's just trying to ensure the sidewalk is clear, which is the opposite of the point they're making.
Analogy 2 (their real interests): The sidewalk is... some portion of the ISP that is seen as relevant to net neutrality. The home is the entirety of the ISP's business, including marketing, pricing, etc, etc. The mayor is still regulators, and the mailman is whatever portion of the data is related to net neutrality. Now the government is trying to control the whole company and confiscate their property! But, now the public doesn't exist in the analogy at all, and the sidewalk doesn't connect to anything.
I guess the hope is that you feel the emotional reaction to mixing the two analogies without worrying about it making sense: suddenly the government is infringing on property rights and your home is being taken away from you! Scary!
Fair enough. I definitely see where you're coming from. Personally, I think that the power imbalance between individual consumers and large multinational corporations skews the market to a significant enough degree that public policy is needed as a corrective, even if puts limits on the right to trade--basically that the imbalance is a sort of coercive force in its own right. That said, I'd much rather have pro-breast milk efforts than anti-formula ones, which seems to be what the USTR is cracking down on here.
I totally agree with you that that's a great place to draw the line defining a trade barrier, and by that definition,
But then the question becomes, should certain trade barriers be allowed? Should banning a tobacco company from advertising to minors be allowed, even though it is a barrier to tobacco companies? What about banning their advertising, period, or restricting packaging designs, or mandating labels? How about stricter emissions regulations?
The thing is, most public-interest regulation only exists because it isn't being incentivized by a free market—almost by definition, regulations will limit profitability in some way. So yes, define trade barriers clearly, make it something that can be discussed reasonably, and make it clear that the important question is whether there is an international right to corporate profitability that trumps sovereign nations' right to regulate markets in the interest of public health and safety,
The situations where they'll restrict surge pricing are at the top of the second page of their agreement with the NY Attorney General, which they voluntarily made federal policy.
Full agreement is here, but basically blackouts, strikes, wars, weather emergencies, etc, they're required to cap their surge pricing, although not to drop it altogether.
Just signed up as an insider and disabled my ad blocker. I know it's not much, but hopefully it helps some. I love this site, its willingness to stand up for its values (or frankly even just the possession of values at all), to make strong statements where they're warranted, and to back all of that up facts, figures and sound logic. It's a rarity, and deserves better than being threatened a frivolous, ego-driven lawsuit.
Good luck.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dropcap.
Re: Re: Re: Re: this is bullshit!
Re:
Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around how this all works, even now. It isn't hard to come up with edge cases, like say I give a bunch of cameras to a group of babies; do they each own the copyright to their photos, even though they can't be said to have a creative role in any traditional sense? Or do I for setting it up?
Or what if I set up an installation where people play with an object that they don't realize is a camera, but that takes pictures based on some action they take? They'd be the most-adjacent human to the actual act of creation, but it doesn't seem like they're doing the creative work.
"the need to extend fundamental rights to animals..."
• Copyright law does not apply to non-human animals.
• Non-human animals produce far less art, per capita, than humans do
• Animals are almost exclusively driven by financial concerns.
Since all of those statements are obviously true, I'm going to have to side with PETA on this one.
(untitled comment)
Land Down Under absolutely should have been fair use/dealing, but it was also absolutely making (entirely justifiable) use of a copyrighted portion of a song. It was a bad fusion, but blurred lines is much worse.
Re:
Re: Complete nonsense
Analogy 1 (the folksy one): The sidewalk is the internet infrastructure/ISP, the mailman is data, the mayor is regulators, and the home is you, the user. The FCC is trying to take over your whole property, when all they care about is the sidewalk! But this doesn't make sense, because the government isn't trying to confiscate anything from the public, it's just trying to ensure the sidewalk is clear, which is the opposite of the point they're making.
Analogy 2 (their real interests): The sidewalk is... some portion of the ISP that is seen as relevant to net neutrality. The home is the entirety of the ISP's business, including marketing, pricing, etc, etc. The mayor is still regulators, and the mailman is whatever portion of the data is related to net neutrality. Now the government is trying to control the whole company and confiscate their property! But, now the public doesn't exist in the analogy at all, and the sidewalk doesn't connect to anything.
I guess the hope is that you feel the emotional reaction to mixing the two analogies without worrying about it making sense: suddenly the government is infringing on property rights and your home is being taken away from you! Scary!
Re: Re: should certain trade barriers be allowed?
That said, I'd much rather have pro-breast milk efforts than anti-formula ones, which seems to be what the USTR is cracking down on here.
Re: You have to draw a line
But then the question becomes, should certain trade barriers be allowed? Should banning a tobacco company from advertising to minors be allowed, even though it is a barrier to tobacco companies? What about banning their advertising, period, or restricting packaging designs, or mandating labels? How about stricter emissions regulations?
The thing is, most public-interest regulation only exists because it isn't being incentivized by a free market—almost by definition, regulations will limit profitability in some way. So yes, define trade barriers clearly, make it something that can be discussed reasonably, and make it clear that the important question is whether there is an international right to corporate profitability that trumps sovereign nations' right to regulate markets in the interest of public health and safety,
Re: Dropping surge pricing
The situations where they'll restrict surge pricing are at the top of the second page of their agreement with the NY Attorney General, which they voluntarily made federal policy. Full agreement is here, but basically blackouts, strikes, wars, weather emergencies, etc, they're required to cap their surge pricing, although not to drop it altogether.
(untitled comment)
Good luck.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dropcap.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt