Fair Use Must Be Considered In DMCA Notices 189
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "US District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that an 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim,' which paves the way for a lawsuit against Universal Music over a ridiculous DMCA Takedown notice they filed. One can only hope that this ruling will some day be used against those who file misguided copyright complaints against computer printers. Those lawyers who rely upon buggy infringement detection programs to do their thinking for them — programs which are incapable of making subjective considerations like fair use — might want to think again before rubber stamping computer-generated DMCA Takedown notices."
A Bit Tilted? (Score:5, Insightful)
"U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim,' which paves the way for a lawsuit against Universal Music over a ridiculous DMCA Takedown notice they filed. One can only hope that this ruling will some day be used against those who file misguided copyright complaints against computer printers. Those lawyers who rely upon buggy infringement detection programs to do their thinking for them -- programs which are incapable of making subjective considerations like fair use -- might want to think again before rubber stamping computer-generated DMCA Takedown notices."
Speaking of subjectivity, this summary is rife with it. Even though I agree 100% with it, I would prefer my news fed to me in the form of low grade homogeneous neutral gruel. I know it's more boring to read that way but it allows me, the reader, to form my own opinions. More importantly, it maintains that news source's credibility and will actually make the other side listen instead of instant dismissal. You're also needlessly jeopardizing those who are undecided on this issue. I think I'd rather read:
"U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim,' which now puts Universal Music at risk over a DMCA Takedown notice they filed. This ruling may also one day be used against those who attempt to file copyright complaints against computer printers & automated DMCA Takedown notices.
I know Slashdot is not a true news site and is more so a news aggregater of whatever CmdrTaco feels is relevant but does anyone else get a sinking suspicion that we might look a bit biased to outsiders?
There's no objectivity in this summary, it just assumes the reader needs to be told how to think (which is usually taken as an insult to intelligence). I just don't want Slashdot to turn into the "Fox News for Geeks, Stuffed into Your Gullet Our Way."
Re:A Bit Tilted? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're about 11 years too late for that.
Re:A Bit Tilted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt we all have enough critical thinking skills to grant us immunity form this kind of thing or the tactic would not be so popular. It is fun to think of Slashdot as a community of exclusively high end thinkers, but that is quite a ways from the truth.
Despite that I much prefer this kind of bias to the paid-for-but-not-admitted-to stories. At least we can assume overly dramatic write ups get through because the editors don't really want to take the time to edit them. With the paid stories the editors ar
Re:A Bit Tilted? (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting side note, 'high' is a synonym for 'stoned,' while 'end' is a synonym for 'asshole.' And 'thinker' just means 'someone who doesn't do shit, but talks a lot.' I definitely think Slashdot is a community of high end thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you put it like that, I don't think anyone can disagree....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way the summaries are presented makes it pretty clear that they're the editorialised version of the original, interpreted the opinions of the submitter, and I think honestly we all have the critical thinking skills required to handle that, right?
I can't tell whether the irony in striving for the lowest common denominator escapes you, or you actually believe that a "It sucks but it's OK" argument can ever be valid.
Sorry, but I think the OP was entirely correct. Slashdot readers are invited to "submit" a
Re:A Bit Tilted? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Slashdot will inevitably receive summaries written by people who engage strongly with the subject matter. Those people are unlikely to write neutrally.
2) It is immediately obvious that in the summary we are receiving the submitter's editorialised version of the events. There is no facade of neutrality or objectivity in an IP law post that starts "I Don't Believe In Imaginary Property writes:"
3) There is an expectation of factual accuracy in a Slashdot summary. Outright lying with regards to the content of the article is not acceptable in any case. Fortunately that is not true here.
4) A non-editorialised, neutral version of events is usually provided by the story itself, a mere mouse click away, assuming it is not a blog or some other editorial article. Given that said story contains the news we're actually after, it seems to me inevitable that even the most credulous reader would be dissolusioned of any false assumptions they made on the basis of an editorialised summary.
To get down to brass tacks: I never read a Slashdot summary an expect it to be neutral and free of editorialisation, any more than I would expect a blog post to be. Everything from the way stories are gathered at the back end to the way they're written on the front page makes it obvious that this is not the case. Even if you argue that all news sources (even Slashdot summaries) should come with an expectation of neutrality and objectivity it seems obvious to me that it's in an entirely different kingdom of bias than the likes of Fox News.
