My comment was to be posted after being viewed by a moderator. That was hours ago and it never was posted. I didn't think this site did that. Has that ever happened to anyone else? Is this new? I don't even say that stupid "Mike just hate's it when blah, blah, blah, nonsense"
If terrestrial radio found a way to be profitable I am sure internet music services will figure out how to do the same. The licensing amounts paid per play by pandora and spotify are fractions of a cent and to suggest the "industry" is trying to destroy internet radio and the like is confusing. What happens when it is not the "Legacy" holders but the independent artist that is paid this extremely low rate? Is the argument the independent artist is trying to destroy internet radio by negotiating royalty rates? Lastly, what is a speaker without anything coming out of it? Silent. The argument content is not important to a internet music provider is strange at best. If any internet music provider thinks they are paying to much for content they don't have to carry it. They can use content that is less expensive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're out of your element, Mike
This logic assumes there is nothing negative with breaking the law or getting something others are paying for free or not monetarily supporting art you enjoy. In addition, it ignores the fact, if it had no value you would not watch, listen, or read it. There is a reason millions of people would never consider stealing something from someone fileshare, they see it as a crime that has no victim and often they are screwing over "the man." These are personal philosophies. There many things millions of people do and believe and have done throughout history, that I would not and regardless of how they rationalize it, know it is not right. However, when they are prosecuted for breaking a known law they cry foul and state it is not fair. The copyright holder is being deprived of the rights associated with their content and if one cannot understand why it is illegal, nor the money expended in creation and production, then they are making a concerted effort not to understand.
Well....what does the average person call acquiring something without paying for it, without permission? If it is not a gift and I know other people have to pay for it and I'm not, my Mom would call it stealing. Is it right or wrong? Not emotionally charged, no victim, not "serious" by your very admonition when called "copyright infringement." Semantics, the very definition of the word. As I stated earlier, what to call it is not the real issue. Here, websites that were involved in distributing paid apps, for free, were confiscated by the government. The author takes issue with this citing Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana, a 1st amendment/obscenity case filed in civil court. It was found the government should not have confiscated property. Here, an investigation of criminal copyright infringement and the government CAN confiscate property because it is a criminal investigation of a business enterprise involved in illegal activity.
Ja Rule makes, although insultingly so to say the least, valid points. Theft vs Infringement is a somewhat semantic debate relegated to discussions between the copyleft and the copyright. Both are illegal under U.S. law and the debate as to what to call breaking the law seems pedantic at best when a statute specifically outlawing such behavior exists. The debate obfuscates the real issue here. Obscenity/ 1st amendment issues and piracy are not handled the same under U.S. law and citing Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana trying to draw correlations is doing readers a disservice. Civil state lawsuits and Federal criminal cases will never be handled in the same fashion nor should they be.
This definitely seems like abuse of copyright. I think it draws attention to Youtube's policies more. I state over and over they are a private company and operate under their own policies. How they deal with the DMCA is really up to them. It also speaks volumes that you were able to post the video using Vimeo. Perhaps youtube = myspace?
You are addressing, what I feel is, the true issue here. Youtube is a private company that can comply with the DMCA however it wants. It exists to make money and it makes more money from UMG content than it does from one remix artist. UMG probably offered a lower licensing rate for the access to the platform. Often the attitude is Youtube is the only platform on earth to post video online which is just not the case. If you are pissed at Youtube's product and how they operate it, then don't use it or create something else.
I'm not sure why the author is surprised or feels this is somehow inappropriate. They make a product and want to control the market on refills. I do not recall an article when Apple changed the Iphone charger interface when releasing a new model. Often manufacturers will void warranties when parts are used or service is performed by outside vendors. This is perfectly legal and if other coffee pod makers want to create their own coffee maker, I am sure there is no ban on them doing so. To suggests this is somehow unfair would make me counter suggesting this is just what spurs innovation, for competitors to build a better cheaper coffee maker. I use one that doesn't use pods, uses a reusable filter, and when I want to make less coffee, I use less coffee grounds and less water.
purpose of Aereo. Transfer broadcast network content over the internet. Function= Cable company. In your scenario, end result is the same using two different commercial entities that would be hard to describe their commercial purpose is transferring broadcast content over the internet. Therefore commercial purpose/function is not as a cable company.
1) no 2) no 3)no 4),5),6) a private citizen, no. Apparently, to hire a commercial entity to do this for you, they are indeed rebroadcasting content regardless if there is a cable or if it is over the internet. You are a customer and they are a business functioning as a cable company. I can give a person a ride and charge them a fee as a private citizen. If I do this same service as a business there are regulatory schemes I must follow, I must be a registered business, be registered with the state carry insurance, etc because I am no longer a private citizen doing this but a cabbie running a commercial business.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it is a cable company that rebroadcasts content without licensing. I find it interesting that if the design of the service performed is that of a cable company then the technology is simply irrelevant. This decision really falls in line with Grokster in that the purpose of the business is what is being evaluated not how it is technologically executed. And I do not believe the purpose of a service like Dropbox is similar to that of a cable company.
"You don't seem to understand much of what's being said here.The point is, even without a trademark on the Redskins name, 'everyone' won't be able to sell team merchandise because the team still has protection for all the *other* aspects of their brand."
Yes, you are correct. I do not understand much of what is being said here, by you. What other protections are there? I can only assume you mean the logo. However, how would they prevent me from selling a coffee mug with the name "Redskins" on it? Or a jacket? Please explain what other avenues of litigation they would take. If they would use trademark/Lanham Act litigation to stop this and "redskins" is no longer under trademark protection, how would they bring legal action. In May, the franchise presented a former player(Lavar Arrington)with a cease and desist letter because he referred to himself as a former "Redskins great" in an advert for his football camp. What legal action would they take to stop him from stating this now?