As a matter of law, I think the judge made the right call. The rights that California granted under its statutes were pretty clearly designed to be expansive.
This is especially true when you compare California law to the state laws of other states. Most of those other states explicitly limit the rights in a sound recording to reproduction and distribution. (They were written at a time when "bootlegging" was common.) California, in contrast, does not. It's also one of the few states that don't have explicit carve-outs for radio and television performances.
Nor does the "rights remaining" argument make sense, since federal copyright law explicitly leaves all pre-1972 rights intact.
This is a major ruling, and if it stands, it will have a drastic effect on anyone who uses sound recordings in California. Because the ruling isn't limited to Internet performances. In theory, any sound recording rights holder can sue terrestrial radio stations, bars, restaurants, venues, and anyone else who has played that performance in public, at least in California.
Are your privacy rights, which are the product of the government, not real?
My privacy rights are not a product of the government. They stem from my natural liberty to be free of intrusion by others.
Is the First Amendment not real, even though it's the product of the government?
The First Amendment does not create free speech rights. The right to free speech - a natural liberty - is innate to human beings.
It is not created by the First Amendment. Instead, the First Amendment says the opposite - that the government is simply not allowed to infringe on this natural liberty. It is not the product of legal statutes, but overrides them. (Using the Hohfeld terms you love to abuse so much, the First Amendment is a government disability.)
Copyright, on the other hand - a statutory claim - is entirely a product of the government. Specifically, it is a right of Congress that is created by the Constitution. Clause 8 does not secure natural rights, it allows Congress to create them if it so chooses. (In Hohfeldian terms, it is a Constitutionally-created government power.)
But you know all of this. So quit being dishonest.
...and there's your problem. Mike has answered every single one of your questions. You just refuse to see that he's answered them.
Seriously, you and I used to have some pretty involved debates, where I learned a lot (by reading the source material, and realizing that you're wrong, but still...). I was incredibly disappointed when I realized that you were the idiotic "moo, quack" dope who obviously was nothing more than a reactionary troll.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I know who you are in real life. I know this not because of IP addresses or anything like that, but because of information that you voluntarily revealed here in your comments, and because your legal arguments are so completely off the wall that only you could make them.
I won't reveal who I think you are, unless you tell me to guess. But trust me - your loony tunes style is unmistakable.
When posts are routed to your spam filter, sometimes it takes hours until they show up and sometimes they don't show up at all.
For the record: my posts are being "held for moderation" as well. And I have no inkling whatsoever that Mike, or anyone else on Techdirt, bears the slightest grudge against me.
Sometimes this stuff just happens. Deal with it.
It's not like Techdirt has any obligation to provide you with a forum for your stupid rants. And Techdirt is much, much better than most sites, which nowadays require you to link to Facebook or something. And he's not even remotely as bad as Trichordist - where Lowery not only blocked my emails and deleted my comments, but hunted down my school email address, and implied that I would get sued.
Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission.
Your entire post rests on the idea that a "sophisticated rightholder" would not infringe on copyright. Of course they would. They would infringe upon whatever copyright that they can, if the rights holder is someone who can not afford an expensive lawyer. If it isn't, then they can infringe however they like, because the artist can't afford to sue them.
As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it?
You're being disingenuous. Let's read the quote in context:
Moreover, Zimmerman was an exclusive songwriter of EMI Music Publishing Limited ("EMI") when he composed "Ghosts 'n' Stuff" (the "Composition") and granted certain exclusive rights in and to the Composition to EMI. With respect to the Master, certain rights thereto have been granted to Virgin Records Limited ("Virgin") and Ultra Records, LLC ("Ultra"). Zimmerman is unaware of any license(s) between Disney and EMI, Virgin, and/or Ultra granting Disney the right to synchronize the Composition with the Infringing Video or to exploit the Master in any manner or media. If Disney has any such licenses, please forward them to my attention immediately. Accordingly, hnot only is Disney violating the rights of Zimmerman, but it is also infringing upon the rights of EMI Music Publishing Limited, Virgin Records, Limited, and Ultra Records, LLC.
Clearly, Disney does not have any sort of licence. He only brings up the other parties to make it clear to the Court that Disney is infringing upon the rights of multiple rights holders.
The request from Disney is something that they do not believe Disney can provide, because they clearly do not believe Disney has any kind of license with any of those rights holders; it's simply boilerplate language.
So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license.
No, it claims infringement of the plaintiffs' rights, then accuses Disney of infringing upon the rights of other rights holders. It "admits" nothing.
Incidentally, it's pretty telling that you take the side of Disney in a copyright fight against an actual artist - but you always take the side of the rights holders in any case where the rights holder isn't an artist, but is a major media company instead. It demonstrates pretty clearly where your loyalties lie.
And, of course, describing Brown as a "thug" just shows a pre-disposition against Brown, and the willingness to believe the party line. It's no more than an ad hominem designed to portray the victim as a perpetrator.
