Just so. Every first-year law student learns on the first day of Torts class that a tort offense (a category that includes copyright infringement) has four elements, all of which must be proved in order to collect a remedy from the defendant:
1. The defendant must have had a DUTY to the defendant (such as a duty to respect the copyrights of the plaintiff).
2. The defendant must be guilty of a BREACH of that duty (e.g., by participating in the unauthorized copying or distribution of a work under copyright).
3. CAUSATION: the breach must have been the proximate cause of some infringement of the plaintiff's rights.
4. The plaintiff must have suffered DAMAGES as a result. In civil law, the rule is: no harm, no foul.
Now, in some cases of copyright infringement, plaintiffs are able to rely on a statutory assessment of damages (element 4) instead of actual damages because the damage done to their copyright is (in theory) difficult to assess. This principle is pretty shaky, when you look at the theoretical underpinnings, but it's what the courts and legislature have allowed.
This case seems to have now done away with element 3 as well: the plaintiff's exclusive right to distribute or copy the works has not been shown to have actually occurred, so there's no proof that the (alleged) breach actually caused an infringement of the plaintiff's rights.
I certainly hope that the judge calls for a new trial, as this precedent seems to create a new category of "attempted torts", which would transform the entire legal system if allowed to stand.
What was it, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Germany or Japan could've hit, but chose not to because of our (continuing) adherence?
Like I said: breathtakingly shortsighted. Japan is the only one of those nations that ever attacked US soil. There's no reason to think this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. But if you're someone who thinks that ths US is currently in compliance with international law, I think you and I are going to have to disagree.
Your premises get "upgraded" from being "civilian" to "dual use", but none of America's real enemies today care for that fancy legal distinction anyway.
This is a shocking statement, not only in its ignorance of current affairs, but also its shortsightedness. Read some military history and find out what happens to countries that declare that jus belli no longer applies to them. The US has always (until recently) adhered to international laws of war for very good reasons; this recent call to abaondon them is a terrifying development, because it invites atrocities against our soldiers as well as our civilian populations. This may not make a difference to terrorist groups who already ignore these distinctions, but if you think those are the only forces the US will face in the next 30 years, you are an idiot.
The previous post was exactly right: when you recruit civilian computers to carry out military attacks, those computers and their operators become legitimate military targets. This is a terrible idea.
Wikipedia says that a yottabyte is, as you say, not a billion but a quadrillion gigabytes (10^24).
The write-up gets this wrong, but so does the article... in a different way. (It says that a yottabyte is "a thousand exabytes", when it's really a million exabytes. An exabyte is 10^18.)
It would be nice if other signatories to the Berne Convention started pirating US copyrights like mad, then told the US that they'll start respecting their copyright treaty obligations as soon as the US starts respecting its Convention Against Torture obligations.
Until it is clear that kdawson's work was a derivative work of Star Wars, kdawson would have standing to sue. If Viacom argued that they did not infringe on kdawson's work because kdawson's work was derived from George Lucas's work, all Viacom would be saying is that the wrong plaintiff came after them.
Unless I'm mistaken, "Party X lacks standing to bring this claim" and "Party X is the wrong plaintiff to bring this claim" are equivalent statements. But then, the first few weeks of law school are quite a blur in my memory, and perhaps I never learned how to define the most basic terminology used by my profession. Such lapses in expertise are probably more common than one would suspect.
With the caveat that I have not looked for any cases that address this issue, I suspect that the courts would dismiss the issue unless George Lucas joined as a party to the case or unless he granted Viacom a license to the Star Wars-themed commercials. I suspect that a lot of courts would accept an argument analogous to a property law argument. If you are trespassing on a property, claim it as your own, and then I subsequently trespass on that property, you can eject me. I can't claim that someone else actually owns the property because between you and me, you have the strongest claim to the property. Between kdawson and Viacom, kdawson has the strongest claim to the Star Wars-themed commercials copyright.
I can't think of a copyright case that employs this line of reasoning. To the contrary: many copyright infringement claims have been defeated by a defendant's showing that the plaintiff does not hold an enforceable copyright on the (allegedly) infringed work. (This tactic is almost universally employed in the defeat of patent infringement claims, largely because the bar for patentability is much higher than copyrightability.) And not only is it quite rare for courts to import theories from real property to copyright without it causing major ripples in the understanding of the law, but the principle you articulate does not, to my knowledge, exist in real property law either. Try setting up your tent in a public park and ejecting trespassers on "your" land if you would like to see how a court would interpret this claim.
