If it isn't illegal for a police officer to lie about forensics verbally or create fake forensic reports, than the law needs to be created. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that an innocent person may plead guilty when confronted with forensic evidence, any person who is being interrogated is vulnerable, and susceptible to question their memory, particularly if alcohol or drugs are involved. All the convictions gained from any officer known to use such tactics need to be relooked at, and the benefit of the doubt needs to favour the "offender". I would just void the convictions automatically, the trust is lost.
I can't say I've heard of that phrase, maybe it's an American thing. I would have thought it was a given that if there was a real fire or the person believed wrongly there was a fire, there wouldn't be an issue. If it was some sort of crime, then the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant knew fine well there was no fire, and that their claim was likely to be believed.
The issue with free speech, is there can be consequences. If a person unncessarily causes a panic and some people are crushed to death, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a law or two that the prosecution would use. Someone will likely call fire service if you claim that there is a fire, have you by you actions caused a false report. Did some kid die because the fire engine was at the movie theatre, rather where a fire was taking place. Or maybe it's fine to miss out the step where we shout in the movie theatre, and just call 911 ourselves - is that also free speech?
So sure maybe it's not specifically against free speech, but it doesn't mean that such actions could not cause legal issues.
It's a given that copyright gives control. It doesn't have to explicitly be stated and underlined as a specific purpose, it's obvious to anyone objective that it is. In any exchange when we sell anything that involves stating conditions in use, we are seeking to exert some sort of control. We always have a choice not to sell to someone, if they will use the material against our wishes.
for the progress of science and the arts
I felt I covered this in my original comment. That's exactly what copyright is for, so Trump goes and commissions a new piece of work that would not have existed. Or purchase a piece from a willing artist. Surely that's textbook "for the progress of science and the arts", how is it not??? What isn't "progressing of science and the arts", is using content without permission for a political advert that is against the artist wishes (and in this case the artist and the copyright holder are one and the same). Indeed, the argument is it is detracting from the "progress of science and the arts" as the worry is an artist will be associated with Trump which is the polar opposite of the artists market, and effects his ability to create more content or profit from a particular work, which in some cases may mean he has to just go an work in some mind numbing job to pay the bills.
Copyright stakeholders - who aren't artists
The copyright holder is the artist unless he has come to an agreement, such as selling or agrees to transfer the copyright to someone else. But that's the artists decision, it is a free world. In this case they seem to be one and the same.
This is a very simple copyright dispute, where the content has been used in a political advert that is not covered by fair use. This has nothing to do with trademarks.
I wouldn't consider this to be a trademark dispute:
Copyright protects original work, whereas a trademark protects items that distinguish or identify a particular business from another.
Copyright is generated automatically upon the creation of original work, whereas a trademark is established through common use of a mark in the course of business.
This is ridiculous. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of "misuse of power" / "malicious prosecution" offense, where police and/or prosecutors who bring forward such ridiculous charges are held criminally responsible for their attempts to misuse their powers. The problem is there is no accountability for those who seek to extend the law beyond what is reasonable. Cases are expensive to fight, and many do not have the resources to do so.
A trademark issue would be if they were using the bands name, logo, slogan etc. Not simply using the music without permission. It's a very straightforward copyright case, nothing to do with trademarks. You may not like the concept of copyright, but these sort of cases are exactly why it was invented.
This is exactly what copyright was designed for, a textbook case. It's a necessary evil.
Artists need control how their work is used, they can't afford to have their work associated with political adverts that are the opposite of their beliefs and their fanbases belief. It can harm their career, and reduce their ability to profit and perhaps even ability to sell future work if they are perceived negatively. It's exactly why you don't see many artists willing to have their music used to advertise constipation medicine. When it comes to adverts, the artist (or the copyright holder if different), wants to keep control of how the material is used.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage those who want to use the material in certain ways to gain permission or purchase it. If they pay a willing artist or commission new music for their political advert then they will have helped fund artists meaning they can create more, or if they commission they will have aided the creation of new works.
