From the link, one of the things that cannot be registered with Content-ID:
•music or video that was licensed, but without exclusivity
So UMG violated Google's Content-ID rules when they added the artist's music. Too bad there's no actual penalty for doing so. The "loophole" they likely used was the fact that the audiobook itself was exclusively licensed. The system can't tell the difference between the exclusive audiobook and the licensed music.
The reality is that this entire system probably doesn't involve a single human being until the appeals stage, if then. Even the 30 day wait and rejection is likely automated. That way, even if there was an error, UMG gets 30 days monetization for no effort. Since there's no penalty for a false claim, this is free money.
Sucks for the artist, but hey, he's just one of probably thousands being screwed but too afraid or ignorant of the process to speak out.
UMG rectified the mistake. Have you rectified your mistake of stealing from artists for years?
I didn't think so.
Did UMG pay back all the revenue they received from Bjorn's video during the period which they'd stolen it? No?
Then the mistake has not been rectified. Also, to my knowledge, I have never taken a signal revenue stream from another individual or company for content I did not own, so no, I have not rectified any imaginary mistakes.
Re: Yet you advocate: "sit back and let [minor] players claim your stuff"
There's also a fundamental difference between monetizing something you specifically own ("your stuff") and something that you generally created ("your intellectual property"). It may seem like it's splitting hairs, but there's a HUGE difference between the two.
In the case of file lockers, even if you assume all the bad things you're obviously assuming and ignoring how they actually work, at worst they are providing a new copy of something you created. If, for example, a musician sells their music on iTunes, and that song is available on Megaupload, their music is still available on iTunes. In other words, if someone chooses to do so, they can still pay the artist.
In this case, however, it's as if Megaupload went into iTunes and took all the sales from the artist. UMG monetized the creator's own video, literally taking ownership of their revenue source. This is very different both emotionally (how it feels to have your stuff taken) and functionally (the artist's primary revenue stream was directly taken away).
The reason it's "your stuff" is because UMG didn't make a copy of the video. They didn't upload a copy of the original video and monetize the new video. They took rights and money directly from the artist's original video and account. And, once they finally "solved" the dispute, UMG literally walks off with all that revenue and no penalty.
There's plenty of other reasons why it's different, but that's the most obvious one.
It's not really a misrepresentation. The burden of proof is effectively still on the accused. This is because all UMG really had to do was threaten to go forward with the lawsuit and they would have "won."
Why? The artist probably could afford even the initial legal proceedings, and UMG lawyers could have delayed until he couldn't afford to fight anymore. And even if it did end up in court (or, more likely, dismissed in favor of the artist) he still would have been financially ruined and UMG would be mildly irritated, if they even noticed. And, during the entire dispute and appeals process, UMG is still getting the artist's ad revenue.
UMG got some money from the artist, had no penalty for the theft, and decided to walk away with what they took. Tim's representation is perfectly accurate; until the appeal and possible legal proceedings completed, the artist's ad money was being rerouted to someone with no copyright claim. And, even after the dispute is settled, there is zero penalty to UMG. Win-win for them, lose-lose for the artist.
At the very least there should be some sort of restriction from takedowns or monetization for giving a false Content-ID notice. Something like preventing you from issuing new takedowns for 30 days. That might encourage companies to verify they actually have rights to something before stealing money or shutting it down.
Planned obsolescence is intentionally using inferior or otherwise engineered to break after a certain period of time. Items with planned obsolescence are typically designed so that the cost of repairing the broken item is equal to or greater than simply buying a new one.
After the maximum uses, this product doesn't break down or otherwise fail; it uses an electronic system to deliberately refuse to turn on. All parts are still in perfect working order and, without the electronic switch, would continue to work for a significant period of time.
While the end state of these two methods is similar (forcing users to rebuy the product) the DRM method feels much worse. This is because, logically, you know that nothing is wrong with the product. There's no broken piece, no fading light, nothing physically wrong. It just stops working because the company that sold it to you said so. At least with a cheap plastic part or other failure you can see that something is broken. If it was a cheap item in the first place, you don't feel as ripped off because the creator used cheap components, and theoretically it could have kept working (planned obsolescence rarely has a specific date it's designed to break down).
People don't like being told what they can and can't do with products they buy. They paid for it, it's "theirs," and if the creator doesn't like it...don't sell it. We like to own things, and having other people restrict our use of things we own, especially if it is purely for their benefit and not ours, is insulting and frustrating.
This is why DRM in general is so unpopular. It's not that everyone just wants to "steal" stuff, or pirate it. It's that we don't like strings attached to stuff we bought.
Fair enough, I was thinking about the automated cameras that ticket parked cars when I wrote that section. Pretty much the same general idea; using automated systems to charge people with a crime regardless of accuracy and little to no repercussion if wrong.
