the author was required to get permission from the couple if he was going to sue that image to make money.
If the use of the image is fair use, then the author of the book does not need to get permission.
Even if they did need to get permission, they would need to get permission from the photographer, not the subjects. Copyright accrues at fixation, and it accrues to whoever initially fixated the work - in the case of photographs, that would be the photographer.
Fair use rights are not absolute and they are not unlimited rights.
Actually, copyright rights are not absolute, and they are not unlimited rights. Fair use is one of many limitations on those rights. For example, if someone uses parts of your work in a review, you can't exercise your rights over that use of your work, because you don't have any rights.
The author screwed up and he put online retailers in the cross-hairs.
Even assuming the use was infringing (and not fair use), which I doubt, that doesn't mean that the online retailers should face liability. They did not create the infringing work, nor directly assist in the infringement (assuming it even happened).
If they follow the Section 512 procedure, then they are automatically exempt from all infringement. If they did not, then they can only be liable for secondary infringement- which, under traditional copyright case law, they would not be.
Even if the author of the book "screwed up" (which I don't think they did), there is no way he "put online retailers in the cross-hairs." At least, not in the legal sense.
Actually, that's wrong: wavelength = c / frequency, where c = the speed of light. The speed constant is different for different materials (e.g. the speed of sound in air), but no matter what, they're inversely proportional.
Given two waves of the same amplitude, the wave with the lower frequency (longer wavelength) will generally travel farther. On the other hand, Wi-fi signals and TV/radio transmitters send out waves at very different amplification levels, so they can't be compared this way.
I guarentee that if you tested Albini on this, say, by releasing your own CD of Albini's Greatest Hits - because why not, I can do what I want with them. He would be the first one lawyering up to try and stop you.
Probably not, because he's come out before as saying he doesn't care about sites like The Pirate Bay. And I'm sure at least some of the torrents there are of the "Greatest Hits" variety.
Of course, if you're talking about commercial piracy (releasing that CD for sale), then you're arguing a completely different point than Albini was. He was talking about using copyright to control "anyone else that wants to use it or see it," meaning fans and "consumers" - a.k.a. the audience.
Here's the quote in context:
The old copyright model – the person who creates something owns it and anyone else that wants to use it or see it has to pay them – has expired in the same way that around the world you’re seeing structures and social norms [lapse] that were standard for many years.
It’s going to take a lot for the business to catch up to where the audience is, in the same way it takes a while for the church and the laws to catch up to where the people are.
But there is no longer the possibility to exclusively control music through copyright.
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
Yikes. You not only "stole" Gwiz's name, marking you as a complete hypocrite, you also show you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (Of course, you're so incoherent, that nobody else does either.)
The few parts that are comprehensible are factually wrong. For example:
GAMES cost almost nothing to make, up-front "sunk (or fixed) costs" are small, potential profit high, so that's a viable strategy.
"Sunk" or "fixed" costs for video games are in the millions of dollars. AAA games can cost more to make than a Hollywood movie (and certainly cost more than a Top 40 album). CD Projekt put in these costs... and still made a huge amount of money. A lot of this money was earned because of goodwill stemming from their rejection of DRM.
On that, you're just wrong. I can't comment on the rest because it makes no sense; it might as well have been written in hieroglyphics.
American Family Life Insurance Co. of Columbus (AFLAC) v. Assurant, Inc. (2006)
That's not entirely true. In that case, AFLAC was creating an insurance policy document in a "'narrative’ language style - as compared to the 'terse, nondescriptive' style employed by some of its competitors - [which] would be ‘readily understood by consumers.'" It was this "narrative" style that afforded it copyright protection.
On the other hand, "what might be called a paraphrase and plagiarism in another work, is significantly different for the purposes of comparing two insurance policies" (Continental Casualty Co. v. Beardsley). As a general rule, "When the 'idea' and its 'expression' are thus inseparable, copying the 'expression' will not be barred, since protecting the 'expression' in such circumstances would confer a monopoly of the 'idea' upon the copyright owner free of the conditions and limitations imposed by the patent law" (Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian).
So, unless the Sony contract was using some kind of "narrative language style" (which I doubt), its copyright claims are thin to nonexistent. If another company (say, Universal) came up with a contract that was almost completely identical to the Sony contract, I doubt that Sony would have a case to sue.
In any case, it really doesn't matter. This is a slam-dunk case of fair use if there ever was one.
In Canada, for sound recordings, the copyright term starts at the date of publication. That is, it's straight-up 70 years, regardless of how long the recording artist lives.
This actually brings up something interesting. For songwriters and publishers, the term length is dependent upon the longevity of the author (it's life plus 50 years). This means that a songwriter will continue to be paid royalties for sound recordings, even after they've entered the public domain.
