Rikuo's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the holiday-season-edition dept
Hey, fellow Techdirtians or whatever adjective you want to call yourselves. Longtime reader Rikuo here. I’ve been following Techdirt for the better part of two years now, and was sure surprised to have been asked to write the Favorites list for Xmas week. Once I stopped jumping and shrieking in pure fanboy excitement (and after the court injunction ordering me to never do that sort of stuff again), I sat myself down and decided to get serious.
Monday was a serious day for some, and a jawdropper for others. Daniel Castro from the ITIF (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) just three weeks ago responded to SOPA/Protect IP critics by saying that DNS filtering works because some other countries do it. Well, thanks to the good folks at Public Knowledge, you learn that it’s alright for the United States of America to adopt practices from some of the worst authoritarian regimes on the planet. And here I thought "land of the free" actually meant something.
Two other Monday articles caught my eye: the first was about how ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) was adopted by the EU Council, however, it was really by a collection of ministers in a meeting discussing agriculture and fisheries? Wait, what? What do fish have to do with a treaty about copyright?
The last Monday article was by our own Julian Sanchez, about how SOPA will be abused. This prediction was arrived at by looking at what the entertainment industry has done in the past and what they continue to do today. A very good read, as it really drives home the point that these companies are already abusing the DMCA. And having tried to block technological innovation in the past, they will certainly continue to do so in the future.
Tuesday had three articles that interested me. The first is about UK singer, Dan Bull, releasing his latest music video on YouTube. Even though he's in the UK, he'd still be affected by SOPA. Dan Bull relies on user-content-generated-sites to release his media but the entertainment industry would like to shut them all down (or at least limit them), given half a chance. Once that’s done, this artist, unless he got picked up by a label, would have no easy way of distributing his music.
The second article for Tuesday was about successful photographer Trey Ratcliff. He’s another member of the growing example of artists who succeed in the digital age despite the copyrights on his work regularly being infringed. In fact, he's worked it into his business model. What I found most amusing about the article were the responses from some people, who continue to state that these examples don't matter. We here at Techdirt are offering proof but these people willfully stay blind.
The last Tuesday article was about the death of Veoh, a video sharing website that, despite being perfectly legal, was killed financially in a bogus copyright lawsuit from Universal Music Group. Under the original version of SOPA, you wouldn't need a lawsuit. Just a stern letter to the payment processors and you get the same result. If you can already kill a legal website dead by overburdening it with lawsuits, why bother pushing for all this extra legislation?
Come, Wednesday and I hear about Gilberto Sanchez who has been sentenced to a year in prison for uploading the unfinished workprint of X-men Origins: Wolverine. Despite the fact no harm has been proven and despite the fact that uploading a workprint does NOT equal uploading a full finished movie, Fox still pushed for his imprisonment. All this will do is drive further resentment against copyright law, as people ask themselves why such a harsh punishment?
Again with the superhero movies, as the Dark Knight Rises movie trailer has gone viral. Now, people in the marketing division of Warner Bros want this video to be seen by as many people as possible, so as to entice more people to see the actual movie. However, the lawyers are a different breed and have sent Rob Sheridan a notice for daring to embed the video. So what... are we NOT allowed talk about the movie?
My last favorite Wednesday article would have made me chuckle if it didn't piss me off so much. The YouHaveDownloaded tool has been used to find out that IP addresses belonging to the RIAA have been used to infringe copyright. The RIAA has been too quick to say that it could have been a third party at fault, a defense that it never allowed anyone else to use during its infamous P2P lawsuits.
I came home from work Thursday and saw that Julian Sanchez had been hard at work, showing us how SOPA will enable censorship beyond that of copyright infringement. What truly amused and dumbfounded me were the commentators who still insisted that dajaz1.com was rogue and illegal, when clearly the government couldn't make such a case. Talk about a complete disconnect from reality.
Reddit General Manager released a statement showing how SOPA still impacts domestic sites. Even if it were true that SOPA would only ever be used against foreign sites, the logistical nightmares of censoring them (and the penalties for failing to do so) would fall on US companies.
I came home from work on Friday, booted up my browser and first place I went was Techdirt, where I learned that pretty much everybody who was listed as supporting SOPA have demanded to be taken off the list. Turns out, they were never asked whether or not they supported SOPA, or in GoDaddy's case, were facing a massive boycott from their customers. So SOPA supporters...where is this massive support you've been crowing about? Are SOPA critics still limited to pirates and thieves?
I'd like to thank Mike for giving me the opportunity to write this article and the Techdirt community for just being that awesome. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Re: Re: ??
Just so ya's know, I didn't exactly pay for my copy of Crysis Maximum Edition. I traded in some console games and paid for it and Sims 3 with the store credit.