At least for speeding and running lights there's actually a potential risk to public safety. DMCA takedowns only theoretically give an economic benefit to a copyright holder...and even that theory is extremely weak, if not provably false. But hey, even the slight chance that someone will make a bit of money is apparently worth the sacrifice of our freedom of speech, right?
There's a bigger fallacy at issue here. Even if they could compete, the only situation where this would have been an issue for Johnny Cash's estate is if someone heard Alan Jackson's song and then decided NOT to buy Johnny Cash's song because they'd bought Alan Jackson.
Why would this happen? If someone liked the Alan Jackson song there's a good chance they'd like Johnny Cash's song too, which means Alan Jackson's song increases the likelihood of a Johnny Cash purchase. If they weren't going to buy the Cash song anyway, either because it's not selling anymore, they hadn't heard it, or a myriad of other reasons, then Cash's estate hasn't lost anything.
The chances of similar songs harming either artist is much less likely than the opposite. You see this most commonly in Hip-Hop and Rap music when "competing" artists make group songs. Rather than dilute or harm their music, these artists recognize that including other musicians in their music brings groups of fans together, which potentially increases the revenue for all involved.
Art and culture are not scarce resources, and the more people involved the more valuable they become. This is why a video game that allows modding is more valuable than one that doesn't, and why movies, books, and shows that incorporate pop-culture references draw such big crowds. People love the shared culture and are drawn to it. People also love the familiar, and enjoy slight changes to an old favorite. Treating culture like coal or tables (scarce resources) simply doesn't make sense and makes it less valuable.
You can't block TOR from a technical standpoint (that's half the purpose) but you can certainly arrest/drone strike anyone running an exit node. That's the great thing about governments...they aren't limited by pesky "technical limitations" and "morals," they can just arrest or murder anyone who doesn't conform.
And hey, you won't know about it because you lost access to TOR. Everybody wins! (What losers? There are no losers...)
My guess is that someone wanted to define tax evasion for their point, so they searched for "tax evasion" and copied and pasted from somewhere that had a decent definition. They're writing an internet comment, not a thesis; plagiarism isn't exactly the first thing they're worried about, let alone "content infringement."
Either way the takedown is asinine. It's one thing to copy an entire article, or even the article's main points. To worry about your definition (not even a great definition) of a common term is ridiculous. Even if fair use didn't apply (I'm pretty sure it does, but the legality can be funky) that only shows an issue with the law, not the "infringement."
There really needs to be a way to punish companies for bogus DMCA takedowns. The argument that "there's too much stuff out there, so we can't verify everything!" is a cop-out. That's like the police whining that there's too many cars so they can't catch every speeder. Boo hoo, nobody cares. But when your automated systems punish those who haven't broken the law, there needs to be consequences, or all you're doing is encouraging abuse.
Graham's answer: "I don't email. No, you can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one. I don't know what that makes me."
Graham's explanation is in the original article. If he's doing it to avoid a paper trail, he's not admitting to it. Not sure I see what Tim could have expanded on based on the quote already used in the article.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Such games, with their real-time animation, happen to be about the only user application which demands the power of an expensive computer.
Have you ever used a computer for serious video editing, rendering, or 3D graphics? What about physics or economics simulations? These require some decent horsepower (or a lot of wasted time). Most of the major editing programs, such as Adobe Photoshop/Premier, 3d Studio/Maya, Sony Vegas, etc. are not natively compatible with Linux and run only with varying degrees of success and efficiency using WINE. There are alternatives, of course, but none of them are at the level of these programs (no matter how much people claim Blender can "do it all"...it's not as good). A $200 computer and Linux just won't meet any sort of professional design work requirements; gaming is equally as bad, but not the only reason for a better computer.
Equally to the point, they should probably not share a machine with confidential documents, because they are bound to be trojans.
Huh? All computer games are bound to be trojans? That's like saying all knives are bound to be murder weapons. Very confusing.
Certainly they are responsible for problems which result from interactions between different parts of the distribution, and additionally, they are supposed to know about reasonably common hardware, such as the components of motherboards.
Huh? That was my whole point; the distro wasn't able to handle basic device drivers. My mouse, sound card, and webcam all either failed to work or worked only in certain situations or with considerable effort. After those issues I didn't dare try to install any overclocking software. Maybe a bit paranoid but I wasn't going to let Linux touch my voltage after the problems I'd already had.
The point about cable is that the cable company won't sell you broadband at any kind of reasonable price, until you've bought all the cable channels.
