if anything, the heirs of the supposed author of the work should be suing that publisher, not cbs. cbs did everything right (for a change)....
No, legally they have to sue both. Good faith is only a defence against "wilful infringement" and the associated punitive damages. That's how it works
this is a cash grab, plain and simple.
Are you psychic? Or do you know the family members personally? Because maybe her kids are just unhappy because they like saying the poem to their grandkids and are kind of proud of their mother, and are just annoyed that it's being spread around on T-shirts without any credit to her. In fact, for all you or I or anyone knows, they might plan to give all the money to a home for crippled immigrant stray dogs with congenital hearing disorders.
Actually, I think CBS should be cleared in this. They sought permission from who they thought held the rights. The song book publisher should have deferred if they didn't properly hold the rights, but that wasn't on CBS. I know in the eyes of the court, it's not important (kinda like receiving stolen property), but CBS at least put forth effort.
The concept is "due diligence". CBS have a duty to do adequate research to ensure that they are genuinely dealing with the right people. If the court finds that they did adequate due diligence, then they shouldn't be hit for any punitive damages, only for the missing revenue.
But due diligence must be enforced, otherwise you'll just get a series of fly-by-night business setting up to sell IP they don't own to the big players, who would knowingly obtain underpriced invalid licenses in order to say "I thought I had a license" when called up on their infringing practices.
I think you're confusing "derivative" and "transformative". A derivative work has its own copyright, but that copyright is not usually independent of the original work. The issue of "transformative art" is more controversial. It was supposed to mean (AIUI) that I could make a collage using various rolls of wallpaper I'd bought without having to obtain copyright clearance from all the manufacturers on their flower patterns or whatever. However, it has expanded to making it an easy excuse for "artists" to rip off the work of other artists and photographers.
There are some pretty huge commercial issues with cutting off copyright protections at death. Terry Pratchett died last year, several years after being diagnosed with a terminal cognitive degenerative disorder. If copyright ended at death, publishers would have started printing copies of the Discworld novels as soon as he got his diagnosis, anticipating the usual sudden sales rush that would inevitably follow his death. They would have then flooded the market, undercutting Pratchett's own publishers. So you're burying your dad, and the publishing world is making a mint specifically because he's dead, but you, your family and your dead dad's favourite charities make absolutely nothing. Wouldn't feel nice.
*Obviously this, possibly naively, assumes that mandatory police cameras are accompanied by appropriate penalties whenever they happen to 'glitch' during high-profile situations.
Body-cams are pretty much standard in most UK forces already, and there have been several incidents of civilian death where the cameras have been "faulty", including incidents with multiple officers on-scene. The most famous one was a non-demonstrator caught behind police lines during a (mostly peaceful) demonstration in London, who was thumped with a police baton and died. No-one was charged.
I personally think the only control any police officer should have over the cameras is a "I'm going to the toilet" button, which should be pressed in view of the toilet door, and an "overtime" button to stop the camera shutting down at the end of the day if the case they're working holds them back after scheduled hours. No police officer should be physically able to review or edit footage until the unit has been handed in to a court body that they downloads the footage to secure storage.
if it's customary for mobile networks to throttle any sort of unlimited usage of their network, there clearly is something behind that.
except... in this case they're not just throttling the "unlimited" part of the data, they're also throttling data that is subject to bandwidth caps -- paid for data -- and in the process, making it often unusable.
It's not just the "unlimited" portion of the data that is slow though -- stuff that is subject to your monthly cap is also being throttled. Grow up and try reading TFA for a change, or at least TFS.
KA has never been an especially awesome organization when it comes to open source citizenry. For example, it uses the "non-commercial use" restriction for its materials, which is widely rejected within open source and free culture circles like Wikimedia, Linux, etc. Hopefully this will change over time as the organization becomes more aware of the policy discussions around these issues, since a lot of its work is otherwise excellent and world-changing.
Non-commercial is particularly insidious in the education system. When I was teaching English overseas, it was in commercial night-schools. A great many teachers started publishing their materials on a free "non-commercial" license, completely oblivious to the fact that they were technically blocking their colleagues from using it. Many schools are private entities, even some that are considered independent but still funded by the public purse, so that means KA doesn't get used there. Schools tend to buy in to textbook-led courses, all of which assume a certain ordering of materials; trying to integrate outside materials with a structured course is a very demanding task for a teacher, so most don't do it, and the teachers are locked out of materials unless the textbook authors have specifically integrated it, which they can't, because that would be "commercial use".
