But this means that there's going to be a lot less filler, the musicians can spend more time on individual songs, they are beholden to the record company for considerably less time, the risks for the record label are smaller, and the quality and choice of music will improve, which will be good for the consumer.
Is there a new law that contradicts the Sherman Act? Is the Sherman act in some way unconstitutional? Did SCOTUS severely misinterpret their previous reading of the law? Is there another reason that SCOTUS is permitted to overrule Congress?
I mean is this a viable alternative to hydrogen fuel cells and oil? Hydrogen has always bugged me since it's main source is from fossils, and requires kinda bulky storage. Being able to fill up with sugary syrup would solve both of these problems since sugar is easily produced in the form of sugar beet and cane it sounds like it could be produced viably and used a lot directly than bio-ethanol.
True, to an extent. Without copyright, we would have computers, and the hardware makers would have created operating systems and software inorder to sell hardware.
Not so sure computers would have progressed so rapidly without hardware patents though. Perhaps they would, but there has been a lot of microchip development from smaller players who would have been elininated by the big companies if they hadn't had any patents.
Fair use guidelines have been on the books for 2 decades +
Aye. But they be more by way of guidelines...
If they weren't sure, they shouldn't have filed the DMCA notice, where the swore under penalty of perjury that the video was infringing.
They have every legal right to. They only swear that they are the copyright holders of the work allegedly being infringed.
But if they're not sure, the only way they have of naking sure is to sue the makers of the video and let the court decide. But to do that they have to follow thge procedure under the DMCA, which requires them to send a takedown notice and sue the party that posted the infringing work. This also requires that they identify the infringing party, which also requires a takedown notice.
They're using the law legitimately. It's the law that's wrong.
True. Unfortunately the drafters of the DMCA didn't consider that the down period might be a problem. The complete unfairness of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions has prevented other countries from using similar legislation.
Yes. The DMCA is fundamentally flawed. But that doesn't matter. There is no objective measure at the moment whether this video is infringing or not. If Viacom were to sue the creators directly, and made an argument as to why it infringes, then it would take a court to make the decision. Now, as long as the creators submitted the argument "It's clearly a parody" they'd win in court, but that hasn't happened yet.
Viacom probalby should have known that this is non-infringing, but their argument that they aren't in a position to make a legal judgement will be a decent defence in court.
Viacom have adequate reason to believe that this infringes copyright. Obviously the creators of the parody disagree. they have the right to disagree. Settling these disputes is what the legal system is for. I don't think the creators of this video have a strong enough claim that this was deliberate misrepresentation.
Although I'm not sure whether they had any concept of seasons at all back when the early Doctor Who was being produced. The concept is very much tailored to the way the American networks did things. There was a much clearer segregation between stories than seasons. I heard somewhere that the season numbering was done retrospectively.
And have you been using Mark III parts in your Mark II? That could cause eratic jumps.
Lol. The number of times The Doctor took bits out or swapped wires around, I always wondered how the thing worked at all.
Well, I expect to see William Hartnell will reprise his role for the first couple of stories, but I expect they'll recast. I'd say the actor Patrick Troughton, who played Phineas in the recent Jason and the Argonauts movie would be a good choice.
Hold on. It is 1966 isn't it? My TARDIS often gets the date wrong.
You really don't want to sue students unless you're absolutely certain you will win. They can't afford to settle. They can afford the time to represent themselves, and they're smart enough to learn the law. And if you win, you're not going to get a lot from them because they don't have enough money.
if the courts see Google and simply a carrier then the infringement is being done by the users and not Google.
Which would give Google immunity under Safe Harbor provisions ofthe DMCA. Not under Fair use exceptions to copyright.
So far the really popular videos on youtube have mostly been homemade stuff that sometimes includes a small bit of soundtrack. These are "fair use" under many interpretations, and Google making ad money from these videos is fine.
It's a stretch. Google has made a deal with most of the music companies, but this case isn;t about that. It's about TV clips created by Viacom.
What would be interesting is if the courts declare that any ad money made from infringing videos has to be collected and given to the owner.
But this wouldn't happen unless Viacom asked for it. Courts typically don't come up with creative solutions. That's up to the plaintiff.