This means that songwriters and publishers benefit tremendously when sound recordings go into the public domain. Not only are they getting royalties from the label that formerly held the sound recording copyright, they're also getting royalties from the many other labels that publish the now-public-domain sound recordings.
This is why this particular copyright term extension will screw over songwriters, at the expense of labels.
As an interesting side note, in Canada, though the royalty rates are statutory, permission is not required. This allowed major publishers - who are the same corporations as major labels - to refuse competing labels the use of their songs. This won't affect the publishing corporations - their losses will be made up from the monopoly profits from their sound recording divisions. But it definitely screws over the actual songwriters.
Mike Masnick loves to cheer when artists make less money.
You know the real irony in all of this? Because of ASCAP's collusion with the major publishers, artists ended up getting a lower rate than they would have otherwise.
Before the majors started whining, Pandora had already made a "handshake deal" with ASCAP, which was for a higher rate than the one that they eventually got. Because of their collusion with the labels who were (illegally) making direct deals, Pandora had to go to rate court, which issued the current rate.
Also, I notice that you ignore the fact that terrestrial radio stations pay less than Pandora - for the same service: non-interactive streaming over the Internet. (That's why Pandora is buying a radio station, a move that has just gotten approved: they want the same RMLC rates that ASCAP gives to terrestrial radio.)
So, if you want to know who to blame for the lower rates - it's ASCAP and the major publishers.
Of course, ASCAP, the publishers and the labels have been lobbying quite hard to get the DOJ and/or Congress to throw out the consent decree altogether, so that they can go back to colluding in this matter to try to jack up rates. Expect those efforts to expand even more given this ruling.
It only implies something is not there if you begin with the definition that "property" refers only to tangible, rivalrous things.
The key word here is not "intangible," it is rivalrous. You know how everyone can tell? Because "tangible" was not even mentioned in the article, and was entirely a creation of your own. Way to argue against straw men.
"Property," in the broader sense--the sense that those who consider IP to be P use it--simply refers to the bundle of intangible rights one has in a given thing.
No. "Property" refers only to the thing. "Property rights" refers to the bundle of intangible rights that one has in that given thing. That's kind of the point.
The company owns the IP. It has intangible rights in the underlying intangible things.
No. It has intangible rights in the underlying tangible things. This is black-letter law: a work must be fixed before it has any copyright protections.
He has not stolen the physical copies, which are not IP, but he has stolen the IP.
No, he absolutely has not. In order to "steal" the IP, he would have to posess the exclusive rights that are granted to copyright holders in 17 USC 106. This is not debatable: The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. In order to "steal" someone's IP, you must "assume physical control over the copyright" or "wholly deprive its owner of its use."
For example, a company that takes open-source software and locks it up under their own copyright absolutely is "stealing" the IP. A publisher who forces an author to assign their IP in order to get published could be said to be "stealing" the IP (though you have to examine how much of a choice the author has). But a pirate who downloads something from The Pirate Bay absolutely is not stealing anyone's IP.
The idea that trying to make broken internet technologies should be "front and center" of technology companies' thinking bespeaks a complete contempt for their users.
It bespeaks a complete contempt for more than that. In fact, it goes against the very idea of free speech and an open society.
Imagine, for example, if he had claimed that stopping "terrorists" from exploiting the news should be "front and center" of the New York Times editorial staff. I think even he would see that this would lead to blatant censorship.
What Indiana's law did, in its original form, was offer business entities the same right to expose their opinions in the same way.
As much as I agree with the spirit of this article, this statement is way off the mark.
What Indiana's law allowed was not simply "exposing their opinions."
It was the legal right to discriminate against others based on those opinions. This is fundamentally different than reacting to a Yelp! review (or whatever).
It would be a completely different story if Indiana businesses were, for example, prevented from posting their disapproval of same-sex marriages. It would be very different if they were simply allowed to fire people for posting their opinions of same-sex marriage that was different from the company's opinion (though I would definitely not approve of that, either). It is also very different from the (already-controversial) wedding photographer incident from a few years back. That case was about allowing the religious freedom of bigots to choose their clients. This will open the door for much worse forms of bigotry.
I actually grew up in Indiana. I am ashamed of this whole thing. I hope that people realize that lots and lots of folks in Indiana do not agree with this.
The Anarchist Cookbook is hilariously bad at nearly everything it explains.
A long time ago, when the controversy about the book was still new, someone published an article detailing many of the things that were wrong in it.
The author of that article actually thought that the book was so bad, it might have been written by an "agent provocateur" so that potential bomb-makers would blow themselves up. (Obviously, the author was no stranger to conspiracy theories.)