LAB 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (231) comment rss

  • On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins

    LAB ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2014 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Native Americans......You have the Freedom to say it but you are confusing protecting a mark for commerce with free speech. I hope you see they are not related in the least.

  • On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins

    LAB ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2014 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My my. I thought this was an issue about Native Americans apparently it's about "Murica!"

  • On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins

    LAB ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2014 @ 10:03am

    Re: This I don't Understand

    "I live close to an area that has Indians, an I've heard plenty of derogatory terms for Indians"

    Wow, you don't even get it. They call themselves Native Americans. Do you even know where the term indians comes from? A white guy thought he had reached India and called them that and other white people continued to do so.......so sad. I wonder if you would say something racist and proclaim because you didn't know it was ok to contiue using the term....oh wait you did.......

  • On the post: Wil Wheaton Discusses TV, Cord-Cutting, Piracy… And Trying Desperately To Make Sure Fans Can Watch His Show

    LAB ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2014 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot

    But I haven't bought Star Wars merchandise in 27 years......

  • On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think

    LAB ( profile ), 30 May, 2014 @ 08:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:

    I wrote the above. For some reason it has me as an AC.

  • On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think

    LAB ( profile ), 30 May, 2014 @ 02:43pm

    Re: For a little perspective:

    I fail to see why a list of items not caused by the willful actions of others would bring perspective on terrorism. But if you would like to argue more money should be spent combating them, I do not disagree.

  • On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think

    LAB ( profile ), 30 May, 2014 @ 01:49pm

    Number of terrorist in 9/11= 19, number of deaths= 2,977, Number of non fatal injuries= 6,000, property damage $10 billion.
    Though I disagree with many governmental policies associated with national security, I would very much like to hear the author's definition of "the wholesale evisceration of freedom." In addition, if one could better define the "Security State" in which we live, I would better be able to grasp the author's argument. Because there aren't many terrorists we should....? Is the argument, there are less terrorist today than there where before? I would think the number would be about the same. I suppose labeling elected officials as "our rulers" is a bit more telling.....

  • On the post: Metropolitan Museum Of Art Claims Copyright Over Massive Trove Of Public Domain Works

    LAB ( profile ), 22 May, 2014 @ 01:39pm

    Re:

    Are you implying that Ansel Adams was not creative? Annie Leibovitz...etc. I cannot agree.
    http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/50-great-photographers-you-should-know/

  • On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder

    LAB ( profile ), 20 May, 2014 @ 08:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required

    "Everyone is a creator of content. You're taking the narrow definition of only those that sell content are creators. Wake up. This is the age of user generated content."

    Thank goodness there are professionals that make content or all I would have to watch are user generated cat videos..but seriously, yes anyone with a smartphone can take a picture but are you implying there is no distinction between a professional photographer's photo and picture shot by my aunt? Though my aunt's photo might be good, I think we can agree there is a distinction between the consistent quality of the two and a difference in value both aesthetically and economically. Just as there is a distinction between "reality television" and a motion picture, written by a writer and directed by a director etc. In addition, the creator of user generated content, (if they have not given their rights away by posting on certain platforms) retains the very same rights as those of creators that sell content.


    "That's a very poor example."

    No, it was a perfect example because you stated:

    "If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant."

    The whole point was to show a case where the current law would protect against this action and your interpretation of the law would leave no recourse. Because in my example the infringement IS "significant" yet not economically damaging. Your example was fair use, an allowance written into the statute. Because you can show an instance where someone can use a work without permission, makes my example no less valid. In fact, I would hope you would agree appropriating a work in the manner of my example should be actionable. Under current law, it is and I think the painter should be able to stop the use of the image under these circumstances.

    "It's sad that you view fan fiction as a "form of infringement" rather than a compliment to the author they are emulating."

    Why can't they be both? It is not sad, I am not alone in this view because that is what the law states. I did not say fan fiction was not a complement to the author. Rather, based on the law, it fits the definition of infringement. I also stated that not all infringement should be prosecuted. But what if a company starts selling the fan fiction? I suppose you feel the original author that created the characters, the very universe in which the story takes place, is not entitled to any of the money generated by that fan fiction? I disagree. My thoughts are not based on a theory of what rights copyright should or should not encompass rather, they are based on the statutory language that provides them. Whether or not you agree with the law is strictly personal and I concede great minds will often disagree.

    "I'm not ignoring the fact, but you're failing to realize that content doesn't have to be a product to be a sustainable business."

    No, content doesn't have to be a product, but there is nothing wrong with content being a product. In fact, the law allows it and many many businesses are built on it being so. I return to the computer program. I fail to see the fault in a computer program being a product. In fact I believe many video game producers see no problem with this either.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder

    LAB ( profile ), 20 May, 2014 @ 02:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required

    "The whole argument against infringement has been about economic damage at its core."

