Slashdot Mirror
CNN and CBC Sued For Pirating YouTube Video
vivaoporto sends word that in a rare case of an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement, a New York man has sued news networks CNN and CBC after they took a video of his from YouTube and broadcast it on the air without licensing it. His video shows a winter storm in Buffalo generating huge amounts of lake effect snow. The man, Alfonzo Cutaia, decided to enable monetization on his video, selecting the "Standard YouTube License," "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of [the video]. All other rights are reserved to the copyright owner and standard copyright laws and exceptions apply." Cutaia says the CBC used his video with their logo on it. The CBC confirmed this, and said they received a 10-day license from CNN, who had no legal right to do so. His lawsuit now accuses them both of "intentional and willful" copyright infringement.
royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute
This says they can use it, reproduce it, sublicense it, distribute it without paying royalties. Seems like this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why is this on Slashdot?
More like "copyright sucks, but it won't change until the bad actors abusing it get it applied back at them."
It's kinda like how Christians (weirdly) try to stuff the Ten Commandments down the throats of everyone by sanctioning the display of all religious artifacts on public land but then repeal the law once Satanists start trolling them with their own memorials on government grounds. Same basic idea.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Anyone who reads the article will just add more hits to the video, and give him more money since it is embedded there
Wolf Blitzer gonna fuck you up, dude.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
File a complaint with Google and have them take their entire site of the index.
On the contrary. I think you should send money to MagickalMyst for misrepresenting his/her first post as your own!
"I work as an intellectual property attorney"!
I'm surprised to read this. CNN used one of my YouTube videos once, after they reached out to me to obtain permission. Bummer.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
They left out the most important preceding section of the license paragraph:
you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide...
No...copyright is a complex tool and like any tool has both good and bad uses. Which is why we should debate openly the exact provisions of what terms best fulfill the Constitutional prescription for copyright, balancing the desires of the creator and short term and long term good to society. The false dichotomy of "no rights for artists who don't want their work used for evil propaganda" and "no copying for 8 million years after the death of the artist or the destruction of the earth, whichever is longer" helps no one.
an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement happens all the time. The corporation sends an army of their internal legal staff to stand around in a courthouse arguing semantics and dragging their feet until the plaintiff simply runs out of cash and has to go back to his proletariat wageslave job.
what is rare is an individual receiving any settlement, acceptance of wrongdoing, judgement, or even a trial outside of arbitration in these circumstances. You see, unless you're a corporation then the meat of copyright law is largely designed as punitive retribution against your blithe transgressions against a cartel media system. its not actually designed to or even intended to be taken to its logical conclusion by joe sixpack.
Good people go to bed earlier.
While that may be true and work for individuals, a company the size of CBC surely has a large enough research team to double-check that the video was properly attributed.
Copyrights are fine, arguably good (the beloved GPL stands and falls with the existence copyright: no copyright, no GPL, and that accounts for pretty much all open source licenses and Creative Commons licenses).
The way copyrights are implemented nowadays however, is bad. In particular the protected period is way too long.
As copyright stands now, maximalists have pushed it so far, the ONLY logical counter is to destroy the whole system and start over. I do not and will not respect copyright for the rest of my life. Everything from before 1986 should be in the Pubic Domain right now. Terminator, War Games, Vacation etc all should be free to the public TODAY. I gladly pay people for good works, i refuse to pay to perpetuate tyranny over man's mind.
Good-bye
Clue: First Sale Doctrine currently does not apply to digital copyrighted works.
You can thank MPAA, RIAA, Disney, CNN, CNBC, Fox, CBS, NBC, Sony...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Says the anonymous coward....
Found the whack job!
Yo Zippy, CBC infringed regardless. More to the point it said 10 days license from CNN and used it for more than 10 days. So even *if* they thought they could use it lawfully they exceeded the terms.
Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.
Why is anyone in Canada paying for a video of snow?
the beloved GPL stands and falls with the existence copyright: no copyright, no GPL
No GPL, and it becomes lawful for dedicated amateurs to disassemble, document, and distribute proprietary programs.