I agree with you that it's possible that Viacom's lawyers would avoid using the "unauthorized derivative work" theory if they had some reason to fear George Lucas much more than kdawson and if they weren't confident that their use of the clip was fair. But I don't think it's particularly likely. Viacom and Lucas have heavy incentives to extend professional courtesy toward each other and to shut kdawson out of the whole business. But then, I know less about Hollywood industrial politics than I do about copyright law.
Work #2: The Star Wars-themed commercial produced by kdawson. This might be a derivative work of Star Wars, or it might be an original work. Since George Lucas is not involved here, who cares? Viacom cannot argue that because kdawson's work might infringe on the works of George Lucas that Viacom has the right to use kdawson's work.
No, but it might mean that kdawson does not have standing to sue Viacom if it turns out that he doesn't hold a copyright on the work due to its nature as an unauthorized derivative of Lucas's work.
See 17 USC 103(a):
The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
The authorities differ on whether that clause would apply to the entirety of kdawson's work or only the Star Wars elements of it. In California, precedent exists suggesting that the entire work is covered only by Lucas's copyright.
So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like.
Actually, a contract binding one party to participate in anal sex is unenforceable. A similar principle is at stake here: copyright is a heavily regulated system, and the interaction of contract and copyright is much more complex than you describe.
Google "first sale doctrine", "fair use", and "antitrust copyright misuse" for an intro to these complexities.
(Oh, whoops! I should have said, "Use the Google search engine - a trademark of Google Corp. - to find information on...")
And if we hear something we don't like, we can drive to where the car is with out shotgun and have an old fashioned lynching.
Let me get this straight... you're against government coming up with efficient highway-safety enforcement, but you're all for overprotective fathers throwing an "old fashioned lynching" when their little angels start mingling with (I loved this line) an "18 year old drop out weed head"... presumably a black guy, if you really want this lynching to be old fashioned in true American style.
You're right, John -- you're not ready for this technology. For that matter, how are you dealing with the "movable type" and "indoor plumbing" thing? Because as far as I can tell, you're not dealing well with the 20th century, much less the 21st.
things like "Export to text" and "Export to HTML" would be enough.
No, they wouldn't. Thousands of documents are sitting around in formats that can't be read by anything running on an OS anyone currently uses. This may some day be Word's fate. Unless someone goes to the trouble to "convert to text" today (and I can guarantee you they won't), these documents will some day be the equivalent of boxes of punch-cards.
So let me get this straight... you move away from your family and friends. You pull your children out of their school, away from their family and away from their friends. You go through the trouble of selling your house and moving to a new place and buying a new house on your reduced salary. You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.
And what do you end up with? A job that could still always be outsourced if someone gets that bug up their ass.
Seumas, you've hit the nail on the head. This is an old, old story about capital and labor. And while Americans have been living in a bubble for the last several decades, they're finally starting to wake up to the realities that drove the Socialist movements of the '30's.
Pick up some Marx. Read it with an open mind. I think you'll find the ideas fresh and highly relevant.
No, you didn't. The post is still on./. You copied my post.
So what have you lost?
I don't know... what has someone lost when he or she gets raped? Privacy? Autonomy? Dignity? Reputation? Peace of mind? Economic advantage? These things are no more or less material than what is lost by the owner of an infringed copyright.
You've convinced me. "Theft" is the same thing as copyright infringement, as is "rape". From now on, I'm going to call people who infringe on others' copyrights "rapists".
Well, I agree with you that GTA feeds into a lot of pretty offensive racial caricatures. As for the "black community of the inner cities" being a "complete joke", I'm not sure what you mean. Economically depressed black communities in America have a lot of problems to deal with, but few of them are funny.
Let's see the game is about black men running around smacking hoes...
Why is it relevant that they're black? Are you saying that people should object to the racial stereotyping going on, or that these acts are particularly shocking when carried out by black people?
Exactly. Hence "nonexclusive". You retain the copyright and can still license the work to others; but MySpace has a license to distribute your work too.
This is kind of a no-brainer: you can't sue MySpace for broadcasting on the web the stuff you've posted to their site. That's the whole point.
It does, however, point out the irony of the name: "MySpace". It's not your space, it's theirs: they pay for it, they put ads on it, and they can do what they want with it. Want to retain control over your personal profile? It's called a "personal web page" hosted on a server you pay for yourself.
Mass transport systems haven't gotten rid of the highways, bike trails, or your own two feet, so i figure public WiFi won't kill off cable modems, etc.
Right: public streets, sidewalks, and sewer systems haven't killed off private versions of... oh. Hmm.