Re:A Bit Tilted? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree. Slashdot has never pretended to be objective. But there's a difference between the slanted newsgathering the editors have always done and the outright rants that they've been doing lately.
One difference is the blogosphere. Slashdot stories used to be mostly summaries of (and links to) stories on serious news site. Now there are thousands of angry, self-righteous blogs out there, and they all have have "Submit to Slashdot" buttons. The editors often pass these submissions on with little or no editing (in particular, they rarely double check the blogger's assertions) and end up posting a lot of very subjective opinions as if they're established fact.
Plus, many editors seem to have been infected by the Howard Beale [youtube.com] attitude of the blogosphere, and feel compelled to add their own ill-informed little rants.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Q. How does Slashdot earn money?
Advertising.
Q. How does advertising make money?
A. People.
Q. How do we get people?
A. Discussion.
Q. What makes discussion?
A. Conflict. Arguements.
That is not to say Slashdot doesn't post good stories. I read them - as do you. The world has changed since these beautiful early days you speak of though. You don't have to be a professional to find a good story. You don't even have to be a writer. Slashdot has evolved with the times, in some ways for the good, and in some ways
Re:A Bit Tilted? (Score:4, Funny)
Ever eat a nice steak? mmm tasty. Ever try eating the turds the next morning? Not quite as good, is it?
I'm 100% willing to take your word for it.
Re: (Score:3)
but seriously, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a troll. slashdot "troll" and "flamebait" are just mod-point sensoring. I'll call it a /. takedown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here! :P
Seriously this is slashdot. If you want objectivity go to news.google.com or the like.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here! :P
Ewe muss bee knew hear! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Eye yam!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think the "official news" is objective, then you've never been on site at a news happening and then later seen it reported ... TV, newspaper, they slant equally, though they prefer different techniques.
Slashdot is, at least, blatant about presenting slanted news. I've been on site where NBC (this was prior to MSNBC) was recording for rebroadcast. When I later saw the report it took a significant amount of time (about half the footage) before I finally realized what they were "reporting" on. It was
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a bit tilted, but in this case, it's tilted the way most of the readers here are in agreement with.
Put another way: the opinions had already been formed.
I'm just glad to see that the momentum is finally building with respect to copyright and fair use.
It took a while for common sense to prevail in the SCO case; it's taken awhile here as well, but it good to see cracks in the Media Cartel's armor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A bit off-topic, but just for an academic exercise...
Re: (Score:2)
Suspicion??
I know for a fact that an outsider to Slashdot is going to mostly view us as a bunch of bickering, squabling wankers who divide into camps defined by who makes out favorite operating system, music player, or role playing game.
It's a little late to be worried that someone else might notice. Slashdo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...Stuffed into Your Gullet Our Way
Aaah, Slashdot...Gavage for nerds...Foie gras that tastes great
A Bit Tilted AND nonsensical (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... I thought that the takedown notices sent to printers was ridiculous because it showed that the method the RIAA used to determine who was pirating music was b0rken.
Apparently, the printers really were downloading music, but they had a fair use! I totally misread that story before. I, for one, will not stand for fair use rights being taken away from our electronic friends!
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone else get a sinking suspicion that we might look a bit biased to outsiders?
I am new here, and this site is terribly biased.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You weren't clued in to this by the "News for Nerds... Stuff That Matters" tagline? Of course a site purporting to know what "matters" to you is biased. For the most part, no one here pretends otherwise, which is neutral enough for me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you expect on a story about DMCA takedown notices submitted by a guy named "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property"?
Re: (Score:2)
Our break room used to have a TV playing fox news - about as unfair and mentally imbalanced as it gets, but funny as all heck. Especially when they get torn to shreds by some well-informed liberal or spout angry, laughable nonsense.
It was fun watching other people respond to it too. I actually missed fox when the company decided to change the channel to CNN.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me highlight something in the summary I believe you missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of subjectivity, this summary is rife with it. Even though I agree 100% with it, I would prefer my news fed to me in the form of low grade homogeneous neutral gruel.
Good, if you ever find such a thing, let us know.
Re: (Score:2)
You lived in a bunker since Fox News and "fair and balanced" journalism became the norm?
but... (Score:3, Funny)
But you've just shown that they don't even think the first time around...
I can't wait to see where the countersuit goes from here.