...the display of all religious artifacts on public land...
Wow - maybe we should remove all those Christian artifacts (specifically, crosses) from Arlington National Cemetery to satisfy your lust for de-Christianizing all government property, eh? ;)
Have you been there? The monuments aren't crosses. They're just tombstones. The individual buried can have different logos be they crosses, stars of david, or symbols denoting atheism.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Not after Harper wrecked the thing to pieces.
And even if they did, CBC should just turn around and sue CNN for misleading them into a dangerous situation.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
You're suffering from tyranny because you can't get a free copy of War Games? If you want the system to change, you need a better argument than that.
It would also mean that companies would be able to take formerly-GPL-licensed software, and close the source. This alone could stop many people from contributing: copyright allows for control over your work, and the protection given by the GPL (that it remains open) is what many people like. I for one am one of those people that'd be much more reluctant to publish stuff, even if not for profit.
The things like disassembly that are forbidden in the US, that's one of the aspects of bad implementation.
If a burglar steals something and then sells it to you, that doesn't give you legal right of ownership.
Likewise, CNN may have offered CBC a license, but since CNN had no legal right to do so, CBC in effect received nothing legal from CNN and so CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license.
Nonsense, rolling back the time limit to a more reasonable 20-30 years would still allow creators to extract the vast majority of value from the vast majority of properties. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything. I too refuse to pay for IP that is more that 30 years old.
I'm guessing you haven't heard of the KKK, neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist, or the oodles of places around the where bad things happen in the name of Jesus. As an atheist who married into a religious family...friendly isn't exactly the words I'd use for Christians. It's like that joke about vegans(I say this as a vegetarian, so you know...the worst kind of person), How do you know a person is a vegan/Christian/hipster/libertarian/second amendment supporter/etc? Don't worry they'll tell you.
i was looking at the options awhile ago, it's actually a pretty cool list of symbols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
humanist, native american medicine wheel, wiccan pentacle, the farohar of zoroastrianism, infinity symbol (?), and a whole bunch of sects, obscure and mainstream
my favorite is a split between landing eagle and hammer of thor
but yeah, the asshat you responded to doesn't even know what he is talking about. even if the tombstones were crosses, then stars of david, muslim crescents, pentagrams, etc., would obviously also be allowed
which is the whole point of the comment the asshat was responding to: not to *censor* the christian cross, but to point out that christian symbols don't have a monopoly on public display
religious pinheads always frame more choices (homosexuals getting married, wiccan symbols allowed in public, women being able to control their own bodies rather than being forced to obey theocratic dictates, etc.) as some sort of persecution. as if denying someone a religious monopoly == persecution? it's a pridefully ignorant blind spot, stoked by propaganda and fearmongering demagogues: "if christianity isn't the only religion allowed, then da evil gubmint is out to destroy all christians"
fucking ignorant, yet firmly believed by many assholes: "if my ideology does not dominate, then it must mean i am being persecuted." no, religious freedom means "i can choose to follow any religion i want" not "someone in authority is 'free' to impose its religious beliefs on people against their will"
so when people cite "religious freedom" when opposing homosexuality. no, you fucking moron, religious freedom never meant, and never will mean, that you have the "freedom" to impose your beliefs on someone else. in fact that's pretty much the exact opposite understanding of what freedom is. yet "religious freedom" is the term they use when they wish to deny the freedoms of others! pathetic and sick
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm sure his great, great grandchildren will look forward to their $100 payout.
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
CNN and CBC likely will settle just to get rid of it, even if paying a lot. They know they'll lose, unless they have a licensing agreement with google, for example.
The big boys regularly use content others produce without disclosing who they bought it from. A random low-level independent or semi-independent media guy will get a call about his footage after a relevant disaster and then his material will magically appear on the news network as if they had done the work themselves, and the low-level guy will usually give it away really cheap because it's a boost for his resume.
News is a really cutthroat business, despite all the ethics training.
As the article quotes, the Standard Youtube license grants any Youtube user (including CNN) license to use, reproduce, sub-license and transfer any video posted on Youtube, whether for commercial purposes or not. Our plucky individual gave CNN and CBC the rights to use and reuse the video when he uploaded it.
