Correct: if US law gives prince the right to say it goes down, it's going down. I believe it's likely that it does, but not based on copyright. I think you and I are roughly in agreement; my bad for not getting your sarcasm. Have a great one.
Excellent; this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. My understanding was that the "unauthorized fixations of live works" was protected under privacy laws, but the main thing being that I'm sure that there is the possibility that Prince is indeed protected, even if not under the DMCA.
I guess what I've been trying to get at is that Prince might have a legal right to request a take-down; whether it's actually the right thing to do (i.e. is he just being greedy?) or whether he went about it the right way (i.e. should it have been 17 U.S.C. 1101 instead of DMCA?) seem to me to be less-than-germane conversations to be having.
If it's just a technicality, he just needs to fire his lawyer and get one that will cite the correct law. Once the correct law is cited, then whether or not he is being greedy does not affect the outcome of the case.
The first issue is, does he have the legal right? The second is, did he do it correctly? The third--and eventually the most important--is, should he have the right? If the current law is bad, let's do more than just call him greedy; let's change the law. Spending cycles poking holes in his request because it was filed under the wrong statute is as much of a waste of time as questioning his fashion choices.
OK, I'm not sure we're understanding each other, but here's what I'm getting at:
Since the recording was made by a fan, Prince does not own the copyright to the recording.
If the recording was done from within a private venue, where the posted rules prohibited fan recordings, then Prince has a right to block publication based on privacy violations.
If, however, it was a concert in an open, public place, where people not beholden to the terms of the event (i.e. non-ticket-holders) could make a recording without trespassing, his performance is public, and the fan has the right to record and distribute his/her recording as he/she wishes.
The above points are made based on my understanding of US law. My point about YouTubes presence in the UK is that I do not know the laws there, but if they are different, it is certainly possible that Google/YouTube may have a different responsibility with regards to claims against publication of the content to UK viewers than they do to US viewers.
If you do something in public, where you have no right to expect privacy, anyone can take pictures or video, and do whatever they like with it. If you are in Central Park playing your guitar and singing, and I record it while walking by, I own that recording and can do whatever I want with it. Your only legal recourse is to notice the recording and quit performing so I do not have content to publish. You may not like it, but it is indeed the law.
Now, if I use that footage in a for-profit venture (i.e. a commercial I'm making for a car company), you may be able to wrangle some civil redress from me, but if I just post it on YouTube and you issue a DMCA take-down notice, I could appeal on the grounds that it was *my* recording of a *public* performance, and your take-down would be itself a DMCA violation, and you might be in for some stiff penalties.
Of course, there's a lot of room for interpretation of the specifics, and a good lawyer would push for as much control for Prince as possible, or if the fan were his/her client, as much protection for the first ammendment as possible.
What logic? I was merely pointing out that they actually are in England, and if anything I was trying to imply that they may indeed be beholden to more than just US law.
Ah, but there may be other acts or provisions under which he has the right to issue a takedown notice based on privacy laws. It may be that the source is wrong about it actually being a DMCA takedown, or it may be that his legal crew invoked the wrong law, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't have the legal right to make such a request.
These days, it seems that the phrase DMCA Takedown is used as a generic term by lots of people, like Kleenex is the generic name for facial tissue. Maybe it was something else...
Interesting post. I think that the "subconscious plagiarism" issue is a good example of the dangers of copyright extensions. I mean, nobody can make a cartoon of a friendly mouse that wears shorts and is friends with a dog and a duck, unless their last name (or their employer's name) is Disney.
But there are strong and weak copyrights, now, aren't there? I mean, that's why Kodak corp chose the name, because it didn't mean anything in any language, but it was easy to remember. If I were to make a solution for cleaning natural fibers and I called it CottonCleaner, that would be a pretty weak copyright, as anything else that cleans cotton would use those words in their own product descriptions.
Maybe the same thing should apply to music. If you're using three chords (G/C/D) in a straight 4/4 rhythm, in a 12-bar repeating pattern, you should be willing to accept that your music will be "copied" by someone else in the very near future, and it can't be protected. Remember the Spin Doctors? Every song they wrote had the same chords, same rhythms, just different lyrics, it seemed. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, nap time for me.
That is to say, a performance exists in time and space, and as such, it's not a copy of anything. Ephemeral acts are not copyrightable; only recordings of them are.
No, I don't think you can own the copyright to a performance. A performance exists in time and space. What you have is a copyright to any recordings YOU yourself (or Prince himself, or somebody he paid) created, and depending on the venue, privacy rights.
