This has got to be the pinnacle of human absurdity.
Didn't anybody during the course of this lawsuit not just wake up and think, "Wow, this entire case is fucking stupid?" Didn't anybody not realise "Wow we are spending tons and tons of court time and effort and money for years and years on a fucking 1cm x 1cm marking on the back of a fucking watch that for all intents and purposes ought to be treated like a fucking regular piece of property?"
NO! Apparently we need the Supreme Court to deliberate on such a MASSIVE PHILOSOPHICAL CONUNDRUM.
It's like copyright believers have no shame. And it's like everybody forgot how to laugh at them. This should be the subject of witty cartoons and Onion articles and full-blown disgrace.
How far does it have to go before people start laughing? Do copyright lawyers need to strip naked in court?
Oh I see. Copyright holders wanting anonymity in civil courts.
You know, because secret courts are totally liberal.
Don't worry I'm sure that once that gets into swing NOBODY will be able to connect the dots and work out for themselves where and when takedowns are happening.
"Wahhh Google and Youtube put sad faces in place of infringing videos when they are taken down" - yes, I have heard this attempt to restrict Google's freedom to express what they THINK about takedowns being uttered, too.
And of course efforts to remove Chilling Effects instead of targeting the source of the piracy itself - the websites in question (which they won't do because they secretly feel that enforcing copyright is a doomed policy) will resemble the E.U. disastrous ruling on the right to be forgotten ("don't even TELL the sites you've taken down links!!!!") and will be met with inevitable Streisand Effects and total humiliation.
It's almost as if they get masochistic pleasure out of making themselves look like clowns.
Next thing they'll say is "nobody is even allowed to MENTION "The Pirate Bay" because if you do, that is the same as LINKING to it!!!". They'd be right, you know. Simply mentioning what a pirate website IS makes you a linker and morally liable for infringement.
Stretching this nonsense far enough, reading an open book on a public train could probably count as a public performance. Since anyone else could read it.
And you never owned that book in the first place. You just owned a license to make a copy of that book via the beams of light that reflect off of it and hit your eyes. Which means you also don't have the right to lend it to anyone else, as it'd be making an unauthorised copy (via the beams of light) in the process.
I'm from the U.K. Farage is a professional troll (seriously, Google his name and tell me that doesn't look like a troll face) along with the rest of UKIP. They steal right-wing votes from the mainstream right-wing Tory conservative party because UKIP sees the Tories as being too warm and cosy with Europe.
They are a bunch of separatist lunatics who want to blame all of Britain's woes on the European Union. We already have a separatist movement in my home country of Scotland in the form of Scottish nationalist separatism. Enough problems as it is, without these British nationalist separatists adding to them.
We seriously need a party committed to state unity over state amputation that is anti-nationalist and pro-internationalist. And we haven't got one. The closest thing we've had to such a global movement in recent history were the international socialists that were hostile to U.S. imperialism and Soviet Union imperialism alike. It died when socialism died, and all the nationalist cracks are appearing as a result (as well as bullshit alliances between the so-called "left" and far-right extremist Islamist movements).
The Simpsons can still on rare occasion be funny during their long-prolonged new episodes that just don't seem to end. This is a joke I saw that sums up UKIP and their sympathisers perfectly. Mr Burns has a memory lapse and has to be educated by Smithers on the history of Europe:
You don't seem to have stressed enough the disgrace of Paramount Pictures.
They did not have any moral authority to pull Team America from theaters. In a crucial moment of solidarity that had to be upheld, Paramount trashed it.
And they used copyright law to do so. That is a rather significant finding, I would think, and I can't believe it's been so easily glanced over.
What we have here is a textbook example of copyright being used to suppress freedom of expression. On a vast political and dialectical scale. That showing of Team America was a crucial act of defiance in the face of the censorship of another film, and it was wrecked by a pathetic claim of ownership of expression on an already 10 year old movie.
Good post. And all Garcia really did was conclusively demonstrate how mixing the separate and unrelated issues of copyright and defamation into the same legal sphere leads to all kinds of stupidity, such as this.