Now if CNN or CBC tried to issue a DMCA take-down on a video they had downloaded from YouTube, I'd definitely sue their asses.
We are the 198 proof..
Copyright is good now? Ok. Got it.
Let us go way back into the mists of time. Copyright granted pretty much one thing, and one thing only. Copyright guaranteed that IF - that really big, huge IF - anyone should make a profit off of any given work, then the AUTHOR should share in that profit.
That is only reasonable.
Where copyright has gone so very wrong is, the moment privileged, entitled individuals assumed that they were intitled to some kind of profit for every work they produced.
So, yeah, if a corporate entity is making money off of something of yours, you should get a share of the profit.
If no one profits, then you get a share of that no profit.
Let me work on this - 0 plus x minux 0 multiplied by zero - yeah, it's pretty damned close to zero.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The tyranny is that i cant SHARE that movie freely without incurring the possibility of life-destroying penalties. ITs not about the cost, its about the restrictions. This is the deep end of the pool, come with a more thought out argument next time.
Good-bye
Not even close. I barely even use Netflix. Im talking about the idea that after 28 years, We The People are supposed to OWN those works. That was the bargain, it is the price for us granting limited monopolies. In the age where creating is easier than ever, we are on track to permanently extend copyright forever which is pure insanity and counter to the aims and purpose of copyright.
Good-bye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
$150,000 fine per individual they broadcast the video too.
Copyright is about more than just whether you can make a copy of some silly 1980's movie to watch with your friends. What if you wrote a novel with some basic plot about people falling in love. Then someone changes a couple paragraphs to make it a pro-racism (or pro-life, or pro-vim, or whatever other holy war you are on the opposite side of) tirade and distributes it freely. No matter how much you dislike media companies, it is hard to say that authors should have no rights over their work for any amount of time. And even if you did, you would have to amend the constitution to strike the copyright clause. Good luck with that.
But more importantly, you aren't really calling for destroying the whole system. You are proposing a perfectly reasonable copyright term of 2 decades which is exactly the kind of "middle of the road" proposal that I was thinking about.
The problem isn't really that I can't get a free copy of War Games. It's that if the movie company thinks that I infringe their copyright just because I uploaded a YouTube video with me showing all valid moves in tic-tac-toe they will take down that video with no questions asked.
Or as the case was with Bjorn Lynne, he release some of his songs under a free to use license. Sony used it as background music and then decided that Lynnes original work was copyright infringement and took them down.
Copyright as it stands now is absurd. If I baselessly or rightfully claim that a major record company is infringement my rights then I get slapped in the face. If a major record company baselessly decides that I infringe their right I also get a slap in the face. If They are right on the other hand I get fined into bankruptcy or put in jail.
Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.
Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I dont think authors should have exclusive control. That is a silly idea in an Information Age. Most ideas are not terribly unique, but a product of the environment we all foster. Even Newton, possibly the smartest man to ever live said so. An author can certainly provide certified copies and people are free to read those, and ignore the forks. WE gain so much more by letting people go wild with ideas, instead of letting it all come from one source. Star Wars is a good example of where the EU vastly outshone the original material. Imagine if the EU had been quashed, would we be better for it?
Good-bye
Doesn't everyone already ignore that law anyway? I know I do. It's an absurd law. It get everything I want, when I want, for free. Go ahead and extend copyright laws for 8 billions years; I don't care. Doesn't affect me.
Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube.
Incorrect. Youtube LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc. Large companies routinely are composed of a large number of smaller entities and Google is no exception. Youtube is ALSO a product but it is a corporation too.
They are just products offered by Google. They don't need to sublicense it to move it form one service or another.
Also incorrect. Just because both corporate entities are owned by the same company does not mean they automatically share the same rights or licensing to property.
The headline in a couple of months: Video file owner and lawyer gets a nice payoff to drop charges against big corporations.
