"Any selfies of you looking sad next to evidence of war crimes by Russian troops and paramilitaries in Eastern Ukraine may endanger your body by exposing it to bullets. Russia Today will subsequently publish a forged selfie of you showing how it was all your fault."
Property rights and moral rights (e.g. defamation protection and plagiarism protection) should not intersect precisely for this reason.
It would mean presidential candidates would have to put up a disclaimer saying the band doesn't support the campaign and the music is being used "unofficially". That seems to make perfect sense, regardless if copyright was involved. If this were an issue of, say, using Jeremy Clarkson's persona on Fiat cars without his permission it would be far clearer without the mess of including property considerations.
But again, because of the hijacking of these issues by copyright, this is not easy. It would be ridiculous if I "signed away" my right to sue a company I work for because of a dangerous slippery floor for example. Either civil rights are inalienable or they are not. Pre-emptive waivers are nonsensical and nobody would sign them in any other context.
This is exactly why I support abolishing copyright but keeping (most of) the moral rights stuff in a separate legal sphere. The property question can be solved through assurance contracts. The moral issues just need to stop being seen through the lens of copyright.
Why do people keep on claiming copyright protects the moral rights of the author?
In cases such as this one it clearly doesn't. No approval or endorsement was given by the band to the presidential bid, effectively slandering them. Yet a licence was given de jure. If anything, under the probable terms that were signed up with that copyright, the band most likely couldn't stop such a licence from being granted.
Copyright gets in the way of moral rights. On what other planet would it be seen as appropriate to sign away your right not to be defamed?
If I were a deluded Euro-worshipping German-speaker who was conducting an interview such as this, I'd certainly use every opportunity to prevent the English with their more stable, state-currency from laughing as much as possible.
Even if it means promoting a deliberate mistranslation with pro-Euro subtitles that were not accurate, where all other dissenting translations were stamped on using copyright law, or better yet preventing English translations entirely.
What gives you the right to say that English-speaking folk have no right to conduct journalism by researching the words of foriegn speakers?
Copyright grants the right to deny works even be read in a certain langugae AT ALL. That is a clear-cut profanity of freedom of expression: everyone forgets that freedom of expression is not just the right of someone to be heard but also the right of everyone to listen and to read.
DIE ZEIT could deny its English translation ENTIRELY if it wished too. Are you happy with that level of power copyright gives to somebody? Especially when the stakes over Greece are very high right now?
If the interview were funded through an assurance contract (e.g. crowdfunding) to cover the expenses and profit, something that doesn't need copyright to function, with the interview in the public domain there would be no problem and the journalists would carry on with their crucial profession *as well as journalists of other tongues.* Everybody wins.
It is you who is putting roadblocks to the journalistic profession.
Re: Re: "even [FOR 3RD TIME] pointing out that these operations exist will grab you a heaping helping of anonymous troll scorn."
This was my comment, I forgot I hadn't signed in.
And let me add, I am so sick to death of this mentality. As if the US controls the whole fucking world. As if IT is the source of fascism and not the most reactionary religious theocratic fascism the planet has ever seen in the form of the Islamic state.
How can people such as the above moron call themselves Leftists at all? "US doing a mission of 'liberation'? LOL! Suicide bombers resisting the Iraq occupation? THAT'S totally liberation! Like the march of the Minute Men!" As the Islamic fascists butcher and slaughter without any hint of empathy for Iraqis.
It doesn't get enough condemnation. Even the "right" of America doesn't come down hard enough on it. It persists and is expected to be taken at face value with no criticism among these circles. As if the US is 100% evil/worse than Hitler and that is the end of the conversation.
I wonder how history books will judge such armchair crackpots.
And I highly doubt everybody has forgotten the said links that were ordered to be removed.
And I highly doubt Google's links to THOSE links have been made to be removed either.
We're living in a wish-thinking world if we think this will do anything to attack piracy. If we've learned anything from the stupidity of the war on drugs, it is that if there is a majority demand in a black market, it will always cause a supply for that black market no matter how many times you attack the supply. Some conservatives think you should deter against the demand in the drug war by bringing in harsher punishments for possessers, but everyone knows deterrents are all talk if you can't enforce them. What bloody fool thinks you can enforce a deterrent against an infringing downloader?
It says a lot that this court is going after Google on a global scale instead of their ISPs on a local scale.
It is the ISPs that provide access to out-of-state Google domains which are not under the state's jurisdiction. They should be the prime target, not a body that is not within local jurisdiction.
But irrational Google-hatred knows no bounds. I've said this a million times, there are very good reasons to be hostile to Google: its tax dodging, its monopoly powers, its corporate lobbying, all the traditional working-class-against-the-ruling-class stances etc. But it's incredible how they are the last things people want to bash Google for.
I looked forward to seeing millions of you marching against the imperialist, irredentist invasion of Ukraine by a Putin-revived-Tsarist Russia when it happened. I don't think it reached even a thousand.
If you're paying $100K for something you know you can get by much cheaper means, you are a moron. There's no other way of putting it. That's the simplest explanation.
And if anything, copyright makes this WORSE. The fools paying this amount of money are doing so precisely because they think there is artificial scarcity behind these transformatives. That has to be why they are not going out to make their own copies of what they see in the exhibit in private, which is what any sensible person would have done.
If you want to help people to stop paying tons of money for copies of your work that were done without your permission, I recommend you eliminate the idea of permission for copies. That way there's no incentive for folk to pay so much for something so forgeable. "If you paid for this free fansub, you were ripped off!" is not a slogan in fan-subbed anime for no reason.
We need to make the incentive to pay artists come from assurance contracts and not this farce of an economic system that is as good as a monetary system of JPEG dollars. If you pay the artist before the work is done, and millions of folk do it depending on popularity, you get a system where the artist is at liberty to ask for whatever price he/she wants without having to depend on nonsense like this where some copies end up more equal than others, and beyond any kind of control of the artist.
I reckon Godwin's Law is thrown around too easy. There are legitimate reasons to bring up the Nazi regime, and Hitler's attempt to use copyright to prevent American's from knowing about his intentions has grave implications that surely don't need spelling out. Slogans of "death to fascism" should never be in short supply, and it is hard to mount such protest when you are not allowed to even read about your enemy in your own language. Same with the great religious conflicts of the past 100 years.
If you believe in copyright you have to believe in forbidding certain languages. You have to believe in forbidding derivatives. You have to believe in forbidding blasphemous content that is by definition an "unauthorised infringement". It is in no way disingenuous to bring up unwelcome powers that copyright advocates themselves claim should be given away so lightly.
These are uncomfortable observations that I have not heard a satisfactory rebuttal for.