It's a philosophical defeat for the copyright believers.
Personally, I think that if fuckers are sending death threats to her in the full knowledge - the full knowledge that these fascists must have - that she was dubbed over and did not actually say what it appears, yet still continue to intimidate and frighten her, all the separate copyright provisions in the world are not going to protect her.
She needs to take the side of people like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and say that an attack on her is an attack on everybody who wants to treat Islam with the same levels of criticism as any other religion.
You know what's really revealing? The MPAA must surely be aware of the question of VPNs. It must have crossed their minds. Someone within must have surely raised the issue if their serious intention is to limit the piracy of creative goods.
Surely, they should be saying things like "this is how we are going to counter VPN re-routing, X, Y, Z..." but they don't. They never say things like that.
Either they don't know about VPNs, which is not possible, or they know about VPNs and are unwilling to say anything about them since they know that they can't really be stopped.
It would have been far better if Google remained defiant and continued to run the news feed without paying. One of the necessary things you have to do when threatened like this is to say that the freedom to express trumps all else, even in the face of bad laws that must be disobeyed. Because such a stand would have also helped the cause for their competitors, who also have been affected by this copyright policy presumably.
If it makes the copyright squad look that more ridiculous by bitching over quotable paragraphs then all the more for it. Any impending stupid lawsuits may have even prompted calls to reverse the copyright policy.
There are legitimate criticisms of Google that need to be addressed. Its tax dodging, its dangerous monopolistic tendencies, its censorship in some cases (there's a valid point to be made in this situation that Google's closing down of news feeds in Spain over a silly copyright squabble resembles censorship in some form), and its overall capitalist elitism.
So to see copyright fools like these perform the equivalent of Basil Fawlty going mental and hitting his car with a tree branch over and over in a serious attempt at getting it working again as a means of attacking the corporate giant is pathetic on all fronts.
Illegal downloaders do not download because there are pirate websites available. The opposite is the case.
Pirate websites are available because there are illegal downloaders who download. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. This goes for all black markets with a majority. It is the same with the war on drugs: space has just been created for the next dealer to come along.
People are no doubt going to think that this is a blow against piracy. On the contrary, there must be a stupendous number of pirate sites who have been BEGGING for this shutdown to happen, so that they can get more traffic and hence more ad revenue.
As long as people do not fail in finding a pirate copy of whatever they seek online, piracy will never be eliminated. Who here really thinks their ability to find a pirate copy has been dented?
Let me list the prohibition comparisons accordingly:
Lack of product regulation Alcohol: higher concentrations of alcohol per drink. Drugs: higher concentrations AND other drugs mixed in per drug with no accountability. Prostitution: STIs can be high, no rights for workers, and human trafficking becomes worse not better. Piracy: no need to include MPAA/PEGI ratings, lack of quality and high risk of viruses.
Criminals gain power through untaxed profits Alcohol: Al Capone. Drugs: The drug cartels of Mexico. Prostitution: The costs are high and the taxes are zero. Piracy: Kim Dotcom, corporate pirates in China, and to some extent Google - the biggest tax dodger of all.
Catching criminals only causes vacuums to be filled Alcohol: underground brewers persist. Drugs: ridiculously easy to start cannabis farms in one's own home to fill the gap caused by the latest drug bust. Prostitution: No indication of sex drive being inhibited in the slightest. Piracy: international nightmare where proxies will get to bad state actors, no matter how many times a node is removed.
Corruption between the law enforcers and criminals Alcohol: cops usually bribed to turn a blind eye. Drugs: cops either plant drugs on innocents, or the CIA indirectly funds dealers. Prostitution: Clients and servers are better protected depending on how high up their are in office. Piracy: toleration of Megaupload for 2 years (the length of time the FBI claims the spying went on) and no real practical chance of going after Google - usually Google does lobbying in politics, never mind Microsoft or Apple.