Nothing changes.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Canadian copyright law allows for the use of clips, photos, etc by news organizations without either permission or royalty provided attribution is made. If they had known that their license from CNN was invalid, they would have just attributed the video to the source. Actual damages for an unregistered work are all he's allowed either way, so he'll get nothing from the CBC.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
there is no "cut." request anything you like. this just shows what's been used before
although...
they resisted the wiccans. and of course, they lost the suit
so yes, there are religious freedom-denying asshats all over
they cite the terminology "religious freedom," but with those two words, they seek to destroy actual religious freedom. pathetic morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not proposing absolute author control either. Remixes have a place, and maybe non-commercial, non-political redistribution rights should be forced to be given under fairly liberal terms.
But here you have a case of a guy who took some video, and then some large media companies come along and make money off from it without even original source attribution. Don't you think he should have some sort of recourse to say, "hey you can't do that!"? Without some kind of copyright, how would someone know which is the certified original and which is the fork? After all, I'm sure CNN could just copy whatever certification that "this is the original" that goes along with the CNN version (see: all DRM is broken)
Back to my original point, isn't there a middle ground between, "CNN can rip off anybody they can steal video from?" and "Any level of copyright prevents us from standing on the shoulders of giants"?
Actually copyrights have always been good. The extensions of copyright are bad. The making copyright infringement a criminal verses a civil offense is bad. The limiting of moving between media like ripping CDs and DVDs for personal use is bad. The massive awards for file sharing are bad.
Laws that help content creators get paid are good.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
just when I my mod points are gone so I can not mod this as offtopic.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I guess I'll have to be the zealous nutter who says that's a crock. My property does not cease being my property because someone who doesn't own it tells a lie.
In your case, your sister should be out a car and money and have a civil and criminal case against the guy who sold her the car, thereby committing fraud against her. The original owner should get his car back, which was his property all along. The thief should go to jail.
I expect with a little more legal effort, your sister's claim to the car would have been nullified. That she gave money to someone who doesn't own it is meaningless.
No, you're wrong.
CNN and CBC could have embedded it as a YouTube video or shown the YouTube video, but could not extract it from YouTube and show it outside the service.
But, importantly, those ideas, "terribly unique" or not, were **not thought up by you**. Makes your stance on how things should work for the idea's originator kind of a pick the pocket affair in appearance.
Unless the originator gives/sells off some control, they should have exclusive constrol for a limited time. Most will agree the timeframe should be smaller, but no, don't take away the originator's control. It's the only leverage s/he has.
Really, only the SW fanbois and grls would notice.
Youtube LLC is a wholy owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Read the news much?
Alphabet doesn't exist yet and even when it does Youtube LLC will still be a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc which in turn will be a subsidiary of Alphabet.
And yes I read the news. I also comprehend it.
it says so in the video description:
"A time-lapse view of Lake Erie during the lake-effect snow storm of November 18, 2014. This was taken from my office window in the Guaranty Building where I work as an intellectual property attorney at Hodgson Russ"
It get everything I want, when I want, for free.
I wonder if you'd have the courage to sit across the table from one of your pet art slaves and say, "I really like the first two books in your series. Can't wait to rip off the third one, too. So, get back to work! Create the entertainment I want, and try to be quick about it. I'm itching for some more free stuff. Thanks for being so creative there, Mr. Entertainment Slave!"
The same conversation with the thousand people it takes to risk huge amounts of money and spend years making a movie, please.
And the same conversation between you and a dozen musicians who fronted their own cash and time and gathered off and on in different studios around the world over the course of months or years to make a recording to which you feel entitled. Would you look them each in the eye and tell them you like their work so much that you wanted your own copy of it, but, of course, screw them - you know how to rip it off, and they shouldn't expect your appreciation in the form of, you know, any financial rewards from you for their risk and trouble. But, please do make more music, which you'll rip off later, as soon as they wrap up their next project.
Doesn't affect me
Oh, I get it. You're an eleven year old girl with an acute entitlement complex brought on by your looming daddy issues. This makes more sense now.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.
Dammit, for the n'th time, it's Chewbacca defense!
