I agree completely. It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.
As Mike indicated - you are probably being sarcastic here, but I am curious if you have an argument as to why the burden shouldn't fall to the rights holders.
I'm also curious about something else. Would you be opposed to a system where the rights holders provide (at their own cost) a comprehensive database of copyrights that includes all licensing schemes and approved uses to Google? It would have to be constantly updated and maintained by the rights holders, of course, and the system would also have to have some sort of mechanism to deal with Fair Use.
Would you consider such a compromise in a system where Google picks up the tab for actually filtering and removing, but the rights holders pick up the tab for providing Google the information to do so?
If someone breaks into your home a threatens you with a knife, the law doesn't require you to only defend yourself with a knife. You can shoot the guy, you can beat him with a baseball bat, you can throw a jar of acid at him, you can use whatever you have at hand.
Or smack the guy upside the head with a claw hammer. Like this 82-year-old gentleman did when some punk tried to break into his home. Props to Mr. Bradford for his quick reaction.
It's hilarious that Mike Masnick thought copyright infringement on the web was just going to be forever unpunished.
You really think that people who want to format-shift their legally purchased DVDs should be punished?
I mean seriously, who do think this ruling affects? It's not the hard-core uploader - they would use free, open-source alternatives. It's not the average pirate - since they would download an already de-DRMed digital file, not a DVD. The only people really affected by this is your average computer user who wants to copy their latest DVD purchase to their hard drive for convenience.
... however, when you are read into a classified program, you take and sign a separate oath, which does indeed include a promise to never divulge or make public the information you have access to.
Which oath takes precedence in a case like this where they are at odds?
I would like to say it's the Constitutional one, but it doesn't seem to work out that way in real life does it? The secrecy one is the one with real penalties for not upholding it. Should be the other way around IMHO.
Back in the olden days when you wanted to look smart you had an encyclopedia set on a shelf where everyone can see it. Now a days you can fit all that on your tablet. So now if you want to look smart what do you have to show for it ...
Not walking into a water fountain or into traffic while reading that encyclopedia on your tablet is a start....
Just thought I'd post this link to an opinion rejecting the idea that "whoever fixes the work in a tangible medium" is the author, regardless of whether they contributed the original expression.
That was a very interesting read, thanks. It still seems to create confusion on who gets the copyright for a movie though.
That ruling was based on this term used by SCOTUS:
"by or under the authority of the author."
Who is the author in a movie? Is it the executive producer? Is it the screenwriter? Is it the director? Is the the author of the book the movie is based on?
Now, I know that Hollywood is full of lawyers and all of these issues are hammered out with contracts beforehand, but in a case like this, where there are no contracts or possibly fraudulent behavior, this is very interesting.
Which is why generally contract changes only take effect on 'turnover' (ie, a renewal for the old contract isn't offered, only the new one). Companies tend to put "free to change at any time" in terms and conditions, but it actually standing up in court if they try to enforce the 'new' terms (unless, of course, the user has been prompted to agree to the new contract and has done so) is uncertain.
Haven't you ever received a mailing from your ISP or phone company or some other company with a new TOS written in very small print? If you actually take the time to read those things (which nobody really does) they almost always have a clause that says "By continuing to use our service you are agreeing to these new terms".
The only way to not to agree to the terms is by cancelling the service. That's how a company can change terms on someone willy-nilly. And it usually works too.
Yeah, I guess you would agree - since, based on the gravitars, you just now either responded to yourself (likely) or someone who had the exact same IP address as you back in July 2013 (highly unlikely).
I generally stay out of partisan arguments - because they are pointless (ie: new boss is same as the old boss as far as I'm concerned), but I would like to point out the the current administration has also been trying to extricate the US from two sovereign nations that we have invaded with our military because.....because.....wait.....why did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan again?
Cost about 10,000 to record with a great producer in a quality studio. Spent about 6 months writing the songs.
Yes, it costs money to produce an album. No one disputes this. But, just like any other business venture there is risk involved.
Then everyone will get it for free on Spotify and not need to buy it.
You are not seeing the whole picture here. A record/8-track/cassette/CD purchase is a one time purchase that includes unlimited replays forever. Spotify pays you every time your song is played from now on. Think about that...
38 cents for 89 plays. Think about that...
Isn't the idea for that play number to be in the hundreds or thousands? Seriously, how much money are you receiving for selling 9 CDs that get played 10 times each which is more than 89 plays?
In my mind, the most relevant result for a Netflix show is Netflix. Otherwise, it's basically like favoring a scraper site over the original content being scraped.
On my ride home from work I had an epiphany and figured out why this whole article is bugging me. It comes down to basic logic and reasoning. There's actually a really good reason why searches for a Netflix show would put Netflix itself at a lower rank.
Most people with Netflix account would not go to Google at all, they would find it the same way they find any Netflix show - through the Netflix interface.
People without a Netflix account who want to watch it legally most likely do a simple search for "Netflix" because the first thing anyone is going to do is get an account, then they would probably use the Netflix interface to find the show.
That leaves those who either want to watch it illegally or those who are blocked because of regional restrictions. So it makes complete sense that the people who actually do searches that were described in the article click on the illegal choices, doesn't it?