We've got to come up with a new term. I don't want to simply re-use Checkmate, but there has to be a term for when Mike is not simply right when he corrects an assertion made by a critic, but is so right that the only way to continue saying that he is wrong is to abandon all logic and reason, and thus, credibility or any right to be taken seriously.
I don't get it, people have known for years that those links were vulnerable, maybe even enemies of the US, those companies have servers all around the world and they didn't thought others would peek?
Not really true. Most people quite reasonably assumed that those links weren't vulnerable, because they're not accessible to the outside world. Just like, if I have two computers connected at home, I don't encrypt the data exchange between them because I have a reasonable belief that no one unauthorized is sitting between them.
The issue here is that it appears that *most likely* an outside party, such as Level3 who helped run these networks, gave the NSA access (perhaps under court order). But an outside party, such as the "enemies of the US" you state, wouldn't have access to these links directly. So not sure how they would go about getting access. NSA is able to because it can issue a court order and force Level3 to throw a tap on the line. Not so much with others.
Sheesh...you antipathy towards virtually all legal proceedings seems to be preventing you from giving consideration to the fact that private entities and sovereign nations do not stand on a equal footing in matters of law.
I have no antipathy at all towards legitimate legal proceedings. Not sure why you'd read otherwise unless -- as you have proven time and time again, you're simply not very good at understanding things, and prefer to throw insults my way rather than unlearn the bullshit you learned after years of working in an industry that relied almost exclusively on government support.
No, companies don't stand on equal footing. That's kind of the way it should be -- which is the very point we were making which, as per usual went way over your head. We're quite concerned with the consequences of giving corporations their own sovereignty, as we've explained in detail, and which you have yet to give a good reason to disagree other than "nuh uh."
Re what you term "crony capitalism", the squeaky wheel does get the grease, and especially when that wheel is associated with a major industry that might easily be undercut by a waive of the hand with a foreign signatory to a trade agreement. Are you really so utopian naïve that a foreign signatory can by the easiest of measures give promises "come to our country, you will not at all regret it" and then trash those promises the minute it suits them?
Again, there are already quite reasonable mechanisms in place to deal with exactly that situation without giving corporations sovereign level powers to totally disrupt country-level decisions about what is best for the public concerning things like intellectual property, access to medicines, employee safety and the like.
We are playing hardball for any number of reasons, some tied to the economic importance of what we proposed to export, the importance that once exported they deserve to be subject to a level playing field, etc.
A "level playing field" is a bullshit statement.. That's the lie that the USTR is spreading and you fell for it. You're incredibly gullible when it comes to people spewing bullshit.
You keep harping that the US is being a bully for trying to secure agreement by others that US rules of law should serve where appropriate as a legal framework. Are you really so uninformed that you fail to realize that much of current US law was imported into to US by necessity in order for US industries to export into a level playing field, and that much of what has transpired over the years has been to change many excesses of those imported laws to make them more palatable and fair? Not that you will deign to agree, but contrary to the positions you spout US laws of these types are not created in a vacuum and do receive significant consideration before presented as legislative bills. One would think that the Copyright Act of 1976, which had its beginning in the early to mid 50's would give a clue.
As per usual, you either do not understand, or purposely misrepresent what I've said. Why you feel the need to do this... I have my suspicions.
That said, yes, of course treaties are used to align certain rules. But that doesn't mean all rules should be aligned. In fact, your example proves my point. The state of awful copyright law we're in today is partly because of this stupid process, making it nearly impossible to fix some of the worst things of copyright. I've even seen you mention, I believe, that you agree copyright terms are too long. Wouldn't it be great if we weren't stuck in Berne and could actually fix it?
The problems of locking in laws that may be really really stupid and harmful to the public and to the economy should be obvious -- unless you are willfully ignorant.
As for what it takes to be a political deal maker, I suggest you stick with where you are. High stakes discussions are not for the faint of heart who have degrees from Utopian University.
And of course, the blatant insult. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you really shouldn't insult people who know better than you. You are wrong. You don't know what you're talking about and you pretend you're a hell of a lot smarter than everyone, when nearly every time you open your mouth you make it clear that you are, remain, and continue to be full of shit.
This site has recently instituted a policy of placing stealth video ads (stealth because they don't start until you've been there for a minute or so) on it's pages. I find this annoying and distracting, because I have to chase around to find out where the noise is coming from and stop it. This page had two of them on it, one starting after the other.
