Crade's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the favorite-them-up dept
This week's favorites post comes from crade
Happy Saturday to the workers. I guess we have another week of dirty tech and it would be good to review, summarize, and have a look at the best posts of the week. We aren't going to, though; we are going to have a look at the ones I happened to take a fancy to instead.
Now I am a great lover of irony and one of the things I have found the most ironic about this whole ever-encroaching copyright "cage of security" is that while the biggest pushers for a smaller cage claim it's all for the protection of the artists, they are near legendary for their constant mistreatment of those artists. Not only that but copyright is one of the strongest tools they have used to do it. So it was in the heyday of vinyl and so it is today. So, here they are again, using copyright legislation to force the takedown of the work of an emerging artist. And using their stricter rules to censor people trying to speak against them and to keep people from trying to be artists all while Senator Leahy claims there is no First Amendment issue at all.
Ironic enough? Ha! It gets better. At the same time that the record labels use stricter laws to censor new music, they are also breaking the law themselves. The artists are lining up to sue the labels for infringment and the record labels could owe them up to $2 billion. Of course making sure artists get paid for their hard work is the labels' greatest desire, their raison-d'être and certainly the reason they need to make the security cage so tight we can't breathe.
I know I shouldn't find this stuff funny, but I can't help it.
Besides being a lover of irony, I am a somewhat lawfully minded individual. I believe in the law (to a decent extent). Laws are decided jointly, to a minimum extent (if they were not, there would be rebellion), and when the law is wrong, or bad, I believe it needs to be addressed, not reinterpreted to do "less" harm, nor ignored nor casually broken. Now laws that are wrong are not easy to fix, certainly my opinion is not going to do it, and I'm not entirely convinced even logical arguments from the Harvard Business Review, explaining how big content is strangling innovation, are going to get the job done. In order to get laws changed, we need outrage.
The completely unjustified secrecy around ACTA generated some nice controversy and got a few people asking questions, and now with the TPP, they may be doing the same thing. Splendid! Alzheimer's Institute of America directly interfering with Alzheimer's research by suing a bunch of other researchers has the potential to ruffle a few feathers. Although the ridiculous liability issues Google and Yahoo are facing (Google is being found liable for its Autocomplete Suggestions and Yahoo for its users being able to search for infringing movies) are over in Italy this week, perhaps it is a sign of things to come. Or maybe it will piss them off enough to start doing more about the issue in general.
We have seen that people are willing to get up in arms about the hyperbolic amount of cashola involved in copyright infringement lawsuits, so maybe it's a good thing that the record companies aren't letting up on that front, as well, and are still appealing to try to get Joel Tenenbaum to pay $675,000 for downloading a measly 30 songs. Sliding in at the last minute, Denmark's recent decision to endorse retroactive copyright extensions sure seems outrageous to me, so here's hoping it makes some waves.
So thats what I come to Techdirt for. A little humor, and hopefully some pot stirring and a bit of hope for the future!
Re: Re:
exactly. Combine that with the fact that at least a few people think there is the potential for a problem and how much airlines love security theater, and you have your reason. No one said it was going to be a good reason :)
(untitled comment)
Way I see it is basically their house, their rules. I wouldn't be happy if someone ignored my rules at my place because they thought they knew better than me and there is no evidence that marble can be harmed by not using coasters (or whatever), so I try not to do it to others unless theres good reason..
(untitled comment)
The reason is that they aren't 100% sure that the phone couldn't interfere with the plane in some freak million to one scenario that no one has thought of. It's not because they expect interference, or because interference is likely, it's just because they haven't tested every phone in every situation. Of course they know there is hardly any chance of a problem. If there was decent chance of a problem, you can bet they wouldn't rely on their current "say and pray" policy for handling it.
On the other hand, if there was some freak problem caused by interference from a cell phone, they don't have to take responsibility for it as long as they have their token policy in place.
Re: Pharmacies outside US have no inherent right to US trade!
The reason prices are higher in the U.S. is plainly because of drug patent law there. Many other countries have much looser laws on drug patents and don't grant as much monopoly power to the first company to patent the drug.
Whether or not this means the U.S. is paying extra to front the development costs for other countries is debated, but the reason the drugs cost more in the U.S. is pretty plain.
Re: A traffic stop is not a policing, it's a REVENUE action.
So traffic rules are fascism but keeping people from repeating something you say or do is a natural right.. Got it! :)
(untitled comment)
They've done the timing thing around here, increasing the timing of yellow lights beyond what is needed to notice and stop or providing of lengthening the interval between the red and green only really helps for a short while until people adjust to it. Then those who run lights just run the red for a bit longer than they used to after the yellow and everyone else just has to wait more and gets worse general traffic flow.
(untitled comment)
I would think church and religious groups would be the hardest hit by such a tax, followed closely by historians.
Re:
Ok, so I get that she buys into the copyright is theft propaganda, so then the worst kind of theives imaginable are those who...
steal from the porn companies?
I mean porn is great and all, but I'd hardly rate it as the most noble cause imaginable.. What about people who steal organs from hospitals or something?
Re: Re:
Nah, he would only be supporting the porn companies if he were in any way legimate..
Since he is a fraud, isn't actually representing the copyright owners and is just pocketing the extortion money, he's totally in the clear :)
(untitled comment)
" Could it still be defamatory?"
Not just here, but in many places, apparently, republishing libel is still considered libel even if you make no claims about it being true. Even though you are telling the complete 100% truth, you can still get in trouble. Awesome, eh? Plus, the universal "I'm richer than you so I win" rule obviously still applies as well.
Re: Re: Still at it eh?
The simple answer is they are still at it because no one is stopping them. The question of why no one is or *can* actually stop them is what should really be addressed. Prenda is only a recent / blatant example of this sort of extortion activity. They are hardly the only example, but even the most blatant, throw it in our faces crooks can't be stopped before doing a huge amount of damage. The regular, keep it under the radar or at least bribe the right officials type crooks don't even register on the "maybe we should look into this"-ometer.
Re:
Or those people *would* be suspects assuming:
- Our client actually owned the copyright we claim someone infringed on.
- There were any actual evidence any sort of infringment happened.
- Copyright actually covered porn in the U.S.
- We were even a valid law firm
(untitled comment)
The list of possible suspects includes:
- you and your neighbors, visitors,
- possibly their neighbors, and their neighbors neighbors
- anyone with a computer, cell phone driving or passing by your area
- anyone with an internet connection if your computer connects to the internet
Re: If not an "unwarranted burden" for MPAA, then
It's blatantly obvious from where I sit
Difference is dead simple:
1) you choose to place the burden on others for your (potential) benefit
2) you choose to take the burden on yourself for your (potential) benefit
(untitled comment)
Sheesh, they already got their "no fair use can exist with DRM" law. Can't they just use that?
Re: You just admitted the basis of copyright:
Also, common law is for things that are not legislated. You are thinking of Civil law.
Re: You just admitted the basis of copyright:
We don't need to destroy it, just make it suck a little less hard.
(untitled comment)
Nintendo may not like emulation, but that doesn't mean format shifting is infringment. It's certainly legal in some places at least, making the irony non-existent.
Re: Re:
or familiarize even lol
Re:
Bradshaw needs to better familiarate herself with the definition of the term. Pretend is not a form of violence and play is only violent if you actually intend to hurt someone or something with your play. Pretend violence is a form of violence like pretend food is a form of nourishment.