This isn't "fair use". The videos that Viacom has a problem with (at least most of them) are infriging Viocom's copyright. Distributing an entire commercial production is not fair use. What Google want is a ruling that they are not liable for the infringement.
I never said you shouldn't find out whether the offer was fair. I mean clearly you should, but going to an auction just seems as little unkind. There are domain name apprasers who will tell you what a domain's worth, just as there are art apprasiers who will tell you what your painting is worth. They'll charge a tiny fraction of the value.
Snatching it away from a fair offer and holding out for the maximum you can get is rather a nasty money grabbing business in the same vein as the royalties the record industry actually ends up paying artists, the beating down that results in sweatshop workers getting the minimum possible wage, or the unfair pricing from monopolies.
You could, but that's a stupid interpretation of what I said.
Presumably this car is worth more than $3000 to you.
Now, you may notice that I mentioned "fair price". $3000 is not a fair price. It's clearly worth more to you than that. You're obviously keeping it around because either it will have value or you value it in itself. What do you think it's worth? How about if I offered market value for it? you'd suddenyl think "wow, I can make money from this" and sell it to someone else?
So, let me get this right... You had an asset of no value. Someone else would appreciate it, and goes to the effort of finding you and making a reasonable offer. And now you decide that it's worth trying to sell!? They want to make a mutual cooperative offer, and you want to turn it into an competitive situation? Why? If you think it's a fair price, sell it to them for that. If you think it's worth more, tell them what you think it's worth and ask them for that.
The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't all trying to maximise profits all the time.
I've seen this a few times now, and having thought about it I've become a bit suspicious.
I mean, how did he get to speak to a clued up representative? Do they really have human beings dealing with customers? And of so, do they authorise them to make statements on behalf of the entire music industry? If so, why can't they employ some people who are a little better at customer relations? If the customer has a problem, you don't say anything like "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to". You want the customer to think they own the music, and to think its someone else's fault that they can't do what they want.
And I don't believe anyone ever would want to track down a rare 8-track, especially a music lover. It was a crappy format even at the time, and a 40 year old would be too young to have acquired enough tapes to make it worthwhile.
As far as I understand, Novell hasn't licenced or acknowledged any Microsoft patent regarding Linux. It was just an agreement not to sue. Novell still doesn't have any explicit right to distribute infringing code. Strictly speaking, if Novell were aware of a patent, they wouldn't be legally permitted to distribute under the patent terms. However, Microsoft would be powerless to stop them through legal means.
The current GPL3 draft doesn't seem to prevent this type of agreement.
It's not really true, but they did drop the ball with DeCSS and with copyright extension. Both of which they could have won, but they took a far too idealistic view of the law and underestimated how much the commercial daamage argument might affect the judges.
True. It's not the same. I didn't mean to suggest it was.
But I think you can say more of Wikipedia than "not created maliciously". The discussion pages will tell you a lot about just how reliable the information is. And the reason I mentioned this is that you can have a minimal level of trust even in something that is designed in an ad-hoc manner. Wikipedia is leagues ahead of those chain emails that tell you all sorts of "fascinating facts". It has a bibliography and everything. The main drawback is that we have no idea who it is who's writing and editting the entries. But we know that what we know. The nature of Wikipedia will let you know that it's only going to skim the surface. We have a known trust level.
But what if you needed a pHD to post to Wikipedia? Wouldn't that be more reputable? I believe an online community of academics would have most of the benefit of a paper journal. I simply don't think that the paid reviewers add that much to a paper's reputability when you already have the review from the research groups and other universities. Ensuring these exist would not be a burden for an internet based journal, and because of the nature of the internet, we get a lot more peers reviewing.
Yes, you need more than just that, but I believe that the system can work. It just needs to evolve.
True. But I think this is an inefficient way of producing trust. Quite a few websites such as Wikipedia (and even Slashdot) have a certain level of reliability, and these have a trust mechansism set up in a pretty ad-hoc manner. A full time staff of reviewers costs a lot of money. It's not needed as long as you can find some other way to promote the paper. I think this is the Cathedral and the Bazaar all over again.
Slashdot Mirror
But this means that there's going to be a lot less filler, the musicians can spend more time on individual songs, they are beholden to the record company for considerably less time, the risks for the record label are smaller, and the quality and choice of music will improve, which will be good for the consumer.
