Congratulations: you realized there's a moral component to the law! But you're still a dumb ass because you some how came to the conclusion that it relates to Techdirt's recent article on copyright.
And while it may have been immoral for Fairey to lie, it wasn't illegal. So, I really don't know what you think you're proving.
How is this in any way the same thing? It just seems like you're trying to get your own agenda pushed here. Anti-gun lobbyists think there should be stricter laws to prevent gun ownership simply because there is a huge correlation between countries with high gun ownership and homocide rates. Countries with less guns have far less homocides. Not only that, but there is very little indication that guns actually protect the majority of people who own them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating anything, but don't come out with a total strawman here and think you're clever. Stricter laws against homocides wouldn't work, because the people who commit them are generally not thinking of the consequences. When you decide to take a man's life, you're either being very careful (and then you're probably not using a gun anyway) or you're being reckless in which case very few laws will stop you.
In addition, you've misunderstood this argument. Apple isn't asking for any new laws to be passed. They're asking for a law currently in place not to have any exemptions in this case.
They play them with another big movie so that the most people possible can see the trailer. If the trailer goes up on YouTube, that means more people will see it, not less. It's not like they only want to air the trailers in one place - that would make less people aware of the movie, not more. The whole point of a trailer is to make people want to watch your movie. Putting it on YouTube means more people will see the trailer.
That can only be a bad thing if it's a bad trailer, and then you have bigger problems.
The ridiculous thing is that so many companies do stupid crap like this. It makes me think that they're afraid of the conversation people have when they watch trailers, but even that doesn't make sense, since conversation creates buzz. Something still illogical but less harmful would be for a company to upload their trailers to YouTube, but disable comments.
I'll never understand why companies don't just upload all their commercials on YouTube for people to watch as they please. People like commercials when they aren't forced to watch them.
Wow... for the first time, I fully understand why end-user license agreements are completely ridiculous. Seeing a real-world equivalent is both hilarious and depressing.
Those studies say that driving with a cell phone is similar to driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08, which is interestingly the highest amount your BAC can be and you'll still legally be considered competent for driving. If it's legal to drive with a BAC of 0.08%, it should be legal to drive with a cell phone.
I'm all for protecting one's privacy, but I can't imagine why someone would feel uncomfortable about this. It seems like the same sort of people who would get upset about Google StreetView.
This is just not a big deal. It might feel "big brother" but it's just a common courtesy for people who have no idea how to check their own bandwidth. If it really creeps someone out, Rogers should just add an option to opt-out.
It just seems to me like lots of people are always misjudging what is a privacy concern and what isn't.
Yeah, um, this is nothing new. We had a strict "no answering the phone during dinner" rule when I was growing up. Plenty of families watch TV, or answer the phone, or something else during dinner. If these parents are having problems, it's because they have no authority in their own households.
Not textings fault. Raise your children better, please.
If that's your problem, it doesn't seem like a difficult one to solve. Write down ONE password somewhere safe, and a password you're likely to remember. Use that password to encrypt a .doc file with all your other passwords. It's a lot safer than leaving your passwords in plain site.
"To this point, he says that a show like Seinfeld, which didn't perform all that well in its initial four episodes, wouldn't survive today. But whose fault is that? It's hard to see how it's anybody but the networks'. If they can't do a better job of determining which shows will be hits, or crafting popular shows, that certainly seems to be their own problem."
Hmm, there are faults to both those things. I can name a few examples of shows like Seinfeld, and not quite like Seinfeld, that survived in both a harsher economic climate and survived with low ratings. It happens sometimes. It happened with How I Met Your Mother, which is now CBS second most popular Monday night comedy (as a fan of the show, I used to hope it wouldn't get cancelled every few weeks in its first season). Then there's the example of Dollhouse, which had exceptionally low ratings, with the season finale being the worst - and it still got renewed!
It's up to the networks to place their faith in shows. But Carlos, I think you're being unfair. A network can't afford to keep every good quality show on air if it's not pulling in an audience. Firefly was an amazing show, and Fox dropped the ball with it, but even so, they couldn't have known it would develop a very strong fanbase. The people choosing what shows stay and what shows can't always make the right decision. Sometimes great shows must suffer for that.