Here's the thing: some resources really are overwhelmingly more efficient when delivered municipally (e.g. city streets, sewers). And some may be less efficient (e.g. office furniture). And some hit their sweet spot, as you suggest, with a basic municipal service supplemented by a premium private service (e.g. urban transportation systems, and possibly Internet access). New York City has an awesome subway system and pretty good buses; the city would shut down in minutes if those systems failed. But it is nice to be able to hop in a cab when it's late at night and you're close to home but in a spot that would require one or more transfers on some of the less-popular subway lines.
In general, I think americans have an irrational attachment to private, individualized service; we've been brainwashed by the rich to think that privatization serves our interests. I'd be happy to see only delivery vehicles, buses and taxis on Manhattan streets; it would lower costs and travel times for everyone. London seems to be on the right track with this strategy. I hope NYC - and, eventually, the rest of the US - wises up at some point.
I also really appreciate the pull-down folder navigation in Ubuntu/Gnome/whatever, where you can not only navigate anywhere all the way up to the root directory with the pull-down, but also flip to any open folder without having it reopen in a separate window.
I have to say, Ubuntu pretty much worked for me right out of the box on my laptop (Dell Inspiron), which is more than the other distros I tried. The few tweaks I eventually made weren't a big deal, and they got fixed in Hoary. Ubuntu has greatly impressed me with its accessibility and functionality: it's my number one example of open source operating systems growing up and venturing out of the techie ghetto.
Personally, I think Tesla was full of shit. Because, you know, he was a famous inventor and I'm some anonymous schlub on teh Intarweb and saying so makes me feel better about myself.
and probably more difficult to clearly state theft of said original work.
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of their property. Copyright infringement is speech that intrudes on the monopoly granted by the federal government on certain expressions.
No matter how many times this distinction is made, the *AA crowd seems to be able to sucker people into believing they're the same thing. Amazing.
If you're intent on analogizing copyright infringement to a property crime (although copyright is only a pseudo-property right), "trespass" (get off my land!) or "trespass to chattels" (you borrowed my sweater without asking!) are much closer analogies than "theft".
This also makes for more interesting discussions about copyright and property rights when one considers that all copyrighted material draws from the public domain, just as all real property in e.g. North America was originally stolen from the native inhabitants.
Slashdot Mirror
the plaintiff's exclusive right to distribute or copy the works has not been shown to have actually occurred,
Sorry; this should read "the plaintiff's exclusive right to distribute or copy the works has not been shown to have actually been infringed".
Just so. Every first-year law student learns on the first day of Torts class that a tort offense (a category that includes copyright infringement) has four elements, all of which must be proved in order to collect a remedy from the defendant:
1. The defendant must have had a DUTY to the defendant (such as a duty to respect the copyrights of the plaintiff).
2. The defendant must be guilty of a BREACH of that duty (e.g., by participating in the unauthorized copying or distribution of a work under copyright).
3. CAUSATION: the breach must have been the proximate cause of some infringement of the plaintiff's rights.
4. The plaintiff must have suffered DAMAGES as a result. In civil law, the rule is: no harm, no foul.
Now, in some cases of copyright infringement, plaintiffs are able to rely on a statutory assessment of damages (element 4) instead of actual damages because the damage done to their copyright is (in theory) difficult to assess. This principle is pretty shaky, when you look at the theoretical underpinnings, but it's what the courts and legislature have allowed.
This case seems to have now done away with element 3 as well: the plaintiff's exclusive right to distribute or copy the works has not been shown to have actually occurred, so there's no proof that the (alleged) breach actually caused an infringement of the plaintiff's rights.
I certainly hope that the judge calls for a new trial, as this precedent seems to create a new category of "attempted torts", which would transform the entire legal system if allowed to stand.
What was it, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Germany or Japan could've hit, but chose not to because of our (continuing) adherence?
Like I said: breathtakingly shortsighted. Japan is the only one of those nations that ever attacked US soil. There's no reason to think this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. But if you're someone who thinks that ths US is currently in compliance with international law, I think you and I are going to have to disagree.
Your premises get "upgraded" from being "civilian" to "dual use", but none of America's real enemies today care for that fancy legal distinction anyway.
This is a shocking statement, not only in its ignorance of current affairs, but also its shortsightedness. Read some military history and find out what happens to countries that declare that jus belli no longer applies to them. The US has always (until recently) adhered to international laws of war for very good reasons; this recent call to abaondon them is a terrifying development, because it invites atrocities against our soldiers as well as our civilian populations. This may not make a difference to terrorist groups who already ignore these distinctions, but if you think those are the only forces the US will face in the next 30 years, you are an idiot.