The real "bad" guys aren't going to go through security with their phone and potential evidence, so you're left with the ones who don't believe they have anything incriminating. I get that searches for drugs or weapons are needed, I don't think it should be extended to phones. Security at airports should only be about the immediate needs of smuggling and safety for a plane. Not an excuse to take advantage of a power and rights imbalance to access information.
The problem is there are a lot of Americans that come under the "unreasonable person" category, and they are able to vote. Otherwise how did Trump get voted in. Unless anyone proposes that the unreasonable people should be denied a vote (and I'm not suggesting that), then it matters if you lie to them.
Some obvious parallels with the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF). Interesting that some of the people complaining about the police misusing and leaking expunged records are the same who rant on about how RTBF should not be considered.
This is exactly what RTBF was designed for, to balance the rights of public interest against the rights of an individuals privacy. The simple right for a person to make the case why a search result should not appear under an individuals name.
There's no point in laws being passed for expunging records, if records are illegally leaked and then the victim has no way to make that leaked information hard to find. And sure, there will be the rare case when a journalist can successfully argue that there is a public interest.
"I feel that Israel is often criticized more than other countries that employ comparable policies."
I think it's the opposite personally. If any other western democracy was occupying people, I don't think we would be explaining away its actions like we do Israel.
We never hear politicians in the West defend human rights abuses from other regimes, it just never happens. They sometimes remain silent, which is bad. But they don't actively try to justify the actions of say Saudi Arabia. No politician ever claims that children are human shields in other conflicts, and blame the oppressed as opposed to the regime doing the killing.
We fund and provide arms to the likes of Israel, whereas we don't for other regimes. As such we are complicit in the crimes (as well as point 1 regarding offering political support)
Israel describes itself as a Western Style democracy, as such it should be compared to other western style democracies. But is seeks to compare itself to the worst human rights abusers in the world. A race to the bottom. The likes of Saudi Arabia doesn't seem bothered about being known as a brutal regime.
Israel describes itself as a Western style democracy. The likes of Saudi Arabia, China or any other serial human rights abusers do not make such claims.
If Israel doesn't want companies to boycott the settlements or Israel itself, all it has to do is stop illegal settlements, respect basic human rights and respect international law. It's absurd for Israel to look at anti-BDS laws to prevent legitimate protests, whilst it simultaneously disregards much more important rights given to all in international law. Hopefully other companies will realize that allowing their products to be sold in occupied land or indeed Israel itself is a political statement and is supporting apartheid polices as well as ethnic cleansing.
Israel can complain about the oppressed shooting off rockets, but the alternative to violent protesting is non-violent protests like boycotting.
I can see there are good reasons for courts not to allow recordings, there's always a balance of being open and privacy, and we need to consider the impact this can have on witnesses willing to testify in court. It sounds like the recording was illegal. It starts a precedent if the courts ignore illegal recordings being circulated, and it's not a very good example for a court to set if it did nothing to prevent this. Is copyright the correct way to handle it (assuming this is accurate), I don't know. But if you object to copyright being used, it's likely this would signal more draconian powers being used in the future. So pragmatically, I would let it pass as an issue. Reporters are free to report in an open court with certain restrictions. Spears is free to send her speech to the media if she so wishes.
I get the logic, I''m not necessarily against the likes of Google paying for content. Google make vast amounts of profits, and it seems wrong that some of that advertising revenue isn't given to those who create the actual content in the first place. Google would be nothing if it didn't have access to so much journalism. It's a chicken and egg situation. A mere indexer of info shouldn't really be making more profit than all the individuals creating the content.
How open is the internet is debatable, when in reality it is dominated by so few (Google, Facebook).
I can see the argument that some profits from the media giants are diverted to quality content. Although I wouldn't list News Corp as quality, more like propaganda to sway elections and referendums for the odd billionaire. And that's the issue, ensuring it somehow gets filtered to the little guy making truly unique journalistic content.
I guess I think there is an issue, and the status quo isn't really any better than what other countries are proposing
There's a wider issue with the British Criminal Justice System. The focus is on funding prosecution, not defending citizens accused of a crime. Investigators have a bias, as they are looking for evidence that proves guilt as opposed to look for anything that shows innocence. Many cannot afford an adequate defense, computer forensics would have been needed, but the defence should have had the same access and resources as the prosecution. The right of appeal is sadly not available to many, particularly if someone has offered a guilty plea to reduce a sentence.
You're exactly right, although I'd argue that moral rights are there as a default in US copyright law. The US might not explicitly mention "moral rights". But it's a given, as the artist has control of their work to ensure they can profit from it, create more, and just as important not have someone use their work in a way which negatively affects their career and ability to create and profit from future work. That's why many are careful about whether they sell the rights for political campaigns to use their works in adverts.
He lost because it was used in an advert for political campaigning, there isn't really much more to it. Even in the US, political adverts need copyright permission. Satire and parody as a defence could work for someone not closely connected to a political campiagn. It's different situation whenyou come to political advertising. Satire and parody are not for the billioinaires making adverts who are trying to sway voters to vote for the billionaires own interests.
It's the basic concept that a knowingly false DMCA takedown request is perjury. The lack of litigation is probably because there are few malicious takedowns or platforms simply don't care.
Sure, but it's widely accepted that by paying creators allows creators to make a living, thus giving them time to create more works, thus creating more knowledge.
They don't have to take it down, what they have to do is take a look at the content and decide if it breaks copyright, or if they believe it meets fair usage etc etc. It's not treating them as "guilty", it's putting the onus on them to investigate and justify why they are keeping the content live. That's a step newspaper editors have had to to for centuries, DMCA just lets them avoid that responsibility. I think peoples dislike for the concept of copyright has seriously affected their ability at looking at the issue rationally. The compromise is crystal clear, the compromise is that sites aren't sued daily and put out of business for not constantly locating, removing, or preventing hosting copyright materials. That is the real alternative in the real world.
And then there is the presumption that copyright holders and creators are one and the same, and thus economic harm to the former means that there's economic harm to the latter
Sure, creators can and do sell their copyright on. They would argue that it was still in the interest to think about those who buy the copyright. If there rights are not considered and protected then why would anyone buy copyight? And who does that hurt, yes that's right the creator, as they're ability to sell on their copyright is reduced. This is all totally inline with what copyright is for, allowing the holder to profit from the work and control how the work is used
(untitled comment)
If it isn't illegal for a police officer to lie about forensics verbally or create fake forensic reports, than the law needs to be created. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that an innocent person may plead guilty when confronted with forensic evidence, any person who is being interrogated is vulnerable, and susceptible to question their memory, particularly if alcohol or drugs are involved. All the convictions gained from any officer known to use such tactics need to be relooked at, and the benefit of the doubt needs to favour the "offender". I would just void the convictions automatically, the trust is lost.
(untitled comment)
I can't say I've heard of that phrase, maybe it's an American thing. I would have thought it was a given that if there was a real fire or the person believed wrongly there was a fire, there wouldn't be an issue. If it was some sort of crime, then the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant knew fine well there was no fire, and that their claim was likely to be believed.
The issue with free speech, is there can be consequences. If a person unncessarily causes a panic and some people are crushed to death, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a law or two that the prosecution would use. Someone will likely call fire service if you claim that there is a fire, have you by you actions caused a false report. Did some kid die because the fire engine was at the movie theatre, rather where a fire was taking place. Or maybe it's fine to miss out the step where we shout in the movie theatre, and just call 911 ourselves - is that also free speech?
So sure maybe it's not specifically against free speech, but it doesn't mean that such actions could not cause legal issues.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is exactly what copyright was designed for
It's a given that copyright gives control. It doesn't have to explicitly be stated and underlined as a specific purpose, it's obvious to anyone objective that it is. In any exchange when we sell anything that involves stating conditions in use, we are seeking to exert some sort of control. We always have a choice not to sell to someone, if they will use the material against our wishes.
