Actually, The statement quoted can be read to have nothing to do with the public domain, and harkens back to the original reasons for copyright, that without it, a creative work might never be fixed and/or released to the public. The monopoly encourages a work to be fixed and made accessible to the public via sale. Now issues with the current state of the 'limited' monopoly are valid, but not really what the Justices are talking about in this statement.
Although the first order was more sweeping, the second cast the court in the uneasy role of film editor. The amendment only mattered if Google assumed authority to change the content of someone else’s copyrighted film. To no one’s surprise, the end result was the same: the entire film remained removed from YouTube.
Not true, a cut of the film removing the offending performance could have been uploaded without violating the new order, which was the point of making the distiction. The First order was overbroad and unconstitutional and clearly intended to prevent the distribution of the film in general. The clarification helps to narrowly tailor the injuction to only restrict the speech covered by Garcia's copyright. That distinction is very important, and I am actually surprised if that cut never made it onto Youtube or elsewhere.
Could you indicate for me a search in which non-sponsored search results are paid for? Or are you complaining about sponsored results? In that case could you define sponsored search 'dominating' the first page? Cause that's like three results in a special box..
If Garcia’s scene is not a work, then every take of every scene of, say, Lord of the Rings is not a work, and thus not protected by copyright, unless and until the clips become part of the final movie.
Of course, if Garcia's "scene" is an independent work then your court order should have been to takedown copies of Garcia's scene, not copies of the whole of Innocence of Muslims.
This ignores that Garcia's scene was not considered to not be a work, but that it was considered to be a work for which Garcia did not own the copyright. Even if her scene is one in which she alone appeared, she is not the one who 'fixed' it and the person who 'fixed' it was not in her employ. Moreover, that scene was not an individual creation, but a collaboration between her, the director, and the writer. Therefore, it is BY LAW, a work-for-hire, and her employer receives any copyright she would have otherwise recieved.
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
I actually fail to see how forcing google to pay ISPs to deliver ads "reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything". As well, you make no argument, you just assume that that is Mike's position, so I fail to see how your commentary is any better.
Mike does not argue the point you bring up because it is not the position he is holding.
If the Federal Judiciary really wants these Gitmo videotapes released-- they should enforce their previous order to do so (Duh!)... by promptly prosecuting and imprisoning the specific persons in the Executive Branch who control the tapes and are defying court orders. Likewise any DOJ persons refusing to cooperate with court orders should be individually prosecuted.
And who exactly would prosecute? That's the key problem, the prosecution is with the DOJ and the Executive Branch. The judiciary is precisely that, the Judges. They do not have the power to initiate an investigation or a prosecution.
If universal encryption is going to cause that, phone encryption has already done it. They already have the excuse. So we may as well protect ourselves against what we can. And tech companies and browsers have been passively encouraging HTTPS transition for quite some time. It hasn't helped. So now they move to actively encouraging, by restricting advanced browser features to HTTPS connections. HTTP connections are still allowed, just not with the highest tech available.
So, rather then the slow, guided transition to requiring https by slowly restricting new, advanced browser features (most likely only used by the tech savvy) to https, you suggest they 'guide' web developers...how? I am already seeing a slow guided transition. I don't see any solid advice in your post.
Re: Reading the actualy blog post gives a different picture
You know, I rarely hear or read on the news which outlet originally broke any given story. And generally when I do its to trumpet one of their own reporters.
And all the quotes come from the 'actual post', so claiming your quote came from there, implying Mikes do not, is a bit disingenuous.
But really, the idea behind giving her credit, is that she 'broke' the story and so its hers.
She claims that 'if it's false, it's plagiarism'. Plagiarism is the theft of "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions". She claims that his statements came from other sources, therefore he did not steal from her. She later claims that if it is fiction, she holds the rights. Meaning she is making a direct claim of ownership of this story. In fact I would say it would violate her copyright, but only because it was fiction and therefore the details of the specific expression were certainly being duplicated. But that is separate from plagiarism.
She moves on to claim "If it's true, it's not original". And? Stating old facts collected from new sources is in no way wrong. And she has no guarantee he knew about her blog post and twitter message, just her suspicions.
While it may be a professional courtesy, and he MAY have broken that professional courtesy, she has made accusations of theft in her commentary, and certainly expressed ownership in the story. No matter her claimed desires, the rest of what she said expresses why she thinks she deserves to be credited. Because it is HER story.
And despite being "held for moderation", your original post was viewable within 8 minutes. Your second post within 3. Hell, I've had 'held for moderation' posts appear in less then 30 seconds. It means a lot less then you think it means.
They had better then copyright law. Prior to the existance of copyright law in the UK, the spread of Luthorism was being restricted by way of the outright censorship decrees, and following that, the Stationers Company and the Licencing Of the Press Act 1662.
When you pay a subscription fee, you are linking your viewing habits with your real-world identity. Free sites don't have that problem.
This statement expresses that you recommend the use of 'free' sites to access copywritten content. Given that one can't get most copywritten content online for free, this suggests you recommend piracy to access the content you want. So yes, your statement is in support of freeloading.
It is still not clear if you bought a DVD for every movie you watched, which if you did I would really recommend DVD ripping as your piracy option (given that its not really piracy). Its harder to track, generally doesn't add to piracy statistics, and you don't have to be connected to the internet to watch the movies you own, while retaining the portability of the computer or other device you use.
If you don't have a DVD for every movie you watch on your free sites, then yes, you are still actively promoting yourself as the type of guy the trolls love to point to.
Unfourtunately, the Supreme court has bought into the "but, but, DRUGS!" reasoning of law enforcement. They have however had a back and forth history with Civil Forfiture, accepting it while drawing very vague lines in the sand on occation. The biggest problem is that clear abuses of the system are rarely challenged to the degree necessary to reach the Supreme Court. Either the funds are too little to matter, or the forfeiture is never challenged, or the government admits its wrong and returns the funds, and there is little recourse for the victims.
The problem is without the trolls commentary, you are only assuming what he is trying to say (and I agree on what you think he is trying to say). But once you get outside the methodology of site selection (which is based on a proprietary 'Infingement Index'), it appears to be relatively reasonable about its determinations. It wants to look at only the worst actors, and appears to be reasonably successful at that goal. It wants to analyse revenues, and seems to do a reasonable job. The real question is what does the troll think these facts say? Because it really says nothing related to the topic at hand, and does not debate the facts presented by Mike.
You know, I have looked at the summary for the paper. This appears to be a paper on Revenue generated by infringing sites in the EU. Notably, it determines whether or not you are infringing by a proprietary 'Infringement Index', which expressly (on page 31) can't take into account the ratio of infringing content to non-infringing content on a hosting site (which is because their computers can't actually make that determination, imagine that?)
Reading the purpose and methodology, I fail to see how these facts in anyway disprove or disagree with the facts from this article, so your argumentative tone seems to be unwarranted.
So tell me, what was the point of your post? Your link seems to have little connection to the article at hand, so explaining its significance would go a long way to making your post seem relevant, instead of trollish.
So basically, your the guy all the trolls can now point to as the free loader who just wants everything to be free and doesn't want to pay for anything. Bravo for undermining all the work Techdirt and its commentators do to try to regain sensibility in copyright laws.
And I highly doubt any free site isn't tracking your viewing habits. And if they can, harvesting enough information from the other sites you visit, to effectively know your real world identity. But you keep your little delusion that uwatchfree.com is somehow respecting your privacy.