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Fair use only applies if you credit the work AND only use portions of it (portion is not legally defined except that it is not 100%). At least according to the content lords that own CNN/CBC
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
That may be a bit extreme. Still, just last night I was reading Breakfast of Champions, published in 1972, so 43 years old. And I had some ideas for a novel that would make heavy reference to it. And then I tossed it out because it won't be out of copyright for another 60-ish years or so. It's an artistic loss for the world, that I can't incorporate something older than myself into a new work. My lack of freedom to use that creative source is a sort of suffering from tyranny, isn't it? And if a bunch of people thought my idea was a good one, they're also being deprived.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
infinity symbol (?)
I would guess at a symbol for rebirth or reincarnation.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yeah, the Mickey Mouse extension was really meant to combat... Disney getting slightly lower profits from the merchandising. The actual creator being long dead, of course. It's telling that most creators are the ones that get the least benefit from copyright laws. They're hindered more than helped by it. Example: Paul's Boutique.
But feel free to defend the current 250 years of copyright... oh wait, that's up for the next time the copyright on Mickey Mouse threatens to run out. That's 2019, right? It will be interesting to re-read these arguments then.
I'm fine with people getting paid for creative work. I'm utterly horrified by the fact that companies run roughshod over the rights of the people with iron boots and it's apparently okay because "starving artists". Give me a break - they're not helped in the least by this.
No, I second the sentiment of the first party: I will *never* pay a dime for any form of intellectual property again, until copyright is back to sane limits (except cases where I cannot avoid it).
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
i was looking at the options awhile ago, it's actually a pretty cool list of symbols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But disappointingly, no raised middle finger.
Whiny Cons whining over lawsuits that are aimed at their assets.
A bitchy barrister belittling a crown corporation? Methinks the DCMA could easily be used as a call against the US via NAFTA. But likely won't happen until the current batch of ruling idiots are given pink slips.
I'd be happy seeing the NDP kicking the CPC out of office and start pulling out of NAFTA. I wouldn't mind seeing democracy returned to the people over the corporate right-wing plutocracy.
Won't be long until we see a change in office on both sides of the border again.
you seem to think that if you create something, you're entitled to make money from it
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just think that lying about what someone says, even though everyone else can read what they just said, is somehow rhetorically useful?
I didn't say the artist is entitled to anything. I said that the guy who's proud of ripping them off is feeling entitled to what the artist creates. If the artist offers their work for sale, and nobody wants to buy it, then they can re-think their price, re-think what it is they're producing, re-think which audience they're trying to attract, or get into another line of work. The artist is the one risking their time and resources in advance, and making that gamble. The whiny entitled leech of an eleven year old who says "I can just rip it off for free" is the one we're talking about here.
Copyright isn't a guarantee of success
Who said it was? I didn't. You're propping up a nice little straw man there, Mr. Coward.
only an exclusivity agreement.
No, the agreement comes in the form of the license under which the work is published or otherwise traded/sold. The copyright is the device that assures the person who did the work that they have control over the authoring of that license, and some support from the courts if someone decides they don't like the terms, but they want to rip it off anyway.
Do you think there would be more or less of the stereotypical 'starving artists' in your Utopian, pirate-free fantasy?
Does it matter? I don't care if artists starve when they aren't being systematically ripped off by lazy leeches. If they can't make a living while in control of the licensing of their work, then they're not creating something good enough, or doing a good enough job either selling it or choosing a partner to help them do so. The problem with the pirates is that they're evidence of demand - they don't rip off crap they hate. They just want to screw somebody else who did the work. That's the real irony - they like the artist enough to want to read, listen to, or watch what that artist creates, but they think so little of the artist that they're willing to rip them off. Like I said - the sort of thing that comes with being a whiny entitlement leech, and a good indication of how few people actually understand what it takes to create the things they say they want.
And then, oddly, we have people like you who would rather lie about what someone just said than address the substance of the matter. Why is that? What do you achieve by pretending to argue against something nobody said? Maybe you should get some help with that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Create art and go play it.
Spoken like yet another lazy leech who's never actually worked on anything complex that it takes years to create. Typical.