Very, very few schools can therefore make use of KA materials. Who does that leave? Not private tutors, certainly, because they are all clearly commercial entities.
But, Youtube has no reason, or financial incentive to be the copyright police. They have no reason to preemptively filter anything, nor should they, as it isn't their problem.
It's not about being "the copyright police", it's about not publishing infringing videos. That's why the whole question hinges on whether or not YouTube is a publisher or not.
I don't use Spyware 10, but in Windows 7 and Windows 8 I can plug my external Sound Blaster in via USB and it just works without needing to install drivers. So you were saying?
Just because you don't need to intervene doesn't mean you don't have to install any drivers -- Windows comes with an unfeasible number of driver packages in it and it installs the drivers for you when you need them. The end result of that is bloat and cruft, and the problem of drivers you no longer actively use interacting with others that you actually need.
Microsoft doesn't have a problem with this situation, because everyone will write Windows drivers. For Mac and Linux users, the need for custom drivers is a major problem, because it's a high cost for a small number of users. That's presumably why Microsoft having been holding off on implementing USB audio class 2 support and everyone else has gone for it with aplomb.
I didn't ask you to do the maths, and I didn't demand anything.
I will restate what I said in brief: 1) The volume of material that YouTube receives is part of, and a result of, their business model. 2) YouTube looks and acts like a publisher in very many ways.
If you cannot discuss these points like a rational human being, then please stop accusing others of being "moronic".
Your mother must have huffed a lot of paint when she was carrying you, because you truly are a stupid individual.
I would strongly encourage you to look up how much video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. Then think about the sheer number of people that Google would need to hire to review this. (Basic math can be used to calculate this, think you can handle that?)
Then go stand in front of a mirror and repeat 5 times "I will not say moronic, ridiculous things on the internet anymore".
Moron.
Yes, but at volume of material is a consequence of YouTube's business model. Before you accuse anyone of stupidity or being a moron, have a think about things.
YouTube is a very interesting example of the difficulties with safe harbor laws. Safe harbor basically says that YouTube isn't a publisher. If it's not a publisher, what is it? It must be a printer. And a printing company can't be expected to check everything a publisher submits, can it? But YouTube looks a lot like a publisher to me, with layout, branding, recommendations and adverts all managed by YouTube. YouTube drives traffic to videos to generate ad revenue -- a printer takes a flat fee from a publisher, and it's not the printer's problem if the books don't sell.
Really? Telling people that price fixing agreements are likely not to be optimal for one or the other party is "free marketism to the extreme"???
The guy in question was happy with the advice. As a child, he found it a very valuable lesson, and more money. But you refuse to accept his view of the experience as positive because "interfering with markets". That's extremist free marketism, stating that the invisible hand is more important than anything, even the education of a child.
Talking about hobbies, one of the problems in (literal) markets is that professionals often end up competing with hobbyists. [...] most hobbyists set their prices based on material cost (yarn in the crocheted hat example) -- they see their time as zero-cost because they're engaged in their hobby anyway. But that undermines those who want to be pros
That's even more amazing, since the US has some of the strictest consumer protection and environmental protection in the world.
Surely you can point to studies showing that!
In any case, which part of "Objecting to government-mandated standards is not the same as objecting to standards." did you not understand?
None. But I disagree with you, because when industries create voluntary standards, companies have a tendency to push the boundaries as there is no comeback on them if they fail to meet the standard.
"The" free market is a monolithic concept which allows bigger players to close markets for specific goods and/or services.
Indeed, that's what bigger players do... through lobbying, rent seeking, and regulatory capture.
The problem then is that because "the" free market can restrict individual market places, free market economics do not apply in "the" free market. Paradoxical, but true.
No, what is "paradoxical" is that you want to fix what is a dysfunction of government, namely big market players distorting the market, by giving even more power to government.
