Thank you for letting me know. I didn't know I was missing this in my life. The songs are on YouTube (including a video they did for O Come All Ye Faithful that has a lot of parallels to the We're Not Gonna Take It video).
Google just announced that they're backing out of game development, before it really got going. First-party Stadia development studios have been shut down. Stadia itself remains as a supported platform for third parties to publish to (for now).
I wonder if Microsoft had held on just a few more months, would this have given people a real push to use Mixer and make it a real contender. I guess we'll never know now.
That is literally the place that Microsoft told people using Mixer to go, so who knows?
They did, but then they didn't do anything to support it. One of the big draws of Mixer is that it was super easy, barely an inconvenience to stream from the Xbox for even the most casual of streamers. They killed Mixer and said everyone should go to Facebook, but months later, the only app that streams from Xbox is Twitch. FB is completely absent. It's like they just picked a name that wasn't their biggest competitor in streaming, and wasn't owned by Google, and just gave up.
And with YouTube once again making a strong play for these kinds of streamers, one wonders just how long it all can last.
YouTube is certainly no stranger to heavy-handed DMCA responses. While they do have a counterclaim process, it's still heavily favored towards the complainant. I have a feeling those who flee to YouTube to escape DMCA action on Twitch are going to be sorely disappointed.
Mixer couldn't compete. What else is there, Facebook Gaming?
There is a strong public interest in the continuation of Mr. Liebowitz and LLF’s law practice.
I, as a member of the public, am strongly interested in the continuation of his law practice. Reading up on his antics provides much-needed amusement and levity in these days.
Considering he was talking specifically about cloud infrastructure, he's right. Google and Amazon are the other big players in cloud services. Nintendo is doing their own thing for online (sort of), and Sony has actually partnered with Microsoft on this. His statement in context really should come as no surprise.
As a counterpoint, this whole streaming mess is actually why I stick with Netflix. Netflix doesn't have it on streaming? Then I can get it shipped to me on disc. Doesn't matter who owns the streaming rights, they've already proven in court that no one can stop them getting and distributing the physical media.
Of course, for me, being able to watch it immediately isn't a big deal, so I have no problem waiting for the disc to arrive in my mailbox before I get to watch it.
I get so much crap for buying discs (be it movies, music, or video games) and not giving in to the inevitable, all-digital future. Yet this is exactly why I do. I don't trust companies to have my best interest in heart.
What up find troubling is how many people were actually in favor of the original plan and were fine with turning their trading and resale rights over to Microsoft. In fact, many are using this news to make the argument that they should have not listened to the "whiners" and stayed the course, so that we could have had backwards compatibility sooner.
Fortunately, they were enough of am minority that Microsoft backtracked, but I wonder how much longer that will remain true. Seems like more and more people are used to the idea of software being only a non-transferable license (just like on their cell phone that they spend so much time on).
This may be why they chose this particular document. Since copyright claims (valid or not) invariably lead to wider dissemination of the work, bringing a claim against this particular document acts as a test of their legal copyright status, where the fallout from the Streisand Effect is relatively benign.
If they can show that their copyright claim is valid on this document, then they can enforce it on other documents that might be more damning without (or with less) Streisanding. If MormonLeaks prevails on Fair Use, then the LDS Church knows they have no legal recourse on this or other documents.
> Purpose and character of use: The purpose and character of the use is that information about a religious organization is being disclosed in the public interest.
The question I have here is: how do you define "public interest"? Obviously, MormonLeaks thinks this is something that "people should know". From my armchair, this doesn't seem sufficient to allow copying and distributing an internal document. What is it that makes this document (according to the Random House dictionary) "relevant to the general populace", when it applies to maybe 2% of the US population?
> Nature of the copyrighted work: The nature of the copyrighted work is that it is official documents from a religious organization.
This is factually correct, but I don't understand how this answer means it passes the test in that it points to defensible under fair use. Are documents used by religious organizations automatically subject to weaker copyright protections?
I apologize for mischaracterizing the result as "ignoring copyright". It would have been more appropriate if I had said "we get an exception to copyright".
> If the answer is "they're leaking documents that the church hasn't given them permission to leak and doesn't want people to see," then that's an argument *for* this disclosure being a work of journalism in the public interest, not against.
This sounds dangerously close to the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument. If the LDS Church doesn't want their copyright works published, then it's an admission that there's something noteworthy in there, therefore it should be published? The fact that they're (attempting to) exercising their legal right under copyright shouldn't count towards an exemption to their copyright.
Re: Think of the children!
"It doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a seven-year-old girl,
They'll treat you like the evil hard-bitten criminal scum you are."
--Weird Al Yankovic, Don't Download This Song
Re: Re: He might have a point.
Thank you for letting me know. I didn't know I was missing this in my life. The songs are on YouTube (including a video they did for O Come All Ye Faithful that has a lot of parallels to the We're Not Gonna Take It video).
