What is the worry, that someone is going to trick you that they put something into the public domain and then 35 years later terminate the grant and sue you? This is what we're worried about?
I think the much more likely scenario is heirs of the original creator seeking a payday, who don't have the same view on the public domain. Given how many stories we see of greedy heirs, this seems quite likely.
Hey guys. After talking to more people about this I've updated the post and noted that it's not as crazy as it first appeared. It appears the WH is really only dropping a bad idea that many had assumed to be dropped long ago -- and is instead focusing on a better plan to get the data out of the NSA (leaving it with the original companies).
Even in the US, the 1st Amendment does not give you the right to libel and slander. It does not give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a theater (unless there really IS a fire, of course).
Somewhere in there I missed the part where Costco made a copy of the watch image. At what point was copyright infringed?
The argument was that in selling the watch it was a form of distribution. Normally the First Sale doctrine protects against that when you're talking about a physical good that has a copyright-covered work built in (e.g., a book or a painting). But Omega argued that since First Sale only applied to works "lawfully made under this law" that it didn't apply to works created overseas, because they weren't made under *US copyright law.* The Supreme Court rejected that in Kirtsaeng.
So it's the distribution right that was the issue, not the reproduction right...
Hey Mike, I'm gonna come over and paint your house in colors I think I'll like. Don't worry, I'll make sure it's transformative.
Well, as long as it's for your private viewing and has no impact at all on how I or anyone else views the house, there's no problem with that, now is there? And in the case of people re-editing movies, that's exactly the case.
I have such bad experiences with Gogo and it seems to be getting worse. When I flew a few weeks ago, it wouldn't even let me log in because I was using Google DNS...
You ASSUME that's what he's advocating. The truth is, unless you were inside his head when he was typing, from 140 characters, you really don't know exactly what he was advocating.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that there's some other world in which his words don't mean what they say? He stated a tautology.
if Sony doesn't want to be repeatedly hacked, they should actually invest in some real cybersecurity. Storing passwords in plaintext files in a folder named 'Passwords' isn't going to cut it.
Eh, I don't think so. There's a big difference between *better security* and "unhackable." And the difference is important. It gets back to Schneier's discussions on airport security. People keep trying to set up airport security with the ridiculous claim that no bad guys can get through, but that's impossible and stupid. The way you do that is you don't let anyone fly.
The point is, if you want the benefits of air travel, you have to admit that there's some risk and then try to minimize it, while balancing the inconvenience/problems that creates. You don't try for perfect. You balance the tradeoffs.
Same with computer security. But the point NDT is making here ignores those tradeoffs completely.
Try, fail, learn, try again. That's EXACTLY how innovation works.
If that's what he was advocating, that would be right.
But it's not. He's advocating a tautology. Tautology is not innovation it's stating the same thing twice. He's not talking about improving systems, he's just saying "hey, don't do this." "Want to live? Don't die." That doesn't help an innovator in any way. It's useless.
Does clicking to "expand" the article count towards pageviews, or is it only when I click through to the article? Just curious. I love the fact that I don't have to click on each article.
No, these stats only look at those who clicked through on the full story. We could look at adding in those who just clicked "expand" but that would be a pretty big process...
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt wasn't the only one who got this letter
A few things on this:
Their contact phone numbers are all +44 (Great Britain). I'm not sure exactly what that address is in New Orleans, but I suspect it's just a postal presence. I doubt this company has any legal sway in the USA. Note the signature on the letter in incomprehensible and is labeled Icondia Ltd. They weren't even brave enough to have an actual person put their name on it.
Since Guernsey is quasi-UK, the +44 country code still applies:
I do understand your viewpoint, but believe that deference to the legal definition of what comprises a loan is a more prudent position for a number of reasons, one of which includes remaining in compliance with our tax laws.
Okay. Then you have to admit that tax law ALSO treats a recording contract and a venture investment *entirely* differently as well.
Yet you had no problem insisting they are one and the same.
Once again, it seems, you choose definitions that suit you and ignore it when the same rules you seek to apply to others are applied back to you.
I was saying it was not a loan, so of course there is no obligation to dig into one's savings and pay it back. If it was a loan there could be such an obligation.
Do you not see how absolutely wrong and ridiculous you are here?
You are defining a loan very, very, very narrowly -- saying that it requires you to pay it back. I've already pointed out that's not true.
Yet at the same time, you define a "venture investment" incredibly broadly, such that it covers a situation that is clearly not a venture investment at all.
When myself and others here pointed out to you why the record label contract has MANY SIMILARITIES to a loan, you just go right back to "but it doesn't require you to pay it back."
On the post: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In The Public Domain... And Why That Needs To Change
Re:
Even so, under copyright termination, the rights can be brought back. Termination is inalienable...
On the post: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In The Public Domain... And Why That Needs To Change
Re:
I think the much more likely scenario is heirs of the original creator seeking a payday, who don't have the same view on the public domain. Given how many stories we see of greedy heirs, this seems quite likely.