So when Microsoft were at their old game of "embrace and extend [and extinguish]" in an unregulated computing market, that was a dysfunction of government, was it? And when the DoJ and the EU started hitting them with antitrust cases, that was the invisible hand of the market, was it? Of course, I'm not denying that all too often governments get too cosy with big businesses, but that's a dysfunction of individual governments, not with the whole concept of government.
You really think that Apple is going to change their product line for you or some country? Most likely they'll just include one of these in the box, resulting in even more waste. Apple is more powerful than any country and will do what it wants. Worst case the Swiss will have to buy crappy androids!
Except that multiple countries are demanding increased compatibility.Complying with the EU rules meant a software update to unlock the charging port, and the same will probably be the case in Switzerland. Apple and Nokia couldn't afford to lose Europe, so they pushed for the "adaptor in the box" compromise (Apple already had an adaptor in the box anyway). Most vendors are happy with the standardisation, because it means they can phase out including power supplies in the box with each new phone (a cost saving). Apple is the only company with a lot to lose, as they aim to generate funds from after-market accessories. Standardisation still needs to push forward -- iOS audio add-ons, for example, have no real reason to exist now that USB audio class 2 has been accepted as a standard by pretty much everybody except the Windows development team. If the iPad accepted USB straight off, there would be no call for iOS specific audio devices at all. As it is, Apple hides iOS USB audio capabilities by hiding it behind the misnomer "USB camera kit" in order to get people to purchase iOS specific devices with Apple certified insides, Apple can achieve lock-in amongst users without having to offer any real benefits to the user as a quid pro quo. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most current iOS audio devices weren't just USB audio 2 devices with an Apple-approved USB-to-Lightning adaptor on board....
Apple chargers have a USB-A socket on them that allows one to use them to charge practically any device. When I go on holiday I simply chuck a couple of iPad chargers into my bag and use them to charge my iPhone, iPad, Garmin Nav-aid, my Bluetooth headphones and a occasionally the Samsung phones of a couple of other family members. I don't really understand why Apple has to be the looser in this. If the Swiss universal charger will have a USB-C socket on it you could plug any cable into it you want including one with an Apple Lightning connector on the other end or another one with a Micro USB connector for your Android devices. The only thing I'd be worried about is some idiot legislating the use of a standard phone/tablet/laptop charger designed by a committee and therefore big as a brick. One of the things that originally caused me to buy Apple laptops was their relatively small and easy to stow laptop chargers.
That's basically what we've got in Europe. I used to use my iPad charger as my default travel charger, right up until I left it in a hotel. Thankfully the charger for my Garmin works perfectly well due to EU requirements on Apple -- this is now my default travel charger.
Of course, all they'll do is add a recycling fee to the purchase. California has one for monitors, for example.
Which is fine. The cost of recycling is part of the cost of doing business, so can and should be charged to the buyer. Paying for it out of general taxation means there's no incentive for ecological efficiency to the manufacturer.
It's not a perfect analogy, as it's common to own a house longer than the 20 year lifetime of a patent.
Well, given the expected lifespan of a home vs a piece of consumer electronics, we can assume for the purposes of the analogy that patents subsist for 100 years or so.
Oh and Macs never had plug and play capability, they just had/have a very limited set of hardware.
Only in the sense that "plug and play" is a specific Microsoft technology that never did what it said on the tin anyway.
OSX (and iOS, if you have the camera kit) supports open standards such as USB Audio Class 2, which allows the Mac to use external sound devices without custom drivers, whereas even on Windows 10, you still need to install drivers for the individual device. The problem is that while OSX's audio driver talks to any class 2 device, Windows drivers are all made by individual vendors for their own kit, which means if you use multiple USB audio 2 devices, you might end up with a driver clash, and need to keep uninstalling and reinstalling when you switch device.
So who's plug and play now?
(For the record, I do not own a Mac, and I never have done.)
Without the threat of imprisonment by your government, proprietary (ie patented, trademarked, copyrighted) systems would be reverse engineered and duplicated as soon as the market demands it.
That assumes such a task is feasible. Reverse engineering of Microsoft Office document formats was legal and much demanded, but the complexity of the formats and the undocumented interactions meant that even after the "opening" of the format by MS Office, no alternative office suite can guarantee full compatibility with MS Office. See also PDF.