I felt I covered this in my original comment. That's exactly what copyright is for, so Trump goes and commissions a new piece of work that would not have existed. Or purchase a piece from a willing artist. Surely that's textbook "for the progress of science and the arts", how is it not??? What isn't "progressing of science and the arts", is using content without permission for a political advert that is against the artist wishes (and in this case the artist and the copyright holder are one and the same). Indeed, the argument is it is detracting from the "progress of science and the arts" as the worry is an artist will be associated with Trump which is the polar opposite of the artists market, and effects his ability to create more content or profit from a particular work, which in some cases may mean he has to just go an work in some mind numbing job to pay the bills.
The copyright holder is the artist unless he has come to an agreement, such as selling or agrees to transfer the copyright to someone else. But that's the artists decision, it is a free world. In this case they seem to be one and the same.
This is a very simple copyright dispute, where the content has been used in a political advert that is not covered by fair use. This has nothing to do with trademarks.
I wouldn't consider this to be a trademark dispute:
Malicious prosecution?
This is ridiculous. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of "misuse of power" / "malicious prosecution" offense, where police and/or prosecutors who bring forward such ridiculous charges are held criminally responsible for their attempts to misuse their powers. The problem is there is no accountability for those who seek to extend the law beyond what is reasonable. Cases are expensive to fight, and many do not have the resources to do so.
Re: Re: This is exactly what copyright was designed for
A trademark issue would be if they were using the bands name, logo, slogan etc. Not simply using the music without permission. It's a very straightforward copyright case, nothing to do with trademarks. You may not like the concept of copyright, but these sort of cases are exactly why it was invented.
This is exactly what copyright was designed for
This is exactly what copyright was designed for, a textbook case. It's a necessary evil.
The real bad guys aren't going to go through security with their
The real "bad" guys aren't going to go through security with their phone and potential evidence, so you're left with the ones who don't believe they have anything incriminating. I get that searches for drugs or weapons are needed, I don't think it should be extended to phones. Security at airports should only be about the immediate needs of smuggling and safety for a plane. Not an excuse to take advantage of a power and rights imbalance to access information.
How many unreasonable people are there in the USA?
The problem is there are a lot of Americans that come under the "unreasonable person" category, and they are able to vote. Otherwise how did Trump get voted in. Unless anyone proposes that the unreasonable people should be denied a vote (and I'm not suggesting that), then it matters if you lie to them.
Right to be Forgotten parallels
Some obvious parallels with the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF). Interesting that some of the people complaining about the police misusing and leaking expunged records are the same who rant on about how RTBF should not be considered.
This is exactly what RTBF was designed for, to balance the rights of public interest against the rights of an individuals privacy. The simple right for a person to make the case why a search result should not appear under an individuals name.
There's no point in laws being passed for expunging records, if records are illegally leaked and then the victim has no way to make that leaked information hard to find. And sure, there will be the rare case when a journalist can successfully argue that there is a public interest.
Re: Not antisemitism
"I feel that Israel is often criticized more than other countries that employ comparable policies."
I think it's the opposite personally. If any other western democracy was occupying people, I don't think we would be explaining away its actions like we do Israel.
Israel describes itself as a Western style democracy. The likes of Saudi Arabia, China or any other serial human rights abusers do not make such claims.
(untitled comment)
If Israel doesn't want companies to boycott the settlements or Israel itself, all it has to do is stop illegal settlements, respect basic human rights and respect international law. It's absurd for Israel to look at anti-BDS laws to prevent legitimate protests, whilst it simultaneously disregards much more important rights given to all in international law. Hopefully other companies will realize that allowing their products to be sold in occupied land or indeed Israel itself is a political statement and is supporting apartheid polices as well as ethnic cleansing.
Israel can complain about the oppressed shooting off rockets, but the alternative to violent protesting is non-violent protests like boycotting.