Most concerts expressly prohibit recording devices. If someone made a recording in breach of the terms on the ticket and posted at the gate, then they may be in violation of his privacy rights, and they had no right to make the recording, and thus no right to publish it.
If, however, they stood on a hill, on public property, and could still get good quality audio and video--without trespassing on the concert venue--and made a recording, it's theirs to do with as they please.
I think there's some room for interpretation here. Maybe a performance can not be copyrighted, but there are privacy rights to be considered. If this was a free concert in the park, Prince did not have a reasonable cause to believe it was private and any recording would be permissible. However, if it was in a closed venue where there were published rules about video recording, he could get it removed because it is a privacy violation.
It's kind of like paparazzi shots that get published. If someone had to break into your property to get them, then anyone who publishes them (and the original paparazzo) could be sued. However, if you're sunbathing nude and can be seen from a neighbor's balcony, any picture taken from there is legal for publication, since presumably, you should know that you are not in a truly private place.
IANAL, and I know I'm speaking a little outside my depth--and I don't pretend to support Prince's suit, as I think fans should be able to shoot pictures and videos at concerts, and make and trade audio recordings--but it is my understanding that there is some protection for "private" commercial performances.
It's one thing to say, "the market's not ready, but we'll get into it when our customers are likely to be interested, cost-wise." It's another to try to undermine the market by saying it's just a bad idea and changing positions when you realize it's become a good enough idea that if you don't embrace it, it'll kill you.
I'm all for adjusting to your environment, but there's a difference between being a leader and innovator, and a gadfly-turned-also-ran. Not saying I wouldn't buy their products, but even when they were saying, "never never never" (wish I could cite a source), I know it was BS BS BS.
This appears to be just a flash cache. See my post above about a real hybrid. Gigs, not MBs of flash, smart storage of read-only vs. high-volume read-write data. That would be cool.
The one you linked to is really just about reliability, as the cache doesn't go away if there's a sudden power loss. It's definitely got its niche, but with only 256MB, it's not a groundbreaking SSD device.
Truthfully, I'm really looking forward to hybrid drives with, say 64-128 GB of flash, where all the "load-often, change rarely" data goes, like applications, OS, etc., and 2^N (N >= 8) GB of classic HD storage space for stuff that may need gazillions of writes (browser cache, working documents, SVN repositories, etc.).
In fact, wouldn't it be great if the drive could be smart about it and--over time--identify files that were mostly read-only (iPhoto archives, MP3s) and migrate them to the flash storage area where fast, low-power reads would be a benefit.
While we're dreaming, database engines could even be optimized to read only from the SSD-portion of a hybrid drive if a particular data point had not been written to in over N minutes, or since the last collation (explained later), but would write to the platters, and then during quiet cycles, it could do a collation. The collation would move data which was on the platters, but which did not have a pattern of large volumes of writes back to the SSD volume.
You do have all the rights you're talking about. But if the biz model doesn't work for the provider, and they can find a way to exclude you for not accepting Google ads, or for not accepting images, or... well, pretty much anything else, there's no law that says they have to allow you to browse your way.
Of course, if their content is compelling enough, either you'll accept their terms, negotiate new terms with them (i.e. pay for no-ad versions) or find a way to defeat their protection mechanisms. If it's the last option, they'll eventually figure it out and create yet another layer of protection.
Heck, some sites will even refuse you if you don't use a particular version of IE. Blocking access to unprofitable visitors shouldn't be too difficult.
Maybe the parent poster should have said, instead, "If you can play it, you can hack it." Once it's hacked, it can be copied and distributed. There's certainly no analog hole, but there's no reason to think that someone won't figure out a way to dump the encrypted content, excise the TPM-accessing code and leave the actual game for copying.
When I was just a lad, Electronic Arts had a copy protection scheme so byzantine that it would not allow me to run games I had actually purchased on my MSD Super Drive, which was hooked up to my C64. I had purchased One-on-One (Dr J vs. Larry Bird), and it didn't work, and the store wouldn't take it back. So I took it to a friend who had a friend who had successfully cracked several EA games. A week later, I had a cracked copy back that worked wonderfully, and I'm sure many other people did, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct: if US law gives prince the right to say it goes down, it's going down. I believe it's likely that it does, but not based on copyright. I think you and I are roughly in agreement; my bad for not getting your sarcasm. Have a great one.
Excellent; this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. My understanding was that the "unauthorized fixations of live works" was protected under privacy laws, but the main thing being that I'm sure that there is the possibility that Prince is indeed protected, even if not under the DMCA.