Slashdot Mirror
if anything, the heirs of the supposed author of the work should be suing that publisher, not cbs. cbs did everything right (for a change)....
No, legally they have to sue both. Good faith is only a defence against "wilful infringement" and the associated punitive damages. That's how it works
this is a cash grab, plain and simple.
Are you psychic? Or do you know the family members personally? Because maybe her kids are just unhappy because they like saying the poem to their grandkids and are kind of proud of their mother, and are just annoyed that it's being spread around on T-shirts without any credit to her. In fact, for all you or I or anyone knows, they might plan to give all the money to a home for crippled immigrant stray dogs with congenital hearing disorders.
Actually, I think CBS should be cleared in this. They sought permission from who they thought held the rights. The song book publisher should have deferred if they didn't properly hold the rights, but that wasn't on CBS. I know in the eyes of the court, it's not important (kinda like receiving stolen property), but CBS at least put forth effort.
The concept is "due diligence". CBS have a duty to do adequate research to ensure that they are genuinely dealing with the right people. If the court finds that they did adequate due diligence, then they shouldn't be hit for any punitive damages, only for the missing revenue.
But due diligence must be enforced, otherwise you'll just get a series of fly-by-night business setting up to sell IP they don't own to the big players, who would knowingly obtain underpriced invalid licenses in order to say "I thought I had a license" when called up on their infringing practices.
I think you're confusing "derivative" and "transformative". A derivative work has its own copyright, but that copyright is not usually independent of the original work. The issue of "transformative art" is more controversial. It was supposed to mean (AIUI) that I could make a collage using various rolls of wallpaper I'd bought without having to obtain copyright clearance from all the manufacturers on their flower patterns or whatever. However, it has expanded to making it an easy excuse for "artists" to rip off the work of other artists and photographers.
You're an idiot.
That's plagiarism of the GP, infringing copyright laws in dozens of countries. Expect a lawyer's letter forthwith.
There are some pretty huge commercial issues with cutting off copyright protections at death. Terry Pratchett died last year, several years after being diagnosed with a terminal cognitive degenerative disorder. If copyright ended at death, publishers would have started printing copies of the Discworld novels as soon as he got his diagnosis, anticipating the usual sudden sales rush that would inevitably follow his death. They would have then flooded the market, undercutting Pratchett's own publishers. So you're burying your dad, and the publishing world is making a mint specifically because he's dead, but you, your family and your dead dad's favourite charities make absolutely nothing. Wouldn't feel nice.
Mexico has a 100 year copyright. I'm also sure that America can bully other countries to follow suite, why else spend so much on military
...and harmonising copyright laws makes sense within the North American Free Trade Zone....
*Obviously this, possibly naively, assumes that mandatory police cameras are accompanied by appropriate penalties whenever they happen to 'glitch' during high-profile situations.
Body-cams are pretty much standard in most UK forces already, and there have been several incidents of civilian death where the cameras have been "faulty", including incidents with multiple officers on-scene. The most famous one was a non-demonstrator caught behind police lines during a (mostly peaceful) demonstration in London, who was thumped with a police baton and died. No-one was charged.
I personally think the only control any police officer should have over the cameras is a "I'm going to the toilet" button, which should be pressed in view of the toilet door, and an "overtime" button to stop the camera shutting down at the end of the day if the case they're working holds them back after scheduled hours. No police officer should be physically able to review or edit footage until the unit has been handed in to a court body that they downloads the footage to secure storage.
OOh.... that's very interesting. If I hadn't posted already, I'd mod you up.
if it's customary for mobile networks to throttle any sort of unlimited usage of their network, there clearly is something behind that.
except... in this case they're not just throttling the "unlimited" part of the data, they're also throttling data that is subject to bandwidth caps -- paid for data -- and in the process, making it often unusable.
It's not just the "unlimited" portion of the data that is slow though -- stuff that is subject to your monthly cap is also being throttled. Grow up and try reading TFA for a change, or at least TFS.
KA has never been an especially awesome organization when it comes to open source citizenry. For example, it uses the "non-commercial use" restriction for its materials, which is widely rejected within open source and free culture circles like Wikimedia, Linux, etc. Hopefully this will change over time as the organization becomes more aware of the policy discussions around these issues, since a lot of its work is otherwise excellent and world-changing.