You're not wrong. This is amazing.
He might have a point.
I hadn't noticed the similarity of "We're Not Gonna Take It" to "O Come, All Ye Faithful" before, but it actually works.
Re: Re: Dear New York Times,
Parallels. It says so in the name.
Coincidentally, here's another one
Google just announced that they're backing out of game development, before it really got going. First-party Stadia development studios have been shut down. Stadia itself remains as a supported platform for third parties to publish to (for now).
https://blog.google/products/stadia/focusing-on-stadias-future-as-a-platform-and-winding-down- sge/
A shame Microsoft gave up
I wonder if Microsoft had held on just a few more months, would this have given people a real push to use Mixer and make it a real contender. I guess we'll never know now.
Re: Re: As if YouTube will be much better
They did, but then they didn't do anything to support it. One of the big draws of Mixer is that it was super easy, barely an inconvenience to stream from the Xbox for even the most casual of streamers. They killed Mixer and said everyone should go to Facebook, but months later, the only app that streams from Xbox is Twitch. FB is completely absent. It's like they just picked a name that wasn't their biggest competitor in streaming, and wasn't owned by Google, and just gave up.
As if YouTube will be much better
YouTube is certainly no stranger to heavy-handed DMCA responses. While they do have a counterclaim process, it's still heavily favored towards the complainant. I have a feeling those who flee to YouTube to escape DMCA action on Twitch are going to be sorely disappointed.
Mixer couldn't compete. What else is there, Facebook Gaming?
He got one thing right.
I, as a member of the public, am strongly interested in the continuation of his law practice. Reading up on his antics provides much-needed amusement and levity in these days.
Re: Human rights violations
With Qualified Immunity, your lawsuit will have a snowball's chance in hell. Probably wouldn't even last long enough to make the news.
He's not wrong
Considering he was talking specifically about cloud infrastructure, he's right. Google and Amazon are the other big players in cloud services. Nintendo is doing their own thing for online (sort of), and Sony has actually partnered with Microsoft on this. His statement in context really should come as no surprise.
Re: Re:
As a counterpoint, this whole streaming mess is actually why I stick with Netflix. Netflix doesn't have it on streaming? Then I can get it shipped to me on disc. Doesn't matter who owns the streaming rights, they've already proven in court that no one can stop them getting and distributing the physical media.
Of course, for me, being able to watch it immediately isn't a big deal, so I have no problem waiting for the disc to arrive in my mailbox before I get to watch it.
"They hides jokes?"
Tricksy, those authorses is!
Re: Re:
He's a little too extreme for me. I'm thinking of casting my vote for Kevin Phillips Bong of the Slightly Silly Party.
Re:
I get so much crap for buying discs (be it movies, music, or video games) and not giving in to the inevitable, all-digital future. Yet this is exactly why I do. I don't trust companies to have my best interest in heart.
(untitled comment)
Fortunately, they were enough of am minority that Microsoft backtracked, but I wonder how much longer that will remain true. Seems like more and more people are used to the idea of software being only a non-transferable license (just like on their cell phone that they spend so much time on).
Re: Which executives got fired for such a blunder?
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do Mormons practice "Fair Game"?
This may be why they chose this particular document. Since copyright claims (valid or not) invariably lead to wider dissemination of the work, bringing a claim against this particular document acts as a test of their legal copyright status, where the fallout from the Streisand Effect is relatively benign.
If they can show that their copyright claim is valid on this document, then they can enforce it on other documents that might be more damning without (or with less) Streisanding. If MormonLeaks prevails on Fair Use, then the LDS Church knows they have no legal recourse on this or other documents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it fair use?
The question I have here is: how do you define "public interest"? Obviously, MormonLeaks thinks this is something that "people should know". From my armchair, this doesn't seem sufficient to allow copying and distributing an internal document. What is it that makes this document (according to the Random House dictionary) "relevant to the general populace", when it applies to maybe 2% of the US population?
> Nature of the copyrighted work: The nature of the copyrighted work is that it is official documents from a religious organization.
This is factually correct, but I don't understand how this answer means it passes the test in that it points to defensible under fair use. Are documents used by religious organizations automatically subject to weaker copyright protections?
I apologize for mischaracterizing the result as "ignoring copyright". It would have been more appropriate if I had said "we get an exception to copyright".
> If the answer is "they're leaking documents that the church hasn't given them permission to leak and doesn't want people to see," then that's an argument *for* this disclosure being a work of journalism in the public interest, not against.
This sounds dangerously close to the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument. If the LDS Church doesn't want their copyright works published, then it's an admission that there's something noteworthy in there, therefore it should be published? The fact that they're (attempting to) exercising their legal right under copyright shouldn't count towards an exemption to their copyright.
More comments from Yakko Warner >>
Yakko Warner’s Submitted Stories.
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