On the post: College Claims Copyright On 16th Century Michelangelo Sculpture, Blocks 3D Printing Files
Re:
On the post: President Obama Drops His Promise To Take Phone Metadata Away From NSA... But Perhaps That's Fine [Updated]
Update
On the post: Paris, France To Sue Fox News For Being Fox News
Re: Free speech DOES have limits!
Hackneyed and wrong:
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-ar e-enough/
On the post: Court Soundly Rejects Watchmaker's Attempt To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Sale Of Its Watches At Costco
Re:
The argument was that in selling the watch it was a form of distribution. Normally the First Sale doctrine protects against that when you're talking about a physical good that has a copyright-covered work built in (e.g., a book or a painting). But Omega argued that since First Sale only applied to works "lawfully made under this law" that it didn't apply to works created overseas, because they weren't made under *US copyright law.* The Supreme Court rejected that in Kirtsaeng.
So it's the distribution right that was the issue, not the reproduction right...
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re:
Well, as long as it's for your private viewing and has no impact at all on how I or anyone else views the house, there's no problem with that, now is there? And in the case of people re-editing movies, that's exactly the case.
On the post: For 10 Years Everyone's Been Using 'The Streisand Effect' Without Paying; Now I'm Going To Start Issuing Takedowns
Re: Simple site
With all the "losses" we've suffered from all you pirates, we couldn't afford to put up a real site.
On the post: Gogo Inflight Wifi Service Goes Man-In-The-Middle, Issues Fake Google SSL Certificates
interesting...
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, are you arguing that there's some other world in which his words don't mean what they say? He stated a tautology.
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re:
Eh, I don't think so. There's a big difference between *better security* and "unhackable." And the difference is important. It gets back to Schneier's discussions on airport security. People keep trying to set up airport security with the ridiculous claim that no bad guys can get through, but that's impossible and stupid. The way you do that is you don't let anyone fly.
The point is, if you want the benefits of air travel, you have to admit that there's some risk and then try to minimize it, while balancing the inconvenience/problems that creates. You don't try for perfect. You balance the tradeoffs.
Same with computer security. But the point NDT is making here ignores those tradeoffs completely.
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re:
If that's what he was advocating, that would be right.
But it's not. He's advocating a tautology. Tautology is not innovation it's stating the same thing twice. He's not talking about improving systems, he's just saying "hey, don't do this." "Want to live? Don't die." That doesn't help an innovator in any way. It's useless.
On the post: Techdirt 2014: The Numbers.
Re:
No, these stats only look at those who clicked through on the full story. We could look at adding in those who just clicked "expand" but that would be a pretty big process...
On the post: Techdirt 2014: The Numbers.
Re: Android haha... crash.. .haha...
Really? I have an android phone and use Chrome and Firefox on it (all the time) and can't remember ever having any problems.
On the post: Our Reply To A Totally Bogus Monkey Selfie Cease & Desist
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt wasn't the only one who got this letter
Their contact phone numbers are all +44 (Great Britain). I'm not sure exactly what that address is in New Orleans, but I suspect it's just a postal presence. I doubt this company has any legal sway in the USA. Note the signature on the letter in incomprehensible and is labeled Icondia Ltd. They weren't even brave enough to have an actual person put their name on it.
Since Guernsey is quasi-UK, the +44 country code still applies:
http://www.howtocall.info/country/UK/city/Guernsey
Second, they do have one US employee, who is based in Louisiana -- hence the US address.
On the post: Air Canada Blocks Access To Any Google Hosted RSS Feed (Including Techdirt) For No Good Reason
Re:
So far as I can see the active name is Feedburner, not Feedproxy.
Yes. The service is still called Feedburner, but all of the RSS feeds show up under the feedproxy.google.com URL...
http://www.janleow.com/life/remove-and-get-rid-of-feedproxy-in-feedburner.html
On the post: Sony Hack Reveals That MPAA's Big '$80 Million' Settlement With Hotfile Was A Lie
Re: Re: Re:
Okay. Then you have to admit that tax law ALSO treats a recording contract and a venture investment *entirely* differently as well.
Yet you had no problem insisting they are one and the same.
Once again, it seems, you choose definitions that suit you and ignore it when the same rules you seek to apply to others are applied back to you.
On the post: Sony Hack Reveals That MPAA's Big '$80 Million' Settlement With Hotfile Was A Lie
Re:
Do you not see how absolutely wrong and ridiculous you are here?
You are defining a loan very, very, very narrowly -- saying that it requires you to pay it back. I've already pointed out that's not true.
Yet at the same time, you define a "venture investment" incredibly broadly, such that it covers a situation that is clearly not a venture investment at all.
When myself and others here pointed out to you why the record label contract has MANY SIMILARITIES to a loan, you just go right back to "but it doesn't require you to pay it back."
On the post: Why United Airlines And Orbitz Are Suing An Entrepreneur Who Helps People Find Cheaper Flights
Re:
That doesn't matter if you've already flown NYC-SFO.
But, yes, this trick only works for one-way trips, not for roundtrips.
On the post: Joke Tweet Gets Man Arrested
Re: Re: