Rather surprised Google has only payed off 10 state ATs...
It's the other way around. From the leaked emails, it was the MPAA that was (is?) funding multiple AG's across the country.
Jim Hood was just the most prominent. Also, at the time, Hood was the president of the National Association of Attorneys General. He set the tone for the rest of the state AG's. (His Presidential Initiative? "Protecting Our Digital Lives: New Challenges for Attorneys General.")
So, it's hardly a surprise that stat AG's would stand behind their leader.
allowing one client to work with another one behind the scenes
That's not quite what an API is. An API says something like: "if you have an instance of a class called Stack, and invoke a method called pop() on it, it will remove and return an object (of a specific type) that is semantically on the top of the stack."
Obama's administration is littered with ex-Google types. The infestation is so complete that they dodged a US anti-trust lawsuit because of it.
This is pretty obviously bullshit. If the Obama administration is "littered with ex-Google types," it's only because Google is a big company that has hired lots of smart people, and the administration wants smart people.
But that "if" is wrong. The "ex-Google types" that are in the administration are far, far outweighed by the "types" that were previously lobbyists for big media companies.
Sun Microsystems wrote the APIs (now owned by Oracle) which were specifically designed for the sandbox compiler.
This is actually the crux of the issue. Oracle's license specifies that the Java bytecode that is produced be compatible with the JVM. (I don't know if it was the same under Sun.) Google actually implemented their own VM (Dalvik), and much of its bytecode was incompatible with the JVM - which is unsurprising given the need to run efficiently on mobile devices.
Google should have written its own APIs, even if they performed identically to the Java APIs.
This would be disastrous, especially for open-source projects. For example, it would require that Mono write its own API's. This would defeat the entire purpose of Mono, and force everyone who used the C# API's to use the Windows CLR (and possibly pay royalties to do so). Likewise, Unix could copyright what is now the POSIX standard (it's an API, after all), which would make other implementations of this standard be unlawful without a license.
By stripping out the APIs to make another OS is nefarious. I didn't say it was wrong, but damn, does it cross an ethics line.
I don't see why. For example, Linux could feel free to not implement some of the POSIX system calls, and I don't think there would be anything nefarious about it.
Also, the parts of the API that Google stripped out are the parts that were not relevant to a mobile language (like the Swing API).
As a reminder: Google forked Linux for its kernel, but it's still called Linux. Not the same for Java, which is now Android.
First: Java is a programming language, not an operating system. Android is an operating system, but applications for it are written in the Java programming language, using the Android API's to communicate with the OS. (Or not, if you use something like PhoneGap.)
Second: the OS is called Android, just as Ubuntu is called Ubuntu. The kernel may be a fork of Linux, but the kernel is not the entirety of the OS - at least, not how you define it. (The technical definition is that the kernel is the OS, and toolkits or software packages are not part of it. For example, the Bash shell is not part of the Linux OS.)
the author was required to get permission from the couple if he was going to sue that image to make money.
If the use of the image is fair use, then the author of the book does not need to get permission.
Even if they did need to get permission, they would need to get permission from the photographer, not the subjects. Copyright accrues at fixation, and it accrues to whoever initially fixated the work - in the case of photographs, that would be the photographer.
Fair use rights are not absolute and they are not unlimited rights.
Actually, copyright rights are not absolute, and they are not unlimited rights. Fair use is one of many limitations on those rights. For example, if someone uses parts of your work in a review, you can't exercise your rights over that use of your work, because you don't have any rights.
The author screwed up and he put online retailers in the cross-hairs.
Even assuming the use was infringing (and not fair use), which I doubt, that doesn't mean that the online retailers should face liability. They did not create the infringing work, nor directly assist in the infringement (assuming it even happened).
If they follow the Section 512 procedure, then they are automatically exempt from all infringement. If they did not, then they can only be liable for secondary infringement- which, under traditional copyright case law, they would not be.
Even if the author of the book "screwed up" (which I don't think they did), there is no way he "put online retailers in the cross-hairs." At least, not in the legal sense.
Actually, that's wrong: wavelength = c / frequency, where c = the speed of light. The speed constant is different for different materials (e.g. the speed of sound in air), but no matter what, they're inversely proportional.
Given two waves of the same amplitude, the wave with the lower frequency (longer wavelength) will generally travel farther. On the other hand, Wi-fi signals and TV/radio transmitters send out waves at very different amplification levels, so they can't be compared this way.
I guarentee that if you tested Albini on this, say, by releasing your own CD of Albini's Greatest Hits - because why not, I can do what I want with them. He would be the first one lawyering up to try and stop you.