I blame Google. They're really dropping the ball. They have the resources to fight these things.
All the limitations on YouTube are only going to slowly, but surely, push consumers further away from the service. I wanted to share an SNL clip on Facebook, but YouTube removed it due to copyright infringement. So, I went to DailyMotion instead. Knock one down, another will rise in its place.
It's almost like record labels, TV networks and movie studios don't want fans.
Ronald J. Riley - what you're basically saying is that the second a fan makes any profit off what they're promoting, it becomes wrong. This is an entirely ludicrous claim, since it's a win-win situation. The fans aren't doing it for the money, they're doing it to promote what they love. If they make money in the process, that isn't money lost on the part of the original content creators.
I'm in agreement with the previous poster: the concept of obtaining information from people on the web, as opposed to search engines, is nothing new. There are specialized message boards(that are sometimes a hassle, because people have to go through the process of registration for every new message board) for this sort of thing.
Whereas in Twitter's case, this form of communication only exists as a matter of consquence, there are web sites built from the ground up for this sort of thing (i.e. Yahoo! Answers).
How is this even a problem? I didn't even know there was a company called Taser! I thought all taser-like products were tasers - I thought that was just the name for any device of that kind, like a gun is a handheld rifle that shoots pieces of metal at high speeds. I didn't know taser is to handheld shock devices as Kleenex is to tissues.
This could never cause confusion to anyone. This definitely wouldn't hurt brand in any way. How utterly silly.
"Are you saying, that under Section 230 that it's impossible and illegal to ever remove the alleged defamatory content? That it has to stay there forever, well, at least until Google decides to delete it."
... I don't even see where he implied something that implies that.
What are you even saying? The article was about a woman who alleges that a blog is defamatory, but the person who made the post is dead. She can't ask him to take it down, so she's suing Google, so that Google will take it down. However, Google isn't liable for the blogger's content - someone else is, so Mike can't see how Google would be liable in court.
Then, he says, "if this was really an issue" (perhaps the only unlcear part in the post, because it suggests that something else is the issue - like money), there are other ways to take action, as Goldman has noted.
So, I have to ask, why, exactly, are you so confused?
"Woman sues Google to remove allegedly defamatory comments made by a dead guy."
Your problem is with the title? Really? Maybe English isn't [i]your[/i] first language.
Weird Harold, there are a few assumptions you're making that I don't seem very informed. But before I reply, I have to ask you this: Are you saying that you agree that the First Amendment should be ignored to protect copyright holders? In other words, are corporations and artists in such imminent dangers that lawmakers need to ignore one of this society's most important values in certain scenarios?
This isn't about dismissing copyright, either. It's about putting the burden of proof on the copyright holders, to protect the consumers so that copyright law is not abused. Your post is basically one huge straw man to divert attention from the main issue here, and you never actually stated your stance on it. So what is your stance, Weird Harold. Do you believe the law NEEDS to be bent for the good of the entire country?
"Why innovate or create if you cannot profit from it?"
Are you saying copyright is the only way people can profit off their work? For this to be true, you'd have to claim that for thousands of years, people have NOT been innovating or creating and profiting from that, or, at the very least, that people have been stealing the work of others for thousands of years and profitting greatly off of it. I am a big believer in history repeats itself, so if you can find historical examples of such occurences, that'd go a long way in helping your argument.
But I think that, if you look at it with a clear mind, you'll see that people WANT to support artists they love. Look at the HUGE adoration fans have for their favourite rock stars, or video game nerds have for their favourite company. Humans naturally attach themselves to things they appreciate, and support those things. In the end, its fans that drive sales. Fans WANT to see their favourites succeed.