The previous post was exactly right: when you recruit civilian computers to carry out military attacks, those computers and their operators become legitimate military targets. This is a terrible idea.
Food shortages are all the rave now
Ecstasy, flashing lights, glowsticks, cargo pants, trance music, and famine.
Worst. Rave. Ever.
the result is like watching a group of preschoolers attempting to juggle swords
I don't understand why you characterize this as a problem...
Wikipedia says that a yottabyte is, as you say, not a billion but a quadrillion gigabytes (10^24).
The write-up gets this wrong, but so does the article... in a different way. (It says that a yottabyte is "a thousand exabytes", when it's really a million exabytes. An exabyte is 10^18.)
WTF.
It would be nice if other signatories to the Berne Convention started pirating US copyrights like mad, then told the US that they'll start respecting their copyright treaty obligations as soon as the US starts respecting its Convention Against Torture obligations.
Until it is clear that kdawson's work was a derivative work of Star Wars, kdawson would have standing to sue. If Viacom argued that they did not infringe on kdawson's work because kdawson's work was derived from George Lucas's work, all Viacom would be saying is that the wrong plaintiff came after them.
Unless I'm mistaken, "Party X lacks standing to bring this claim" and "Party X is the wrong plaintiff to bring this claim" are equivalent statements. But then, the first few weeks of law school are quite a blur in my memory, and perhaps I never learned how to define the most basic terminology used by my profession. Such lapses in expertise are probably more common than one would suspect.
With the caveat that I have not looked for any cases that address this issue, I suspect that the courts would dismiss the issue unless George Lucas joined as a party to the case or unless he granted Viacom a license to the Star Wars-themed commercials. I suspect that a lot of courts would accept an argument analogous to a property law argument. If you are trespassing on a property, claim it as your own, and then I subsequently trespass on that property, you can eject me. I can't claim that someone else actually owns the property because between you and me, you have the strongest claim to the property. Between kdawson and Viacom, kdawson has the strongest claim to the Star Wars-themed commercials copyright.
I can't think of a copyright case that employs this line of reasoning. To the contrary: many copyright infringement claims have been defeated by a defendant's showing that the plaintiff does not hold an enforceable copyright on the (allegedly) infringed work. (This tactic is almost universally employed in the defeat of patent infringement claims, largely because the bar for patentability is much higher than copyrightability.) And not only is it quite rare for courts to import theories from real property to copyright without it causing major ripples in the understanding of the law, but the principle you articulate does not, to my knowledge, exist in real property law either. Try setting up your tent in a public park and ejecting trespassers on "your" land if you would like to see how a court would interpret this claim.
I agree with you that it's possible that Viacom's lawyers would avoid using the "unauthorized derivative work" theory if they had some reason to fear George Lucas much more than kdawson and if they weren't confident that their use of the clip was fair. But I don't think it's particularly likely. Viacom and Lucas have heavy incentives to extend professional courtesy toward each other and to shut kdawson out of the whole business. But then, I know less about Hollywood industrial politics than I do about copyright law.
Work #2: The Star Wars-themed commercial produced by kdawson. This might be a derivative work of Star Wars, or it might be an original work. Since George Lucas is not involved here, who cares? Viacom cannot argue that because kdawson's work might infringe on the works of George Lucas that Viacom has the right to use kdawson's work.
No, but it might mean that kdawson does not have standing to sue Viacom if it turns out that he doesn't hold a copyright on the work due to its nature as an unauthorized derivative of Lucas's work.
See 17 USC 103(a):
The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
The authorities differ on whether that clause would apply to the entirety of kdawson's work or only the Star Wars elements of it. In California, precedent exists suggesting that the entire work is covered only by Lucas's copyright.
[This is not legal advice.]
So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like.
Actually, a contract binding one party to participate in anal sex is unenforceable. A similar principle is at stake here: copyright is a heavily regulated system, and the interaction of contract and copyright is much more complex than you describe.
Google "first sale doctrine", "fair use", and "antitrust copyright misuse" for an intro to these complexities.
(Oh, whoops! I should have said, "Use the Google search engine - a trademark of Google Corp. - to find information on...")
Let me get this straight... you're against government coming up with efficient highway-safety enforcement, but you're all for overprotective fathers throwing an "old fashioned lynching" when their little angels start mingling with (I loved this line) an "18 year old drop out weed head"... presumably a black guy, if you really want this lynching to be old fashioned in true American style.
You're right, John -- you're not ready for this technology. For that matter, how are you dealing with the "movable type" and "indoor plumbing" thing? Because as far as I can tell, you're not dealing well with the 20th century, much less the 21st.