Too soon to celebrate (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If "subjective bad faith" as the cause of Universal's behavior is eliminated, they're left with only "stupidity" or "ignorance of the law" as their excuses. Since neither of those is likely to make their lawyers look good, I'm guessing they'll go with with some variation on the general theme of "ignorance".
Sample: "Sadly, your honor, in spite of the many requirements we placed in their contract, we were not informed by a third-party subcontractor of a computer or software error for which they were entirely
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I read the opinion, and it's not that big a deal. It just says that when a big corporation wants to send nasty take-down notices, they have to pause for a about half a second and think, "Is this absolutely, positively fair use?" After they've done that, and determined that it may be, but it's not a slam dunk fair use, they can send their takedown notice.
The standard of proof on the misrepresentation claim is subjective bad faith. That means that even with this decision, Lenz will have to prove t
Maybe it isn't so much reliance... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe it isn't so much reliance... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't just loathe the concept, MPAA honcho Jack Valenti said "there's no such thing as fair use". It's like the music industry in the 1980s, when LPs would say on their covers that any copying was a federal felony, despite the fact that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1978 specifically said that recording those LPs to tape was LEGAL.
These bozos don't give a rat's ass about the law. As far as they're concerned, what they say is the law is the law. Considering their army of lawyers, lobbyists, and campaign bribes; er, 'scuse me, "campaign contributions", they may well be right.
Re: (Score:2)
These bozos don't give a rat's ass about the law.
Sure they do, they spend so much on changing it to their liking!
Lawmakers and lobbyists aren't cheap, you know. You should see their food budget, they cost hundreds of dollars per meal! And only in restaurants free or rats asses, or any other rat parts.
They care about the law as much as a slave owner cares about the whip.
Quality line from Universal (Score:5, Insightful)
Well isn't that a crying shame, they can't shotgun automated DMCA notices without the threat of consequence anymore. Boohoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with luck, the courts will start swinging back towards being a little more sane and decide that these groups need to have proof and follow the rules.
It really can't be allowed that the *AA's have a consequence-free use of the courts to enforce their own agenda and don't need to back up t
Perjury (Score:5, Interesting)
To date, has anyone anywhere gone on trial for perjuring themselves in a false DMCA notice? If not, why not?
Re:Perjury (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
a lot of us are happy (Score:5, Insightful)
that someone in the justice system has noticed that the rabid dog has no right to go around just randomly biting people
but a lot of us are still waiting for someone in the justice system to notice that we need to put the rabid dog out of its misery
there is no more life in copyright for products that can be consumed electronically (music, text, movies, etc.) because there is no way to enforce the legal concept of copyright in an environment where there is zero distribution cost for infinite distribution abilities
the internet killed copyright. the internet lets everyone be a publisher with greater reach than all the most powerful media companies combined. i can share a file with someone in buenos aires, wellington, seoul, and vancouver. my distribution costs are zero. my reach is infinite. there is no such thing as copyright in this environment
there are no checkpoints where a rogue printing press, pirate cd presser, or renegade vcr duplicator can be located by the authorities and shut down. who are you going to shutdown on the internet? traffic can be obscured in such a way that you can't monitor it, and these methods can be encapsulated in code so the clueless end user need not know any special technical abilities to trrde files discreetly, and find anything they want
game over dude
a lot of time now must be spent waiting for everyone else to wake up to this realization
the internet killed copyright
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Payment for creativity, unless it is shrouded by something else, is gone. People will take whatever they want, however they can. And the lack of international enforcement and differing laws ensures that there can be no prosecution of any copyright, patent, or trademark laws.
As a software publisher, what this really means is that without some physical embodiment, anybody can take our software and republish it, free of cost or not, and there isn't anything that can be done about it. It means that i
the ancillary business model (Score:3, Insightful)
television and radio has been beaming free media content on the airwaves for decades, and they are very profitable. why? how?
because charging someone to buy your book/ software/ cd/ dvd is not, and never has been, the only way money is made in media. the advertising that radio and tv sell is but one of dozens of other ways you can make $ with free software
free software represets an upside to: zero resistance to widespread implementation. if you sold your package for $100, you might have 100 customers. if yo
sorry, i need to qualify (Score:3, Interesting)
from my othwer comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=653201&cid=24693271 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Sci-Fi want the show made, then they would have to pay the people who make it, the only thing that changes is that no-one gets to keep the copyright under their control. Someone else could re-broadcast it, but they'd always be an episode behind; being the official channel for a show is still going to draw in the bulk of the viewership. Besides, the rebroadcasters are providing a useful service for people who missed the show the first time around, if Sci-Fi don't want the ad money from doing a re-run the
know your enemy (Score:2)
the internet lets everyone be a publisher with greater reach than all the most powerful media companies combined.
