Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use Must Be Considered In DMCA Notices
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."
"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."
My work here is dung.
Those lawyers who rely upon buggy infringement detection programs to do their thinking for them...might want to think again...
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.
This guy's the limit!
FTFA: 'Still, Judge Fogel said he had "considerable doubt that Lenz will be able to prove that Universal acted with subjective bad faith" when it sent YouTube the takedown notice.' If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd bet Universal wins this one.
Maybe it isn't so much reliance on a mindless infringement detection program as groups like the MPAA and RIAA seem to absolutely loathe the concept of fair use. Maybe the lawyers are actually looking for a scapegoat.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
"Universal also raised the question of whether a particular use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use is a "fact-intensive inquiry," arguing that it is difficult for copyright owners to predict whether a court eventually may rule in their favor."
Well isn't that a crying shame, they can't shotgun automated DMCA notices without the threat of consequence anymore. Boohoo.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
To date, has anyone anywhere gone on trial for perjuring themselves in a false DMCA notice? If not, why not?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
slashdot rocks
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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!
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
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:
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I wonder for whom I should root when a lawyer ends up suing the RIAA on behalf of a slandered printer...
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?
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.
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
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 I fulfilled my part and why should I care anyway what someone else does with the book.
"Imposed on the subsequent purchaser" sounds like I have certain responsibilities but no true authority to make it happen.
Normally authority and responsibility go hand in hand.
The whole copyright thing has only gotten more convoluted as time goes on.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
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)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 think that copyright is necessarily bad. But I also think that copyright law, as it is now, is horrendously fubar. If you make money on your copyright works, that's fine, but there's no reason at all why you should get 70 years after your death to make money. That completely unbalances the copyright equation.
It is important to have new works of art added to society. So we provide copyright on those new works to justify the cost of creation to the people creating.
However, if we never get to use those new works of art in any way other than as consumers, then the benefit to society (by being able to use said works in other forms, new packages, or just in any which way they want) is lost. I'd say the value of those works decreases by over half, in that instance, but that's admittedly subjective.
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 you sell the same package for $0, now you might have 100,000 customers
so if you have an ancillary business model that makes, say for example, an average of $1 per customer per year (such as advertising, among many other real and speculative secondary revenue streams), you can see your free software actually makes you more money in the end than charging your customers, thereby drastically limiting your reach
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 is struggling heavily because the RIAA spinoff SoundExchange has been named the sole arbiter of webcast revenue collection, and are collecting fees on every song played, regardless of who owns the copyright.
If you go to http://www.soundexchange.com/ and follow their "Unregistered List" they have an 84-page list of artists they have collected revenue for but have not been paid. These are mostly indepent labels and artist who more often than not would prefer that their music play for free to generate publicity, rather than receive their 50% share of the $10.38 collected on their behalf. It's a fairly transparent attempt to choke out independent labels and artists by making it prohibitively difficult and expensive to use the otherwise easy and free webcasts to promote themselves.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
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 reduces your audience, because people want to partake of many studio's product
and so the business space of media distribution is always dominated by companies that are independent of the companies that produce media
when you realize this, you realize those who create media will never, and can never, control how you consume media. the chain of control is broken. even with all the legal pressure they can mount, the loopholes will always exist, and savvy programmers will release apps that get around the media creator's attempt to control your consumption
now, if you want to get absurd, and assume we live in a complete fascist corporatocracy, even THEN they cannot control your consumption. why? beause to get at the level of control needed to ensure no media is being broadcast on the internet surreptitiously (via obfuscation, encryption, bizarre protocols and ports and channels, etc.) they have to break what makes the internet interesting in the first place
did you get that? to establish the level of control needed to ensure their product isn't being traded without their approval (and profit), those who create media need to break that which makes the internet interesting
they would turn it into this ridiculous sprawling series of checkpoints. nothing would be fluid and seamless and easy. everything would be a bureacratic life choking nightmare
this will never happen. it is a legal nightmare, a tremendous financial burden, and, when implemented, nothing more than a way to shut down the net. all protocols, apps, everything must be broken in order to "fix" the internet to allow for this absurd level of control
so the media creators they would wind up controlling a ghost town, because we simply wouldn't use the net anymore anymore. no one can kill progress like that. the desire for what was lost and the anger at those who took it away would be too strong from all sectors of society. the media creators lose
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wired sucks. Ars has it as well.