I haven't used Comcast recently but I've used both Time Warner and Hawaii Telecom, and neither offered cheaper internet with bundled cable. They offered really cheap cable if you already had internet, but the internet alone was cheaper. In fact, I couldn't find a single article or ad that showed you could get bundled cable and internet on Comcast for cheaper than just internet. It's obviously in their best interest to get people to stick with having cable but you certainly aren't forced to and you aren't paying more to choose not to.
Granted, you may not want to use Comcast for other reasons (like being Comcast) but to imply that you're forced into cable or that you're getting better service using dial-up seems a bit extreme.
Anyway, all of your responses have only highlighted my original point; Linux works only in extremely limited purposes, such as the high tech level (which, no offense, you are not in) and the basic or extremely specialized computing level (which would probably work just as well, if not better, using a Chromebook, and for a similar price).
Which is too bad, because there's so much potential there. Oh well.
TV shows like the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight often take clips and images directly from news organizations with little to no modification. There's no permission needed because they are commenting on the work. Sometimes they play a clip directly with no commentary, although it's obvious to the viewers that commentary is happening (usually because the clip highlights something really stupid).
This is all protected under fair use and parody. And it's vitally important that this right is protected, as being unable to comment on the speech of others (in whatever form that speech takes) not only violates the First Amendment but is a sign of living in a oppressed state.
As a lawyer and as the consulting editor on NPR's Double Take Toons, while I disagree with Chip Bok's view of Net Neutrality, but I do support him on his understanding of fair use.
You must be a terrible lawyer.
Chip has the right to have the words he speaks and the images he draws to be presented as he intended them.
Nope. If I buy a painting, and then draw beards on all the women and put it upside down on my wall, I am not using or presenting it as the artist intended...and there isn't a shred of legal protection that prevents me from doing so.
In fact, he has an internationally recognized legal and moral right to protect the integrity of his work.
Nope. Copyright is not a moral right, and there is no right protecting the integrity of a work. He only has the right to be the sole distributor of his original work and derivatives thereof, if the derivatives are not covered under fair use. He has zero rights to this clear parody.
Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech.
Not even close. His original work is still available and we can all laugh at his ignorance together. Honestly, if it did somehow silence his speech, it would probably be better...at least he wouldn't have his idiocy broadcasted for the world to see. Alas, his speech is still available, and we can all ridicule it to our heart's content.
And because of the way the internet works, it is quite possible that some might mistake the parody of his work, as his work.
Someone would mistake "The cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works" as his own work? I'm sure people make cartoons that refer to themselves in third person and insult themselves, while not commenting on the actual image shown, all the time.
Nothing you mentioned is covered by law, and would not even be entertained by a court, let alone successfully prosecuted. If you're his lawyer and/or consultant no wonder he has no idea how copyright law works.
Please, go for your lawsuit, let as all know how it works out. We need some more laughs around here!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Sorry, I may have made things unclear when I was discussing distros and companies. It's not the OS itself which is profitable or made for profit. It's the surrounding ecosystem. For example, some Steam games have native Linux versions but the vast majority don't. If I'm an user of Linux, and want to play computer games (as an example), my options are extremely limited.
So what? Developers don't generally bother with platforms that are unpopular (see: BlackBerry). The more popular and used Linux becomes, the more developers have a legitimate business reason to develop for the OS. This, in turn, gives the users of Linux more options, more freedom, and higher quality products.
By ignoring difficulties and releasing buggy, incompatible, and arcane software that only the most dedicated users will ever understand or be able to use efficiently, developers are less likely to make their software compatible with Linux. So now you're left with a buggy, incompatible, arcane, and empty OS. And with Windows 10 being released as a free upgrade to existing Windows users, not even the shenanigans of Windows 8 will be enough to draw people away from Windows. Your argument is this doesn't affect Linux or Linux users, but since an operating system is practically worthless without software, I strongly disagree.
Again, my issues with Linux were probably specific to my particular computer. I built it completely from individually purchased parts and each one has its own drivers and bugs. I went in to Linux expecting to be able to modify my system heavily if I chose but have a basic, working operating system at the core. It did not meet that expectation and did not do what I wanted it to do.
If I were using it for different purposes, perhaps just for programming or just for word processing, or even just for a specific business program, maybe I would feel differently. I use my computer for a myriad of purposes, from word processing, data analysis, graphic design, programming, video gaming, and entertainment. Hardly any of my existing software worked, or worked without significant trouble, and alternative software options were all inferior to existing or incompatible products.
Which was my original point. Developers are not going to spend the time and energy to make their software for systems that aren't going to make them a profit compared to the time invested in entering that market. If Linux users want a better experience, it's in their best interest to have more people enter the platform and create a demand for Linux-compatible software. The attitude of "it works for me, so it's fine" and the high learning curve, often without much help to users trying to switch (or outright derision from the community), hurts the platform as a whole for everyone...including existing users.