The least least protection for the least amount of time (I am unclear where you got that bit, as it doesn't exist in the constitution or in any of the copyright acts) would be if copyright didn't exist at all. Saying we give you an exclusive right to distribute your work, unless someone else wants to distribute it for free, doesn't logically work.
Yes there are ways to 'compete with free'. However most of those involve people releasing their content for free and tapping secondary markets. You seem to be arguing that is the only kind of creation that can occur, that copyright should be burned down to the ground. But, in contrast, I have never seen a freely released story with the kind of page count I like get finished. They always slow way down and just kinda stop. Possibly because those secondary markets aren't as robust for books.
But you seem to know some other way to incentivize those create. So rather then laugh, enlighten us plebes who aren't aware of these magical incentives which not only support people who create, but retain value for businesses?
Re: The "irreparable harm" is income that will NOT be received.
But publicized intent is not action. This lawsuit asks for remedies that can not and do not apply unless there is action (for one it asks for damages). Lets say this suit works and they not only get an injunction, but get the site taken offline. Damages do not apply, and should not have been included. This ignores questions of whether you can take a site offline for copyright infringement that hasn't happened yet.
Moreover, if the stream doesn't happen because of the lawsuit, the irreparable harm never occurs, therefore no longer justifying the lawsuit. This is why, aside from terrorism cases, the first amendment rights mean you can't be charged for crimes before you commit them.
You can get a restraining order because of threats, but you can't be convicted of battery unless you follow through.
Also...not sure what "bt (some of) which others will get by the infringement." was supposed to mean because even if I assume bt = but, It doesn't make sense.
Re: Yes, kids, a "restraining order" is possible in advance, given evidence.
Yes, kids, a "restraining order" is possible in advance, given evidence.
Alright, so you are aruguing that a Restraining Order issued based on threats is the basis for this lawsuit? OK. I can see that with that based on the idea that you can get a restraining order based on threats of violence that you could get an injunction against the streaming. Of course, they are already planning to commit a crime, so I am not sure how the injuction and restraining order would be likely to stop them.
But then the rest of their request for relief is highly problematic. Cutting off their host, registrar, DNS Servers (site blocking!), and other providers prior to the crime occuring is a bit problematic. But maybe you can say the threats are just so heinous that they deserve extra special shutdown powers to make sure the stream doesn't happen, and just in case, keep them down forever (the suit doesn't specify allowing them back on after the threat has passed).
But then they ask for damages and your whole argument goes out the window. Because you can't get "actual damages, profits, or statutory damages" for infringement that has not yet happened (and this suit is supposed to be avoiding, according to your argument). If this suit is for an injuction to prevent the streaming, then they would ask for that. Wasting the courts time by asking for damages isn't going to help them win the judge over.
We have laws about evidence because otherwise we should just allow cops to regularly toss your house because there might be evidence of a crime. And once evidence of a crime is found somewhere, it justifies the entire sweep, because otherwise he would not have been caught. Saying that the locating of evidence justifies the illegal search is ridiculous.
Far too much subjective decision making in that process. I would prefer a manual renewal process that doesn't factor in a subjective analysis, but if you want it, you can have it. Why include the subjective analysis subject to the whims (and bank account) of a person?
Unfortunately, that compromise fails as bad as the original. A copyright that can't be enforced as long as the pirate doesn't charge anyone for it doesn't serve the purpose. You are right that people will do it anyway, but don't act like the people doing it are doing nothing wrong. Can you imagine that logic applied elsewhere in the law?
Mr. Johnson, you damaged the property of Mr. Smith. Yes your honor, but I didn't have any economic gain, so its ok!
Mr. Appleton, you walked into a police office, Lied your ass off, and your sworn testimony freed a mass murderer. Yes your honor, but he didn't pay me for it!
Doesn't allow for derivative works, which are a major source of value in the public domain. The call by Mike, some politicians, and many economic researchers for the reduction in copyright terms has nothing to do with getting the work for free, but opening up the culture. The base assumption of your compromise is that all we want is the right to pirate the works, which misses the point Mike has been making for years entirely.
Re: "none of it really matters" -- Typical Techdirt item, then, based on mistakes!
First, I'll take up with "I don't know, but in most jobs..." note characteristic Masnickism: HE DON'T KNOW.
Rather than clearly state your point, you just decided to leave it vague. Perhaps you mean to take the (sarcastic) assertion that Mike doesn't know how you are supposed to make money when you only have 14 years of exclusivity and twist that to say he just doesn't know how creators can make money, despite the fact that he is, quite effectively, competing with free.