Also, checking the back of the box, it says "Internet Connection, Online Authentication, acceptance of EULA required to play". Box doesn't say anything about a 5 install limit. Given the way its worded, I can be forgiven for thinking that there wasn't a limit. I thought that it just required the disc in the drive and a once off net access to get the game to work.
Re: WTF?
A world of EULA/TOS's? A world where content can be purchased, brought home, then we're told to accept terms written in some strange language no-one can understand. I consider it duress because not a single store would accept the content back, even if it was actually unused.
Re: Re:
Ignore? You do know what that means I hope? Ignore means they pay no attention to it.
Mike writing up a full sized article about the 'legal' threat (in quotes because the grammatical, spelling and formatting errors, lack of Esquire and other important pieces of information leads me to believe this isn't real), does not fit the definition of ignoring it.
Re: Sucks to be Tenenbaum? He asked for it.
"If it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to prosecute one obvious case, then the industry needs to be able to levy hundreds of thousands of fines."
So, according to your reasoning, if the people doing the suing (can't remember the precise legal term) waltz into a courtroom with a lawyer who just happened to cost $5 million, then the fines should be set to match that automatically?
You do realize I hope that tilts the legal system entirely in favour of the people doing the suing automatically. It means the poorer person loses automatically (which sadly, is already a reality).
Please explain how subjecting Tenenbaum to economic servitude for the rest of his life (unless he somehow wins a lottery) isn't cruel and unusual punishment?
(untitled comment)
Cue the first troll to say "Why buy it if you can get it for free?"
3...2...1...
Re: Re: Re:
From the 1920's onwards, it was only movie studios that had the capability to produce movies. Thus, any cases of copyright infringement were limited to either movie studios or those who could afford the bulky and expensive equipment necessary to copy movies illegally.
Now, its the year 2012 and anyone with a computer and internet connection can publish anything they desire. Video cameras are cheap and plentiful, as is editing software. So is storage, a la Youtube.
Yet, copryight law, in the form of the DMCA, allows anyone to claim that any video is infringing. Youtube, not wanting to be sued, will pull that video down.
There you have it. A clear case of a conflict between the First Amendment and copyright law.
Re:
Citation please, as to how its B.S.
Otherwise, you don't add anything to the discussion.
For the record, the reason it took almost two centuries was because the methods of publication that were used for copyright infringement, were out of the hands of ordinary people.
Now that we have the internet, and anyone can publish anything, its now that there are huge conflicts between copyright law and the First Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't believe that someone is actually stupid enough to praise guilty until proven innocent.
I accuse you of murdering my next door neighbour. With your mindset, the burden is on you to prove you didn't. Enjoy the media witch hunt and the stress of trying to prove your innocence.
Idiot.
(untitled comment)
When people format shift, they're basically changing what tools they're using on the product.
In the case of CD's, the tools are the CD and the CD player. When I format shift, I'm taking the content and playing it on a new tool, the iPod.
This is another way this guy's analogy doesn't make any kind of sense. Shoes and socks don't use each other. Plenty of times I've worn socks without shoes, and vice versa. One isn't needed to use or be used by the other.
When I moved into my current apartment away from the house I was then in, I had a ton of books. I didn't have room for them, so I format shifted them onto my Kindle (downloaded the .mobi files, rather than laboriously scan in everything myself), then gave away the books. I don't see any wrong there. Stephen King had already been paid for the Dark Tower series I had bought.
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt totally out of touch about how much patents pay for innovation
Piracy...disrupts innovation? How? Why?
I know this has been pointed out to you bob before, but piracy (as defined through copyright/patent/trademark laws) is only about 300 or so years old. Prior to that, there was no such thing as piracy (unless you're talking about looting ships on the high seas). There was still plenty of innovation.
Take the Romans for example. Built up one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen, had many great and wonderful technologies (like running water). All that technology would have needed innovation, and this occurred in a world WITHOUT copyright/trademark/patent laws.
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt totally out of touch about how much patents pay for innovation
Your earlier comments in this article showed some semi-coherence, enough at least for me to question whether or not you're the "bob" we here at Techdirt are familiar with.
But the last line in the comment above just proves that you are the idiotic bob we know and love.
"Patents aren't worth terribly much in most cases".
Huh?
First off, all your earlier comments in this article? You were saying about how they're necessary to fund R&D. Patents are a part of the legal system, and according to you, are necessary if you want to fund R&D. To then turn around this way, is like describing how to run a restaurant, and then spitting out that the large ovens you have in the kitchen aren't worth much. You're flip-flopping.