    Sometimes you just have the right to do what you want with what you created. I find it is often the non-creator stating that they have a right to do what they will with the creation of another. The law says otherwise.

    "If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant."

    I disagree. I paint a painting and display it in a gallery. You take a photo of my painting and place that photo, of the painting, on a website promoting the kidnapping of girls and their sale as child brides. I obviously disagree with this idea. In your construct of copyright, this is "not significant" and I have no recourse.

    "Expressions and information are intangible things. You can pretend that it isn't, but sooner or later, people will start to do what they've always done with culture. They share it."

    Intangible things have value. If they did not you would have no desire for them. I find your statement one often used to support piracy and because intangible things do have value, I cannot agree. Items have value beyond scarcity, a computer program is just one example of a good that has no physical scarcity but has "tangible" value.

    Not all forms of infringement need to be prosecuted. Some such as fan fiction may benefit the original author or copyright holder but I find the "people due what they always have done they share" as utopian, and ignoring the fact the increasingly ideas and there expression are a significant portion of the economy as the production of physical goods shifts to growing economies where labor is less expensive.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder

    LAB ( profile ), 20 May, 2014 @ 01:13pm

    Re: Proof of economic damage should be required

    "In order to pursue a copyright infringement suit, what if proof of actual (not hypothetical) economic damage were required?"

    I cannot agree. It would imply that People have a right to infringe if it is not causing economic harm. The creator has a right to decide when to release their work, where to release it, how many copies to make, how to distribute it etc... A perfect example and this really happened....A photographer takes a picture of a same sex couple kissing. He supports equal rights for all. His photo is appropriated for an ad for a political campaign of a candidate who vehemently opposes same sex marriage. Have real economic damages occurred? Are they calculable? Not likely... The photographer would have no grounds to sue to enjoin the use of his photograph by the political campaign under your proposed enforcement of copyright.

  • On the post: Ladar Levison Explains How The US Legal System Was Stacked Against Lavabit

    LAB ( profile ), 20 May, 2014 @ 01:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, this is NOT Levison's fault

    "That said, Levison still should shoulder some of the blame."

    I think this statement is more than clear and I feel the same. Yes he should shoulder SOME of the blame. How can you truly safeguard a client's information if you don't have a contingency plan when there is a legal challenge to acquire it. I am not implying what the government did should be condoned, but business doesn't operate on a moral compass. On the contrary, to truly be prepared in a business setting, you should at least have an idea of what to do when something goes wrong, especially legally. To do anything less could imply the client's information and privacy are not a top priority.

  • On the post: This Week In Techdirt History

    LAB ( profile ), 17 May, 2014 @ 06:18pm

    Dear Michael Lynton:

    Did you not watch how the sale of music and its delivery has changed over the years? Bandwidth is now big enough to download movies in minutes. Adapt, give the people what they want or perish......

  • On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls

    LAB ( profile ), 17 May, 2014 @ 01:54pm

    "The only reason you keep bringing it up is to make them look bad."


    They didn't try to license the song first. If they had, this would have been avoided. They would have learned of the dead group member's will stating "no commercial use." They wouldn't have had to spend money on lawyers to file for Declaratory Judgment. What is fair about forcing the Beastie Boys to fight a legal battle to honor the wishes of their dead group member. They do look bad. Sorry many people thought, and still think, the wishes of a dead man are important.

    "Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming "They sued first!", instead of pointing out that it's a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy."

    People like me.... screaming....sure...You file for declaratory judgment when you know you are going to get sued. That is what a lawyer advises when asked "what should we do? we are pretty sure we are going to get sued." If they had even communicated with the group the whole nonsense would have been avoided.

    "You're not very convincing on that point."

    Sorry you feel what I right is not indicative of what I believe.

    "so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run."

    You would rather they have a long protracted legal action instead of a settlement and money going to charity? Just to prove it's fair use? Quite telling. I guess this IS an unfortunate outcome. The Beastie boys liked the use of the song. They continued legal action to honor MCA's will. In almost every infringement case the defense of fair use is used. The law is very clear on its definition. There is no need to strengthen it. It is to be used on a case by case basis. The Beastie Boys would have sued regardless. And if I was in a group, and one of us died, and it was in his will not to use our music in commercials....I would sue too. Even if we lost and it was fair use, I would have been respectful of a passed group member's wishes. I suppose if the roles were reversed and you were in the group, you would say" I know what his will says but we shouldn't fight it, it's fair use.....

  • On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality

    LAB ( profile ), 15 May, 2014 @ 05:47pm

    I really want to see if Wheeler and the FCC will strike down local and state legislation that impedes municipalities from providing internet access.

  • On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls

    LAB ( profile ), 15 May, 2014 @ 05:31pm

    The they sue the Beasties first."

    "As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment"

    Who took legal action first? Lawyers must be hired, lawyer costs money. I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No

    "They stole the song..."