Probably not, because he's come out before as saying he doesn't care about sites like The Pirate Bay. And I'm sure at least some of the torrents there are of the "Greatest Hits" variety.
Of course, if you're talking about commercial piracy (releasing that CD for sale), then you're arguing a completely different point than Albini was. He was talking about using copyright to control "anyone else that wants to use it or see it," meaning fans and "consumers" - a.k.a. the audience.
Here's the quote in context:
The old copyright model – the person who creates something owns it and anyone else that wants to use it or see it has to pay them – has expired in the same way that around the world you’re seeing structures and social norms [lapse] that were standard for many years.
It’s going to take a lot for the business to catch up to where the audience is, in the same way it takes a while for the church and the laws to catch up to where the people are.
But there is no longer the possibility to exclusively control music through copyright.
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
Yikes. You not only "stole" Gwiz's name, marking you as a complete hypocrite, you also show you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (Of course, you're so incoherent, that nobody else does either.)
The few parts that are comprehensible are factually wrong. For example:
GAMES cost almost nothing to make, up-front "sunk (or fixed) costs" are small, potential profit high, so that's a viable strategy.
"Sunk" or "fixed" costs for video games are in the millions of dollars. AAA games can cost more to make than a Hollywood movie (and certainly cost more than a Top 40 album). CD Projekt put in these costs... and still made a huge amount of money. A lot of this money was earned because of goodwill stemming from their rejection of DRM.
On that, you're just wrong. I can't comment on the rest because it makes no sense; it might as well have been written in hieroglyphics.
American Family Life Insurance Co. of Columbus (AFLAC) v. Assurant, Inc. (2006)
That's not entirely true. In that case, AFLAC was creating an insurance policy document in a "'narrative’ language style - as compared to the 'terse, nondescriptive' style employed by some of its competitors - [which] would be ‘readily understood by consumers.'" It was this "narrative" style that afforded it copyright protection.
On the other hand, "what might be called a paraphrase and plagiarism in another work, is significantly different for the purposes of comparing two insurance policies" (Continental Casualty Co. v. Beardsley). As a general rule, "When the 'idea' and its 'expression' are thus inseparable, copying the 'expression' will not be barred, since protecting the 'expression' in such circumstances would confer a monopoly of the 'idea' upon the copyright owner free of the conditions and limitations imposed by the patent law" (Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian).
So, unless the Sony contract was using some kind of "narrative language style" (which I doubt), its copyright claims are thin to nonexistent. If another company (say, Universal) came up with a contract that was almost completely identical to the Sony contract, I doubt that Sony would have a case to sue.
In any case, it really doesn't matter. This is a slam-dunk case of fair use if there ever was one.
In Canada, for sound recordings, the copyright term starts at the date of publication. That is, it's straight-up 70 years, regardless of how long the recording artist lives.
This actually brings up something interesting. For songwriters and publishers, the term length is dependent upon the longevity of the author (it's life plus 50 years). This means that a songwriter will continue to be paid royalties for sound recordings, even after they've entered the public domain.
This means that songwriters and publishers benefit tremendously when sound recordings go into the public domain. Not only are they getting royalties from the label that formerly held the sound recording copyright, they're also getting royalties from the many other labels that publish the now-public-domain sound recordings.
This is why this particular copyright term extension will screw over songwriters, at the expense of labels.
As an interesting side note, in Canada, though the royalty rates are statutory, permission is not required. This allowed major publishers - who are the same corporations as major labels - to refuse competing labels the use of their songs. This won't affect the publishing corporations - their losses will be made up from the monopoly profits from their sound recording divisions. But it definitely screws over the actual songwriters.
Mike Masnick loves to cheer when artists make less money.
You know the real irony in all of this? Because of ASCAP's collusion with the major publishers, artists ended up getting a lower rate than they would have otherwise.
Before the majors started whining, Pandora had already made a "handshake deal" with ASCAP, which was for a higher rate than the one that they eventually got. Because of their collusion with the labels who were (illegally) making direct deals, Pandora had to go to rate court, which issued the current rate.
Also, I notice that you ignore the fact that terrestrial radio stations pay less than Pandora - for the same service: non-interactive streaming over the Internet. (That's why Pandora is buying a radio station, a move that has just gotten approved: they want the same RMLC rates that ASCAP gives to terrestrial radio.)
So, if you want to know who to blame for the lower rates - it's ASCAP and the major publishers.
Of course, ASCAP, the publishers and the labels have been lobbying quite hard to get the DOJ and/or Congress to throw out the consent decree altogether, so that they can go back to colluding in this matter to try to jack up rates. Expect those efforts to expand even more given this ruling.