No. The media conglomerates can do everything you can do on the internet, but you are limited to viewers who know on what adress to reach your data.
The corporations can spend millions to not only host their data on a robust server capable of whithstanding the harshest slashdotting, but they can also pay for tv and radio and print distribution to inform anyone in contact with their targeted demographics of the location of their content.
It lets anyone be a publisher, and it allows greater than ever before, bu
your observations are true, but off-topic (Score:2)
i'm not trying to defeat media companies
they can, and will, continue to be gatekeepers to the likes of britney spears' popularity. they can pay to get exposure, and continue to exist in this way, profiting from acne cream commercials and teeny bopper concerts in stadiums. they are not my enemy, they have every right to continue doing this
what they CAN'T do is sue me because i downloaded a britney spears mp3 for free. they have no moral rationale to do this. in this narrow regard on this small topic, yes, th
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many Slashdotters would be singing this tune if Microsoft downloaded a copy of the Linux kernel and appropriated it for use in Windos 7 like Apple (legally) did with OSX. Without strong copyright laws (and without strong freed
thats called copyleft (Score:2)
copyleft is not copyright. copyleft says you can distribute anyway you want, but you should properly attribute. this is still enforceable
in other words, a copyright for electronic media is dead not because i say so, but simply because i am making the observation that it is unenforceable
copyleft, meanwhile, is still enforceable
thus, copyleft is still valid
not because i say so, but because of what is ENFORCEABLE and what is not. get it?
you can go sue microsoft under the terms of the gpl. you can't sue everyon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Copyleft is a cute term somebody made up to describe a certain type of copyright license. It's still entirely dependent upon copyright law. Like any non-exclusive copyright license, the GPL conveys less than the entire interest in the copyright, meaning that the owner of the copyright can impose restrictions on use of the copyrighted work. It has nothing to do with any inherent right of attribution. In fact, th
thank you (Score:2)
for the patronizing and condescending discussion on copyright and copyleft
for the sake of an abbreviated discussion on slashdot, you could have safely assumed that my shorthand terms indicated i was talking about the substantive differences between copyleft and traditional unmodified copyright. and that would have sufficed to be adequately useful for you to make your points or lack thereof, but no. therefore, a lack of points on your part must be assumed
"'copyleft says you can distribute anyway you want, bu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...make money off my copy rights...
I can make great money selling contraband. Prohibition is great for my profit margins. The prison system and law enforcement industry is flourishing for it. I can control the quality of my product. If contraband suddenly became legal and everybody was able to sell it, we would all be forced to do something else to support our families.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people do these things because they enjoy it. The fact that they can make money off of it is actually just a bonus.
Don't for a second think that people wouldn't create new works of art just because they had to work another job. To say that people who create as a hobby don't count vs. those who create as a job is at best misleading.
I'd even go so far as to say that I have more respect for the person who creates art just because he/she wants to express themselves than I do for the person who is try
Important Addendum (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I hadn't clicked "Submit" before:
What I also want to point out is that, if these people who are creating "intellectual property" can no longer afford to do so because they can't make money on their works, there would indeed be a sharp, incredible decline in the number of "works of art". Pop-culture as we know it would utterly cease to exist.
To some this is a good thing. To others, absolutely awful. I just wanted to make sure I pointed this out so I didn't come off *completely* one sided. I don't
you can't copyright anything in meatspace (Score:5, Insightful)
in other words, you can control access to a venue in the real world, such as a concert hall. so you can't control your mp3 of your song anymore. but you will still make a rich living, have tons of fame and eager female fans. your mp3 becomes advertising, and your source of revenue becomes your journeyman concerts
"Why put the time in when you can't make money off it, so instead I would be forced to do something else to support my family."