    Listen, I know we disagree a lot but please read what I wrote. I didn't say I thought this, I said that was public perception. you asked me to explain how the ad campaign could hurt them that's all I did.

    "It's bad enough when you claim infringement is theft"

    Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.

    Ask yourself these questions. Is it against the law? Does it belong to me? Does it belong to someone else? Did they give it to me as a gift? Did I take it? You can call it whatever you want. All infringement is not theft. Some is. Piracy would seem to satisfy the above definition. Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view.

    Did you not see where I said they didn't need permission if it was fair use? This is what I wrote:

    "This might very well have been fair uses."

    "I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song."

    The Beastie boys agreed with you and so do I, that's why I said I didn't see why the outcome of the case was all that bad. Instead of the group getting the money, its going to charity. Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?

    "Just another big bad company that does what it wants..."

    Again, public perception. I don't think this. You asked why I thought the ad campaign could hurt sales and I told you how some people could see it. What is the point of advertising? To get people to buy your product and to make the company look good. When they started getting bad press for using a song, it made them look like the bad company and made the Beastie Boys into two guys trying to honor the wishes of their dead band member, who died from cancer, and not some guys just trying to get paid.(public perception).
    That is how it could have a negative effect on sales

  • On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls

    LAB ( profile ), 15 May, 2014 @ 07:13am

    "The people who were getting so pissy about it are not exactly the products' target market."

    It was not the ad itself more the reaction to it. Adults buy toys for children. So the target market is truly adults. The company uses a Beastie boys song but does not attempt to license it(I'm not saying they legally need to presuming it's fair use). The they sue the Beasties first. Then the Beasties say they are all for what GoldiBlox stands for but one of the dead members has, in his will, not to use their songs for commercials. Public perception of the company? They stole the song, didn't try to get permission to use it, and would ignore the wishes of a dead group member all for a commercial for kids toys.......terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker. Tag line ...Just another big bad company that does what it wants......

  • On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls

    LAB ( profile ), 14 May, 2014 @ 03:15pm

    This might very well have been fair use. How this "seems like an unfortunate result," doesn't make that much sense to me. What is the purpose of advertisement? To convince customers to buy your product. Was this ad doing that? Quite the opposite. I doesn't matter if it was fair use or not. The ad they spent $$ on was doing the opposite of its intended purpose. The company wants to further science ed for girls, and what are they doing instead of paying the Beasties? Donating $$ for science ed for girls. In what world is this a bad outcome? Most suits settle regardless if you are "right" or "wrong"

  • On the post: Over 100 Internet Companies Call On FCC To Protect The Open Internet

    LAB ( profile ), 08 May, 2014 @ 08:20am

    Re: Re: Re: 100 companies...

    "If you actually paid direct to (say) Level3 or he.net for bandwidth, your 10 meg home connection would cost you somewhere between $200 and $1000 a month. Are you ready to pay for what you really use?"

    Using your hypothetical numbers, I could sell to a group of people the use of said connection and bring my cost back down to $50. I probably would be able to turn a profit because I could get enough people and throttle use so we all aren't using the connection at the same time. The real problem is without competition there is no incentive to upgrade the hardware. If google fiber were everywhere the monopolies would be forced to lower prices because they would lose business. If municipalities were allowed to provide service the competition would lower prices. Upgrading hardware would be forced. That is outcome of competition in the market place

  • On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken

    LAB ( profile ), 08 May, 2014 @ 07:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I can't believe you brought pizza into this discussion. Comparing scarce goods to infinitely copyable digital files is just stupid and ignorant. Any shred of an argument you might have is completely undermined by this apples and orangoutangs comparison."

    No it really isn't and it was just an example to illustrate a lost sale. Infinitely copyable digital files have value,not in production cost but in the content of the file. You would not want that particular file if it had no worth. Is a printed poster of a Monet painting only worth the ink and the paper it is printed on? Of course not. They sell for 1000x the production cost because the value is in the image. An image or music has no value or monetary worth because it is not a scarce good? I do not agree.

    "Nobody have ever claimed there's no such thing as a lost sale."

    That is the whole point. How do you define a lost sale? How do you calculate damages if you can't quantify a lost sale.

    "But the simple fact is that a pirated copy of something you had no intention of buying is not a lost sale.

    Of course, but why is the assumption, you had no intention of buying it? The opposite argument is that you had every intention of buying it because you now have it. If you didn't want it why do you have it? And expanding that thought, if you wanted it and now have then is it a lost sale?

    "And a sale made directly because of a pirated copy is a gained sale."

    A sale because of an advertisement, because of word of mouth, because of a coupon, because of buy one get one etc...are all sales but they are of no help in calculating damages and that is the discussion. If statutory damages were abolished what factors would be used to calculate actual damages.

Next >>