Didn't you take Civics 101? Don't you read the Constitution? We are a nation of laws, and laws exist to protect the defenseless wealthy and powerful elites from public embarrassment caused by their own improprieties and foolish actions.
Just look at how our president, a constitutional scholar and former law professor sworn to uphold the law, has spent his presidency relentlessly prosecuting and depriving of human rights the depraved whistle-blowers who have embarrassed Our Most Holy and Sacred Government, and its constituent Supreme Wealthy Elites. This is precisely what it means to enforce the letter of the law.
I'm always surprised when commentators don't understand the basic facts involved in what they're reporting.
I would just like to say that this is an unsurprisingly well-written post, from a commenter whose comments I frequently enjoy. I would especially like to point this out in light of my recent criticisms of Tim-squared, where -- although I frequently enjoy their comments -- I don't think their posts usually fit with the style of writing (serious) I'm accustomed to seeing here.
In short, it might be able to provide an idea of the scope of copyright violations...
Might be an interesting way to finally get our hands on some real data about the scope of file sharing. Even though there's still no hard and fast link between "lost sales" and piracy, it would be interesting to have real facts about it and who it really effects.
I don't mean to sound backhanded, and I sincerely apologize if I do, but sometimes your posts are a little over the top for me. I really enjoyed this one. I think I like the more subdued-outrage style for Techdirt, rather than some of the Cracked.com-esque posts I've seen from Tim-squared in the past. :)
I, too, have followed Ryan Bliss for years, and while his work is frequently copied (to his dismay), I don't recall him ever going to court over it. I actually saw the similarity when Techdirt first wrote about it, and wondered if they'd copied that image myself (not that I care).
Usually in these cases Ryan is just looking for attribution, but since he HAS left his job to support his family entirely through selling memberships and this has been a huge marketing success, it wouldn't really surprise me if he went after more in this case.
Before anyone starts slamming me, I'm very copyleft and I'm also not sure how I feel about Ryan's position here. I find it understandable, in a way, since it would at least be nice if they gave him credit for inspiring the image (assuming, of course, that he did). But I can hardly be accused of being anti-piracy, even with respect to Digital Blasphemy. While I paid for a lifetime membership ($99) years ago, I've since shared my login with a number of people to spread the word about him. And while they otherwise probably wouldn't have paid the relatively high cost of his free images for simple desktop wallpaper, my one subscription being copied out like that has caused numerous others to use his wallpapers on their desktops every day, including in some offices, inspiring notice and comment from visitors, co-workers, etc. In short, even if he didn't like what I'm doing, I'm sure I've gotten him a lot more attention than I would have if I'd kept my subscription just for myself.
This is ridiculous. I don't specifically recall what you've said about Wikileaks in the past, so I won't claim you're contradicting yourself, because I simply don't know. But this doesn't seem like one lone-wolf gov't official disagreeing with the gov't at large about the official WH actions toward Wikileaks. Rather, this looks, as usual, like a calculated piece of PR released to all-to-eager stenographer-journalists who publish anything a "qualified source" tells them.
Anyone who has read reporting on those cables (or better yet, read them directly, though who has time) has seen numerous examples of embarrassing situation after embarrassing situation caused by flat out lies they make plain, particularly with respect to policies in the ME. While it's certainly true, in the barest respect, that other ME leaders that we're more friendly with are excited about the idea that we might depose Iran's regime, the fact that a few cables prove they're bouncing up and down about it certainly does NOT validate everything our saber-rattling leaders have said regarding Iran in the last few years. If anything, it just underscores that we're itching to go to war with them and everyone in that region knows it.
I'm sorry, but this seems like the same pattern of "Bush says there are WMDs in Iraq, and we know because Cheney went on Meet the Press and confirmed it" type reporting, and I'm sad to see that a reporter I'm normally thrilled with (even in an off publication that won't make much difference in this case, since it's not geared toward political reporting) missing this obvious underlying theme.
Looking forward if copyright did not exist or was considerably shorter the artist / writer would have the incentive to create more music knowing that if they didn't their meal ticket runs out.
Somehow this excellent point always makes it past being explicitly stated. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I read a lot of copyleft stuff, specifically most everything on Techdirt, and I just don't see it enough. The argument of IP maximalists/supporters is about not having to change. No one is losing the incentive to create more than the very people wringing their hands about it disappering. They have no incentive to create anything new (meaning business models, since these sleazy trade organizations don't strictly "create" anything in the first place), because they're enjoying a gov't-granted monopoly + police powers on their old, rehashed models.
Also, the rule about cumulative effect — a limit on the total number of excerpts that can be made — would be enforced across the entire institution. Two classes could not use the same work without paying permission, and Georgia State would be responsible for making sure that no system across its campus was providing access to any more than two excerpts (for the whole campus and of no more than 1000 words each) by the same author.
That's excerpted from the Kevin Smith article. Now, what that says to me, is that the publishers are attempting to require an unheard of (and, as Smith rightly points out, beyond infeasible) level of collaboration between professors in totally unrelated departments to make sure they're not excerpting from the same works. That could conceivably require the creation of an entire new department in many universities, existing solely to deal with licensing issues so that professors could properly teach without the burden falling to them. It would also potentially censor a lot of material (i.e., "You can't teach using that text: it's too popular/expensive and we can't afford to have people learning it.").
