But Techdirt loves to call out the use of the words "steal" and "theft". Why? Because those words are loaded with negative connotations and are seen as biasing the argument.
I'm not sure the problem is the negative connotations associated with those words. The objection everyone has is that both "steal" and "theft" are completely, blatantly, unquestionably incorrect descriptions of what happens when media is pirated.
It's as good as me using a bunch of science to clone someone and then be accused of murdering the original. How does that logical leap occur?
Theft is a crime, no doubt. It also has a definition that makes it possible for people to be prosecuted for it. Copying is not theft. The two just aren't related.
That's exactly the point Mr Keller has failed to realise. Or does realise but has chosen to ignore to try make his point seem slightly less absurd.
Twitter is status updates. Twitter is very short, one to many, broadcasts. For a long time there wasn't even the functionality within the main Twitter interface to allow you to take part in a discussion based on one Tweet. That's changed recently with the new Twitter interface, enabling people to follow a "conversation", but the functionality is naturally clunky, as that just isn't what Twitter is for.
One of the most infuriating examples of Twitter use is when someone has a story to tell, and they split it out over 5-10 sequential messages. That's just not what Twitter is designed for.
If James Gannon doesn't want people to link to his content if they wish to discuss it, I can only assume that he would much prefer that it be quoted, in full, in the body of any article written about it...
sorry but the tweet was made to encourage violation, part of the package. twitter doesnt make the posts someone else does. the tweets are part of the promotion of their site which is actively promoting copyright violation. thin of the twitter account as an extension of the actual site in question. then it all makes sense.
And if Twitter had removed the post because it violated their ToS that state you can't link to copyright infringing material, then fair enough. But that's not why the Tweet was removed. If it were they'd need to remove all of the Tweets that actively promote drugs, porn, and countless other illegal activity.
It was removed because of a DMCA takedown notice. Those notices apply to direct infringement. Which was not in the Tweet, anywhere.
If Viacom argues that converting a video to a different format makes it a transformative work that Google owns instead of the original creator/uploader, wouldn't that make MP3 sharing legal?
That was the argument used by BlueBeat when they claimed they could sell licensed music legally, because they passed it through their magic mp3 machine. The response to that argument was pretty much "lol no".
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Robinson.
Re:
I'm not sure the problem is the negative connotations associated with those words. The objection everyone has is that both "steal" and "theft" are completely, blatantly, unquestionably incorrect descriptions of what happens when media is pirated.
It's as good as me using a bunch of science to clone someone and then be accused of murdering the original. How does that logical leap occur?
Theft is a crime, no doubt. It also has a definition that makes it possible for people to be prosecuted for it. Copying is not theft. The two just aren't related.
Completely missing the point
That's exactly the point Mr Keller has failed to realise. Or does realise but has chosen to ignore to try make his point seem slightly less absurd.
Twitter is status updates. Twitter is very short, one to many, broadcasts. For a long time there wasn't even the functionality within the main Twitter interface to allow you to take part in a discussion based on one Tweet. That's changed recently with the new Twitter interface, enabling people to follow a "conversation", but the functionality is naturally clunky, as that just isn't what Twitter is for.
One of the most infuriating examples of Twitter use is when someone has a story to tell, and they split it out over 5-10 sequential messages. That's just not what Twitter is designed for.
Re:
Enjoy
http://blog.searchmetrics.com/us/2011/04/12/googles-panda-update-rolls-out-to-uk/
Alternative Solution
If James Gannon doesn't want people to link to his content if they wish to discuss it, I can only assume that he would much prefer that it be quoted, in full, in the body of any article written about it...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Loophole
If Viacom argues that converting a video to a different format makes it a transformative work that Google owns instead of the original creator/uploader, wouldn't that make MP3 sharing legal?
That was the argument used by BlueBeat when they claimed they could sell licensed music legally, because they passed it through their magic mp3 machine. The response to that argument was pretty much "lol no".