To all slashdotters who cleverly tag stories with "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense":
I hate you with every part of my body.
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 basement, read every enveloped" analogy for why complete surveillance in the real world is impossible ALSO APPLIES TO THE INTERNET
they don't have enough soldiers to kick in every door. you got that. good
now guess what: they don't have enough analysts to read every packet
and NO, this cannot be automated, simple methods of obfuscation can get around known attempts at automation of packet sniffing
even if every street corner had a camera on it, they need someone going through the millions of camera feeds to look at them to interpret them. you'd need 10 times more people than exist in your population to do that, even with automation techniques (that people would find methods to usurp)
the 1984 fantasy is a total joke. its a nice fable that orwell wrote up, but too many people have latched onto it as a valid model of society, present or future
no, orwell's 1984 will never come to pass, and is not happening now, or anywhere else, or ever will. some people are just a little too paranoid for their own good
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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_.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
from my othwer comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=653201&cid=24693271
if you are talking about the internet, where trading files is anonymous, free, and infinite in reach, there is no place for copyright, because it is unenforceable
in any other venue: the real world, or even in small controlled virtual settings with a few players, copyright is still valid, because it is still enforceable
the situation you describe above involves a small set of players playing with something that costs a lot of money. this gives them the incentive, and the means, to control who does what with what media content
so yes, in your scenario, copyright sitll aplies, an always will still apply
but copyright in regard to anything that can distributed AND consumed on the internet is as dead as michael jackson's day care business
an agreement between studios is NOT something distributed and consumed on the internet
its a real world meatspace issue involving a lot of expense by a few slow moving players
copyright is untouchable in this scenario
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 wouldn't. In which case the member organizations might decide to bail out once the RIAA had lost them the copyright protection of a bunch of their "intellectual property".
(And of course the denizens of the internet would be carefully tracking which "IP" had lost its copyright protection as a result. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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 music
even the rapster gangster who said he raps just for money is just fronting. if he were solely interested in cash he would just sling hash on the corner. he likes the sound of his voice, he does it for chicks and ego
and even if, in some absurd universe where no one ever made a single penny ever again from a piece of art, art would be made in as much volume as it is today with batshait insane copyright, as it is. because EVERY SINGLE ARTIST WHO EVER EXISTED works for the sake of loving the art, or its intangible benefits (fame and ego, women eager to give you blowjobs, immortality, etc.). but even then, if coypright doesn't exist, such artists would still be immensely rich, from all of the ancillary businesses a famous artist enjoys (advertising, live venues, commissioned works, harry potter plush dolls, etc.)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
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, but it does not make the individual stronger than the many or the wealthy-as-many.
Never underestimate your enemy.
You can't take the sky from me...
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 telling you about what IS
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Huh. I was bitching about irresponsible takedown notices 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 lot of noisy, abusive bots on the internet, and it was a bad idea for Congress to allow a certain type of bot to send un-ignorable packets that had legal force without the bot's owner bearing some risk.
The internet just got better.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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, they are my enemy. but they are not my enemy just out of spite or some broader ideological bullshit i am not trying to promote
corporations are a valid and useful part of society in spite of the deluded thinking a weird few. i am not one of those. i value corporations as constructive entities. i am not opposing corporations. i am simply opposing the abuse of power by corporations in this narrow way, on this specific topic, of copyright of media consumed electronically being essentially unforceable in today's world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 everyone sharing music on the internet. get it now?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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, but you should properly attribute. this is still enforceable'
This statement is not only merely conclusory, it is wrong. Some licenses say that, but they are not considered "copyleft" by the FSF. Copyleft licenses require that derivative works be perpetually re-licensed under the original free software license. blah blah blah..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
ok, now it is my turn to be patronizing and condescending. darling: if you copyleft your work, you are placing your work under a commonly understood scheme where you are surrendering the traditional rights to modification and distribution under copyright, without surrendering other rights. this is the substance of my remarks, and it remains true and unchallenged by everything you wrote above
you apparently have a strong need to lecture other people about facts and figures. i have no problem with this personal need of yours, but please next time make your lecture about something that disproves what i am saying, otherwise you are merely engaging in a long winded discussion of orthogonally related issues that do not disprove what i said and is a waste of time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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: you believe this status quo cannot be changed. i believe it can be. in your words, the words of the defeated and hopeless, i find that you are simply another part of the enemy
"But the vested interests that keep it in place for their very survival are most stronger than those ideals."