I guess what I've been trying to get at is that Prince might have a legal right to request a take-down; whether it's actually the right thing to do (i.e. is he just being greedy?) or whether he went about it the right way (i.e. should it have been 17 U.S.C. 1101 instead of DMCA?) seem to me to be less-than-germane conversations to be having.
If it's just a technicality, he just needs to fire his lawyer and get one that will cite the correct law. Once the correct law is cited, then whether or not he is being greedy does not affect the outcome of the case.
The first issue is, does he have the legal right? The second is, did he do it correctly? The third--and eventually the most important--is, should he have the right? If the current law is bad, let's do more than just call him greedy; let's change the law. Spending cycles poking holes in his request because it was filed under the wrong statute is as much of a waste of time as questioning his fashion choices.
- Since the recording was made by a fan, Prince does not own the copyright to the recording.
- If the recording was done from within a private venue, where the posted rules prohibited fan recordings, then Prince has a right to block publication based on privacy violations.
- If, however, it was a concert in an open, public place, where people not beholden to the terms of the event (i.e. non-ticket-holders) could make a recording without trespassing, his performance is public, and the fan has the right to record and distribute his/her recording as he/she wishes.
- The above points are made based on my understanding of US law. My point about YouTubes presence in the UK is that I do not know the laws there, but if they are different, it is certainly possible that Google/YouTube may have a different responsibility with regards to claims against publication of the content to UK viewers than they do to US viewers.
If you do something in public, where you have no right to expect privacy, anyone can take pictures or video, and do whatever they like with it. If you are in Central Park playing your guitar and singing, and I record it while walking by, I own that recording and can do whatever I want with it. Your only legal recourse is to notice the recording and quit performing so I do not have content to publish. You may not like it, but it is indeed the law.Now, if I use that footage in a for-profit venture (i.e. a commercial I'm making for a car company), you may be able to wrangle some civil redress from me, but if I just post it on YouTube and you issue a DMCA take-down notice, I could appeal on the grounds that it was *my* recording of a *public* performance, and your take-down would be itself a DMCA violation, and you might be in for some stiff penalties.
Of course, there's a lot of room for interpretation of the specifics, and a good lawyer would push for as much control for Prince as possible, or if the fan were his/her client, as much protection for the first ammendment as possible.
I agree in spirit, but I believe that the law may be different. I am not saying he is right, but I am saying that he may have a legal claim.
Hate to tell you, but Elvis is dead. Your comment doesn't make any sense. But, that being said, point taken.
What logic? I was merely pointing out that they actually are in England, and if anything I was trying to imply that they may indeed be beholden to more than just US law.
D'oh, you're totally correct. My bad.
Ah, but there may be other acts or provisions under which he has the right to issue a takedown notice based on privacy laws. It may be that the source is wrong about it actually being a DMCA takedown, or it may be that his legal crew invoked the wrong law, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't have the legal right to make such a request.
These days, it seems that the phrase DMCA Takedown is used as a generic term by lots of people, like Kleenex is the generic name for facial tissue. Maybe it was something else...
Interesting post. I think that the "subconscious plagiarism" issue is a good example of the dangers of copyright extensions. I mean, nobody can make a cartoon of a friendly mouse that wears shorts and is friends with a dog and a duck, unless their last name (or their employer's name) is Disney.
But there are strong and weak copyrights, now, aren't there? I mean, that's why Kodak corp chose the name, because it didn't mean anything in any language, but it was easy to remember. If I were to make a solution for cleaning natural fibers and I called it CottonCleaner, that would be a pretty weak copyright, as anything else that cleans cotton would use those words in their own product descriptions.
Maybe the same thing should apply to music. If you're using three chords (G/C/D) in a straight 4/4 rhythm, in a 12-bar repeating pattern, you should be willing to accept that your music will be "copied" by someone else in the very near future, and it can't be protected. Remember the Spin Doctors? Every song they wrote had the same chords, same rhythms, just different lyrics, it seemed. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, nap time for me.
What have you got against Indiana Jones?
That is to say, a performance exists in time and space, and as such, it's not a copy of anything. Ephemeral acts are not copyrightable; only recordings of them are.
No, I don't think you can own the copyright to a performance. A performance exists in time and space. What you have is a copyright to any recordings YOU yourself (or Prince himself, or somebody he paid) created, and depending on the venue, privacy rights.
Most concerts expressly prohibit recording devices. If someone made a recording in breach of the terms on the ticket and posted at the gate, then they may be in violation of his privacy rights, and they had no right to make the recording, and thus no right to publish it.
If, however, they stood on a hill, on public property, and could still get good quality audio and video--without trespassing on the concert venue--and made a recording, it's theirs to do with as they please.