This is simply untrue. We have a strict policy with all of our advertising partners that they cannot show autoplay video or audio ads. It is true that sometimes they sneak through. In such cases, the best thing is to alert us (if you can take a screenshot, even better) and let us smack our ad partners around about it.
Beasties didn't "copy" the Isley Brothers, you musically retarded buffoon.
" I can remember we wrote the song “Girls” on the train to Washington, D.C. We started with the idea of what the song would be. It was rooted in the Isley Brothers’ “Shout.” What would a rap version of “Shout” sound like? And if you listen to it now, you’ll see it’s really similar." -- Rick Rubin, producer of "Girls"
I like the Techdirt website. I often refer Techdirt posts. You do some great work on government surveillance and open source software development. But you do not understand respect for an artist, his/her wishes, or respect for an artist's work. I'm not sure why you don't understand and I will refrain from speculating.
I have tremendous respect for artists, but that includes their own ability to create new works as well. What if an artist declares they no longer like a particular song and you still like it?
Are you disrespecting their wishes by still listening to it?
The point is that once something is out in the world it will inspire different people in different ways, and that's the nature of culture. Artists don't get to control that. They can influence it, but not control.
How would you feel if the Isley Brothers -- who the Beasties copied to write this very song, "Girls," found it disrespectful? Would you slam the Beastie Boys in the same way? The Beastie Boys did not get permission to mimic "Shout" and they did so anyway. Given the lyrics of the song, the Isley Brothers would have a very strong argument that it was disrespecting their own wishes. Would the world be a better place without the Beasties being able to write record and release that song?
Respect comes in a number of different ways.
And, thankfully, the whole point of fair use is to allow a creative outlet that allows for greater creation without having to seek permission -- even if the original artist doesn't like it. That's kind of a good thing, don't you think?
What in the fuck is up with all the LOUD ASS video advertisements on TechDirt lately? Jesus fucking Christ. I can't even read the site at during the day anymore without being embarrassed at interrupting my coworkers with an ad for Toyota loudly interrupting the place.
We don't allow autoplaying ads on the site. If you see one, the best way to inform us is to note what the ad is for (if you can also figure out where it comes from (i.e., what ad network) and then use the contact us link to let us know, so we can investigate and smack around which ever ad network failed to follow our policies.
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
See, told you that they wouldn't win the case - that's why they dropped it.
There are many reasons to drop the case even if they would have won it.
Do you actually believe a "big fan" of the Beastie Boys wouldn't know their position on not being used for commercial ends?
Sure. Being a big fan of a band's music doesn't mean you know everything they say or do, or their positions on things.
Also, just because GoldieBlox dropped their lawsuit doesn't mean the Beastie Boys don't have recourse to further the case. They were wronged, whether you'll admit it or not, because you won't, and like Tom Waits, they can probably get money out of GoldieBlox for acting in an illegal fashion. Yes Mike, illegal endorsement of GoldieBlox by appropriating the Beastie Boys music and name to help rack up 8 million views. Will the Beastie Boys pursue this? Likely not, because it's a publicity issue, but if they do, it's probably to publicize that they don't want anybody to think they can pull a fast one like this ever again.
Publicity rights is a wholly different issue, one we've written about many times. Not sure your point.
At least you get to put away your shovel for a little while buckaroo!
Summary of Investor-State dispute resolution. These types of clauses are out of the ordinary, but then again in any relationship between an investor and a sovereign the sovereign is essentially judgment proof if it happens to breach the investment agreement. Not sure that placing two parties on a more equal footing is necessarily a bad thing.
If you actually understood how it's being used in practice, you'd realize that's not true. It's disingenuous to downright dishonest to argue that, say, refusing to grant a patent that Eli Lilly wants, is a form of "breaching an investment agreement."
And there are mechanisms in place to deal with such sovereign abuse, from *country* level sanctions, to the actual loss of business, to the WTO. You don't need to give corporations sovereign powers above and beyond.
As for IP section, I am not aware of anything the US has proposed that is not within the scope of international treaties.
That's not really the issue is it? The issue is that what the US is proposing is flat out crony capitalism to over protect a few lame industries, at the expense of everyone else, including innovators and the public.