No, they wouldn't. Thousands of documents are sitting around in formats that can't be read by anything running on an OS anyone currently uses. This may some day be Word's fate. Unless someone goes to the trouble to "convert to text" today (and I can guarantee you they won't), these documents will some day be the equivalent of boxes of punch-cards.
And what do you end up with? A job that could still always be outsourced if someone gets that bug up their ass.
Seumas, you've hit the nail on the head. This is an old, old story about capital and labor. And while Americans have been living in a bubble for the last several decades, they're finally starting to wake up to the realities that drove the Socialist movements of the '30's.
Pick up some Marx. Read it with an open mind. I think you'll find the ideas fresh and highly relevant.
No, you didn't. The post is still on ./. You copied my post.
So what have you lost?
I don't know... what has someone lost when he or she gets raped? Privacy? Autonomy? Dignity? Reputation? Peace of mind? Economic advantage? These things are no more or less material than what is lost by the owner of an infringed copyright.
You've convinced me. "Theft" is the same thing as copyright infringement, as is "rape". From now on, I'm going to call people who infringe on others' copyrights "rapists".
Reinventing the definitions of words is fun!
The other websites stole their content? You mean Perfect 10 doesn't have those pictures anymore because they were stolen?
Please, let's not adopt **AA Newspeak: the name of the offense is "copyright infringement". Calling it "theft" is as accurate as calling it "rape".
It's actually called copyright infringement.
Well, I agree with you that GTA feeds into a lot of pretty offensive racial caricatures. As for the "black community of the inner cities" being a "complete joke", I'm not sure what you mean. Economically depressed black communities in America have a lot of problems to deal with, but few of them are funny.
Let's see the game is about black men running around smacking hoes... Why is it relevant that they're black? Are you saying that people should object to the racial stereotyping going on, or that these acts are particularly shocking when carried out by black people?
Exactly. Hence "nonexclusive". You retain the copyright and can still license the work to others; but MySpace has a license to distribute your work too. This is kind of a no-brainer: you can't sue MySpace for broadcasting on the web the stuff you've posted to their site. That's the whole point. It does, however, point out the irony of the name: "MySpace". It's not your space, it's theirs: they pay for it, they put ads on it, and they can do what they want with it. Want to retain control over your personal profile? It's called a "personal web page" hosted on a server you pay for yourself.
Right: public streets, sidewalks, and sewer systems haven't killed off private versions of... oh. Hmm.
Here's the thing: some resources really are overwhelmingly more efficient when delivered municipally (e.g. city streets, sewers). And some may be less efficient (e.g. office furniture). And some hit their sweet spot, as you suggest, with a basic municipal service supplemented by a premium private service (e.g. urban transportation systems, and possibly Internet access). New York City has an awesome subway system and pretty good buses; the city would shut down in minutes if those systems failed. But it is nice to be able to hop in a cab when it's late at night and you're close to home but in a spot that would require one or more transfers on some of the less-popular subway lines.
In general, I think americans have an irrational attachment to private, individualized service; we've been brainwashed by the rich to think that privatization serves our interests. I'd be happy to see only delivery vehicles, buses and taxis on Manhattan streets; it would lower costs and travel times for everyone. London seems to be on the right track with this strategy. I hope NYC - and, eventually, the rest of the US - wises up at some point.
I have to say, Ubuntu pretty much worked for me right out of the box on my laptop (Dell Inspiron), which is more than the other distros I tried. The few tweaks I eventually made weren't a big deal, and they got fixed in Hoary. Ubuntu has greatly impressed me with its accessibility and functionality: it's my number one example of open source operating systems growing up and venturing out of the techie ghetto.
Personally, I think Tesla was full of shit. Because, you know, he was a famous inventor and I'm some anonymous schlub on teh Intarweb and saying so makes me feel better about myself.
Oh, and I do mean "stolen", not "trespassed upon".
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of their property. Copyright infringement is speech that intrudes on the monopoly granted by the federal government on certain expressions.
No matter how many times this distinction is made, the *AA crowd seems to be able to sucker people into believing they're the same thing. Amazing.
If you're intent on analogizing copyright infringement to a property crime (although copyright is only a pseudo-property right), "trespass" (get off my land!) or "trespass to chattels" (you borrowed my sweater without asking!) are much closer analogies than "theft".
This also makes for more interesting discussions about copyright and property rights when one considers that all copyrighted material draws from the public domain, just as all real property in e.g. North America was originally stolen from the native inhabitants.