Slashdot Mirror

I'll let Kipling explain that to you.

Amazon paid a reported $160 million for three series

So Amazon just paid the Dane-geld, and now we all have to deal with the consequences of a well-funded Dane. There is something very wrong if we just sit back and let companies like Amazon get away with that kind of behavior.

There is nothing to say on the matter of ransom ware that Rudyard Kipling hasn't already said, with greater eloquence than I could muster. To reference another great saying, "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute".

* Proof of pre-1923 publication or that it is a US Government work (neither are applicable in your case)
* Proof of a legal, authorized-by-the-rightsholder publication without the required "formalities" back when publishing without them automatically put the work into the public domain
* A court ruling that the work was in the public domain and it's obvious (or can be proven) that no quirks in the law like foreign-copyright-restoration apply
* A formal, authoritative opinion by the US Copyright Office that the work is in the public domain (fat chance getting this for any work created after 1923)
* A formal, authoritative legal opinion by the state Attorney General in the state that YouTube is legally incorporated in that the work is in the public domain (I just threw this in for completeness sake - it's almost certainly not applicable to you)
* Proof of an exhaustive search of all copyright renewals showing that none of the relevant copyrights were renewed

If you have the money, your most sure-fire bet is to either do a copyright-renewal search or to go to court to get a declaration that your work does not infringe on any of the copyrights that YouTube is alleging you might be infringing. However, for your purposes - to "monetize" the video on YouTube - this will cost you way more than it's worth unless you can get the EFF or some other entity to foot your legal bills.

The sad reality is that if you aren't able to throw lots of money at the issue, you can't afford to do what it takes to win. On the other hand, if you were making a movie with a 9-figure budget it might be cheaper in the long run to do a copyright-renewal search or get a court to declare your works non-infringing than to pay the dane-geld to everyone who came to you claiming you owe them money for copyright clearances. Of course, getting a court to declare your work non-infringing from a copyright stance would do nothing to protect you from trademark-related lawsuits.

Unlike a copyright claim that only has one potential plaintiff, EVERY disabled person in America is a potential plaintiff, as well as your state's Attorney General and the US Attorney General.

Plus, once you've been sued, you can no longer claim ignorance if someone else sues you over the same issue later.

The only proper response is to say "thank you for informing us of the problem" and if there is an actual violation, fix it or find some legal work-around (You have excess bathrooms that aren't ADA-compliant? Close them down. Is there a way to apply for a waiver? Apply. Etc. etc.). But do not pay the dane-geld or you will never get rid of the "Dane".

Oh, and yes, these guys should be disbarred for offering to settle a claim when they know good and well they cannot speak for all potential plaintiffs AND they know good and well that if a settlement is reached, it will at least temporarily defeat the purpose and intent of the law.

Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264.

I know - I argued against that stupid strategy at the time. part of my argument was the same one Mozilla is using now (give up the fight or risk of losing market share).

My solution is still the same: don't ever implement evil or you make the problem worse, do what you can to satisfy market demands by dodging the problem (leave the codec outside of the browser by calling standard OS support (even gstreamer/etc on linux supported h.264 at the time). By ignoring h.264 years ago, Firefox lost users. By adding DRM support, they lost their remaining moral high ground and ability to fight future industry demands. (if they accepted industry demands once, they will do it again in the future).

"plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do

It would be a hasty generalization to assume that this will always be the case. Describing the current implementation does not indicate how it will be implemented in the future. A better extrapolation is that the probability of Mozilla accepting even worse DRM into Firefox in the future is high, because the reasons for accepting it now only grow stronger with time. They wanted to avoid alienating users that supposedly demand Netflix support in the browser. That demand will only increase dramatically when everybody is accustomed to using Netflix in Firefox.

Do you really think Mozilla will put their foot down when the ebook industry gets together with the movie industry to enable text DRM? Or when the plugin changes and requires new holes in the sandbox (e.g. to support Intel's new SGX instructions to create a Trusted Execution Enviornment you cannot access)? You really think that Mozilla will reverse their current behavior, accept the even larger damage to their market share as the Netflix users move to "a browser that works"? No, they will keep paying the industry's demands for danegeld and we lose the free and open web. When lots of the web is wrapped in DRM, do remember that you helped create that future instead of fighting early when the battle was easier.

... of the Dane." -Rudyard Kipling

Rudyard Kipling, Dane-Geld, A.D. 980-1016

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

They should call it Anchar

Rudyard Kipling got it right:

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html
[...]
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.
[...]

The Chief here says basically that if you don't let them have their way, you won't be able to use their services.

That is the only useful point to take away from this. DRM advocates regularly use extortion tactics to get what they want. The most important thing to know about paying protection money is that you'll keep paying forever once you start. Even worse, the earlier money collected will be backing later threats. Kipling got it right a long time ago.

you never get rid of the Dane.

To any company thinking of giving in to patent trolls, because it's cheaper than fighting them...

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html by R.Kipling

What should America do? They should treat the Libian mob in the only way those barbarians will understand: give each of our slain diplomats a grave of a hundred head.

Well, time to check Red Hat off my list of distros. Any company willing to pay essentially blackmail money does not deserve my business.

For those mystified by the comment subject

Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016
Rudyard Kipling

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

======
Danegeld
Rudyard Kipling

Yes this is probably a blatant copyvio so here's a link to the poem in case the Scientologists decide Kipling was one of them:

"Dane Geld" by Rudyard Kipling

"Danegeld" refers to the gold paid by the English monarchy to stop the Danish and Norway Vikings

While indirectly true, the GP is probably specifically referencing to the Rudyard Kipling poem "Dane-Geld"

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/blake/to_see_world.html

Not quite the same situation, but given the parent's comment I would like to point to Rudyard Kipling's eloquent words on the subject:

Dane-Geld

-Q

My uncle -- high ideals inspire him;
but when past joking he fell sick,
he really forced one to admire him --
and never played a shrewder trick.
Let others learn from his example!
But God, how deadly dull to sample
sickroom attendance night and day
and never stir a foot away!
And the sly baseness, fit to throttle,
of entertaining the half-dead:
one smoothes the pillows down in bed,
and glumly serves the medicine bottle,
and sighs, and asks oneself all through:
When will the devil come for you?

My uncle, matchless moral model.
When deathly ill, learned how to make
His friends respect him. bow and coddle
Of all his ploys, that takes the cake.
To others, this might teach a lesson:

But Lord above, I'd fed such stress in
Having to sit there night and day.
Daring not once to step away.
Plus, I'd say. Its hypocritical
To keep the half-dead's spirlts bright.
To plump his plilows till they're right,
Fetch his pills with tears veridical
Yet in secret to wish and sigh.
'Hurry, dear Uncle, up and die!'

My uncle, of the best traditions,
When being almost deceased,
Forced men to treat him with distinction,
Which was the best of his ideas.
Yes, his example - to us for learning,
But, Heavens, how it is boring
To sit with him all day and night,
Not having right to step aside!
What a deplorable deception
To entertain the man, half-dead,
To fix a pillow in his bed,
To give him drugs with sad attention,
To sigh and think in deeps of heart:
When will the deuce take you apart?