Some of us believe that we shouldn't have the government protecting such companies. I recognize that you, as a product of just such a company, feels like the government's job is to protect your salary. That's why it's difficult to take you seriously.
If the USTR is playing "hard ball", then good for him.
Not if the proposals are bad. Are you so incredibly dense as to honestly believe that *any* proposal is good so long as the USTR is playing hardball?
Maybe we should move his over from the USTR to the Department of State, which seems to be in sore need of people who understand and are able to negotiate and close deals that actually mean something.
The fact that they spent the time and effort to totally re-create the photo, and tweak the lighting to give it even more "over the top" aesthetic gravitas, those help. GoldieBlox did the equivalent of the crude "head pasting" listed above. Re-doing the music for "Girls" can be done on an iPad, and should've been given a lot more effort to embody a transformative work.
That's your very subjective opinion. Others would easily argue the exact opposite. The Naked Gun poster could be done easily in Photoshop. Whereas the Girls remake involved having to rewrite the entire lyrics of the song and then record an entirely different arrangement of the music with the new song.
Based on your own argument, seems like Goldieblox has a much STRONGER fair use claim.
Naked Gun = copping style for parody, GoldieBlox = playing note-for-note rip-off.
This is both wrong and a meaningless distinction. Both Naked Gun and Goldieblox made significant changes for the sake of parody, while keeping key elements to make the parody work (i.e., to make it known what the original was).
If GoldieBlox had only lifted 1 verse of the Beastie Boys song, then taken it in a completely different direction - say, add in some Hans Zimmer EPIC STRINGS and the occasional John Powell BOOMING BASSLINE, and it'd be very transformative as an artistic work.
That only matters if they were making a different transformative argument, not a parody one. So that's meaningless.
. They went out of their way to preserve the sound/feel of the song
Which, um, is kind of the WHOLE POINT of a parody.
They embraced the overall motif of the song
Again, that's how you do a parody.
Basically, comparing a photo to a song is pretty disingenuous
You didn't just say that, did you? No offense, but it's difficult to take you seriously. Yes, there are differences between music and photos, but the argument works against you.
which the original artists would be provided consideration for the potential damage to a well-known reputation
There is NOTHING in copyright law that says that the original's reputation matters. This is a complete non-issue under the law. I'll admit that Goldieblox's move may have been an obnoxious move that many people find morally repugnant, but that's not the copyright issue.
doesn't change the fact that it's an ad first
Again, the case above is also ad first. You keep saying stuff that you believe to be true, but which is not true under the law.
Please help.... If i take all the transformer movies and split up the clips and create my own storyboard could i then make it my own and sell it to the cinemas?
No. Nor has anyone claimed otherwise. It would have to go through a fair use analysis, and that would very much depend on what you were doing with it, but merely moving the clips around without some further purpose, would almost certainly not be considered fair use.
I don't get this line of argument, frankly. People keep insisting if this one specific situation is deemed fair use that suddenly everything is fair use. No one has made that argument.
Could i take any movie and just change the vocals to make it a different story and licence it as a new movie and benefit from the copyright on it?
Again, the specifics would matter. This is why it's helpful to learn about fair use rather than making blanket statements.
I think the problem comes from many people believing that the content creator should benefit financially if any of their work is used to generate income in any way.
What many people believe and what the law actually says are two different things. And what matters is what the law says.
It's the same song with the words changed to suit the advertisement.
How do you think parody works?
When Sunkist changed the words to 'Good Vibrations' and put it in an ad do you think they claimed "parody! fair use!" and told Brian Wilson to go fuck himself?
You really ought to learn something about fair use. It can be parody if it was *commenting* on the original. In that case, it's not doing it. In this case, there's a very strong argument that they are commenting on it.
Nope. Only the robber barons in SillyCON Valley would be so douchey and stupid to try this.
Um. Okay, so you're not here for any legitimate purpose than other to argue from a position of near total ignorance. Okay then.
As I've said elsewhere, Goldieblox may be complete douchebags. But that's not particularly relevant to the question of fair use.
23andMe is a service sold and marketed directly to patients, who are much more likely to misinterpret results, worry needlessly, and make bad decisions. 23andMe can add all the disclaimers it wants, but people will tend to look at the data and ignore the disclaimers.
So the solution is to deny them the information they want about themselves? How utterly obnoxious and paternalistic of you.