Non-commercial is particularly insidious in the education system. When I was teaching English overseas, it was in commercial night-schools. A great many teachers started publishing their materials on a free "non-commercial" license, completely oblivious to the fact that they were technically blocking their colleagues from using it. Many schools are private entities, even some that are considered independent but still funded by the public purse, so that means KA doesn't get used there. Schools tend to buy in to textbook-led courses, all of which assume a certain ordering of materials; trying to integrate outside materials with a structured course is a very demanding task for a teacher, so most don't do it, and the teachers are locked out of materials unless the textbook authors have specifically integrated it, which they can't, because that would be "commercial use".
Very, very few schools can therefore make use of KA materials. Who does that leave? Not private tutors, certainly, because they are all clearly commercial entities.
But, Youtube has no reason, or financial incentive to be the copyright police. They have no reason to preemptively filter anything, nor should they, as it isn't their problem.
It's not about being "the copyright police", it's about not publishing infringing videos. That's why the whole question hinges on whether or not YouTube is a publisher or not.
I don't use Spyware 10, but in Windows 7 and Windows 8 I can plug my external Sound Blaster in via USB and it just works without needing to install drivers. So you were saying?
Just because you don't need to intervene doesn't mean you don't have to install any drivers -- Windows comes with an unfeasible number of driver packages in it and it installs the drivers for you when you need them. The end result of that is bloat and cruft, and the problem of drivers you no longer actively use interacting with others that you actually need.
Microsoft doesn't have a problem with this situation, because everyone will write Windows drivers. For Mac and Linux users, the need for custom drivers is a major problem, because it's a high cost for a small number of users. That's presumably why Microsoft having been holding off on implementing USB audio class 2 support and everyone else has gone for it with aplomb.
I didn't ask you to do the maths, and I didn't demand anything.
I will restate what I said in brief: 1) The volume of material that YouTube receives is part of, and a result of, their business model. 2) YouTube looks and acts like a publisher in very many ways.
If you cannot discuss these points like a rational human being, then please stop accusing others of being "moronic".
Your mother must have huffed a lot of paint when she was carrying you, because you truly are a stupid individual.
I would strongly encourage you to look up how much video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. Then think about the sheer number of people that Google would need to hire to review this. (Basic math can be used to calculate this, think you can handle that?)
Then go stand in front of a mirror and repeat 5 times "I will not say moronic, ridiculous things on the internet anymore".
Moron.
Yes, but at volume of material is a consequence of YouTube's business model. Before you accuse anyone of stupidity or being a moron, have a think about things.
YouTube is a very interesting example of the difficulties with safe harbor laws. Safe harbor basically says that YouTube isn't a publisher. If it's not a publisher, what is it? It must be a printer. And a printing company can't be expected to check everything a publisher submits, can it? But YouTube looks a lot like a publisher to me, with layout, branding, recommendations and adverts all managed by YouTube. YouTube drives traffic to videos to generate ad revenue -- a printer takes a flat fee from a publisher, and it's not the printer's problem if the books don't sell.
Really? Telling people that price fixing agreements are likely not to be optimal for one or the other party is "free marketism to the extreme"???
The guy in question was happy with the advice. As a child, he found it a very valuable lesson, and more money. But you refuse to accept his view of the experience as positive because "interfering with markets". That's extremist free marketism, stating that the invisible hand is more important than anything, even the education of a child.
And the problem with that would be... what?
The inability of anyone to make a bloody living.
That's even more amazing, since the US has some of the strictest consumer protection and environmental protection in the world.
Surely you can point to studies showing that!
In any case, which part of "Objecting to government-mandated standards is not the same as objecting to standards." did you not understand?
None. But I disagree with you, because when industries create voluntary standards, companies have a tendency to push the boundaries as there is no comeback on them if they fail to meet the standard.
Indeed, that's what bigger players do... through lobbying, rent seeking, and regulatory capture.
No, what is "paradoxical" is that you want to fix what is a dysfunction of government, namely big market players distorting the market, by giving even more power to government.
So when Microsoft were at their old game of "embrace and extend [and extinguish]" in an unregulated computing market, that was a dysfunction of government, was it? And when the DoJ and the EU started hitting them with antitrust cases, that was the invisible hand of the market, was it? Of course, I'm not denying that all too often governments get too cosy with big businesses, but that's a dysfunction of individual governments, not with the whole concept of government.
