I read A LOT. I read between 12 and 14 books during my week off at Christmas, and probably 7 or 8 since then. I buy or rent (Kindle Unlimited) all of my books. This inane and insane behavior from two large publishers makes my job easier; if I see their imprint on a book I'll just skip it. Hopefully more of my money will now go directly to the writers and illustrators.
Well done Penguin Random House and HarperCollins - you just lost a long time customer.
All together now, Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail. Say it with me, Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail. One more time for luck, Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail.
Also, that conspiracy theory chart is something I would have expected to find in a room where someone covered the windows (and their head) in tinfoil. I image the original chart used thumbtacks and yarn connecting his 'oppressors'. Wowzers.
Sincerely,
"Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail"
(I'll see myself out)
The Bill clarifies that the Act applies on the Internet. Clause 1 would add online undertakings as a distinct class of broadcasting undertaking subject to the Act. Online undertaking would be defined in the Act as an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet to the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus. Users of social media services who upload programs for sharing with other users, and are not affiliated with the service provider, would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in that respect. Similarly, clause 3 would specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded by unaffiliated users to social media services for sharing with other users, and in respect of online undertakings whose only broadcasting consists of such programs.
Do you mean the last paragraph quoted in the summary above, or the paragraphs on pages 9 or 8 of the judgement? Cuz I don't see those as sarcastic but I might be missing something.
I disagree with you Karl that the pirate broadcasters "should just shift to streaming and avoid the legal hassle". I imagine some of the pirates are serving communities of listeners who cannot afford to have computers or cell phones, to say nothing of the data plans that allow them to stream stations that aren't included in corporate cap agreements. I also imagine some of the pirates want to serve their listeners by playing content that, while still under copyright and thus illegal to broadcast unless one is licensed by the FCC, is also not included in any of the playlists of terrestrial radio or streaming services. There is a lot of fantastic music that will never be heard again because it is locked up by greedy record companies and collectives such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC - entities who would rather let music die if they are unable to extract a profit (almost none of which finds its way to the original creators).
We can also look at the recent events at Twitch, in which even incidental songs playing in the streamer's own house caused the RIAA to issue C&D letters, resulting in streams being deleted. So no, streaming isn't necessarily without legal risks.
This is to say nothing of the capricious rules governing web broadcasts of music, such as the Sound Recording Performance Complement. The box set clause, specifically, could make it nearly impossible to feature songs from an artist.
I'll drive the extra couple of miles to Ace or the big box store. Is this what 'winning' feels like Sherwin-Williams? Because it looks like you lost the Internets.
What does the Win / Loss column look like for patent trolls in his jurisdiction? If it isn't at least close to 50/50 then yeah, it should be worth the time to figure out if he is profiting (does he own land or lease office space in the area, any new houses or cars or trips in his family?). Also, who paid for that road trip around the country - because it is hard to see how that comports with the mission of the court?
At this point in 2020 I shouldn't be surprised, but I am confused about why legislatures don't address the root of the problem - using the court opinions from their state to bolster their position. We are more than a decade beyond the two studies you cite and there is still no substantive change. Surely we can all agree that taking someone's stuff without just cause is ... just theft, right?
"The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought against YouTube and its parent company, Google, LLC, by a nonprofit educational and media organization alleging a violation of the First Amendment and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), as well as various state law claims.
Addressing the First Amendment claims, the panel held that despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public- facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. The panel noted that just last year, the Supreme Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). The panel held that the Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment. The panel therefore rejected plaintiff’s assertion that YouTube is a state actor because it performs a public function."
Won't do business with Penguin Random House and HarperCollins
I read A LOT. I read between 12 and 14 books during my week off at Christmas, and probably 7 or 8 since then. I buy or rent (Kindle Unlimited) all of my books. This inane and insane behavior from two large publishers makes my job easier; if I see their imprint on a book I'll just skip it. Hopefully more of my money will now go directly to the writers and illustrators.
Well done Penguin Random House and HarperCollins - you just lost a long time customer.
Odd rulings
A quick skim of Google headlines for judge Zia Faruqui is... interesting.
e-Mail origins
All together now, Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail. Say it with me, Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail. One more time for luck, Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail.
Also, that conspiracy theory chart is something I would have expected to find in a room where someone covered the windows (and their head) in tinfoil. I image the original chart used thumbtacks and yarn connecting his 'oppressors'. Wowzers.
Sincerely,
"Shiva Ayyadurai did NOT invent e-mail"
(I'll see myself out)
Those who don't know history
...are destined to repeat it (even if it's the opposit outcome of what they were hoping for).