oh, you mean like every struggling musician who ever existed? what a crock. what you mean to say is "i recorded a song once, now society owes it to me, my children, and my greatgrandchildre that they never have to work a day in their lives". you see copyright as a path to entitlement. sorry, fuck you, consider this notice that your sense of entitlement is hereby revoked. yes, you DO have to work like the rest of us, sorry asshole
furthermore, this observation of still making $ in a world without copyright can be extrapolated to any other media, even book writers. jk rowling would still be very rich in a world without copyright because she would sell all sorts of ancillary products and sell her script to hollywood. how can you sell a script in a world without copyright? my observation on copyright being dead only applies to media that is consumed electronically, because the internet represents zero distribution costs and infinite reach. anything in the realworld, such as a hollywood production, represents a choke point that doesn't exist on the internet. since cost is involved, control can be exerted. another studio can be sued for making a harry potter movie without the studio who owns the rights' permission. you simply can't do that on the internet. you can do that in the real world, and you will always be able to do that. so notice the qualitification: the copyright is dead in regard to anything that can consumed on the internet, and only in that regard
hollywood itself would still make lots of money because people still like going to theatres. watching the dark knight on a 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself does not compete. television was supposed to kill hollywood in the 1950s. now the internet is supposed to kill hollywood. the entire time, theatre attendance and revenues keep going up. conclusion: people like going to the theatre, and always will, regardless of all the constant doomsayers. a theater is a venue where you charge attendance, because yu can CONTROL attendance, so we will have $100 million production budgets for decades to come
btw, hollywood will still make money on dvds. people will still buy them to guarantee organization, ease of use, quality. likewise, bertelsmann will still sell cds. its just that they won't stop, or be able to stop, the free trade of dvd and cd content on the web (where most of it will be distributed and consumed for free, granted)
meanwhile, penguin will still sell plenty of books, because nothing competes with woodpulp in terms of cost and convenience and ease of use (sorry kindle)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason copyright extends past death is not to benefit the copyright owner's offspring, it is to deter murder.
In that light, I'm okay with X years or life + Y years, so long as X and Y do not change.
who cares (Score:2)
copyright for 10 years. copyright for 200 years. copyright for 20 years or 7 years after death of author unless in a leap year following a tsunami blah blah blah... whatever
who fucking cares
because, for anything distributed and consumed on the internet, copyright is 0 years, 0 days, 0 minutes
of course you won't find that in the lawbooks, but thats the reality of the situation. copyright, for anything consumed electronically, is dead. its simply unenforceable
go ahead, tell me what SHOULD be. who cares. i'm t
Re:you can't copyright anything in meatspace (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'd say that involving "end of life" calculations would do nothing but *encourage* murder. Better to kill you now to get the clock ticking than to wait for your natural death.
Better to just say "X years, regardless whether the owner is still alive or dead." Doesn't matter if you kill the author or not, copy rights will survive to the estate if the author dies, and you still won't have unfettered access to the material.
Of course, X should be no more than 25. I mean, really. Anything more is silly. Even 25 is excessive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your entire argument is based on supposition - not to mention obnoxious levels of selfishness in attacking artists for daring to want to make any money at all from their works directly - and some of your points are completely illogical on its face. Hollywood wouldn't make money off of DVDs because most stores would instead sell pirated DVDs, BMG wouldn't make money from CDs because most CDs would be pirated, Hollywood might not even make much money from movies because bootlegging from reels (especially as m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a pity I don't have the mod points for you. I really don't understand why circletimessquare gets the mod points he does -- they're almost entirely undeserved, and that especially holds true in this case.
Somebody, please, mod this post up!
Your second paragraph alone is worth a +5 Insightful, IMHO.
I suspect that too many people who hate the RIAA are modding this guy (circletimessquare) up without considering the fact that his arguments are sheer crap. Just because the RIAA has abused copyright law does
my argument is based on what is (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, copyright is unenforceable on the internet. do you agree or disagree?
if you disagree, you are in denial, if you agree, forget everything i said, throw it all out. consider me a loathesome poisonous crackpot. i don' care. i'm merely describing reality, a world without copyright. which, obviously, is what the internet is turning it into. see? do you adapt to that? or die off in denial?
and you've kind of revealed your sluggishness of mind on that subject already:
"Hollywood wouldn't make money off of DVDs
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is where you completely lose credibility. Let's analyze your reasoning here. You're saying J.K. Rowling is going to give away her books, which take a substantial amount of time to write. How is she going to pay
Re: (Score:2)
No one would write boks (sic), or movies or take pictures of any quality. Why put the time in when you can't make money off it
I dunno - it seems to me creative ventures like writing, or taking a picture have an inherent value of their own. On a note the GP raised, indeed there is no way to enforce copyright on the internet - for individuals who infringe. Corporations are still gonna have to pay for copyright. You own copyright on a picture? NYT or the AP is still gonna pay. As long as corporations and branding perpetuate on the internet your copyright will still have value. Just not for individuals who want to infringe.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to say when you don't own a copy right.