I thought legislation was enacted by Congress.
Is there a new law that contradicts the Sherman Act? Is the Sherman act in some way unconstitutional? Did SCOTUS severely misinterpret their previous reading of the law? Is there another reason that SCOTUS is permitted to overrule Congress?
Yup. And that's the sort of hit Sony are taking on every PS3 sold!
I mean is this a viable alternative to hydrogen fuel cells and oil? Hydrogen has always bugged me since it's main source is from fossils, and requires kinda bulky storage. Being able to fill up with sugary syrup would solve both of these problems since sugar is easily produced in the form of sugar beet and cane it sounds like it could be produced viably and used a lot directly than bio-ethanol.
True, to an extent. Without copyright, we would have computers, and the hardware makers would have created operating systems and software inorder to sell hardware.
Not so sure computers would have progressed so rapidly without hardware patents though. Perhaps they would, but there has been a lot of microchip development from smaller players who would have been elininated by the big companies if they hadn't had any patents.
Fair use guidelines have been on the books for 2 decades +
Aye. But they be more by way of guidelines...
If they weren't sure, they shouldn't have filed the DMCA notice, where the swore under penalty of perjury that the video was infringing.
They have every legal right to. They only swear that they are the copyright holders of the work allegedly being infringed.
But if they're not sure, the only way they have of naking sure is to sue the makers of the video and let the court decide. But to do that they have to follow thge procedure under the DMCA, which requires them to send a takedown notice and sue the party that posted the infringing work. This also requires that they identify the infringing party, which also requires a takedown notice.
They're using the law legitimately. It's the law that's wrong.
True. Unfortunately the drafters of the DMCA didn't consider that the down period might be a problem. The complete unfairness of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions has prevented other countries from using similar legislation.
Yes. The DMCA is fundamentally flawed. But that doesn't matter. There is no objective measure at the moment whether this video is infringing or not. If Viacom were to sue the creators directly, and made an argument as to why it infringes, then it would take a court to make the decision. Now, as long as the creators submitted the argument "It's clearly a parody" they'd win in court, but that hasn't happened yet.
Viacom probalby should have known that this is non-infringing, but their argument that they aren't in a position to make a legal judgement will be a decent defence in court.
Viacom have adequate reason to believe that this infringes copyright. Obviously the creators of the parody disagree. they have the right to disagree. Settling these disputes is what the legal system is for. I don't think the creators of this video have a strong enough claim that this was deliberate misrepresentation.
Although I'm not sure whether they had any concept of seasons at all back when the early Doctor Who was being produced. The concept is very much tailored to the way the American networks did things. There was a much clearer segregation between stories than seasons. I heard somewhere that the season numbering was done retrospectively.
And have you been using Mark III parts in your Mark II? That could cause eratic jumps.
Lol. The number of times The Doctor took bits out or swapped wires around, I always wondered how the thing worked at all.
Well, I expect to see William Hartnell will reprise his role for the first couple of stories, but I expect they'll recast. I'd say the actor Patrick Troughton, who played Phineas in the recent Jason and the Argonauts movie would be a good choice.
Hold on. It is 1966 isn't it? My TARDIS often gets the date wrong.
You really don't want to sue students unless you're absolutely certain you will win. They can't afford to settle. They can afford the time to represent themselves, and they're smart enough to learn the law. And if you win, you're not going to get a lot from them because they don't have enough money.
But a lot of them are pretty competent accountants. They can make it so that they're $1 million richer without actually getting any income.
its not "fair use" for whom?
Under the legal definition of Fair use.
if the courts see Google and simply a carrier then the infringement is being done by the users and not Google.
Which would give Google immunity under Safe Harbor provisions ofthe DMCA. Not under Fair use exceptions to copyright.
So far the really popular videos on youtube have mostly been homemade stuff that sometimes includes a small bit of soundtrack. These are "fair use" under many interpretations, and Google making ad money from these videos is fine.
It's a stretch. Google has made a deal with most of the music companies, but this case isn;t about that. It's about TV clips created by Viacom.
What would be interesting is if the courts declare that any ad money made from infringing videos has to be collected and given to the owner.
But this wouldn't happen unless Viacom asked for it. Courts typically don't come up with creative solutions. That's up to the plaintiff.