Malicious salaries are dependent on the prohibition Alcohol: salaries for cops, prosecutors, politicians, lawyers, judges, prison officers, prison labour. Drugs: same as above, including the lobbying from pharmaceuticals to keep the war on drugs going so that profits from their approved profitable drugs are not undermined by competition. Prostitution: Corruption from rich pimps, and more justification for police salary. Piracy: Lawyers, lawyers, and more lawyers. (A question for Mike Masnick if he is reading: does he know of any other legal framework that is as ridiculously complicated and reactionary as copyright legalistion, besides say, tax codes? If not, the case for Occam's Razor becomes much stronger still.)
Stupidity all round Alcohol: This should be in the "drugs" category. Drugs: In the U.K. we have police clamping down on "legal highs". You heard this right. Police are hostile towards something they are openly admitting is legal as if to change the definition of the word, except of course the "legal highs" of class A category that are called alcohol and tobacco. Prostitution: It is perfectly legal to pay for watching sex and get someone else to do the dirty work for you (pornography) yet no outrage over the exploitation of these "sex workers" seems to take place in quite the same way. Piracy: http://i.imgur.com/FqiWdrU.jpg
And these are the reasons why the piracy prohibition is arguably worse than prohibitions on drugs, alcohol or prostitution:
Most enforcement comes from lawyers, not police. Which sort of puts a dent on the realistic power an artist has, no? Why the fuck would you first call your lawyer if your car was stolen? Unions can only depend on international treaties to protect their works which rogue states do not apply by. Artists have neither the time nor the resources to watch over the planet for piracy, let alone cut through the layers of internet anonymity to work out who is doing the infringing. Artists have neither the time nor the resources to learn every spoken language on the planet in order to determine if their works are being pirated in another language. States have neither the tine nor the resources to go running around after every website. Artists are encouraged to invest lots of risky labour into a philosophy that cannot realistically protect them. It is the equivalent of a state abolishing its hard-copy currency for digital JPEG money and expecting it to work without any of the prohibitionist problems above. Infringement through derivative works is arguably thousands of times greater than infringement of full works, and the profits to be made there are huge - this kind of infringement is even harder to get through the courts if the artist can even afford the legal fees. This is not JPEG dollars - it is as ridiculous as JPEG pennies.
Have I made it clear how fucking stupid this is, yet?
What we need is an abolition of the "ownership of expression" mentality and a moving forward towards a payment of artists via assurance contracts. This way artists can put their foot down about how much they are worth and in a way that does not infringe on anybody's freedoms. If corporations can set up their own simultaneous payment system where all their workers are paid at the end of each month, I am sure it cannot be that difficult for artists via Patreon for example. There is nothing noble in getting artists to invest in this current system of empty promises.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.
I shall skip past my contempt for the many creators' unions getting together to side with the censor instead of the free expression. It better be obvious to everybody here which side you ought to take between religious murderers and movie makers.
And I shall skip past the unions' paranoia and conspiratorial attitudes towards Google, which is surely driving this babble.
What we have here is a foregone conclusion. The more the unions protest about separation of copyright principles from defamation principles, the more they put the nail in the coffin over the stupid argument that copyright and defamation should be one in the same thing.
I say let them dig this trap for themselves. The attempt to square this circle and insist that there is no other way to defame an artist without infringing on a copyright will surely lead to upending the law and forcing lawyers to separate the two concepts whether they like it or not.
Maybe then we will finally get the whining about blasphemy over creative works to stop. Maybe Aerosmith will stop bitching about the "degrading" nature of YouTube remixes. Maybe the Beastie Boys will realise there are other routes to stopping the implication that they are involved with a corporation they don't agree with that doesn't rely on copyright. Maybe then there will be "I will not be defamed!" comments on Facebook when the company uses pictures for advertising purposes instead of some useless copyright disclaimers. Maybe then people will get some fucking common sense.
Then again, perhaps not. Fools like these always want to have it both ways.
The root fallacy here is that defamation should have nothing to do with copyright and should be handled in a different legal sphere. It is NO argument in support of copyright to say that without copyright, defamation of an artist would go unpunished.