IIRC you can get an exemption from this rule if you have a business that regularly triggers the CTR. The bank should work with the member and get the correct paperwork filled out so that they would not have to do anything special.
The court says many software patents are perfectly good because they apply to patent-eligible subject matter, but that if the claims do no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, it's not patentable.
I read that to mean that generic software running on a generic computer is not protected but software created for non-generic, for example, specifically created hardware for machines with very customized demands, would be protected. I think the ruling is fine in dismissing most things I run in windows and protecting software written for a factories embedded systems.
I'm not seeing how that difference is important. If a newspaper reports about a drug house, would they be guilty of "contributory drug dealing" by publishing the address of the house?
My response was first going to be this: Of course not. I could not go to said house and get free drugs could I? I could go there and see the drug house which is how I believe the Perfect 10 ruling should fit into this. The script link does provide you the means to get the "free drugs" not just view that the script does exist in some form (Perfect 10 case ruling). They may or may not be legally allowed to do this link but I certainly can see a difference.
But now I am thinking of this: If a newspaper reported the police raided a drug house at 123 Main street then they are guilty of nothing. I would question the legality of a newspaper publishing an article saying the police are ignoring a known drug seller and you can find them to purchase your own drugs at 123 Main Street. Moreover in Gawker you don't even need to worry about the police nor leave your house to get the "drugs". Just click this link and viola... Certainly sounds like a case for contributing...
One of my original posts said that if they reported on it that's fine. They are not trying to claim fair use for the report about the incident that occurred (and QT's reaction) but in regards to telling people where to find the stolen script.
if your logic is to be believed then all of the news outlets reporting on and displaying the Snowden documents would be breaking the law. They are not.
Government documents are not copyrightable if I remember correctly. In any case, I would say for whistleblowers that for the person doing it of course it is theft which is why you need whistleblower laws in the first place. The news sites can report on "whistleblower" documents they receive because they did not entice the person to steal them. They have to be very careful in this lest they get in trouble for helping in the crime. Just because a news organization is protected in using these "stolen" documents does not mean the documents themselves are magically made legal for everyone else to have in their possession.
Given that Gawker is also a news site how is Snowden different than the Gawker case? The Guardian and Washington Post et al use the Snowden documents to create original news stories using the documents as source material (essentially a transformation of the document besides the first amendment rights that reporters have). Unlike Gawker they do not publish news such as "some guy stole all these NSA documents. ha ha. Go here to read them". And that is essentially what Gawker did. Gawker reported the fact of the script theft which is legal but then told everyone where to get it which got them into court. I see that as much different then the Snowden situation. Additionally no news organization has ever pointed out where we can download the Snowden documents as Gawker did the QT script.
This thread is getting away from the point I had which is I think the judge misread Perfect 10.
Your argument for fair use merely quotes the judge (who I already think misread the Perfect 10 case) and you seem to add nothing new to the argument. While I have not read Gawkers Fair Use argument I don't see how they even have one. They did not do anything with the script (transform, parody, critique etc). They just said here is something stolen and go read it yourself.
I also do not think Fair Use applies to things that are stolen. As someone else mentioned the rules of First Publication should apply and as QT never published it it is just stolen. Can you parody or transform a stolen work? Maybe but doubtful. But Gawker didn't do anything...
No they didn't. Techdirt just reported the existence. Gawker told people where to go to read it. The judge stated two things:
1) QT did not allege anyone actually downloaded it via that link. He sent that part back to QT to fix.
2) But then he says even if QT did prove the download that it would not be infringement because Perfect 10 allows you to view things that might infringe.
I believe the judge is wrong as my understanding is the Perfect 10 ruling allows a site to show links to items that may or may not infringe. And it allows for a user to view the something that may or may not infringe does actually exists (IE a picture of the illegal script). I also believe that ruling allows you to have on your screen images of infringing content and not hold you liable for infringement due to the transformative case. (IE a page of thumbnails does not mean you actually downloaded all the files the thumbnails refer to)
But I don't see the Perfect 10 ruling saying you can direct people to something you state is illegal (and the judge does believe there is a case against someone for hosting illegal content so he is not even questioning that aspect of the script). Nor does the Perfect 10 ruling state the user can further use that link to infringing content and not be liable for it; as the act of clicking on the link implies your intent to download or view it. So Gawker should not be able to wash their hands of contributory infringement based on that ruling. So far the judge IS allowing this. But I disagree....
That's not how I read that case. That case was about Google searches which show thumbnails in the browser of infringing images. The court of appeals stated that what Google did was not an infringement. That case did not give the world the right to, as you mention, stream illegal movies based solely on the fact none of the movie is actually stored on your machine. It just allowed a site to point to something they have no control of and not be liable.
I do not understand how the judge in QT's case got from a thumbnail style link on a search page being non-infringement to a news site saying "go here to find stolen material. We know it's stolen as we just did an article on it". How are the two situations comparable? Google's search of Perfect 10 pictures does not know if a particular image is infringing. But Gawker sure as hell knew...
I can appreciate, understand and even defend the rights of people who make tools or host sites that can be used for legal purposes whose users use them for illegal things. There are laws and court decisions that have declared the sites/tools legal due to the fact they can and are used for legal things. They might have to fight for it (more than they should lately) but they should not be held liable for how the users use the tools/sites. That is an argument that has been discussed many times here.