That's right; over there it's called YouKayTube.
Seriously, though, since they're part of Google, don't you think they've got infrastructure--and administrative offices--in JOE?
I think there's some room for interpretation here. Maybe a performance can not be copyrighted, but there are privacy rights to be considered. If this was a free concert in the park, Prince did not have a reasonable cause to believe it was private and any recording would be permissible. However, if it was in a closed venue where there were published rules about video recording, he could get it removed because it is a privacy violation.
It's kind of like paparazzi shots that get published. If someone had to break into your property to get them, then anyone who publishes them (and the original paparazzo) could be sued. However, if you're sunbathing nude and can be seen from a neighbor's balcony, any picture taken from there is legal for publication, since presumably, you should know that you are not in a truly private place.
IANAL, and I know I'm speaking a little outside my depth--and I don't pretend to support Prince's suit, as I think fans should be able to shoot pictures and videos at concerts, and make and trade audio recordings--but it is my understanding that there is some protection for "private" commercial performances.
True; to be sure, I'm talking off the cuff, or as many of my friends would say, out of a rear-facing orifice :) Have a great weekend.
Thank you for your detailed response to my meanderings. But I still want a pony!
It's not the fragility I was worried about; it's the latency. SSDs are slower than traditional platter drives for writing, if I understand correctly.
It's one thing to say, "the market's not ready, but we'll get into it when our customers are likely to be interested, cost-wise." It's another to try to undermine the market by saying it's just a bad idea and changing positions when you realize it's become a good enough idea that if you don't embrace it, it'll kill you.
I'm all for adjusting to your environment, but there's a difference between being a leader and innovator, and a gadfly-turned-also-ran. Not saying I wouldn't buy their products, but even when they were saying, "never never never" (wish I could cite a source), I know it was BS BS BS.
This appears to be just a flash cache. See my post above about a real hybrid. Gigs, not MBs of flash, smart storage of read-only vs. high-volume read-write data. That would be cool.
The one you linked to is really just about reliability, as the cache doesn't go away if there's a sudden power loss. It's definitely got its niche, but with only 256MB, it's not a groundbreaking SSD device.
Yup, I'd love a 2TB SSD, man.
Truthfully, I'm really looking forward to hybrid drives with, say 64-128 GB of flash, where all the "load-often, change rarely" data goes, like applications, OS, etc., and 2^N (N >= 8) GB of classic HD storage space for stuff that may need gazillions of writes (browser cache, working documents, SVN repositories, etc.).
In fact, wouldn't it be great if the drive could be smart about it and--over time--identify files that were mostly read-only (iPhoto archives, MP3s) and migrate them to the flash storage area where fast, low-power reads would be a benefit.
While we're dreaming, database engines could even be optimized to read only from the SSD-portion of a hybrid drive if a particular data point had not been written to in over N minutes, or since the last collation (explained later), but would write to the platters, and then during quiet cycles, it could do a collation. The collation would move data which was on the platters, but which did not have a pattern of large volumes of writes back to the SSD volume.
And... I'd like a pony...
You do have all the rights you're talking about. But if the biz model doesn't work for the provider, and they can find a way to exclude you for not accepting Google ads, or for not accepting images, or... well, pretty much anything else, there's no law that says they have to allow you to browse your way.
Of course, if their content is compelling enough, either you'll accept their terms, negotiate new terms with them (i.e. pay for no-ad versions) or find a way to defeat their protection mechanisms. If it's the last option, they'll eventually figure it out and create yet another layer of protection.
Heck, some sites will even refuse you if you don't use a particular version of IE. Blocking access to unprofitable visitors shouldn't be too difficult.
Best. Joke. Of. Thread.
Mmm... pie...
Maybe the parent poster should have said, instead, "If you can play it, you can hack it." Once it's hacked, it can be copied and distributed. There's certainly no analog hole, but there's no reason to think that someone won't figure out a way to dump the encrypted content, excise the TPM-accessing code and leave the actual game for copying.
When I was just a lad, Electronic Arts had a copy protection scheme so byzantine that it would not allow me to run games I had actually purchased on my MSD Super Drive, which was hooked up to my C64. I had purchased One-on-One (Dr J vs. Larry Bird), and it didn't work, and the store wouldn't take it back. So I took it to a friend who had a friend who had successfully cracked several EA games. A week later, I had a cracked copy back that worked wonderfully, and I'm sure many other people did, too.
"+1 Dumbass"? Your post is good, but the idea that you should get +1 karma for not R'ing TFA makes me chuckle...