This isn't "fair use". The videos that Viacom has a problem with (at least most of them) are infriging Viocom's copyright. Distributing an entire commercial production is not fair use. What Google want is a ruling that they are not liable for the infringement.
Wow! Your record store's been dying for the past 4 years!
I never said you shouldn't find out whether the offer was fair. I mean clearly you should, but going to an auction just seems as little unkind. There are domain name apprasers who will tell you what a domain's worth, just as there are art apprasiers who will tell you what your painting is worth. They'll charge a tiny fraction of the value.
Snatching it away from a fair offer and holding out for the maximum you can get is rather a nasty money grabbing business in the same vein as the royalties the record industry actually ends up paying artists, the beating down that results in sweatshop workers getting the minimum possible wage, or the unfair pricing from monopolies.
You could, but that's a stupid interpretation of what I said.
Presumably this car is worth more than $3000 to you.
Now, you may notice that I mentioned "fair price". $3000 is not a fair price. It's clearly worth more to you than that. You're obviously keeping it around because either it will have value or you value it in itself. What do you think it's worth? How about if I offered market value for it? you'd suddenyl think "wow, I can make money from this" and sell it to someone else?
So, let me get this right... You had an asset of no value. Someone else would appreciate it, and goes to the effort of finding you and making a reasonable offer. And now you decide that it's worth trying to sell!? They want to make a mutual cooperative offer, and you want to turn it into an competitive situation? Why? If you think it's a fair price, sell it to them for that. If you think it's worth more, tell them what you think it's worth and ask them for that.
The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't all trying to maximise profits all the time.
I've seen this a few times now, and having thought about it I've become a bit suspicious.
I mean, how did he get to speak to a clued up representative? Do they really have human beings dealing with customers? And of so, do they authorise them to make statements on behalf of the entire music industry? If so, why can't they employ some people who are a little better at customer relations? If the customer has a problem, you don't say anything like "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to". You want the customer to think they own the music, and to think its someone else's fault that they can't do what they want.
And I don't believe anyone ever would want to track down a rare 8-track, especially a music lover. It was a crappy format even at the time, and a 40 year old would be too young to have acquired enough tapes to make it worthwhile.
As far as I understand, Novell hasn't licenced or acknowledged any Microsoft patent regarding Linux. It was just an agreement not to sue. Novell still doesn't have any explicit right to distribute infringing code. Strictly speaking, if Novell were aware of a patent, they wouldn't be legally permitted to distribute under the patent terms. However, Microsoft would be powerless to stop them through legal means.
The current GPL3 draft doesn't seem to prevent this type of agreement.
It's not really true, but they did drop the ball with DeCSS and with copyright extension. Both of which they could have won, but they took a far too idealistic view of the law and underestimated how much the commercial daamage argument might affect the judges.
True. It's not the same. I didn't mean to suggest it was.
But I think you can say more of Wikipedia than "not created maliciously". The discussion pages will tell you a lot about just how reliable the information is. And the reason I mentioned this is that you can have a minimal level of trust even in something that is designed in an ad-hoc manner. Wikipedia is leagues ahead of those chain emails that tell you all sorts of "fascinating facts". It has a bibliography and everything. The main drawback is that we have no idea who it is who's writing and editting the entries. But we know that what we know. The nature of Wikipedia will let you know that it's only going to skim the surface. We have a known trust level.
But what if you needed a pHD to post to Wikipedia? Wouldn't that be more reputable? I believe an online community of academics would have most of the benefit of a paper journal. I simply don't think that the paid reviewers add that much to a paper's reputability when you already have the review from the research groups and other universities. Ensuring these exist would not be a burden for an internet based journal, and because of the nature of the internet, we get a lot more peers reviewing.
Yes, you need more than just that, but I believe that the system can work. It just needs to evolve.
You could probably email the writer of the paper and ask for a non-protected copy with a decent rate of success if you email from a .edu domain.
True. But I think this is an inefficient way of producing trust. Quite a few websites such as Wikipedia (and even Slashdot) have a certain level of reliability, and these have a trust mechansism set up in a pretty ad-hoc manner. A full time staff of reviewers costs a lot of money. It's not needed as long as you can find some other way to promote the paper. I think this is the Cathedral and the Bazaar all over again.