DMCA may be the root of the issue. His point that these aren't DMCA claims is accurate though.
A lawsuit against YouTube will go nowhere. They can take down any videos they want for whatever reason they please (read their terms of service). They're a private entity, so you can't make first amendment arguments.
It's unfortunate that they can do this and get away with it. If you really want the issue to stop, don't sue them. Make a competitor that _doesn't_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
"Wrong. If I create the work, it's easy for me to give permission to a site to redistribute it. I own the copyright and I can license it as I choose."
Most legitimate user generated sites require the user to check a box indicating they have the legal right to upload the work, and grant a license to the site to use the uploaded work (don't believe me? Read the terms of service).
Given this, how is UKnova supposed to know ahead of time which uploads are legitimate users (like yourself), who created the work and are legally uploading it? How do they determine which users lied on the checkbox?
You argue that they must be proactive in policing the works, but you also seem to think that if the user says: "I created this, it's OK to use it" that's sufficient grounds to use a work. Which is it?
If Mike replied to this very comment, and said openly:
"I do not condone piracy. I think it is morally wrong, and I do not engage in it myself. That being said, I think it is a reality of doing business and smart people will therefore take it into account when planning a business model"
Would you stop asking what is opinion is? Would you stop asking what he's hiding?
While I think it's important to note that there was significant collateral damage in the form of the censorship (what would be a violation of the First Amendment in the United States), it still isn't theft.
Much in the same way that collateral damage due to copyright infringement isn't theft, neither is censorship theft.
"The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy."
Unfortunately, the UK Home Office can and probably will ignore its citizens, pretend this is a minor issue, try and brush it under the rug, and extradite him anyway.
Once it's said and done the story will die (at least, the UK extradition portion of the story).
IndieGoGo only ever held about half of the money (all those donated via credit card). The amount donated via PayPal goes directly from PayPal to Matt Inman, and IndieGoGo never deals with it.
I think an important exception that should (must) be made is in the event of an emergent crisis.
For example, if you call 9-1-1 but are seriously injured or incapacitated, they should be able to use your mobile phone to determine your location.
That being said, I think this should be severely limited (only to be used during emergent crises; only to be used on a phone that has recently dialed 9-1-1 or other emergency line; etc)
There's a serious problem with your ethical formulation:
(1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful -- i.e. sharing my stuff without permission.
(2) The cost of doing so to you is low -- e.g. the world will not end if you don't download my music.
This presumes that I agree with your assertion that the behavior is disrespectful.
What if I told you I find it disrespectful for you to post comments on Techdirt that I disagree with, and I ask you to stop?
(1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful
(2) The cost of doing so to you is low (just don't post!)
Is it enough for me to make the assertion that it's disrespectful? Or do we have to (as a society) come to an agreement as to what behavior is disrespectful?
If I make unreasonable assertions as to what is disrespectful you will probably rightly ignore them.
Basically, I think the ethical situation is much more complicated than you're acknowledging.
Carreon is manipulating people. Can't see it? Well guess what...
See, it's fun because it assumes that if you disagree with the premise then you have no standing to argue against it (kinda like the amount of standing Carreon had moments before he donated to Operation BearLove)
"To summarize this argument, it's that Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates, and no one can ever question if those rates are 'excessive' until they get sued for $1.5M dollars for sharing 24 songs"?
You seem to agree with the first half of the quote ("Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates"), and your quibble is with the second half ("and no one can ever question if those rates are 'excessive'") since you can argue that the rates are excessive.
I'm posting this comment solely because of the copyright provisions granted to me by the federal government. Copying of this comment is prohibited without the express written my express written consent.
Thinking, using, or expressing any letters, words, or ideas contained herein is expressly forbidden. For good measure the idea of posting a comment expressly for the protections granted by copyright has been patented. So don't try this at home.
Re: Re: Re:
A lawsuit against YouTube will go nowhere. They can take down any videos they want for whatever reason they please (read their terms of service). They're a private entity, so you can't make first amendment arguments.
It's unfortunate that they can do this and get away with it. If you really want the issue to stop, don't sue them. Make a competitor that _doesn't_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Most legitimate user generated sites require the user to check a box indicating they have the legal right to upload the work, and grant a license to the site to use the uploaded work (don't believe me? Read the terms of service).
Given this, how is UKnova supposed to know ahead of time which uploads are legitimate users (like yourself), who created the work and are legally uploading it? How do they determine which users lied on the checkbox?
You argue that they must be proactive in policing the works, but you also seem to think that if the user says: "I created this, it's OK to use it" that's sufficient grounds to use a work. Which is it?
Re: Re: Re:
If Mike replied to this very comment, and said openly:
"I do not condone piracy. I think it is morally wrong, and I do not engage in it myself. That being said, I think it is a reality of doing business and smart people will therefore take it into account when planning a business model"
Would you stop asking what is opinion is? Would you stop asking what he's hiding?
Basically, what can we do to make you shut up?
Re:
Much in the same way that collateral damage due to copyright infringement isn't theft, neither is censorship theft.
Re: 4 million
Ignore the Citizens!
Unfortunately, the UK Home Office can and probably will ignore its citizens, pretend this is a minor issue, try and brush it under the rug, and extradite him anyway.
Once it's said and done the story will die (at least, the UK extradition portion of the story).
Re: The heartless one has a point
Sir, you are clearly a professional.
Re: Show me the money.
Re: Re: Re:
More like:
CC:"Hit me"
Dealer: "But, sir, you have 48".
CC: "I SAID HIT ME!"
Judge: *benchslap*
CC: "Thank you"
(untitled comment)
For example, if you call 9-1-1 but are seriously injured or incapacitated, they should be able to use your mobile phone to determine your location.
That being said, I think this should be severely limited (only to be used during emergent crises; only to be used on a phone that has recently dialed 9-1-1 or other emergency line; etc)
Re: Ethics
This presumes that I agree with your assertion that the behavior is disrespectful.
What if I told you I find it disrespectful for you to post comments on Techdirt that I disagree with, and I ask you to stop?
(1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful
(2) The cost of doing so to you is low (just don't post!)
Is it enough for me to make the assertion that it's disrespectful? Or do we have to (as a society) come to an agreement as to what behavior is disrespectful?
If I make unreasonable assertions as to what is disrespectful you will probably rightly ignore them.
Basically, I think the ethical situation is much more complicated than you're acknowledging.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Carreon is manipulating people. Can't see it? Well guess what...
See, it's fun because it assumes that if you disagree with the premise then you have no standing to argue against it (kinda like the amount of standing Carreon had moments before he donated to Operation BearLove)
Re: Blog not banned...
It wasn't banned; it was thoroughly censored.
Re:
"To summarize this argument, it's that Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates, and no one can ever question if those rates are 'excessive' until they get sued for $1.5M dollars for sharing 24 songs"?
You seem to agree with the first half of the quote ("Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates"), and your quibble is with the second half ("and no one can ever question if those rates are 'excessive'") since you can argue that the rates are excessive.
Re: Re: It's obvious that violent video games de-sensitize.
Snowball fights.
First Copyright Inspired Comment!
Thinking, using, or expressing any letters, words, or ideas contained herein is expressly forbidden. For good measure the idea of posting a comment expressly for the protections granted by copyright has been patented. So don't try this at home.
I'll throw in too
But I won't support this behavior. I'm not going to buy either game if they have this kind of DRM...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Noah Callaway.
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