I haven't seen the rangeCheck code, but, like Judge Alsup, I'm pretty confident I could write something similar in about 5 minutes -- just like the hypothecated high school student. That Oracle's counsel suggests he "probably couldn't program that in six months" makes me question his competence to take part in this trial.
Someone on Twitter suggested that they didn't really want to go public; it's just that they couldn't figure out the privacy settings either.
And I have to disagree with this article: it's all very well Facebook's founders and early investors earning $100b for building, growing and supporting the site, but it's frankly terrible that those who bought shares today weren't able to cream off another $100b after a day's hard trading. Next you'll be suggesting that pay should be linked to performance.
Yeah, I'm not saying I think it's great that some countries are more "important" than others, but governments tend to behave that way -- partly for good reasons (generally the less important country, to continue using that term, offers its citizens fewer prospects or a lower standard of living, so more people want to go one way than the other), and partly because they can get away with it (after all, what are the other guys going to do about it?).
I knew a girl from Slovakia a few years ago. If I remember correctly, she had to queue for 2 days outside the British embassy to get a visa to visit the UK. I don't believe I would have even needed a visa to go the other way. (Though by the next year, Slovakia had joined the EU and she could just show her passport at the border to get in like someone from any other member state.)
Well yes it does have a right to control who comes in, but there are consequences from behaving like that. Visiting the US is a pain for anyone without a US passport: visas / visa waivers, long queues, photos, fingerprint scans, etc. And the rest of the world, largely, reciprocates by making it a pain for US citizens to visit their countries.*
Contrast this with, for example, Schengen in the EU. This allows citizens of many EU states to cross each others' borders without showing their passports. Sure there's a loss of control, but there are also big benefits in terms of free movement of people and goods. I'm not saying it's a panacea, and I'm sure others with much more experience can chime in with a more nuanced view, but this sort of setup does have benefits.
Yes, exactly. Normally an unequal visa setup happens between countries that are themselves unequal (so people from the important country don't need a visa, but those from the unimportant country do), but I would have assumed that easy access to the EU would be pretty valuable to US citizens too. Or am I just being naïve?
The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006* does let the police or "enforcement officers" enter private premises and remove advertising -- and charge people for the privilege too.
I haven't read the whole Act myself, but the branding guidelines say that, as an individual, I can say something along the lines of "I support London 2012", but as a business I can't as this could create an association between my company and the Olympics.
I believe that uploading photos to Facebook would be a civil offence, and LOCOG have said they are unlikely to prosecute people for this (though they do have the power to do so).
* It's just as well the Act was passed by parliament and not a private company, or its name may well be in contravention of the Act by creating an association between parliament and the Olympics.
Though, if we take this line of reasoning a little further, surely we should ban all opinion polls in the days leading up to the election (which are often, though not always, fairly accurate), plus perhaps all political commentary just to be safe?
If this becomes a trend, large multinationals may become liable only to the intersection of all the laws of the countries in which they operate, whereas individual citizens (through ICE, US criminal copyright extraditions, UK libel law, etc.) are increasingly subject to the union of them. Much like the tax system in fact.
Absolutely. In fact I'm sure he isn't the first person to sing in a police car like this. Arguably these performances take place in a "place open to the public" (car parks or the streets) and often, as here, at sufficient volume for those outside the car to enjoy the rendition too, so there's a reasonable case to be made that all police vehicles should have to purchase appropriate public performance licences.
Consumer Focus supplied an expert report on this subject. I haven't read it, nor the claimants' response to it, but it is discussed quite extensively in the judgement. That said, it is unfortunate that the court effectively admits ignorance and punts on the "who did what" question:
Dr Clayton's expert report provides a lucid explanation of the technical issues surrounding traceability, that is to say, determining "who did that?" on the internet. Mr Torabi took issue via Mr Becker's second statement with a number of points of detail in Dr Clayton's report. Clearly I cannot resolve those disputes.
It's good that the court rejected what appears to be a claim of contributory liability: that the £700 should not only cover losses due to the defendants' infringement, but also the losses due to the infringement of others (which should be assessed on a royalty basis). Arnold J ruled that liability should be based on the actions of each defendant individually: "Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer".
The ruling also suggests that additional damages may not be awarded if the case went to court (cf., of course, US statutory damages), limiting any award to £700 (claimants) or £70 (Consumer Focus), though the legal costs may not be fun.
Having read the correspondence, I can't see any reference to a DMCA takedown notice in Zazzle's missives. It's likely they have an automated takedown arrangement with Summit and that, if they have clarified / have to clarify why this piece was taken down, it would for unauthorised use of their marks. Which is not unreasonable if its tags were similar to those apparently autogenerated above.