I own the copy rights to tens of thousands of works. Hey! Here's another one!
I do own several, and make money off my copy rights.
Nice niche! On the other hand, I make money off writing material for paying customers, aka my boss. I and my colleagues outnumber you about 10,000:1.
I do not want to live in a world where there is no copy right law. It would end creativity. No one would write boks, or movies or take pictures of any quality. Why put the time in when you can't make money off it,
...he says while (probably) using an open source browser to send packets over a network built from open source components to an open source web server running an open source web application catering to open source advocates.
so instead I would be forced to do something else to support my family.
Cry me a river. I wish I could make money from reading Di
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cry me a river. I wish I could make money from reading Dilbert all day, but since society has decided that it doesn't consider that a profitable career, guess I'll have to find more productive employment.
If one doesn't like someone else's business model, they have every right to not do business with them. However, not doing business with them does not mean "ignoring their business model because it doesn't suit me, but taking the end product anyway". Those who support reasonable copyright aren't demanding that you pay money for their work, they're demanding that you either agree to their stipulations, or don't take their work. I fail to see what's particularly unfair about that.
Re:a lot of us are happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who support reasonable copyright aren't demanding that you pay money for their work, they're demanding that you either agree to their stipulations, or don't take their work. I fail to see what's particularly unfair about that.
The failure is that it isn't a natural, inherent right. Copyright is something whipped up to encourage artists to add to the public domain. Since Disney et al have stolen (yes, stolen, as in "deprived others of use") their early works from the public domain by paying to have copyright extended perpetually, I can't work up a lot of sympathy for people who take their new stuff without paying.
Basically, as a society, we're telling them to either agree to our stipulations or don't take our protections.
Re: (Score:2)
No, copyright is most certainly not an inherent right. It's just a legal construct that the founding fathers thought would be a net win.
You are obligated to accept the terms, or not accept the fruits of their labor.
Oh please. If I like the way you've decorated your yard, then I can decorate mine exactly like it. I don't care how hard you worked to come up with that particular arrangement. If I like it, I can copy it. That's to illustrate the idea that you can most certainly enjoy the fruits of another's labor without their permission. Nothing but the law makes written works a pr
Re: (Score:2)
this is such utter bullshit (Score:2)
every artist EVERY SINGLE ONE works from a starting point of poverty
because no one starts out as an artist as someone who is well-known adn well-funded. the money comes AFTER the work is made, not before, and NO ONE makes a work of art with the certainty you are getting paid, because no one knows who you are or what you are doing is of any worth
therefore, if copyright dies utterly (which it won't) people will still make books, films, music, because what motivates all artists in the beginning is love of musi
RIAA Doesn't Support Artists (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad that copyright is working for you, but in the case of the music industry it is out of control, and is actually harmful to individual artists. If we returned to the original definition of copyright, where it belonged to the artist only, I'd support it.
But in the current situation, artists often can't play or distribute songs they wrote, receive little to nothing of copyright-related revenues, and often lose control of future work before they write it.
Internet radio i
Re: (Score:2)
It would end creativity. No one would write boks, or movies or take pictures of any quality.
Of course, if you end copyright, you end creativity. No one would ever write a book or compose music or take pictures unless they were getting paid. I know I don't write anything ever and just post it on the Internet for free. Every time I take a picture, I expect to sell it. Certainly no music or books were written before copyright was invented. And if you really want creative work, the best thing to do is consolidate all distribution into a few huge companies.
</sarcasm> The truth is, people *L
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to say when you don't own a copy right. I do own several, and make money off my copy rights. I do not want to live in a world where there is no copy right law. It would end creativity. No one would write boks, or movies or take pictures of any quality. Why put the time in when you can't make money off it, so instead I would be forced to do something else to support my family.
You must have modded yourself up, because that canard has been disproven many many times, considering that the concept of "Creativity" didn't come into being with the (historically speaking) invention of "copyright."
On the other hand, "money-grubbing sellout whoring" did have a spike in popularity around that time...