There are very few artists who can actually live off their books or music even with copyright
And therefore you feel it's appropriate to rip them off? I see. They're not very successful, but you like what they create enough to want it ... but since they haven't been hugely successful, the best thing to do would be to rip off their work. Because ... that'll teach 'em! Now they're definitely want to create more of what you decided you like, and decided to rip off. Do you even listen to yourself?
I'm pretty sure the very small minority that is wildly succesful can do the same, if they stop with the coke and hookers for a few minutes.
I see. So in order to make yourself feel better about ripping people off, you have to spin up a bad TV-show quality fantasy about everyone who creates music, film, books, and the like? Hint: nobody is buying your junior-high-school quality fake world view as an excuse to avoid paying a couple bucks for music you want. You're just a lazy leech, and can't be honest about it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
and how would you describe of someone who would censor you in the name of freedom of speech, punch you in the face to teach you fighting is wrong, or cite religious freedom in denying your right to practice your own religious beliefs?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How am I supposed to get to your followup from the comment I replied to? Rather than just calling it tyranny, it'd be better to state specifics. If by sharing, you mean file sharing, that is a "free copy" situation. If you mean having some friends over and watching the movie, that's perfectly legit.
No matter how much you dislike media companies, it is hard to say that authors should have no rights over their work for any amount of time. And even if you did, you would have to amend the constitution to strike the copyright clause. Good luck with that.
American Constitution says that Congress may create copyright laws, not has to create copyright laws. So all America has to do is withdraw from some treaties and then can get rid of copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This could be the first of many similar cases considering the media worldwide assume that if a video is available on Youtube they are free to reproduce them in their TV news and shows.
This is not quite right. The media doesn't assume the video is free, what they assume is that the rights owner will never find out about the infringement. They know exactly what the law is, they just assume they won't get caught. This kind of thing is nothing new, or even unique to digital works, it's been going on for a long, long time. Just ask any veteran storm chaser. The use of storm video by news organizations without authorization, attribution or payment is something that's predates the internet by decades, as do the lawsuits that follow.
Of course, the existence of cellphone cameras and sites like Youtube has almost almost completely destroyed the market for storm footage, but that's a whole different discussion. It's actually good to see that someone can still make money from weather video provided the footage is special enough and/or goes viral. I hope this guy takes those cheap bastards for all he can get.
Hey. he's behind 7 proxies so show him some respect.
This is the age where both creating and copying are easier than ever but he never said creating was as easy as copying, just that creating is easier than creating ever was before, except for stepping on a copyright land mine.
Writing is easier than it ever has been before. See, I wrote again.
He didn't say how much of an artistic loss for the world, now did he?
What does "thought up" even mean?
What exactly takes every waking moment for years to come up with?
Really? You're that clueless?
Is your point really that people should write symphonies or produce movies or write novels in their spare time between gigs waiting tables? For that matter, why do you care? If someone wants to invest all of their time writing (for example) George Martin's books on the gamble that doing so will create a paying audience - that's his business, right? I know, you're going to be one of those people that says he should only be allowed to make money by reading his books out loud at books stores. Incredible. Buy his books, or don't. But don't rip them off.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My point in the previous post is that "creative output" doesn't take years like you seem to think. However one of my overarching arguments is that people don't come up with "creative output" in a vacuum, so their results cannot be attributed to them alone. I care because the current copyright climate results in dead zones around output.
That makes no sense at all. What I am saying is that - based on the research I have done - you can't just get in trouble if you own property if you obtain it, and then find out it is stolen - you have to know it was stolen beforehand, or not turn it on/whatnot after it was discovered that the property was n fact stolen - and most of the penal codes I have been googling up support this idea.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
That makes no sense at all. Seriously. IF someone owned a CD that was stolen, person B likes it, buys it off of them thinking it was legitimately theirs (a CD is innocuous, but just an example), then it was stolen, they can get in trouble just on that alone? I've been Googling penal laws for various states on the matter, and they seem to support the assertion I am making... that you get in trouble if you obtain it knowing it was stolen, or keep it/refuse to turn it in after it was revealed to be stolen.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
My point in the previous post is that "creative output" doesn't take years like you seem to think
You've never actually met many artists, have you? You've obviously never met someone who's worked on, for example, feature film. Or written an opera for a full orchestra. Or (I'll go back to him) someone like George Martin. Or perhaps something like Neal Stephenson's most recent novel, which he worked on for years in between other multi-year projects. Never mind. You're pretending to be clueless because you want free stuff. I get it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If I want free stuff, then what good would it do to pretend to be clueless? I can already get free stuff and even if I couldn't, how would acting clueless help me achieve my goal of getting free stuff?
