Recordings of those performances are copyrighted..
Yes and I should have made that clearer in my comment when I said "but no one is saying that they are not copyrightable."
I always laugh at the legalese they put into sports broadcasts where they claim that "disseminating the accounts and descriptions without express permission is prohibited" because besides being a load of hogwash, it's also copyfraud.
Sports events are performances, just like live theatre. Thus copyright laws imply.
Where in the article does it say that copyright laws do not apply here? The first couple of comments may have questioned whether a sports event should be copyrightable, but no one is saying that they are not copyrightable.
Someone stating that they intend to break the law is absolutely something you can have a lawsuit about to try to prevent.
Is it? I mean, I know that any idiot can sue anyone for any reason, but do you have any citation where such a case was actually upheld by the court? I would be interested in reading that.
is that same as Gwiz beggin some "Blue" for attention?
Lol. I refer to "out_of_the_blue" as "Blue", but I wouldn't say "beggin for attention". Blue has a history of spouting nonsense, ignoring any rebuttals and then claiming that his points stand and he won the exchange. It's a hallmark of someone arguing from a weak position, really.
old man yells at cloud?
Not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I will admit that, yes, I could be considered an old man by some (and most definitely by the AARP who now send me application every month or so). I usually tend to rebut the cloud shouters though.
Copyright is not defined in terms of technology...
Yes it is. Take a look through the statues and it's full of terms like "digital audio recording device" and "technological measure" and "semiconductor chip product" and many others.
...I see no reason why fair use exception need to be either.
Same thing with some of the Fair Use common law rulings. Take a look at the Cablevison ruling, the whole thing revolves around the technology being used and very little to do with the principals of Fair Use since the concept of home taping via the VCR had already been established.
An opt in system would automatically exclude those that were unaware or unable to pay the cost of registration, unless of course this registration were free. All are free to create.
Yes all are free to create, but the opt-in copyright would be for those who wish to monetize and protect their creations.
As for registration, I like Derek Khanna's idea of a sliding scale. Free for the first year, but at an increasing cost for substantial renewals. If you are still earning income from your work then you should be willing to pay for such exclusive rights. If not, then the work goes into the Public Domain.
I guess I just don't understand why creators are so against the registration of copyrights. If you value the exclusive rights granted to you via copyright so much then you should also be willing to expend a little extra energy and little extra money to receive those exclusive rights.
Also, I would fear that such a list would inhibit innovation to a degree. Let's say I invent something completely new that should be considered Fair Use, but isn't covered on the list because no one thought of it before. It would automatically be considered as infringement and I would have no recourse until Congress gets around to updating the list (if ever, since lobbying dollars would come into play here). How is that beneficial to society?
It can easily be defined in terms of technology-agnostic principles.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that.
Take my example, how do you foresee a need for a exemption on format-shifting for personal use at a time when the ability to format-shift required a investment equal to a small country's GDP?
Technology in the future could cause the need for exemptions that we can't even fathom today. 3d printing is heading down paths we might need exemptions for already. What if we develop something that transmits media directly into brainwaves or something like that?
This claim falls apart when they advocate for a particular point of view which is shared by a particular political group even though that group may not align with either of the mainstream political parties.
You are confusing partisanship with advocating an idea on it's own merits.
The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
If one is using "partisan" in the colloquial sense, than yes, the fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats makes them absolutely non-partisan.
Also from Google, in reference to politics, which the way most people use this term:
In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
Just because something is in the copyright database doesn't mean any particular upload is infringing and should be blocked.
I agree. Such a database wouldn't be much help in determining Fair Use. It would be a start though, IMO, especially if it included who was "officially" licensed to use the content at any given time and was consistently and constantly updated by the rightsholders.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
My argument is that there is a responsibility to guard against illegal activity by the owners/managers of an ecosystem used by the public and from which they profit- which when left unregulated or unpoliced is subject to rampant illegal activity by its users.
I understand your argument, but don't necessarily agree with it.
If we were to implement such a system, would the rightsholders agree to changing copyright to an registration required system instead of the "everything gets copyright" system we have now. That is the only way I could see your plan working. We would need a central database of copyrights for the members of the ecosystem to work from. We would also probably need a registration fee from the rightsholders to pay for such a database.
Would that be acceptable? Or do you think that the rightsholders should benefit from such a system without incurring any of the cost to do so?
Anyway, I'm finished responding to your silly posts.
That's cool with me. I'm kind of tired of correcting your obvious mistakes myself.
Gotcha games are not interesting to me.
I'm not playing any sort of game here. Just simply correcting your incorrect notions concerning copyright laws. If I get something wrong, I fully expect a copyright lawyer or somebody else who is knowledgeable in this area to jump in and correct me.