By citing Ms. Samuels at the EFF, and by association the EFF as an organization, you seem intent on relying upon a group that is "not the brightest bulb in the lamp" in matters pertaining to patent law.
Anyone who thinks that is clearly an idiot.
I mean that in the most offensive way possible, because you deserve it. Having dealt with Julie and other patent experts for quite some time, anyone who believes that she doesn't know this stuff, or that EFF is "not the brightest bulb in the lamp" concerning patent matters has no clue what they're talking about and is speaking out of ignorance, jealousy, spite or rage. Which one is it?
I know, I know, you're a big time patent lawyer, and this case threatens your very being. So you resort to the worst of the worst when confronted with reality: you lash out at those who are smarter than you.
512(f) requires specific bad faith, which does not exist here
Bragging on her Facebook about how she'll send DMCA notices until the blog is shut down is not evidence of bad faith? Really?
The copyright holder is not qualified to determine fair use, as it is a judgement call based on a number of factors. It is not a hard and fast rule.
You're right that fair use isn't a hard and fast rule, but that's a different issue. I was just responding to your claim that 512(f) is only about direct misrepresentation of who holds the copyright. That's wrong.
Now you're just moving the goalposts because you were shown to be wrong.
Of course no one ever said that the copyright holder has to affirmatively determine if something is fair use. Just that they need to take it into account. So even in your moving the goalposts you get the facts wrong.
It isn't only for that (and I made no such claim)
Actually, you did. You claimed that the reason that 512f was there was for one specific case. I told you you were wrong. And now you're pretending you didn't say what you said.
Can you explain to us how a copyright holder can, with 100% certainty, note that something is absolute and beyond all doubt fair use in all cases?
Again, you're pretending anyone claimed that was the case. Nice logical fallacy.
512(f) is there specifically to handle people claiming to hold copyright on something they do not own, essentially a bad faith claim of copyright ownership where none exists. As Crosley-Corcoran is certainly the rights holder for the image, there is little come back that fits into 512(f).
That's not what the law says. You are wrong. It says you violate 512(f) if you "misrepresent that the *activity* is infringing." If they wanted it to say that you misrepresent that you're the rightsholder, they would have said that. But they do not.
And, the Copyright Act clearly states that "fair use is not an infringement." Thus, a fair use is not infringing. Thus, it is clear from the statute that misrepresenting if something is fair use is a violation of 512(f) contrary to what you say above.
So I don't see where you get your claim that 512(f) is only for cases where there is a claim on a copyright they don't own. The law doesn't say that, and the courts haven't interpreted it that way at all.
What they said was that "because Judge Wright's order came from a different state than here in Georgia, which happens to hold to some very legal precedents than Georgia does, (and here's a list of several important ones, such as gay marriage,) it should not be honored here."
That would only matter if they were saying that there's a precedent here or that Wright's ruling was binding on the GA court, but no one said that.
They're just putting this into the record as a finding of fact.
So, yes, it is ridiculous. Very, very ridiculous. And crazy.
So many 'different' commenters, so many identical snowflakes... Nazaire, shouldn't you be working on climbing out of the pit of despair your actions have thrown you into, rather than trying (and failing) to make your actions look less insane via posting support from 'multiple' people?
I love it when people don't realize how the snowflakes work and pretend to be different people.
Also, take a guess what state those comments come from? You only get one guess, and if you're wrong, you really need to check your logic sensors.
The opinion is all sorts of wrong. The reasoning is terrible. It mangles the doctrine. But congratulations, you won. I'm happy for you.
This confuses me. Whenever I point out that I think a court got something wrong, you just focus on what the courts said as if they're pure gospel. And once, in talking about the Betamax ruling you bizarrely added up all the judges across all levels who said it was copyright infringement, and argued that showed what a strong argument it was.
And yet here, where probably half a dozen district court judges all said this was a sham transfer, and now 3 appeals court judges agree, you claim that they've all gotten it wrong?
You have all sorts of things in play here. Contractually, the tickets and restrictions make any video shot in the venue copyright and owned not by the creator but by the artist.
That's simply not true. There are rules regarding the assignment of copyright, and ticket restrictions are not enough to assign the copyright to the artist.
The performance, like it or not, is copyright to the artist. Filmed without permission in a private venue (not on the street public performance) can't change that.
That's simply not true. That's not how copyright law works.
Moreover, the video couldn't be released at best without artist releases / model releases / venue releases and such. Each and every one of them would have a valid claim for use of their likeness, vanue, location without permission.
Also not true in most circumstances. There are all sorts of reasons why you absolutely can show that kind of video without those releases.
The artist formerly known as likable is in charge here, and right. DMCA is the expedient way to take it down, and at the same time, it also saves the poster from a huge lawsuit that they would easily lose on all of those points.
Nearly everything you say here is wrong under the law. It's not a copyright claim, so using the DMCA is an abuse of copyright law.
Sounds like a real doctor to me. Licensed and practice clinical psychologist. I'd love to see where he pretended to be an M.D. Doesn't sound at all plausible, Mike. I know you're an evidence-based buy, so I can't wait to see your evidence.
Megaupload wasn't even notified of its domain seizure nor was it given the oppotunity to contest.
You're confusing seizure and forfeiture I believe. All of the seizures happen without notification.
It's only after that, if you follow a particular process, you can protest the forfeiture process. Seizure is supposed to be temporary, forfeiture is permanent.
So, in Dajaz1, they were seized with no notification and then the process was delayed when Dajaz1 sought the return of the domain. With Rojadirecta, the government actually filed for forfeiture after Roja first sued the government over the seizure.
Recently, however, on June 20, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision which, while ostensibly limited to the facts of that case, nonetheless strongly indicates that hot news misappropriation claims are generally preempted by the Copyright Act....
International News Service v. Associated Press is no longer precedential law because it relied on the concept of federal common law, which the Supreme Court determined in 1938 federal courts had no power to create. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
Separately, can you name a successful hot news case in the last decade?
You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not.
You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right? Apparently not.
... well, under this name, right? What is this, your 6th or 7th "persona" on the site? You took a bigger break this time than last.
What amazes me is that you never change your writing style (other than that one time when you couldn't type capital letters -- remember that?). It's obvious its you every time you pop up with your logic free arguments.
As the AC above points out, 18 USC Section 2 says those who aid, abet, or "induce" others to violate any of the criminal statutes in title 18 (which would include criminal infringement) is guilty as a principle. In other words, that the person can be held criminally liable as though he himself committed the violation. This is a much older and established part of US than the Grokster opinion. Mike says above that "supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different." But one doesn't have to "support" the DOJ to read Section 2 and see that it criminalizes "inducing" someone else to commit a crime (as well as the more familiar "aiding" or "abetting" them).
As Karl explained above, and as we've discussed in detail in the past: you have to show aiding and abetting *CRIMINAL* infringement. They may be able to show support for civil infringement, but that's different and doesn't qualify here.
Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement.
As in the Rojadirecta case, they're mixing and matching the different elements of criminal copyright infringement. They need to show that someone *willfully* engaged in significant infringement for profit (or worth a significant amount or a pre-release copy). The government doesn't even make this argument.
It, at best, is arguing that there is some civil infringement, and then that Dotcom and crew induced *civil* infringement for profit. But that's not how the law works.
Perhaps I should clarify. $1.99/month by itself isn't much. But the fact that it's just for a single channel seems like an issue. Hulu Plus and Netflix are both $7.99/month for a ton of content. So... that's just 4 YouTube channels. Just seems expensive in comparison.