If you write a book, and someone plagiarizes the entire thing and releases it right after, WORD will get out. Yes, that person might make some money off it, but people would catch on (especially in the age of hyper-communication) and support for that person would go away, and they'd lose all their credibility. For example, someone can't create a carbon copy of Harry Potter and expect to make money, even if copyright didn't exist - I'm sure if there were a bootleg Harry Potter book being sold for a quarter of the price, some people would consider buying it, but in all reality, those people probably wouldn't have bought the book in the first place.
And, you know what, if someone creates something similar to what you wrote, but does it in their own words, or changes characters or whatever, and it becomes massively successful... Do you deserve credit for it? There are knock-off Harry Potter books starring a female lead and other massive variations Russia, and JK Rowling can't shut it down, but that brings up questions like, "Do those books harm or help JK Rowling's sales?" If the books help JK Rowlings (because people are likely to figure out the source material and want to read that, too), then she shouldn't be complaining, even if it does infringe on copyright law.
Unfortunately, and this is a truth that is hard to deny these days, most people want their cake and want to eat it, too - copyright holders are the ones who want to profit off their own work, and off the work of others. If they made some success off something, and someone else made more success off a similar thing, they want to leech off that success. We see it all the time, in all sorts of avenues, including newspapers that try to make Google pay them for traffic they're getting from Google, or musicians trying to make Google pay for hits that are getting them attention on YouTube... It's all pretty ridiculous, and at this point, I think if people don't start working on restricting copyright to make it more fair, lots of people are going to lose some pretty basic rights.
"That harm cannot be proven completely, but the potential harm is clear and even likely."
It's neither of those things. If it were clear, it wouldn't just be likely, and if it were just likely, it wouldn't be clear.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Hmm. (as Cap'n Jack)
Congratulations: you realized there's a moral component to the law! But you're still a dumb ass because you some how came to the conclusion that it relates to Techdirt's recent article on copyright.
And while it may have been immoral for Fairey to lie, it wasn't illegal. So, I really don't know what you think you're proving.
Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
You must live exclusively in the internet. Her belly is amazing. If she were any skinnier she'd be sick - she'd need hospitalization.
Re: Similar to another argument... (as Cap'n Jack)
How is this in any way the same thing? It just seems like you're trying to get your own agenda pushed here. Anti-gun lobbyists think there should be stricter laws to prevent gun ownership simply because there is a huge correlation between countries with high gun ownership and homocide rates. Countries with less guns have far less homocides. Not only that, but there is very little indication that guns actually protect the majority of people who own them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating anything, but don't come out with a total strawman here and think you're clever. Stricter laws against homocides wouldn't work, because the people who commit them are generally not thinking of the consequences. When you decide to take a man's life, you're either being very careful (and then you're probably not using a gun anyway) or you're being reckless in which case very few laws will stop you.
In addition, you've misunderstood this argument. Apple isn't asking for any new laws to be passed. They're asking for a law currently in place not to have any exemptions in this case.
Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
They play them with another big movie so that the most people possible can see the trailer. If the trailer goes up on YouTube, that means more people will see it, not less. It's not like they only want to air the trailers in one place - that would make less people aware of the movie, not more. The whole point of a trailer is to make people want to watch your movie. Putting it on YouTube means more people will see the trailer.
That can only be a bad thing if it's a bad trailer, and then you have bigger problems.
The ridiculous thing is that so many companies do stupid crap like this. It makes me think that they're afraid of the conversation people have when they watch trailers, but even that doesn't make sense, since conversation creates buzz. Something still illogical but less harmful would be for a company to upload their trailers to YouTube, but disable comments.
I'll never understand why companies don't just upload all their commercials on YouTube for people to watch as they please. People like commercials when they aren't forced to watch them.
Re: It doesn't matter... (as Cap'n Jack)
Wait, what? Why does AP's permission matter?
I finally undersand... (as Cap'n Jack)
Wow... for the first time, I fully understand why end-user license agreements are completely ridiculous. Seeing a real-world equivalent is both hilarious and depressing.
Re: Re: Re: Other Activities (as Cap'n Jack)
Those studies say that driving with a cell phone is similar to driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08, which is interestingly the highest amount your BAC can be and you'll still legally be considered competent for driving. If it's legal to drive with a BAC of 0.08%, it should be legal to drive with a cell phone.