Second, that's only true if poor and money must be spent immediately: if money is saved and carefully invested, one will likely get more money from prior work indefinitely. Note that it's written by a kid who's still getting income from work his grandfather did! Let's do away with ALL continuing income, especially inheriting money.
Artists can invest too so not sure what you are trying to say here. Mike isn't calling for the removal of continual income. He clearly pointed out earlier in the article that back when renewal was required, very few works were renewed. There was a creator commenting on a similar post a while back, and he talked about how if it wasn't for his new album he really wouldn't get any sales on his old albums. Reading into that, it suggests that the music, despite being protected by copyright, really has no lasting value to the creator. He got most of his money just after release, and any future sales yes might be related to the work he does promoting, but wouldn't be significant enough to justify a 75 year monopoly right. Your attempt to highlight logical flaws by taking a premise to an absurd conclusion has a few flaws, I am afraid.
Third, while I'd go for 14-year limit IF "monetizing" the works was prohibited, Masnick doesn't commit, just natters.
Not sure what you are saying here, 14 year copyright term if the creator wasn't allowed to monotonize? or if you weren't allowed to monotonize in the public domain? What are you trying to say?
Fourth, paying for enjoying seems due no matter how many years pass, so long as to original creator not heirs or corporations. -- HOWEVER, I propose a means test on ability to enforce: if already HAVE millions, then definitely withdraw the ability to sue.
Several problems with this. 'Life of the creator' devalues any work done by an old creator, leading to the potential that for creators who sell a work ONCE to be paid less not for inferior work, but because of their age. Painters are a good example, Music writers (who do get residuals, but get a lump sum up front), I'd imagine script writers as well. Perhaps some book contracts? I am just speculating, but I can see how it goes wrong. You also create an incentive for an old creator to create, but not release, instead allowing an heir to take the credit (either as the sole 'author' or joint authorship). Now instead of a 10-year copyright, you've got a 30-40 year copyright! Developing a system like that is ripe for being gamed. No a flat time scale, perhaps 14+renew for 14, is better suited to provide an impartial assessment of value. Addtionally, your attack on rich creators is markedly strange. If you are a successful creator, your never get copyright? In conjuction with your earlier statements, I can kinda make a coherent statement by assuming you are arguing for life of the author except if they are rich, then its only 14 years. But then you place an inherent higher value on earlier works, and lesser value on later works, for a successful creator. If we agree that copyright is a system worth maintaining (and while that could be debated, I will grant that assumption for the sake of this argument), it needs to be neutral to the content itself allowing the market to determine its value. Removing copyright restrictions for someone because he became successful doesn't serve any justifiable purpose other then to punish his success.
Hate to say. I think I agree with this ruling. As someone who almost faced a SLAPP lawsuit (I wasn't the person they even wanted to sue, but I wasn't going to admit that because I wanted to have them explain to a judge how they determined I was the one running the website), the lack of an anti-SLAPP law in Nevada at that time (it wouldn't become law until a year later) was a nightmare for me. But I agree that they probably should apply to federal cases. And I agree with Mike, this only highlights the need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP law to protect 1st amendment speech
I don't know if you noticed, but, during the entire video, her mouth was going at flank speed. THAT was probably regarded, by the deputies, as verbal assault.
In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.
Not sure why this couldn't be a part of the existing discussion of this very topic. One of the troll's favorite tactics is disarming a thread by posting responses outside it, which makes me suspicious. But Posting a new thread works too. Lets take this step by step shall we?
Listen to the recovered video. The woman is an idiot. She is in the line of fire and is being an asshole about being in the middle of a situation with a possible armed suspect.
Well, they don't start with the claim she's in the line of fire, they tell her to "keep walking". The "nothing to see here" decleration. Its only after she asserts her rights that they make the Line of Fire claim. And the video is cut so you can't see the suspects that often, but they don't look to be an active threat, what with their hands on their heads and none of the cops with drawn weapons. I mean, if they were a threat, the suspects could probably shoot several officers before the officers could respond. nor would crossing the street help her if something does happen, as she'd still be in the line of fire given the number of cops in the middle of the street. Unless line of fire was refering to the line of fire of the cops extrajudically gunning down these suspects...... She would, on the other hand, have a much harder time recording across the street given the number of vehicles and cops in the way.
As an aside, I would have brought up her ridiculous "You are making me feel unsafe" calls to get them to move out of her way. They were a little out there, and a little less defensible. That said, if a cop can't handle a heckler, how they hell are the gonna deal with a "Gangster" whose "just asking for it".
yes she is entitled to film, and the officer reacted unprofessionally, but the entire thread is jumping to the PC conclusion that she should be able to stay there.