My response would be sure, no problem, as long as you give me admin access to your email system and copies of your corporate accounts for the past 5 years so I can perform a "background check" on you too -- solely for the purpose of making sure you're a good employer of course. After all, I'm sure you've done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide.
Sony probably won't even have to pay out a chunk of this money because if any of the artists haven't recouped yet, this money will merely be "credited" towards their accounts.
The problem arises from the fact that Spotify requires users to have a Facebook account to sign up. That means it is not possible to use the service anonymously or pseudonymously -- as required by German law.
I know nothing about German law in this area, but surely Facebook also requires a Facebook account to use the service? Is Facebook legal in Germany?
Well, probably not. It's unlikely anything they do will be sufficiently transformative to create a derivative work, but this is an additional defence and does not rule out fair use of the original work. But the reason for all this language is to avoid a court case by getting limited (though pretty broad) rights to works in the first place. I am curious about the inclusion of "sell" though - not familiar with the language here.
Show me where another social media site claims the right to SELL the artwork that a 3rd party links to it!
I'm not sure how "sell" should be interpreted (please jump in if you're familiar with this language!), but, as Mike said, they're doing this to protect themselves from the actions of their users: they want to ensure that, if I upload a picture to the site and someone gets upset and sues, it's my problem, not theirs.
If I upload one of your photos to the site, I am not in a position to grant Pinterest a licence to the work and so Pinterest has no right to exploit it, no matter what it says in their contract with me (excepting rights under any licence you may have given me, fair use and other defences).
Sure, modification (possibly creating a derivative work) can be fair use. But Pinterest wants to avoid having to employ a fair use defence by getting a licence to use the material anyway, and does so in a broad (though pretty typical for a TOS) manner to cover as many circumstances as they can. Though I'm happy to be corrected, modifications will probably be limited to resizing, cropping and changing the image quality or format.
Typically the right to exploit the content is revoked if the work is removed from the service in question, which in practice would stop the service, for example, using it as part of a major ad campaign or something else wildly beyond the intent of the original uploader, though I didn't see such a clause after scanning the Pinterest TOS.
(untitled comment)
I haven't seen the rangeCheck code, but, like Judge Alsup, I'm pretty confident I could write something similar in about 5 minutes -- just like the hypothecated high school student. That Oracle's counsel suggests he "probably couldn't program that in six months" makes me question his competence to take part in this trial.
See also What color are your bits?, which I probably found via Techdirt (thanks!).
Re: A loss
Someone on Twitter suggested that they didn't really want to go public; it's just that they couldn't figure out the privacy settings either.
And I have to disagree with this article: it's all very well Facebook's founders and early investors earning $100b for building, growing and supporting the site, but it's frankly terrible that those who bought shares today weren't able to cream off another $100b after a day's hard trading. Next you'll be suggesting that pay should be linked to performance.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm not saying I think it's great that some countries are more "important" than others, but governments tend to behave that way -- partly for good reasons (generally the less important country, to continue using that term, offers its citizens fewer prospects or a lower standard of living, so more people want to go one way than the other), and partly because they can get away with it (after all, what are the other guys going to do about it?).
I knew a girl from Slovakia a few years ago. If I remember correctly, she had to queue for 2 days outside the British embassy to get a visa to visit the UK. I don't believe I would have even needed a visa to go the other way. (Though by the next year, Slovakia had joined the EU and she could just show her passport at the border to get in like someone from any other member state.)
Re:
Well yes it does have a right to control who comes in, but there are consequences from behaving like that. Visiting the US is a pain for anyone without a US passport: visas / visa waivers, long queues, photos, fingerprint scans, etc. And the rest of the world, largely, reciprocates by making it a pain for US citizens to visit their countries.*
Contrast this with, for example, Schengen in the EU. This allows citizens of many EU states to cross each others' borders without showing their passports. Sure there's a loss of control, but there are also big benefits in terms of free movement of people and goods. I'm not saying it's a panacea, and I'm sure others with much more experience can chime in with a more nuanced view, but this sort of setup does have benefits.
* At least in my limited experience.
Re:
Yes, exactly. Normally an unequal visa setup happens between countries that are themselves unequal (so people from the important country don't need a visa, but those from the unimportant country do), but I would have assumed that easy access to the EU would be pretty valuable to US citizens too. Or am I just being naïve?
Re:
The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006* does let the police or "enforcement officers" enter private premises and remove advertising -- and charge people for the privilege too.
I haven't read the whole Act myself, but the branding guidelines say that, as an individual, I can say something along the lines of "I support London 2012", but as a business I can't as this could create an association between my company and the Olympics.
I believe that uploading photos to Facebook would be a civil offence, and LOCOG have said they are unlikely to prosecute people for this (though they do have the power to do so).
Branding guidelines
Extract of the Act
Guardian article discussing this further
* It's just as well the Act was passed by parliament and not a private company, or its name may well be in contravention of the Act by creating an association between parliament and the Olympics.