(untitled comment)
I can see there are good reasons for courts not to allow recordings, there's always a balance of being open and privacy, and we need to consider the impact this can have on witnesses willing to testify in court. It sounds like the recording was illegal. It starts a precedent if the courts ignore illegal recordings being circulated, and it's not a very good example for a court to set if it did nothing to prevent this. Is copyright the correct way to handle it (assuming this is accurate), I don't know. But if you object to copyright being used, it's likely this would signal more draconian powers being used in the future. So pragmatically, I would let it pass as an issue. Reporters are free to report in an open court with certain restrictions. Spears is free to send her speech to the media if she so wishes.
Chicken and egg
I get the logic, I''m not necessarily against the likes of Google paying for content. Google make vast amounts of profits, and it seems wrong that some of that advertising revenue isn't given to those who create the actual content in the first place. Google would be nothing if it didn't have access to so much journalism. It's a chicken and egg situation. A mere indexer of info shouldn't really be making more profit than all the individuals creating the content.
How open is the internet is debatable, when in reality it is dominated by so few (Google, Facebook).
I can see the argument that some profits from the media giants are diverted to quality content. Although I wouldn't list News Corp as quality, more like propaganda to sway elections and referendums for the odd billionaire. And that's the issue, ensuring it somehow gets filtered to the little guy making truly unique journalistic content.
I guess I think there is an issue, and the status quo isn't really any better than what other countries are proposing
Wider issues
There's a wider issue with the British Criminal Justice System. The focus is on funding prosecution, not defending citizens accused of a crime. Investigators have a bias, as they are looking for evidence that proves guilt as opposed to look for anything that shows innocence. Many cannot afford an adequate defense, computer forensics would have been needed, but the defence should have had the same access and resources as the prosecution. The right of appeal is sadly not available to many, particularly if someone has offered a guilty plea to reduce a sentence.
Re: Moral rights in copyright
You're exactly right, although I'd argue that moral rights are there as a default in US copyright law. The US might not explicitly mention "moral rights". But it's a given, as the artist has control of their work to ensure they can profit from it, create more, and just as important not have someone use their work in a way which negatively affects their career and ability to create and profit from future work. That's why many are careful about whether they sell the rights for political campaigns to use their works in adverts.
Political campaig advert - don't complicate things
He lost because it was used in an advert for political campaigning, there isn't really much more to it. Even in the US, political adverts need copyright permission. Satire and parody as a defence could work for someone not closely connected to a political campiagn. It's different situation whenyou come to political advertising. Satire and parody are not for the billioinaires making adverts who are trying to sway voters to vote for the billionaires own interests.
Re: 512(f) [was Re: Compromise]
It's the basic concept that a knowingly false DMCA takedown request is perjury. The lack of litigation is probably because there are few malicious takedowns or platforms simply don't care.
Re: Encouragement of learning [was Re: ]
Sure, but it's widely accepted that by paying creators allows creators to make a living, thus giving them time to create more works, thus creating more knowledge.
Re: 'You get everything, I get nothing' is not 'compromise'
They don't have to take it down, what they have to do is take a look at the content and decide if it breaks copyright, or if they believe it meets fair usage etc etc. It's not treating them as "guilty", it's putting the onus on them to investigate and justify why they are keeping the content live. That's a step newspaper editors have had to to for centuries, DMCA just lets them avoid that responsibility. I think peoples dislike for the concept of copyright has seriously affected their ability at looking at the issue rationally. The compromise is crystal clear, the compromise is that sites aren't sued daily and put out of business for not constantly locating, removing, or preventing hosting copyright materials. That is the real alternative in the real world.
(untitled comment)
Sure, creators can and do sell their copyright on. They would argue that it was still in the interest to think about those who buy the copyright. If there rights are not considered and protected then why would anyone buy copyight? And who does that hurt, yes that's right the creator, as they're ability to sell on their copyright is reduced. This is all totally inline with what copyright is for, allowing the holder to profit from the work and control how the work is used
More comments from Zane >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Zane.
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