Second, patents ARE worth a lot. They're worth a lot for all the wrong reasons, but, at the end of the day, are worth a lot. Look at Apple doing all they can with patent law to stop the sale of HTC smartphones, and the designing of the Samsung Galaxy S3 by lawyers. That is not innovation, and even if it is, its innovation in the wrong direction. Its work and effort not to please the market (which is what companies selling products/services should be concentrating on) but simply so as to avoid having to pay out big sums in court.
Re: Re: Linking
Can I ask you a question? Why are you so dead set against infringement? Not all infringement is harmful. What if I use the Piratebay to help me infringe on copyyright, but I invoke the fair use clause - such as in the following scenario.
1) A US citizen purchases a DVD, and wishes to make a backup copy on a hard drive, in case the disc gets scratched.
2) In the US, circumventing the DRM on the DVD is illegal (even though the purpose is to make a backup of the movie, which is legal). So the citizen, in an attempt to stay legal, fires up their torrent client and grabs a torrent from the Piratebay.
3) They carefully configure their client so as not to upload, they strictly ensure their client is downloading only.
4) They then use the downloaded movie file in a video review (let's say, for ThatGuyWithTheGlasses or a similar site)
With this, I cannot see copyright infringement. Whoever ripped the movie originally was the one who violated the "Thou Shalt Not Break DRM" section of the DMCA (and of course, this ignores the possibility of it being someone in a jurisdiction where the DMCA or a similar law doesn't apply). Thus, our downloader did not break the DRM. They downloaded a file that had no DRM. The downloader used many tools to get their file - a mouse, keyboard, monitor, computer, internet connection, electricity, Piratebay. In this scenario, TPB is just one of many tools used, and yet it is singularly being targeted.
Yes, TPB does do the equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull with regards to all the legal threats against it. But here's the thing. The copyright maximilists don't have to be the bull. They can choose not to. You can choose to stop frothing at the mouth and charging. TPB wouldn't bother waving their red flag if there was no response to it.
Re: Re: Re: Clarity
"Keep in mind the distinction of going against sites--organized and run by people (not "technologies")--that serve no significant purpose other than infringement."
That's your problem - you deliberately don't see that they have non-infringing uses. Dan Bull deliberately released his music on the Piratebay and yet, to "protect artists", it was ordered blocked in the UK.
Re: Linking
Bad analogy. Yes, the sign (torrent) points you to something worth having (files), but you're conflating real physical items which are finite with digital files that are infinite. If I read a sign and take something from Joe Blow's house, he no longer has that item, while if I use a torrent, I make a copy of a file, which still resides on the hard drives owned by the people I am downloading from.
Re:
IANAL, but constitutionality as far as I'm aware, can only be determined by the Supreme Court. Imagine if EVERY case in all the lower courts had its constitutionality challenged. That would overwhelm the Supreme Court.
Re:
Stand up and take a bow, Mike, you're now being quoted in the legal system! You've earned it^^
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amen, brother. I'm currently using a 3G USB modem, and at most, I'm only getting 2.3% of the advertised maximum speed (7.2Mbps, which translates to about 920 kilobytes).
Re:
"The government may have a case. There is reasonable proof that criminal copyright infringement took place. Material was published and distributed without the copyright holder's permission. There was also plenty of clues for whoever infringed that they are acting against the copyright holder's wishes. Then it does not matter who infringed, only that the domain (as property) facilitated the infringement."
Wrong. Plenty of clues? For that to work, Rojadirecta would have needed an encylopedic knowledge of all copyright protected works everywhere, so as to instantly know that a page with links for "Random Movie X" was obviously infringing. More and more content is being deliberately put on the web by their authors.
Also, what reasonable proof? For criminal copyright infringement, you need a far higher standard of proof. According to the government filings, Puerto 80 isn't being charged criminally: without being charged, you can't say that Criminal Copyright Infringement took place. You basically ignored this paragraph
"The government's argument gets even worse from there, because nowhere does it show where the criminal copyright infringement happened. In order for the government to claim that the Rojadirecta domains facilitated criminal copyright infringement, you would think the first step would have to be to show where it actually happened. Here, the government basically waves its hand and says, "of course it happened." First, it highlights the fact that because of links on the Rojadirecta sites, content could be streamed from third party sites. In fact, it straight out admits that Rojadirecta hosted no infringing content, but rather it was all on these other sites. It then notes that such streams likely violated the performance and reproductions rights under the Copyright Act. That may be true, but that, alone, does not make it a criminal offense. That requires willfulness -- which was the problem in the original filing. "
Re:
Getting closer?
Uhh, mate, not to insult you or anything, but have you heard of the DMCA? Content industries already have the power to disappear arbitrary content from the web with no warning and no review, with no regard for the rights of others.
(untitled comment)
Only TV network executives can have customers saying precisely what they want, and then turn around and say "No, we're not going to fulfill customer demand!"