If I want free stuff, then what good would it do to pretend to be clueless?
Because tha'ts the most common method we see of people trying to pretend they have no reason to feel guilty for ripping off work. They like the artists enough to want their work, but of course they know it's wrong to rip it off. So they either come up with elaborately whiny fake rants about the copyright system ("The copyright system isn't fair to artists, so until it's different, I'm going to show my support for artists by ripping them off!"), or they play dumb about what the artists they claim to like actually have to go through in order to create the entertainment they're in the mood to rip off. Because, you know, $1.99 is a lot.
It's about getting the free stuff, it's about a bunch of transparently lazy theatrics aimed at making you feel better about ripping off the stuff you want, including a spectacular display of pretending that things you know take thousands and thousands of hours to create are just some minor effort not worth meeting artist's requested price. So, here's the thing: you're not fooling anybody. Just admit you want to have the artists you like work for you for free, and that you want them to keep on creating stuff for you as you keep on ripping it off, because, you know, they're not working that hard, right? Yeah.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There are plenty of reasons one could have to feel guilty. Most people don't feel guilty just because a reason exists. There is no need to pretend there is no reason to feel guilty to not feel guilty. The reason I interact with people like you is to see if you can persuade me that I want to feel guilty in regards to some things that I do involving copyright infringement. So far you have failed to demonstrate that you honestly know what all artists have to go through in relation to a work of art. Some artists have an easier time than others to put works into existence. You have demonstrated no understanding of this nuanced reality. You also demonstrate no understanding of the fact that all artists draw upon works that are not theirs. I am not interested in fooling you, but only continue this to see what you come up with in response. I haven't seen many people say that the reason they don't believe in the copyright system is because it rips of artists, but a lot that say they don't believe in the copyright system because it rips off the public domain. Your failure to mention that only serves to suggest that you don't even know what the important arguments are. I don't know enough about a given artist to say that I like them, besides the general love I have for all of humanity. There is plenty of things out there for free without copyright infringement.
Portal - Defective Tune is similar to Radioactive, but I never wanted to listen to Radioactive all that much, but lookee here, Radioactive is available for almost free, you kind of have to pay by viewing an ad, but I can live with that, not that I would want to, because I find Defective superior. I've bought Final Fantasy 7 and 8 three times because of platform shifts, and I've bought 9 twice, because it's not available on the PC. I don't buy them because I want to reward artists, but because it's the best way to ensure I don't lose access to them. I've bought several other Square-Enix game a few times over and rewarding the artist never enters into the equation. I buy works in bundles or lots, though they may actually be more of a tenuous license, instead of a buy.
Windows 8.1 and Windows 10? Free upgrades. QB64 which draws on Microsoft's QuickBASIC, free, and free to sell works that use the libraries it provides without providing the source. They worked to make sure that all the library routines they use have something similar to an MIT or BSD style license. You'd be surprised at how much stuff out there has that sort of license. And Valve's Steam client has a large selection of free games that don't infringe copyright. EA offers one free game at a time, that changes every so often and some free-to-play network titles.
I don't tell anyone to continue creating, and I would even seriously appreciate it if those with an attitude like yours would stop so they don't muddy the copyright situation even further.
First 1977, and then in 2002, then a repeat not long after in 2014. SEVEN feet of snow is insane! (So that's 25 years, then 12 years, meaning the next one should be due in 2020)...
