Despite this overwrought article, this was (mostly) a good, tightly reasoned opinion.
Having spoken to nearly half a dozen copyright experts, I've yet to find anyone who doesn't think this ruling is one of the worst they've ever seen.
The judge did not say that "Garcia has a copyright interest in the film." He ruled that she had a copyright interest in the part of the film involving her own performance, and not at all in the film as a whole.
That argument would be a lot stronger if Kozinski didn't order Google to take down all copies of the entire film. The very fact that the court did exactly that shows that the distinction you're trying to set up is so illusory that even the court issuing the decision did not understand it.
Because, saying that actors in a recorded performance have NO copyright interest whatsoever is nonsensical, and at any rate, the law is that they do.
It is neither nonsensical nor does the law say what you say it does.
The alarm that TechDirt's article expresses over this section of the opinion disappears once you realize what is being analyzed is not whether the scriptwriter/producer is the film's *author* but whether he is her *employer,* and she an *employee.*
No, the alarm remains the same. Kozinski's ruling clearly suggests that a first time indie filmmaker who is not a Hollywood mogul cannot be an employer. That's ludicrous.
As an independent contractor, for her creative work to be considered "made for hire," the same as an actual employee's would be automatically, the producer needed to get her explicit agreement. He did not get that agreement.
This is the one point we agree on -- which is why I noted that the rules for works made for hire are quite specific (unlike what most people who don't know the law think).
Consider a parallel case.
What you describe is not a parallel case at all.
I would argue that in such a case, as in the one involved in this court decision, even if the band had been formal employees and even if they had signed all the releases in the world and had been paid gizillions of dollars, the fraud involved meant that none of those contracts were valid and thus no assignment or work-for-hire copyright transfer would have taken place.
That seems immensely troubling to me and seems wide open to both massive abuse and opens the window to a whole slew of wasteful lawsuits.
Now let's scroll back in time. Just a while ago, TechDirt was hyperventilating about putting people in jail. Why don't you just fine them, you said. Or even something gentler. This is the kind of punishment you wanted. If it doesn't work, it's on you.
it's easier to forge a license plate than an IP address.
You kinda lose what little shred of credibility you have with that laughably ridiculous claim.
This story's headline reveals how Techdirt uses the Internet to manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations. The "New Snowden Doc" in question reveals nothing about how the NSA uses the Internet. Rather, it's entirely about UK counterpart GCHQ. But that doesn't deter Techdirt from adding "NSA" to its headline for the purpose of discrediting the U.S. government.
No, as Greenwald's story explains, the presentations are by the GCHQ but *were presented to the NSA*. Hence my inclusion of it in the title.
How much does Google pay the EFF to fight for "net neutrality"?
Not much it seems. First off, EFF and Google have different positions on net neutrality, so if they're paying, they're not getting their money's worth.
Second, it's simply untrue that Google is dumping tons of money into EFF. As EFF has disclosed, it received $10,000 from Google directly, and about $200,000 in "employee matches" meaning that Google will match what its employees choose to donate to.
That was in 2010, when EFF's income was about 3.6 million. So, even if we include all of Google's matching (which again, is not by the choice of Google), we're talking... about 5%.
Meanwhile, EFF has come down hard against Google on multiple other issues, mostly focused on privacy.
Third, some people point to the $1 million that Google did eventually give EFF, but that wasn't by choice, but was the result of a *lawsuit* concerning a Google privacy violation, in which the judge ordered Google to give money to a bunch of privacy groups *WHO OPPOSED* Google's practices, including EFF.
Fourth, Google has basically gone totally silent on net neutrality over the past four years anyway. They -- much to the annoyance of many of us -- have backed away from their strong support for neutrality as the company has become more powerful and also started running a network of its own. Many of us are uncomfortable with this.
Fifth, this is totally different than what was being discussed in the article in the first place. This is about Comcast paying groups whose issues are totally unrelated to Comcast's to speak out in support. EFF was formed around internet legal and policy issues -- and, as far as I can tell, has never changed its position on net neutrality.
So, yeah, as per usual, you don't know wtf you're talking about. Stop arguing against demons that don't exist. They just make you look ignorant and nutty.
... is that, for all her talk of keeping the federal government's hands off the internet, Blackburn was one of the biggest supporters of SOPA, and continues to support the federal government getting its grubby hands all over the internet to block sites that her campaign supporters in Nashville insist are evil pirates...
o this is the natural extension of the "Of course GoldieBlox can use Beastie Boys to promote their product because parody is protected" argument. So, in order to be consistent, you better take the side that their parody and commerce is protected in this fashion.
Uh, no. First off, Goldieblox's use of the Beastie Boys did appear to be parody. They were directly commenting on the song. I don't think that's the case here, because they explicitly note that they're not really commenting on the quality of Starbucks.
Second, there's a big difference between fair use in copyright for use in a single parody song, and fair use in trademark to build an entire brand.
Nuance and details are important. It's not black and white.
Fun to laugh but it's really pretty silly to assume the NYT is the uneducated party. I just take it as the NYT introducing vocabulary to a readership that won't know these terms.
If the NYT knew what it meant, this wouldn't have been a front page story. The point isn't just the scare quotes, but the fact that this is not a newsworthy story. OMG, he used the tools everyone assumed he used because those are the tools everyone used!
It would be like the NYT writing an article excitedly highlighting that it's now been discovered that Snowden "emailed" the "reporters" he spoke to.
You seem to revel in tearing apart virtually everything and everyone who works within our government and performs tasks with which you happen to disagree...as if they are spiteful persons bent upon the utter destruction of our society and the rule of law.
This is 100% false. I actually think most people working for the government are doing incredible work under difficult circumstances, trying to do their best while dealing with significant competing interests.
What I have problems with are people in power who abuse that power and say stupid shit. Mike Rogers has done that repeatedly. I don't think that he is spiteful and bent upon the utter destruction of our society and the rule of law. I don't think anyone is. I think he's an individual who is not particularly insightful, who has a long history of ignoring basic facts and flat out lying about those he disagrees with in an effort to protect "friends." I find it troubling that such a person is in power, which is why I call attention to his ridiculous statements.
It is troubling (to me at least) that you display such animus towards them for no apparent reason simply because they are doing things or proffer opinions with which you happen to disagree.
There is no "animus." There is me making it clear why his statements are highly suspect and questionable.
You disagree. I don't think you have a very good reason for that, other than that you live in a world inhabited by the same sorts of people who Rogers normally inhabits, and thus you have lost sight of some rather basic human concepts. Thankfully, you're in a position of no power at all, and I hope that remains the case.
Every time you write about Google, I get the distinct impression that you get money from them.
We've gone over this multiple times and it's not true. Yes, Google has sponsored events we've run twice in the past, but for very low amounts. At times we've used Google's ads, which pay next to nothing. And that's it.
However, it is not what the end user ultimately wants, which is strange because Techdirt has a give-the-user-what-they-want view on things, except when it comes to Google.
You're right that we believe strongly in give-the-user-what-they-want. But I'm confused as to how the EU stepping in to force Google to point to competitors does anything to give the user what they want? That's my issue with it.