(as Cap'n Jack)
I'm all for protecting one's privacy, but I can't imagine why someone would feel uncomfortable about this. It seems like the same sort of people who would get upset about Google StreetView.
This is just not a big deal. It might feel "big brother" but it's just a common courtesy for people who have no idea how to check their own bandwidth. If it really creeps someone out, Rogers should just add an option to opt-out.
It just seems to me like lots of people are always misjudging what is a privacy concern and what isn't.
Re: Re: Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
So... You'd rather be Barbara Streisand?
Have fun with that.
Re: Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
*random angry flame*
Re: Other Activities (as Cap'n Jack)
I'd love to see those studies that claim cell phone use while driving affects people in a similarly to alcohol.
Driving under the influence is a big difference from driving with distractions.
(as Cap'n Jack)
Yeah, um, this is nothing new. We had a strict "no answering the phone during dinner" rule when I was growing up. Plenty of families watch TV, or answer the phone, or something else during dinner. If these parents are having problems, it's because they have no authority in their own households.
Not textings fault. Raise your children better, please.
Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
If that's your problem, it doesn't seem like a difficult one to solve. Write down ONE password somewhere safe, and a password you're likely to remember. Use that password to encrypt a .doc file with all your other passwords. It's a lot safer than leaving your passwords in plain site.
(as Cap'n Jack)
"To this point, he says that a show like Seinfeld, which didn't perform all that well in its initial four episodes, wouldn't survive today. But whose fault is that? It's hard to see how it's anybody but the networks'. If they can't do a better job of determining which shows will be hits, or crafting popular shows, that certainly seems to be their own problem."
Hmm, there are faults to both those things. I can name a few examples of shows like Seinfeld, and not quite like Seinfeld, that survived in both a harsher economic climate and survived with low ratings. It happens sometimes. It happened with How I Met Your Mother, which is now CBS second most popular Monday night comedy (as a fan of the show, I used to hope it wouldn't get cancelled every few weeks in its first season). Then there's the example of Dollhouse, which had exceptionally low ratings, with the season finale being the worst - and it still got renewed!
It's up to the networks to place their faith in shows. But Carlos, I think you're being unfair. A network can't afford to keep every good quality show on air if it's not pulling in an audience. Firefly was an amazing show, and Fox dropped the ball with it, but even so, they couldn't have known it would develop a very strong fanbase. The people choosing what shows stay and what shows can't always make the right decision. Sometimes great shows must suffer for that.
Google's fault. (as )
I blame Google. They're really dropping the ball. They have the resources to fight these things.
All the limitations on YouTube are only going to slowly, but surely, push consumers further away from the service. I wanted to share an SNL clip on Facebook, but YouTube removed it due to copyright infringement. So, I went to DailyMotion instead. Knock one down, another will rise in its place.
It's almost like record labels, TV networks and movie studios don't want fans.
Re: (as )
Ronald J. Riley - what you're basically saying is that the second a fan makes any profit off what they're promoting, it becomes wrong. This is an entirely ludicrous claim, since it's a win-win situation. The fans aren't doing it for the money, they're doing it to promote what they love. If they make money in the process, that isn't money lost on the part of the original content creators.
"What Twitter is enabling is an entirely different form of information gathering online"? (as )
I'm in agreement with the previous poster: the concept of obtaining information from people on the web, as opposed to search engines, is nothing new. There are specialized message boards(that are sometimes a hassle, because people have to go through the process of registration for every new message board) for this sort of thing.
Whereas in Twitter's case, this form of communication only exists as a matter of consquence, there are web sites built from the ground up for this sort of thing (i.e. Yahoo! Answers).
(as Cap'n Jack)
What the...
How is this even a problem? I didn't even know there was a company called Taser! I thought all taser-like products were tasers - I thought that was just the name for any device of that kind, like a gun is a handheld rifle that shoots pieces of metal at high speeds. I didn't know taser is to handheld shock devices as Kleenex is to tissues.