No, not really. Probably not much of a loss, but there's always a chance my two bits would inspire someone else to do something worthwhile. Even if all it did was serve to bring people back around to the source material and get them to read (or reread) Breakfast of Champions, that would be beneficial.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
gday ( short for good day to you sir ) i think you may have upset someone cos there is a flag this comment near the bottom of your comment ! also some posters do not seem to know that we can "sign off " with a sentence cos some are commenting on this now rather than your actual post . i think that may be cos if one has an opinion that is not mainstream then all opinions from one must also be wrong . at least this is the case with my points of view i'v been told , have a good one
the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL
KÖPA LÄGENHET I TURKIET Vill du ha en köpa en lägenhet, penthouse eller villa i Alanya, som är en av de vackraste städerna vid Medelhavet där du kan ha slappna av och vila i lugn och ro. Vi på Nordic Trust Homes är ett etablerat företag med över att 45 års erfarenhet av konstruktion och som fastighetskonsulter finns vi här för att hjälpa våra kunder samt ge bättre service. Vi på Nordic Trust Homes ser till att hitta dem bästa fastigheterna i Turkiet samt bygger lägenheter i Alanya för dig. Vi finns i Alanya och säljer även i Antalya, Side, Belek, Bodrum och Istanbul och vi ser till att hjälpa dig genom hela processen för att köpa fastighet i Turkiet. Vi finns för er och ger all service (notarie, TAPU, registrering av el, vatten registrering, få ett skattenummer, teckna försäkring mot jordbävning, välja möbler, vitvaror och inredning) att köpa fastighet i Turkiet tills du dricker ditt kaffe ifred i ditt hem. När du köper en lägenhet i Alanya så gör du samtidigt även en mycket bra investering. Du kan hyra ut din lägenhet i Alanya när som helst under året och få vinst. När du köper en lägenhet i Alanya blir du ägare en del av himlen, här finns allt du behöver för en optimal semester. Med naturliga skönheter, sociala aktiviteter, historiska platser, fantastiska stränder, parker, trädgårdar, ekologiska grönsaker och frukter så kommer detta att vara en ny plats där ditt nya liv börjar. När du köper en lägenhet i Alanya är vi alltid redo att arrangera din flygtransfer, rengöring av hemmet, hantering och underhåll. Vårt motto är ärlighet, moral och säkerhet. http://www.nordictrusthomes.se...
"But, importantly, those ideas, "terribly unique" or not, were **not thought up by you**. Makes your stance on how things should work for the idea's originator kind of a pick the pocket affair in appearance. "
I dont think individual humans are more important than letting everyone hack at it. Humans will create no matter what, copyright is no longer needed to incentivize work. We are now firmly in an Information Age, allowing one person out of 7 billion to control an idea is absolutely counter-productive. Further, Copyright maximalism has been steadily breaking the bargain and picking the pocket of Public Domain to the point where the only sane response is to abolish it all.
Good-bye
The passage you cited only permits YouTube to display the user's content. Another section of the TOS prohibit use of the material unless done through YouTube. Section 5B of the TOS: "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content." Section 6C: "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content." The copyright law cited is fairly clear. Removal of the copyright notice is a violation, and the act of removal also indicates willfullness and intent.
The plaintiff may sue whoever used it incorrectly. Subsequently, CBC may hold CNN responsible for their losses in court if CBC can show that it relied on CNN's presentation of facts in entering into their agreement, or the decision may assign all responsibility to one or all of the parties. The plaintiff does not need to locate the person ultimately responsible prior to making their claim of infringement.
The constitution does not say that America may withdraw from some treaties.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I believe that I personally benefit more with copyright law over content I have created than if copyright did not exist.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Most all treaties have a withdrawal clause, eg IIRC NAFTA requires 6 months notice. So Congress decides to withdraw from NAFTA, official notice is given and 6 months later NAFTA has one less country, or more likely the treaty is re-negotiated.
America also has a history of breaking treaties when convenient, including the President laughing at the Supreme Court about breaking a treaty as the President has the army. (Jackson).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
But muh constitutions!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Misquoting and twisting someone elses arguments counts as no argument.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
So do I, yet I still oppose most, if not all, extensions to copyright laws both here in Europe as in the USA.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.