How can you apply that same argument for a news site that generates its own content? This is not mere user generated possibly infringing content. It is content the news site generates and cannot fall under the same provisions that protect other sites that host user content. They can report on the infringement but should not be allowed to point others to infringe.
Unless the script is somehow completely legal, and I do not see that argument being put forward, then shouldn't it be infringing of a news site to post links to where to get it? By this same argument you can have the New York Times post links to all illegal music and movies online and claim that "Hey its a news story". I would find it hard to believe if news sites had the right to tell people Joe Smith on the corner of Main and 41st is selling stolen goods: Go ahead and try his stuff ("read it online") but do not buy it ("download it yourself").
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Unovis.
Re: Bank Secrecy Act
Generic...
I read that to mean that generic software running on a generic computer is not protected but software created for non-generic, for example, specifically created hardware for machines with very customized demands, would be protected. I think the ruling is fine in dismissing most things I run in windows and protecting software written for a factories embedded systems.
Re: I disagree
My response was first going to be this:
Of course not. I could not go to said house and get free drugs could I? I could go there and see the drug house which is how I believe the Perfect 10 ruling should fit into this. The script link does provide you the means to get the "free drugs" not just view that the script does exist in some form (Perfect 10 case ruling). They may or may not be legally allowed to do this link but I certainly can see a difference.
But now I am thinking of this:
If a newspaper reported the police raided a drug house at 123 Main street then they are guilty of nothing. I would question the legality of a newspaper publishing an article saying the police are ignoring a known drug seller and you can find them to purchase your own drugs at 123 Main Street. Moreover in Gawker you don't even need to worry about the police nor leave your house to get the "drugs". Just click this link and viola... Certainly sounds like a case for contributing...
Re: I disagree
Government documents are not copyrightable if I remember correctly. In any case, I would say for whistleblowers that for the person doing it of course it is theft which is why you need whistleblower laws in the first place. The news sites can report on "whistleblower" documents they receive because they did not entice the person to steal them. They have to be very careful in this lest they get in trouble for helping in the crime. Just because a news organization is protected in using these "stolen" documents does not mean the documents themselves are magically made legal for everyone else to have in their possession.
Given that Gawker is also a news site how is Snowden different than the Gawker case? The Guardian and Washington Post et al use the Snowden documents to create original news stories using the documents as source material (essentially a transformation of the document besides the first amendment rights that reporters have). Unlike Gawker they do not publish news such as "some guy stole all these NSA documents. ha ha. Go here to read them". And that is essentially what Gawker did. Gawker reported the fact of the script theft which is legal but then told everyone where to get it which got them into court. I see that as much different then the Snowden situation. Additionally no news organization has ever pointed out where we can download the Snowden documents as Gawker did the QT script.
This thread is getting away from the point I had which is I think the judge misread Perfect 10.
Re: I disagree
I also do not think Fair Use applies to things that are stolen. As someone else mentioned the rules of First Publication should apply and as QT never published it it is just stolen. Can you parody or transform a stolen work? Maybe but doubtful. But Gawker didn't do anything...
Re: Re: I disagree
No they didn't. Techdirt just reported the existence. Gawker told people where to go to read it. The judge stated two things:
1) QT did not allege anyone actually downloaded it via that link. He sent that part back to QT to fix.
2) But then he says even if QT did prove the download that it would not be infringement because Perfect 10 allows you to view things that might infringe.
I believe the judge is wrong as my understanding is the Perfect 10 ruling allows a site to show links to items that may or may not infringe. And it allows for a user to view the something that may or may not infringe does actually exists (IE a picture of the illegal script). I also believe that ruling allows you to have on your screen images of infringing content and not hold you liable for infringement due to the transformative case. (IE a page of thumbnails does not mean you actually downloaded all the files the thumbnails refer to)
But I don't see the Perfect 10 ruling saying you can direct people to something you state is illegal (and the judge does believe there is a case against someone for hosting illegal content so he is not even questioning that aspect of the script). Nor does the Perfect 10 ruling state the user can further use that link to infringing content and not be liable for it; as the act of clicking on the link implies your intent to download or view it. So Gawker should not be able to wash their hands of contributory infringement based on that ruling. So far the judge IS allowing this. But I disagree....
Re:
I do not understand how the judge in QT's case got from a thumbnail style link on a search page being non-infringement to a news site saying "go here to find stolen material. We know it's stolen as we just did an article on it". How are the two situations comparable? Google's search of Perfect 10 pictures does not know if a particular image is infringing. But Gawker sure as hell knew...
I disagree
How can you apply that same argument for a news site that generates its own content? This is not mere user generated possibly infringing content. It is content the news site generates and cannot fall under the same provisions that protect other sites that host user content. They can report on the infringement but should not be allowed to point others to infringe.
Unless the script is somehow completely legal, and I do not see that argument being put forward, then shouldn't it be infringing of a news site to post links to where to get it? By this same argument you can have the New York Times post links to all illegal music and movies online and claim that "Hey its a news story". I would find it hard to believe if news sites had the right to tell people Joe Smith on the corner of Main and 41st is selling stolen goods: Go ahead and try his stuff ("read it online") but do not buy it ("download it yourself").
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Unovis.
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