for saying those words, this makes you a bigger part of the problem than the drivel you speak of. you've internalized the status quo. YOU are the drivel that must be overcome and defeated. those who have met the enemy, and accepted them
fuck you and your weak will and helpelessness. you are not me, and oyu have nothing to do with me
speak hopefully or shut up. to whine about the status quo as being stronger than higher ideals makes you a complete loser
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 the state. anything prison walls that can be built by a man is also prison walls that can taken down by a man
and besides, our rulers are not alien pod people bent on enslaving mankind. i'm sorry if this interferes with your personal mythology, but please keep the stink of that away from me, its noxious and speaks of personal flaws in regard to your ability to resist and remain free. by assuming the insurmountability of the oppressor, you are paving the way for your acceptance of him. i do not believe he is insurmountable, therefore, i retain the spirit of the free, while your attitude merely paves the way for you to help in your own enslavement
your cognition is repulsive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 because most stores would instead sell pirated DVDs, BMG wouldn't make money from CDs because most CDs would be pirated"
my good friend, the subject matter at hand are people are copying and distributing media on the internet. do you understand that? this pirating of dvds and cds is a red herring, a kind ancient 20 year old concern. please update your understanding of the world before us
i think that you are simply in denial. you describe panic and anarchy. really? hollywood doesn't do great business in theatres? there ar eno touring musicians? bertelsmann and dreamworks aren't going to die, they'll just see an aspect of their business atrophy while other aspects takeoff. the artists menwhile, who are mostly ripped off by the distributors will continue to create. copyright as you understand it is in the ideal sense it never existed in. thanks for bringing up jefferson. i think jefferson's keen mind would perceive that copyright is being abused to protect the distributor, not the artist. meanwhile, ever hear of shakespeare? beethoven? i think jefferson would perceive that copyright has been abused, and abolish it. your belief in copyright is mythology. the real world implementation of copyright is as a bullyclub for distributors. artists sign away their rights, and get pennies. stop believing the hype
when you are revolted by me, you aren't disagreeing with me, you are shooting the messenger, you are disagreeing with reality, which i am merely describing
go ahead and hate me, i'm just a random asshole on the internet
reality on the other hand, i suggest you come to grips with
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you believe that which oppresses is insurmountable, then you are merely paving the way for internalizing your own enslavement
i meanwhile believe that which oppresses can be beaten. and i'm glad you bought up the oppression of the natural world. antibiotics, agriculture, landing on the moon: all the spirit of humanity yearning to be free of oppression
then you become incoherent, as you speak of me being an oppressor and me destroying hope, when i speak from a posiiton of being hopeful
all i know is, you think like a slave, and i think like a free man
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A Play in One Act. [Enter CIRCLETIMESSQUARE, a poster to Slashdot] CTS: Behold, copyright is dead! w00t! w4r3z 4-evar! [Enter ZORDAK, who tireth of hearing this nonsensical and self-serving platitude] ZORDAK: Methinks these Slashdotters think otherwise of him who hath blasphemed the holy GPL. CTS [condescendingly and patronizingly]: Ha ha, thou fool! Thou fellest victim to one of the classic blunders! Copyright is verily dead, but the GPL is copyleft! Copyright is not enforceable because copyright is not enforceable. Copyleft is enforceable bevause copyleft is enforceable. ZORDAK: Thou art mad and reasonest in circles. The GPL printed is but toilet paper without the power of copyright to enforce it. Copyleft is but a cute name for a species of copyright license. It is as any other license. It granteth unto the licensee certain privileges and imposeth on him certain obligations. And verily it retaineth to the licensor certain rights. There is no distinction between copyright and copyleft. The one is but a subset, wholly consumed in the other. If copyright dieth, copyleft dieth with it. CTS: Thou art condescending and patronizing as well as foolish! To prove your foolishness, I cite the Oracle of Wikipedia. Behold! Copyleft is a species of copyright license. It granteth to the licensee certain rights while retaining others unto the licensor! And behold, it imposeth certain obligations on the licensor. Seest thou now thy foolishness? Seest thou wherein thou dost err? Thou saidst nothing to disprove my premise. ZORDAK: I yield to your mastery, for thou hast shown me the error of my ways. I go straightaway to turn in my bar card.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
> 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!