Another clearly troubling issue of this requirement would be that many professors would be unable to cope with survey classes. Imagine, as a commenter above stated, a philosophy class, in this case a 100-level survey course. The licensing fees to teach a class composed mainly of short excerpts read every day would be staggering.
... that this means you can't use free & open-source material?
The rule says only 10% of a given course's material could be from non-permissive copying. It seems like if a textbook was released under CC-BY-SA or something, it would fall under "permissive copying" to even use it in an e-reserve (provided attribution). Public domain seems at odds with this interpretation as well.
Where they'd get you in a philosophy degree (disclosure: I was a philosophy major and did a year in grad school) is possibly with copyrighted translations of major works (cf. Plato's Republic). Even then, it seems that the translators like Reeve and others would actually own their respective copyright, and even if they've licensed specific uses of it for various publications (which they certainly have), there may not be a strong legal position for stating that they have a pre-existing copyright stance on all of it. They are perhaps only relying on case law to establish that, were it ever challenged. Thus, they could perhaps "revise" their translation according to some minimum legal standard and re-release it CC-BY-SA or similar to dodge this.
I do not think this strongly implies that you would be forced to accept a major publisher's content, as worrisome as that would be if it did. That said, it does continue the "make others police my copyright for me" stance, which is bothersome in and of itself.
On an unrelated note, it would be very interesting to see the SCOTUS or legislature strike this specifically from law, namely, to bar having others police your own copyrights. I think something similar is already implied by trademark law, where you have to aggressively defend your trademark or risk losing it. Shifting the costs back onto the IP maximalists (as opposed to ISPs, governments, universities, and whomever else they want to try to saddle with the responsibility) might go as far as anything to shut them up or put them out of business. They'd quickly find out how unsustainable their recommended policing is.
"Masnick, this is why you're such a joke. One Senator who is in the know because he's on a committee with clearance to view privileged information publicly reveals all he can about a disturbing trend in politics and all of a sudden you're crying foul, blaming Obama for issues related to transparency and privacy.
This is just your same tired old schtick. I'm surprised you didn't mention copyright, blah, blah, blah."
Except this time, it will be extra ironic, because the _Anonymous_ Cowards will be making, essentially, the aforementioned "nothing to hide" argument. :P
Oh, I'm just venting. Of course I know they still have to take a break. I'm pleased that they answered the emails so pleasantly and hilariously from what they displayed. If anything, I'm more worried that 9-year-old children are trying to send their cell phone number and other contact info to Oprah when they can't distinguish her from a Norwegian software company. I lost count of how many things were wrong with that one!
...whether I'm happy or a bit upset with Opera (my browser of choice). Mostly happy, because that's hilarious. But part of me is saying, "Wait! Why are you wasting dev resources answering these ridiculous, clueless emails when you're still experiencing bugs you've had since 9.2 on Linux?!" [Hint for non-Opera users: current version is 11.11]
Especially in light of the "18 senators too cowardly to attend" comment above, I think it's only fair to point out that Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) also said he would have voted no, but was prevented from attending the vote by inclement weather. Still, that would have put it at a measly 4 Rep., 4 Dem., & 1 "Socialist". (Yes, there is a socialist party, btw, but Bernie Sanders is listed as an Independent.)
...all e-mail, instant messages, text messages, buddy lists, address books, contact lists, account histories, account settings, profiles, mail boxes, folder structure, detailed billing, user activity records (log on and log off times), user identification records, phone number access records, ISP access records, and all information provided by the user at the time the account was created.
Oh! And we'll also need a copy of their last three month's utility bills, and their lease, and any outstanding liens, and a credit report, and their bank account number, and the veterinary records pertaining to any pets they've owned or taken care of for friends in the last 7 years, flight records, their mother's maiden name, a geneaology of the surnames of their mother, father, and all four grandparents dating to at least 1837, applicable military records, vaccination history...
Seriously, what the hell were they planning to do with all this? And what was their lawyer going to say if they were asked why they needed basically any of it?
"...there's a new service being tested that will let friends send text messages to each other about shows they're watching."
Now that's playing fast and loose with the word new if ever I heard. I mean, c'mon guys, can't we already *do* that? What's next? A partnership with the telcos to allow us to call our friends on cell phones after prime time and chat with them about what people on our favorite TV shows did?
I went and searched Facebook for John Arrow, and sure enough I stumbled across an advocacy group. After reading both the CNET article and the letter from Andrew Bodsworth (the c&d, which was posted on the group's page), I don't see what the big deal is.
The letter was very personable and reasonable, and it isn't as if they DELETED his profile. It was simply DEACTIVATED to get his attention (i.e. it will be reactivated when he complies and he'll have three or four days of Feed to catch up on). If a bunch of users like his thing, then they can send e-mails to Facebook who might then allow them to keep it. If he wants to call their bluff on trademark issues, then he's welcome to hire lawyers.
Overall, I don't get why people would be upset over this. Though it might make Facebook "more valuable" to some stalk-- er, users, I think on the whole Facebookers would probably appreciate the fact that Facebook doesn't let random tards data mine their activities. After all, with all the complaining about the infamous News Feed telling people when they join and leave groups, how do you think people would feel about someone recording the time they spend looking at profiles without their consent?