You spoke a bit on this podcast about large companies iterating on independent or small time companies. As you were searching for a proper example, I couldn’t help but think apple music is a good example of this. They iterated on Spotify's model, succeeding where Spotify failed. (Taylor Swift Letter)
Have they succeeded? Just this morning I saw someone point out that Spotify has more *paying* members (20 million) than Apple Music has trying its service out for free (11 million). So I'm not sure the jury has come to a verdict on that one just yet...
TechDirt (and the rest of the tech community, as far as I can tell) never met a pirate it didn't love.
Total strawman. We've frequently pointed out that it's reasonable to go after actual infringers. Just last week we wrote about a case in Sweden where it seemed perfectly reasonable to go after a guy who was hosting tons of content.
In the past, we've talked about how Jammie Thomas was wrong and should have taken a deal offered to her by the RIAA, because she clearly infringed. If you can't even get your basic facts right...
Where is your righteous indignation when pirates copy wholesale the intellectual property of others? Is that how you advocate for authors' rights, by advocating for the "rights" of pirates?
How is it "hypocrisy" to claim that these groups are not representing authors?
And, Fred, I recognize that "nuance" and "details" may go right over your head, but how is it "hypocrisy" to argue -- as we do -- that fighting against what your fan base wants is a *waste of time*. We are not arguing "in favor" of piracy, but in the fruitlessness of trying to stop it, and *in favor* of ways that allow artists to make more money by embracing their fans and offering them *more ways to make money*.
How is that hypocritical unless you deliberately misunderstand what we write?
Oh, I forget, you don't recognize "copyright" as a right.
Oh, I forgot. You don't deal in facts, you deal in lies.
While it does appear excessive, just searching for "weaken trademark name by not suing" will clarify to anyone that they have no real choice.
We've discussed this many times. While you do have to enforce your trademark to keep it, that DOES NOT MEAN you have to sue. (1) It only matters in cases where there's a real likelihood of confusion and (2) you can absolutely just hand out a free license as well.
In it, we also apologize for a key error in this post (and we've noted a correction to the post above as well) in claiming that the courts rely on the annotations. That is not true, and we take full responsibility for not accurately reporting this initially.
The new analysis at the link above, however, does explain why the lawsuit is still highly questionable. Multiple parts of the Georgia government still do point to the annotated law as "the law" and the Copyright Office has made it clear that official edicts of state governments are not subject to copyright. And everyone agrees that the annotated code is the "official" annotated code of the government. There is much more at the link above, but we still apologize for the initial error in this post.
I love how in this context you feel comfortable saying there should be no copyright, while you're too ashamed to just admit you feel that way generally.
Weird. I say that there should be no copyright for laws/regulations because that's what I believe.
I don't say it generally because I don't believe it generally, and it's downright weird that you keep insisting I must believe that even when this has been explained to you multiple times.
I have told you how I really feel: copyright is broken and is vastly over protective. It should be scaled back massively. To what level is something that deserves more study and *I DON'T KNOW* the exact right level so I don't take a definite position on what the *exact proper level* is.
I've told you this before and you insist I'm lying because my accurate and honest response to you doesn't match with the made up "Mike" that apparently haunts your dreams. You should maybe stop listening to the strawman Mike in your head and start joining us here in reality.
The issue here is not the code itself, it's the annotations. An annotated code presents a code section (the law), followed by annotations, then the next section, then its annotations, and so forth.
This is clearly stated in the post, so not sure why you're calling it out in the comments as if we did not.
As an example, a section of the Georgia code makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the annotated version, that section will be followed by notes from cases discussing things like how it applies to driving in a parking lot, challenges to the use of the breathalyzer, admissibility of field sobriety tests, etc. These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.
Yes, and if you want people to understand the law, then it's rather important to include that kind of information.
Annotations are not the law. They are not part of the law.
Many people disagree with you. Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.
If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law.
So, Mike, if you are so enthusiastic about public access, why do you use such a restrictive method as Document Cloud to make this complaint available, which doesn't even allow for downloading or printing?
1. I linked directly to the filing itself in the story above. It's here:
That was the original link where it says "suing Malamud."
2. Document Cloud does make it available for printing and download, contrary to your claims. The UI could be better, but in the lower lefthand corner there's a square with arrows pointing to the corners. If you click that it opens up a "full screen view" with a variety of options, including downloading the original PDF.
Wait, so what happened to that whole "works produced by the government cannot be copyrighted" thing? Did the State of Georgia just... completely forget the most relevant fact in this entire case?
1. That only officially applies to the federal government, rather than state governments -- though there are reasonable arguments that it *should* also apply to state and local governments.
2. It also does not apply to works created by outside contractors and then assigned to the government. And here, that's what Georgia is claiming. The works were created by LexisNexis and then assigned to the state of Georgia.