I do my best when writing the stories, but it's not like I'm getting paid for this :)
I know you're kidding, but maybe I wasn't as clear as I hoped to be. I was trying to point out why I think that some lawyers are relying on programs instead of critical thinking when sending out notices. Obviously, if the computer does all the thinking, it's not going to consider Fair Use.
That said, who knows? There are days when I could swear that this stupid printer has a mind of its own...
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Slashdot is *commentary* on news, not news itself. There's no particular reason to expect that the summary will be any more objective than the 100 pages of mindless drivel, punctuated by the occasional cogent remark, that immediately follow it.
Prince believes it is wrong for YouTube, or any other user-generated site, to appropriate his music without his consent. That position has nothing to do with any particular video that uses his songs. It's simply a matter of principle.
Society believes it's wrong for Prince to abuse the social contract under which his monopoly right to the song is granted and protected with force. It has nothing to do with any particular insane artist who spontaneously desires camels in the middle of winter in Minnesota, it's simply a matter of principle.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
i am not opposing corporations. i am simply opposing the abuse of power by corporations in this narrow way, on this specific topic
Take off the blinders and look around, this is just one iteration of a pattern of behaviour with much greater impact on your life than the price of mp3s.
That attack on the public domain is systematic, and gets as bad as outlawing the collection of rain water after multiplying the utilities bill, and trying to force farmers to pay for a liscence to their newly gene-sequenced and now patented traditional crop.
Or just skimping on security and gassing tens of thousands of people to death.
These are real things corporations have done. Their one motive is profit, and people will kill for money if they think they won't get caught.
And corporations are legal entities that can be legally blamed instead of their owners.
A sort of "get out of jail for a large sum of money" card, since your stock obviously takes a dive after you kill so many people that it makes the news around the world.
You may not want to see it, but it is going on.
corporations are a valid and useful part of society in spite of the deluded thinking a weird few.
I see you have somehow marginalized all people who decry the crimes made by the rich as "a weird, deluded fiew". It's a shame that you've shoehorned yourself into such a reductionist view of the world. I fear these limitations you've built in your mind will make this conversation quite futile.
A corporation made the splint I'm wearing, and another brought it to their nice clean store within walking distance of my house, and I gladly paid the price for them.
Corporations are not a good or a bad thing, they're just a thing. But they are being used by greedy people against the rest of humanity, and this power has to be removed from these few. Hence, the opposition to "corporations" as shorthand for the fight to remove the legal framework that makes corporations so dangerous to the well being of the people.
The internet takes the power of publishing to a worlwide audience away from the exclusive right of the very rich and into the hands of the middle class (the poor are too busy being hungry to publish). It gave power of the press to more people than ever.
The media conglomerates are fighting back, trying to outlaw P2P, etc.
The are your enemy if you wish to retain the rights that technology affords you.
And there are many other rights that a few, rich people are trying to keep out of your hands and into theirs, corporations are one of the tools they use for this. So it's not an idelogical battle against corporations, it's class warfare.
You have seen one, narrow example of this in one, specific topic. Broaden your horizons.
You can't take the sky from me...
"Universal argued that copyright owners may lose the ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements if they are required to evaluate fair use prior to issuing takedown notices."
Awwwww. Po' widdle lawyers might have to WORK for a living instead of picking low-hanging fruit. What a gosh darn shame.
"Universal also raised the question of whether a particular use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use is a "fact-intensive inquiry," arguing that it is difficult for copyright owners to predict whether a court eventually may rule in their favor."
Hah. You know, one definition for "bully" is somebody who only fights when he knows he can win (as opposed to somebody who only fights when he has to).
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
n/t
you had me at #!
I can't believe that anyone reading this website wants to be "fair" to the Universal Music corporation... ? Aren't people, like you, supposed to be on the innocent citizen's side?
sm62704 (957197) wrote:
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.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Audio Home Recording Act exempts manufacturers of recording devices from lawsuits for use for certain types of noncommercial recordings, but says nothing of consumers. The Act also sets up royalties and made possible the marketing of digital formats.
The Audio Home Recording Act is dated 1992, not 1978. There wasn't a recording act in 1978, although that was the year that the most-recent full overhaul of the Copyright Act took place.
Given that the Act was voted into law in 1992, the above quoted grumbling about the 1980s is grumbling about a subject that the music industry had not yet seen addressed by law.
Want to read the Audio Home Recording Act? Want to confirm when it was voted into law. Go
to http://law.copyrightdata.com/amendments.php and click the check box for "Public Law 102-563 (October 28, 1992)".