Re: Re: seriously
Though, if we take this line of reasoning a little further, surely we should ban all opinion polls in the days leading up to the election (which are often, though not always, fairly accurate), plus perhaps all political commentary just to be safe?
(untitled comment)
If this becomes a trend, large multinationals may become liable only to the intersection of all the laws of the countries in which they operate, whereas individual citizens (through ICE, US criminal copyright extraditions, UK libel law, etc.) are increasingly subject to the union of them. Much like the tax system in fact.
Re:
Absolutely. In fact I'm sure he isn't the first person to sing in a police car like this. Arguably these performances take place in a "place open to the public" (car parks or the streets) and often, as here, at sufficient volume for those outside the car to enjoy the rendition too, so there's a reasonable case to be made that all police vehicles should have to purchase appropriate public performance licences.
Re:
Consumer Focus supplied an expert report on this subject. I haven't read it, nor the claimants' response to it, but it is discussed quite extensively in the judgement. That said, it is unfortunate that the court effectively admits ignorance and punts on the "who did what" question:
Dr Clayton's expert report provides a lucid explanation of the technical issues surrounding traceability, that is to say, determining "who did that?" on the internet. Mr Torabi took issue via Mr Becker's second statement with a number of points of detail in Dr Clayton's report. Clearly I cannot resolve those disputes.
£700
It's good that the court rejected what appears to be a claim of contributory liability: that the £700 should not only cover losses due to the defendants' infringement, but also the losses due to the infringement of others (which should be assessed on a royalty basis). Arnold J ruled that liability should be based on the actions of each defendant individually: "Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer".
The ruling also suggests that additional damages may not be awarded if the case went to court (cf., of course, US statutory damages), limiting any award to £700 (claimants) or £70 (Consumer Focus), though the legal costs may not be fun.
Re: Whh...what?
Having read the correspondence, I can't see any reference to a DMCA takedown notice in Zazzle's missives. It's likely they have an automated takedown arrangement with Summit and that, if they have clarified / have to clarify why this piece was taken down, it would for unauthorised use of their marks. Which is not unreasonable if its tags were similar to those apparently autogenerated above.
Re: They are breaking the law
In fact, as DOJ believes it should be a criminal offence to violate a TOS, surely this could violate the incitement test (Brandenburg) too?
(untitled comment)
My response would be sure, no problem, as long as you give me admin access to your email system and copies of your corporate accounts for the past 5 years so I can perform a "background check" on you too -- solely for the purpose of making sure you're a good employer of course. After all, I'm sure you've done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide.
(untitled comment)
Sony probably won't even have to pay out a chunk of this money because if any of the artists haven't recouped yet, this money will merely be "credited" towards their accounts.
And let's not forget that they can charge the legal expenses incurred on this case to the artists too.
Apparently pilots can use them
Via the linked article, I note in passing that pilots are allowed to use iPads during takeoff and landing, just not passengers.
(untitled comment)
The problem arises from the fact that Spotify requires users to have a Facebook account to sign up. That means it is not possible to use the service anonymously or pseudonymously -- as required by German law.
I know nothing about German law in this area, but surely Facebook also requires a Facebook account to use the service? Is Facebook legal in Germany?
Re: Re: Re: Read the TOS?
Well, probably not. It's unlikely anything they do will be sufficiently transformative to create a derivative work, but this is an additional defence and does not rule out fair use of the original work. But the reason for all this language is to avoid a court case by getting limited (though pretty broad) rights to works in the first place. I am curious about the inclusion of "sell" though - not familiar with the language here.
Re:
Show me where another social media site claims the right to SELL the artwork that a 3rd party links to it!
I'm not sure how "sell" should be interpreted (please jump in if you're familiar with this language!), but, as Mike said, they're doing this to protect themselves from the actions of their users: they want to ensure that, if I upload a picture to the site and someone gets upset and sues, it's my problem, not theirs.
If I upload one of your photos to the site, I am not in a position to grant Pinterest a licence to the work and so Pinterest has no right to exploit it, no matter what it says in their contract with me (excepting rights under any licence you may have given me, fair use and other defences).
Re: Read the TOS?
Sure, modification (possibly creating a derivative work) can be fair use. But Pinterest wants to avoid having to employ a fair use defence by getting a licence to use the material anyway, and does so in a broad (though pretty typical for a TOS) manner to cover as many circumstances as they can. Though I'm happy to be corrected, modifications will probably be limited to resizing, cropping and changing the image quality or format.
Typically the right to exploit the content is revoked if the work is removed from the service in question, which in practice would stop the service, for example, using it as part of a major ad campaign or something else wildly beyond the intent of the original uploader, though I didn't see such a clause after scanning the Pinterest TOS.