So, basically, everything you said was wrong. It's extremely likely that you heard these falsehoods from right-wing media, and simply didn't check the facts.
It just goes to show that the last thing that anyone should do is "give the Wilson/Brown issue a rest."
What most people don't seem to grasp is the government is "of the people"
If you actually believe this, you're completely out to lunch.
The government is "of the lobbyists and those with political connections." Sometimes their interests coincide with the interests of "the people," but just as often, they are diametrically opposed.
Besides: the government is not just supposed to be "of the people." It is also supposed to be by the people, and for the people. Interesting how you conveniently left off those parts of the Gettysburg Address.
and those who work in government are just "the people".
No. They are people, but they are not "the people."
That means that they are prone to the same corruption as any other people who are given power. They're only human. But don't for one instant think that their corruption represents the will of "the people."
Do you honestly believe the police tactics used in Ferguson represent the will of "the people?"
You know all those people who do drugs, drive drunk, drive too fast, park illegally, don't pay taxes, and a myriad of other "little" offenses against the state (and each other) each day? They are the ones creating the situation.
Here's the difference: when those people break the law, they are punished. When the people in political power break the law, they get away with it. They are, after all, the ones who created the law in the first place.
For example, if you're a member of Congress, you are explicitly allowed to drive to fast and park illegally. Congress has also written tax law "perks" that are only beneficial to themselves.
But if that were the extent of their wrongdoing, nobody would really care.
Criminals and crooks at every turn, everyone thinking they are above the law, and that they can choose to follow or not follow the law as they see fit.
Here, you're just proving my point. If "everyone" does not follow the law, then that law is against the will of the people. Conversely, if the law really did represent the will of "the people," then "the people" (more or less) would follow it by choice.
Really, you are just an apologist for bad laws and bad lawmakers. It's appropriate that your username is "Whatever," since that's the only response your post really deserves.
Did Molyneux actually file a DMCA takedown or use one of the many other ways Youtube has to screw people over?
You should watch the embedded video. About midway through, the video narrator makes the point that Molyneux could easily have filed an abuse report to YouTube. But he didn't do that, and used the DMCA instead.
It could be that he was just confused. It's just as likely that he figured he couldn't file bogus abuse reports as easy as bogus DMCA reports. After all, the anti-abuse policy is YouTube's internal policy, so truly bogus reports can be ignored. The DMCA is enforced by law (what he would call "state violence"), so YouTube can't easily afford to ignore bogus DMCA claims.
You know what? I am a software programmer (or in college to become one). And even a lowly undergraduate knows that ALL of these things:
side effects, functional programming, determinism
...originated in mathematics. Specifically, Turing machines and Church's lambda calculus, both of which are abstract math.
Not to mention big-O notation, recursive formulas, P vs. NP completeness, matrix manipulation, etc. It's like you have no understanding of how much programming depends upon the theories formed by discrete mathematics, linear algebra, or computation theory.
If any of these could be patented, then the software industry would be decades behind where it is now.
If something is in the public domain, nobody "owns" the copyright, because it doesn't exist.
And it can't be the case that "everyone owns it," because the only thing left to "own" are copies - and those copies are private property.
What everyone holds are the rights that are made exclusive to authors (and their assigns) in 17 USC 106: the right to make copies, the right to public display or performance, etc.
But the reason everyone holds these rights is not because they were "granted" by copyright law. It is because they are private property rights and free speech rights. They hold those rights because they are human rights, and the government should not have the power to remove those rights from its citizenry.
The fact that copyright - a right that is entirely government-created - does in fact take those rights away, should be very meaningful to you.
Not according to Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
That case dealt with whether the person was a subcontractor or an employee. This would determine if the work was a "work for hire" or not. The ownership of the equipment was only used to determine that relationship, and it was only one factor out of many. And, in fact, it was used as evidence against a "work for hire" relationship (since the subcontractor used his own equipment).
So, no, merely owning the equipment does not confer any sort of copyright ownership. It has absolutely no bearing on who would ultimately hold the copyright to the photo, unless Slater claims that the monkey was "an employee [working] within the scope of his or her employment" (17 USC 101).
For example, if I shoot a photo for TechDirt and TechDirt pays me and also owns the camera, they (generally) own the copyright.
No, they don't. You would own the photo. Techdirt would only own it if you signed a contract with them (before taking the photo) saying that it's a work for hire.
(You could, of course, assign the copyright to them at any time, but you would still be the original author under copyright law.)
See, for example, this interview with Carolyn E. Wright, LLC:
Q: Who owns the copyright in a photograph once it is taken?
In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the "work-made-for-hire"(also known as "work for hire") category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer - an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.
Prove there's a god and I'll give her the copyright.
If something is of value to human culture, it must be owned by the being that created it.
Therefore, there must be a God, otherwise the picture would be owned by nobody. QED.
It's called the "IP-leological Argument." I think it was first proposed by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa IPologica" (c. 1274). It's been making a resurgence lately due to proponents of "Intelligent Design Patents."