Re: (Score:2)
No one would write boks, or movies or take pictures of any quality
That is completely wrong on almost infinite levels. What would really happen; 'No one would write books, or movies, or take pictures of any quality WHO WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN PROFITING FROM THEM. And frankly, Im fine with that.
There is no copyright on the bible, and my guess is that the bible has many more publications than any of your copyrighted books.
wrong (Score:2)
for many reasons, those who control the technology of media consumption are not the same companies that create media. sony, even though it makes hdtvs and studio films, does not sell you your cable modem access
the reason for this is that those who sell you access make more money as independent business entities. there are many reasons for this, but a quick reason is that locking yourself into the exclusive broadcast or exclusive arrangements of only one content creator is very risky, and dramatically reduce
you complain about the status quo (Score:2)
but you use assumptions originating from the status quo in your rationale. your delusion is self-supporting
you argue form the point of view of an unstoppable force in control. if the force is unstoppable, then why are you complaining? merely accept it and be quiet
if on the other hand you believe the status quo can be changed, speak with that interest in mind. of course it is hard and difficult, but your hopelessness and helplessness in your thinking merely makes it more difficult
you are part of the problem:
no, wrong (Score:2)
lets assume the government is copying and storing every packet ever sent (on wireless p2p too?!)
encryption: they have hooks into every method? ok, they don't but they can hack it... ok, they have enough supercomputer time to analyze all of that?!
sheer volume for analysis: ok this is going to be categorized by who? and micromanaged by who exactly? at what cost and for what perceived benefit by even the most megalomaniacal anal retentive authoritarian?
do a cost analysis. and you find out that your "raid every
you're a crackpot (Score:2)
if you believe the netcan only be used to opppress, why are you wasting your time with me? go, get a backhoe, start cutting the fiber before its to late
just leave me alone from your delusions. because you are simply wrong on what you believe
technology is neutral. it can be used to oppress just as much as it can be used to free. any technological advance that can be used to spy can also be used to obfuscate. its an arms race, and its equal opportunity access on all sides. creativity is not the monopoly of th
Prince song? (Score:2, Insightful)
All this snowballed because of Prince's song? Gee, even that toddler doesn't really like Prince. And no, his mother wasn't making any $$ from that song. Nothing to see, lets move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Prince is a bit of a nutjob. He wants things done his way, exactly. Check out Kevin Smith's story [prince.org] about working with Prince for an idea of what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, IIRC Prince personally went on Youtube looking for his music and initiated this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
fiscal conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
It is certainly the government;s responsibility to help maintain the laws, but what has happened to the normal fiscal responsibility we apply to these things. We don't stop everyone who is speeding. We don't staff police departments so that every person who steals a CD from a car is prosecuted. Yet our court system is being overwhelmed by companies who stand to lose a $20 cd sale due to copyright infringement.
This situation is getting worse. The FBI wants to open a case with no probable cause. Each case represents a finite amount of expenditure of taxpayer money. In times past, we had some assurance that money spent was used to investigate a legitimate crime with legitimate suspects. Now we could have massive amount of waste due to an agent not liking his new neighbor.
Summary of Universal's position (Score:5, Informative)
A brief recap for those who haven't been following the case:
Around Feb. 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted a Youtube video of her toddler laughing and dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy". The song is heard somewhat indistinctly in the background of the low resolution, low fidelity 29 second video. Four months later, Universal sent a takedown notice to Youtube to remove the video. Mrs. Lenz with the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a counter-notice and sued under a provision of the DMCA.
Universal wanted the case dismissed with their brief arguing [eff.org]:
In court, Universal also tried to argue that their takedown notice wasn't a DMCA takedown notice because the notice had a disclaimer saying it wasn't. The notice however followed the same procedure as a DMCA takedown and was sent to the DMCA takedown email address at Youtube. This point is important as the DMCA has a provision that allows for lawsuits if copyright holder abuses the DMCA. The Judge didn't address this point in particular but apparently disagreed given his ruling.
Universal however seemingly admitted to ABC News that it doesn't really check material for Fair Use before sending out takedown notices and doesn't care:
This is another important point because copyright law requires copyright holders should be diligent when pursuing legal actions. From what we know of the RIAA lawsuits, Universal doesn't seem to think this applies to them.
Re:Summary of Universal's position (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair Use is not a defense for copyright infringement
HA! Jolly good show, old chaps. I sure hope the judge got a laugh out of their ludicrous claim, because I know I did. The other claims are just ridiculous... this one blatantly contradicts the law.