You really think that Apple is going to change their product line for you or some country? Most likely they'll just include one of these in the box, resulting in even more waste. Apple is more powerful than any country and will do what it wants. Worst case the Swiss will have to buy crappy androids!
Except that multiple countries are demanding increased compatibility.Complying with the EU rules meant a software update to unlock the charging port, and the same will probably be the case in Switzerland. Apple and Nokia couldn't afford to lose Europe, so they pushed for the "adaptor in the box" compromise (Apple already had an adaptor in the box anyway). Most vendors are happy with the standardisation, because it means they can phase out including power supplies in the box with each new phone (a cost saving). Apple is the only company with a lot to lose, as they aim to generate funds from after-market accessories. Standardisation still needs to push forward -- iOS audio add-ons, for example, have no real reason to exist now that USB audio class 2 has been accepted as a standard by pretty much everybody except the Windows development team. If the iPad accepted USB straight off, there would be no call for iOS specific audio devices at all. As it is, Apple hides iOS USB audio capabilities by hiding it behind the misnomer "USB camera kit" in order to get people to purchase iOS specific devices with Apple certified insides, Apple can achieve lock-in amongst users without having to offer any real benefits to the user as a quid pro quo. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most current iOS audio devices weren't just USB audio 2 devices with an Apple-approved USB-to-Lightning adaptor on board....
Apple chargers have a USB-A socket on them that allows one to use them to charge practically any device. When I go on holiday I simply chuck a couple of iPad chargers into my bag and use them to charge my iPhone, iPad, Garmin Nav-aid, my Bluetooth headphones and a occasionally the Samsung phones of a couple of other family members. I don't really understand why Apple has to be the looser in this. If the Swiss universal charger will have a USB-C socket on it you could plug any cable into it you want including one with an Apple Lightning connector on the other end or another one with a Micro USB connector for your Android devices. The only thing I'd be worried about is some idiot legislating the use of a standard phone/tablet/laptop charger designed by a committee and therefore big as a brick. One of the things that originally caused me to buy Apple laptops was their relatively small and easy to stow laptop chargers.
That's basically what we've got in Europe. I used to use my iPad charger as my default travel charger, right up until I left it in a hotel. Thankfully the charger for my Garmin works perfectly well due to EU requirements on Apple -- this is now my default travel charger.
Of course, all they'll do is add a recycling fee to the purchase. California has one for monitors, for example.
Which is fine. The cost of recycling is part of the cost of doing business, so can and should be charged to the buyer. Paying for it out of general taxation means there's no incentive for ecological efficiency to the manufacturer.
It's not a perfect analogy, as it's common to own a house longer than the 20 year lifetime of a patent.
Well, given the expected lifespan of a home vs a piece of consumer electronics, we can assume for the purposes of the analogy that patents subsist for 100 years or so.
Oh and Macs never had plug and play capability, they just had/have a very limited set of hardware.
Only in the sense that "plug and play" is a specific Microsoft technology that never did what it said on the tin anyway.
OSX (and iOS, if you have the camera kit) supports open standards such as USB Audio Class 2, which allows the Mac to use external sound devices without custom drivers, whereas even on Windows 10, you still need to install drivers for the individual device. The problem is that while OSX's audio driver talks to any class 2 device, Windows drivers are all made by individual vendors for their own kit, which means if you use multiple USB audio 2 devices, you might end up with a driver clash, and need to keep uninstalling and reinstalling when you switch device.
So who's plug and play now?
(For the record, I do not own a Mac, and I never have done.)
Without the threat of imprisonment by your government, proprietary (ie patented, trademarked, copyrighted) systems would be reverse engineered and duplicated as soon as the market demands it.
That assumes such a task is feasible. Reverse engineering of Microsoft Office document formats was legal and much demanded, but the complexity of the formats and the undocumented interactions meant that even after the "opening" of the format by MS Office, no alternative office suite can guarantee full compatibility with MS Office. See also PDF.
What the hell are metric fascists?
They're followers of Benito Mussolini who are slightly over 3' 3" tall....