A) a little strange to specifically reference a thread when you chose to start your own rather then contribute to an existing one, but maybe you have issues distinguishing between a comment thread and the comment section.
B) whereas you just seem to take the officers words at face value and failed to analyze the scene behind the confrontation at all. The only line of fire she is in is the other cops, who shouldn't be shooting with their buddies on the other side of the suspects. The situation is under control, which again you can tell by the lack of shouting, readied weapons, or focus on the suspects by several of the cops.
yes you can film but you endanger yourself and the police in these situations. This isn't a traffic stop, with suspects under control. These guys could get shot protecting this asshole asserting her rights. She is told to continue filming just from a safe spot, and she continually ignores that.
She ignores it because shes been there for about 6 minutes according to your news broadcast, and can see there is no danger from the suspects. Even from her 50 yards away she can see the lack of readiness of the other cops and determined it was not likely to become a shooting incident. Hell, they were letting suspects go at that point. The safe spot they direct her to is blocked from view by the many police cars (I counted 2 SUVs and 2 Cruisers, but i easily could have miscounted) in the street, plus all the cars parked normally, plus all the officers milling about in the street. She couldn't get a clear recording from there. And without a clear recording the recording is likely useless.
I support filming 100% but this person is out of line.
I support filming 100%, unless the cops don't want it. FTFY.
And now on to the implications of your statement. Assault, Battery, and Destruction of property are all apparently justified in this case. And don't tell me thats not what you are saying. Sure you said the officer acted inappropriately. But your tone against this person and pro-cops plus your statement "this person is out of line" suggest that you are Ok with the cops response. In fact the term you use to describe the action of the offending cop (unprofessional) confirms that. because in any other situation his actions would be considered Criminal (again that list is Battery and Destruction of Property for that final cop with arguments to be made for assault by some of the earlier ones). Physical destruction of the camera doesn't solve her interference (if there was any), and could easily make it worse.
TL;DR? If a cop just needs to wave his wand and say 'Line of Fire' irrespective of the evidence at the scene, it completely neuters the ability to film. And no matter how much 'danger' she was in, a man in tac armor with an assault rifle destroying her camera is a complete, criminal overreaction to what amounts to a minor annoyance.
Depends on how you rate it. Often on a per person basis whites are shot more then blacks. but often when you compare shooting rates to demographics, blacks are being shot way out of proportion compared to their proportion of population. See the above commentary on LA shooting statistics vs LA demographics.
On the contrary, his point is that it shouldn't be four open-ended factors like we have. Do you like our current, unpredictable system? I don't. I should think that spelling out the exceptions and exemptions is better. Might even lower transaction costs (for you utility lovers). Regardless, I think it's ridiculous to claim that he's vying for "out and out censorship." Grow up.
not sure why examptions is now listed as 'exemptions and expemptions'. but thats beside the point.
Funny you should mention spelling out exemptions. We tried that one in the copyright act. Several of those exemptions are regularly challenged (such as the educational exemption). A good example is the first sale doctrine:
§ 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord This is the basis of the first sale doctrine. And yet, repeatedly Companies find legal theories to get around "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord." This section of law is pretty long. But it took repeated testing by the courts to determine what this section means. Meaning this exception would be just as 'unpredictable' in a civil law society.
The style of fair use suggested for TPP (according to the documents in question) is not the open ended four factor test, but the highly restrictive, problematic 3 step Burne Convention test whose only use is to limit when fair use can be applied. Its not open ended, and it spells out the basic litmus for exemptions, while leaving the actual expemptions and their implementations up the the signatory countries. So tell me again how we are pushing for the treaty to include an open ended four factor test.
Re: If defending Megaupload, you're for out and out PIRACY.
If I am defneding megaupload, I am for piracy. Hmmm.
If Megaupload is proven to have been intentionally uploading or retaining infringing files, they will get what they deserve. But until that time, defending Megaupload's (and Kim Dotcom's) right to a fair trial (meaning having money to mount a defense), equal treatment under the law (including safe harbors if they can show they were adhering the DMCA), and pushing back against "the ends justify the means" vigilantism is not "pro out and out piracy". Its pro rule of law
Your 'ironic echo' of the article's title is a bit flawed. 2/10. Would not read again.
Id argue that allowing DEA agents to search your room does not give up your privacy interest in the room. You haven't given a blanket right for everyone, everywhere, anytime, to look into that room. You have only given a temporary pass to search the room to a specific set of individuals. If they came back tomorrow, you can deny them then, because you still have a privacy interest in the room