Printers (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder for whom I should root when a lawyer ends up suing the RIAA on behalf of a slandered printer...
What is fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)
I run a web site for local bands where I give away their MP3 and a few bands have ended up with international gigs because of it. Some of their older songs may have names that new RIAA approved songs happen to have which results in nasty letters from lawyers. I know of at least US$20,000 worth of losses due cancelled gigs due to to RIAA paranoia so far. The RIAA isn't about music, they are after moving small plastic things.
If you don't think the RIAA is out of hand, how much should the senators who sung God Bless America on the steps of the Capital pay the Boy Scouts? The law is the law isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I know of at least US$20,000 worth of losses due cancelled gigs due to to RIAA paranoia so far.
How'd that happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't copyright titles. (Score:3, Informative)
You can't copyright titles: Song names, book names, movie names, etc.
Otherwise Alan E. Nourse would have a dandy suit against Warner Brothers over _Bladerunner_.
Dear RIAA, MPAA, etc... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am fully prepared to begin holding up my end of the bargain on the copyright equation.
As soon as you are willing to hold up yours.
This includes, but is not limited to:
Copyright is a two-way street, and failure to maintain your responsibilities means a complete forfeiture of any right to try and enforce compliance with my responsibilities. Continued attempts to pass laws in order to shirk your responsibilities will be responded to with unchecked, tube-clogging mass downloading.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This includes, but is not limited to:
Fixed that for you
Imposing a Condition upon Another (Score:2)
I have a book published in 1994 that has the following copyright notice... here it is verbatim.
"This book sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."
So if I sell or give the book away then how do I guarantee that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is less sinister than it sounds.
It is a common practice that when a book store buys way too many copies of a book from a publisher, that they can "return" the overstock to the publisher by ripping the covers of the book off and sending just those back, and tossing the rest of the book into the trash.
Some unscrupulous book stores will turn around and sell the coverless books, thus screwing the publisher.
Often times, the wording is less legalistic and states something to the effect of, "if you bought thi
AudioGalaxy claimed PD material was copyrighted... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I hope this is a harbinger for the future. I used to use AudioGalaxy regularly, mostly rare 78s and cylinder recordings from 1900 to 1940 which a number of generous collectors were sharing.
One day, virtually all of the shared material was unavailable. If I recall correctly, all of the items were still visible, but now contained individual notices that they were no longer available due to copyright restrictions.
I made a few weak attempts to contact AudioGalaxy and ask them to restore material that was obviously not under copyright, to ask them what checking they had done, and how they could possibly even think that a 1907 recording of Vesta Victoria singing "There Was I Waiting At The Church" was copyrighted.
Of course, they wouldn't even give me the courtesy of a reply.
Copyright misuse? (Score:2)
Perhaps this case can lead to a determination that such bogus suits constitute "copyright misuse", leading to the loss of copyright protection on any song involved in such a suit.
Such a precedent would put RIAA in the following position:
- Bring a solid case, win some bux.
- Bring a bogus case and get caught, the songs involved lose copyright protection.
Perhaps that sort of risk would get them to evaluate the cases more carefully before firing the scattergun.
Then again, perhaps they still woul
Re: (Score:2)
Simple fix to overzelaous litigation (Score:5, Interesting)
If an entity sues for copyright infringement on some work they claim copyright to and loses with prejudice, they are stripped of any copyright to the work they sued for.
Simple. In litigation, there needs to a concept of jeopardy. Both sides can lose. Not just the case, but something substantial. The defendant here is being sued for monetary compensation. In criminal cases the prosecution jeopardizes their ability to prosecute in the future using better evidence. We clearly need the same principle to apply to copyright litigation.
If you don't want to take away the copyright, at least make the plaintiff pay the amount they were asking for in damages to the defendant. Jeopardy would restore balance to the system.
m
Good news (Score:2)
Huh. I was bitching about irresponsible takedown notices [slashdot.org] just a few days ago, when the Olympics people used a DMCA notice to chill political speech.
It's really a good thing that Fair Use will have to at least be superficially evaluated from now on, because that means that a human will get involved. A DMCA-notice-bot can do a lot of damage to its victims, and holding someone accountable for that, means that the days of DMCA-notice-bots are numbered (unless there's an AI breakthrough).
We already have a lo