Re: Re: Re: Good idea, abhorrent application
@Jeroen Hellingman. This is a fantastic idea and would most certainly shake up a great many institutions. We just need to follow through.
Re: Bill C-10
Ahh, I'm not sure about that. Also - it was tabled five months ago.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c10.html
Tabled in the House of Commons, November 18, 2020
New and updated regulatory requirements for broadcasting services
The Bill clarifies that the Act applies on the Internet. Clause 1 would add online undertakings as a distinct class of broadcasting undertaking subject to the Act. Online undertaking would be defined in the Act as an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet to the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus. Users of social media services who upload programs for sharing with other users, and are not affiliated with the service provider, would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in that respect. Similarly, clause 3 would specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded by unaffiliated users to social media services for sharing with other users, and in respect of online undertakings whose only broadcasting consists of such programs.
Re: who is this 'we'?
Near as I can tell, a bunch of old white dudes gerrymandered districts to prevent the 'we' from having any meaningful say in elections.
One suggestion
Would be to require DAs (and other public agencies) to take the money out of their personnel budgets and bonuses, instead of general fund monies.
One thought
Would be to require DAs (and other public agencies) to take the money out of their personnel budgets and bonuses, instead of general fund monies.
Also, you gotta wonder why Attorney General Jeff Landry is covering for Pat Magee's sexual harassment complaints. Does Landry have skeletons?
I can't believe I'm the first to make this comment
"Offers 53 Whole Games To Customers"
... well, partial games wouldn't be playable, now would they?
Re: Oblig joke
I have always thought there was more than a grain of truth to this joke, but it also makes me laugh.
https://pics.me.me/we-solved-our-lawyer-problem-alongiline-however-you-could-speak-2732172.pn g
Re: Re: Re: Sarcasm?
Agree
Re: Sarcasm?
Do you mean the last paragraph quoted in the summary above, or the paragraphs on pages 9 or 8 of the judgement? Cuz I don't see those as sarcastic but I might be missing something.
I know virtually nothing about this subject
I disagree with you Karl that the pirate broadcasters "should just shift to streaming and avoid the legal hassle". I imagine some of the pirates are serving communities of listeners who cannot afford to have computers or cell phones, to say nothing of the data plans that allow them to stream stations that aren't included in corporate cap agreements. I also imagine some of the pirates want to serve their listeners by playing content that, while still under copyright and thus illegal to broadcast unless one is licensed by the FCC, is also not included in any of the playlists of terrestrial radio or streaming services. There is a lot of fantastic music that will never be heard again because it is locked up by greedy record companies and collectives such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC - entities who would rather let music die if they are unable to extract a profit (almost none of which finds its way to the original creators).
We can also look at the recent events at Twitch, in which even incidental songs playing in the streamer's own house caused the RIAA to issue C&D letters, resulting in streams being deleted. So no, streaming isn't necessarily without legal risks.
This is to say nothing of the capricious rules governing web broadcasts of music, such as the Sound Recording Performance Complement. The box set clause, specifically, could make it nearly impossible to feature songs from an artist.
Fight the power, music for the people ♫♪
Re: 'It's in this box?. 'Can I see it?' 'No. My box.'
Schrödinger’s election fraud box
Popcorn stock rising...
Couldn't have happened to a more contumaciousness person.
Never shopping at Sherwin-Williams again
I'll drive the extra couple of miles to Ace or the big box store. Is this what 'winning' feels like Sherwin-Williams? Because it looks like you lost the Internets.
Did I miss the stats?
What does the Win / Loss column look like for patent trolls in his jurisdiction? If it isn't at least close to 50/50 then yeah, it should be worth the time to figure out if he is profiting (does he own land or lease office space in the area, any new houses or cars or trips in his family?). Also, who paid for that road trip around the country - because it is hard to see how that comports with the mission of the court?
I'm confused
At this point in 2020 I shouldn't be surprised, but I am confused about why legislatures don't address the root of the problem - using the court opinions from their state to bolster their position. We are more than a decade beyond the two studies you cite and there is still no substantive change. Surely we can all agree that taking someone's stuff without just cause is ... just theft, right?
Does PragerU v YouYube apply?
9th Circuit, so the same district where this was filed. It even hits the First Amendment and the Latham Act!
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/youtube-1st-amendment-ruling.pdf
"The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought against YouTube and its parent company, Google, LLC, by a nonprofit educational and media organization alleging a violation of the First Amendment and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), as well as various state law claims.
Addressing the First Amendment claims, the panel held that despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public- facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. The panel noted that just last year, the Supreme Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). The panel held that the Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment. The panel therefore rejected plaintiff’s assertion that YouTube is a state actor because it performs a public function."
More comments from JustMe >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JustMe.
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