This could never cause confusion to anyone. This definitely wouldn't hurt brand in any way. How utterly silly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
"Are you saying, that under Section 230 that it's impossible and illegal to ever remove the alleged defamatory content? That it has to stay there forever, well, at least until Google decides to delete it."
... I don't even see where he implied something that implies that.
What are you even saying? The article was about a woman who alleges that a blog is defamatory, but the person who made the post is dead. She can't ask him to take it down, so she's suing Google, so that Google will take it down. However, Google isn't liable for the blogger's content - someone else is, so Mike can't see how Google would be liable in court.
Then, he says, "if this was really an issue" (perhaps the only unlcear part in the post, because it suggests that something else is the issue - like money), there are other ways to take action, as Goldman has noted.
So, I have to ask, why, exactly, are you so confused?
"Woman sues Google to remove allegedly defamatory comments made by a dead guy."
Your problem is with the title? Really? Maybe English isn't [i]your[/i] first language.
Re: (as Cap'n Jack)
Weird Harold, there are a few assumptions you're making that I don't seem very informed. But before I reply, I have to ask you this: Are you saying that you agree that the First Amendment should be ignored to protect copyright holders? In other words, are corporations and artists in such imminent dangers that lawmakers need to ignore one of this society's most important values in certain scenarios?
This isn't about dismissing copyright, either. It's about putting the burden of proof on the copyright holders, to protect the consumers so that copyright law is not abused. Your post is basically one huge straw man to divert attention from the main issue here, and you never actually stated your stance on it. So what is your stance, Weird Harold. Do you believe the law NEEDS to be bent for the good of the entire country?
"Why innovate or create if you cannot profit from it?"
Are you saying copyright is the only way people can profit off their work? For this to be true, you'd have to claim that for thousands of years, people have NOT been innovating or creating and profiting from that, or, at the very least, that people have been stealing the work of others for thousands of years and profitting greatly off of it. I am a big believer in history repeats itself, so if you can find historical examples of such occurences, that'd go a long way in helping your argument.
But I think that, if you look at it with a clear mind, you'll see that people WANT to support artists they love. Look at the HUGE adoration fans have for their favourite rock stars, or video game nerds have for their favourite company. Humans naturally attach themselves to things they appreciate, and support those things. In the end, its fans that drive sales. Fans WANT to see their favourites succeed.
If you write a book, and someone plagiarizes the entire thing and releases it right after, WORD will get out. Yes, that person might make some money off it, but people would catch on (especially in the age of hyper-communication) and support for that person would go away, and they'd lose all their credibility. For example, someone can't create a carbon copy of Harry Potter and expect to make money, even if copyright didn't exist - I'm sure if there were a bootleg Harry Potter book being sold for a quarter of the price, some people would consider buying it, but in all reality, those people probably wouldn't have bought the book in the first place.
And, you know what, if someone creates something similar to what you wrote, but does it in their own words, or changes characters or whatever, and it becomes massively successful... Do you deserve credit for it? There are knock-off Harry Potter books starring a female lead and other massive variations Russia, and JK Rowling can't shut it down, but that brings up questions like, "Do those books harm or help JK Rowling's sales?" If the books help JK Rowlings (because people are likely to figure out the source material and want to read that, too), then she shouldn't be complaining, even if it does infringe on copyright law.
Unfortunately, and this is a truth that is hard to deny these days, most people want their cake and want to eat it, too - copyright holders are the ones who want to profit off their own work, and off the work of others. If they made some success off something, and someone else made more success off a similar thing, they want to leech off that success. We see it all the time, in all sorts of avenues, including newspapers that try to make Google pay them for traffic they're getting from Google, or musicians trying to make Google pay for hits that are getting them attention on YouTube... It's all pretty ridiculous, and at this point, I think if people don't start working on restricting copyright to make it more fair, lots of people are going to lose some pretty basic rights.
"That harm cannot be proven completely, but the potential harm is clear and even likely."
It's neither of those things. If it were clear, it wouldn't just be likely, and if it were just likely, it wouldn't be clear.