Unfortunately I can't seem to find the link, but assuming my memory is correct there's a rather relevant point to this, and that is that Feng accepted a plea deal, which means they aren't going through all this trouble to find evidence of a crime(unless they feel like changing the deal after the fact, which might raise some eyebrows), but simply just in case the phone happens to contain evidence they can use elsewhere(you know, totally unlike the other case).
Yes, that's true. The reason this decision just came out is because the judge asked the DOJ if the whole application was moot, given that Feng has plead guilty. The DOJ says it is because they're "still investigating" what they claim may be a larger drug ring and Feng insists he's forgotten the passcode to the phone.
Re Lavabit, I note that the EFF brief referred to is hosted on the Apple servers rather than the court's system. I'd wager that the brief itself is available, just not from apple's servers. ... or not when Techdirt wrote it up.
I got the briefs directly from PACER or from Apple. For whatever reason some of the "attached" briefs aren't in PACER (or posted by Apple).
What it comes down to is that Tidal is ultimately responsible and liable for the artist getting paid and all of the finger pointing in the world can;t change that very fact.
That very much depends on the contract language between Tidal and HFA. If HFA indemnifies Tidal and insists that it has legally licensed Tidal the mechanical licenses it needs, it may not be Tidal's issue at all.
But, really, what was "biased" about the article other than detailing the facts and giving our opinion on it?
WTF. Spent the afternoon in a room with an undersecretary of cybersecurity for Homeland Security, and a former NSA General Counsel discussing cybersecurity issues, and apparently I should have blown it off because some asshole on the internet wants my attention.
I'll get to you if I ever have time. Trust me: you're low on the priority list and acting like a dickish troll doesn't move you to the front of the line. Everyone else here can read what I said and how you misrepresented it.
I see something that can be changed to bring in more donations. Start the "one time" donations at $10.00. For some of us on very limited budgets the $25.00 starting point is just out of reach for now. Yes, $25 is a good number, but sometimes smaller donations can add up faster. It may well draw in far more support over time. I already support a couple other causes and projects so I can't always chip in.
You can donate as much as you want -- including $10. Many people have. Just click the "Back this Work" button and then select "no thanks, I just want to make a pledge" instead of one of the existing tiers. And then you can put in whatever amount you want (in fact, it defaults to $10).
Ok, so tell us what Techdirt's traffic is this month compared to the same month a year ago. If there hasn't declined I'll withdraw my suspicion that this fundraising campaign has more to do with marketing Techdirt in the face of sliding visitor numbers.
Our traffic on the site has remained pretty much the same.
1. You're looking at Alexa which is notoriously inaccurate. 2. You're looking at "rank" not traffic anyway. 3. Our traffic is basically the same as it was a year ago. For February to date this year, we're at 1.55 million. A year ago, February was 1.6 million. Month to month fluctuations mean some months are up and some are not (usually based on how many stories go big, and how big). At the same time, the number of people seeing our stories via other platforms (Facebook, mainly) has gone up quite a bit. So, overall traffic is in a good spot. This move is not, even remotely, a reaction to "sliding visitor numbers" because there is no slide (nor, honestly, do we even look at those numbers closely -- I just looked them up in response to your question).
... to see how quickly the trolls come out to attack. Reinforces that we're clearly doing something right to piss off people so much that they very thought of the public supporting Techdirt scares them shitless.
I don't hate Disney's business model. I hate that Disney has abused its position to harm others, and the public domain in particular. I don't think Star Wars is "innovation." I think they made a great movie and they deserve to make money from it, but the idea that it's because of "IP" shows what kind of narrow world you live in. They made that money because they made a great movie that people were quite happy to pay and to see and to support in lots of other ways. No one paid to see Star Wars "because copyright." They paid because it was offered in a convenient and reasonable manner.
That has nothing to do with IP.
But, of course, Disney also has a long history of closing the door behind it on IP. So much of its works were built off of others or the public domain. I just read my kids Pinnochio. It's in the public domain. Have you read it? It's a bit different than the Disney version (Pinnochio kills the cricket in the first act).
It was written in 1883. In 1940, 57 years later, Disney was able to turn it into a movie, because it was in the public domain. We're now 75 years since that movie was made. Can you tell me when the movie will be in the public domain? Thanks.
Without Disney's lobbying it would already be in the public domain. When it was made, the maximum length of copyright was 56 years. It should have been in the public domain in 1996. But of course, with Disney's help, we got the 1976 Copyright Act, which extended copyrights. And then the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended them some more. Will we ever get it into the public domain? I wonder.
And, honestly, if you're going to argue that no one should listen to what I have to say because I don't make as much money as Star Wars, well, that's an interesting metric to work off of. Last I checked, you didn't make that much money either. But who cares?
See, unlike you, I don't speak in black and white, extremist bullshit.
Nor do I. But you keep insisting I do, because you've got this strawman Mike built up in your head, and no matter how many times I prove you wrong, your cognitive dissonance takes over and insists that it must be because *I'm* lying, simply because the real me doesn't act the way you think the fake me in your head should act.
Oh look. Mike thinks photographers don't create value. Shocker. I guess Mike doesn't create value. In fact, anyone who creates anything doesn't create value. TD logic at it's finest.
Not what I said, but you're very good at lying about what I said.
Lots of photographers create something of value. Lots of content creators create things of value. But THIS particular photograph was a quick one off with a cameraphone. It was not designed to be a piece of art, but just to show someone what a dress looked like.
Tell me, honestly, do you think copyright was necessary incentive to create this photo?
I find it kinda telling that a guy who goes around *claiming* to work in support of "content creators" doesn't recognize that crowdfunding is a hugely important business model for those content creators -- but instead has to insult it as "begging."
Thanks for proving what we know: you don't support new business models or internet intermediaries who help content creators, like us, make money. You just blather on in support of old legacy players who don't want to innovate.
I still have a problem with the government getting a court order to command Apple to create the software on it's own dime. Taking that slightly further, after this is established precedent, what would prevent the government from commanding GE to make tanks for the military free of charge? Or any other thing wanted?
The order does require reasonable compensation for the work. Doing it for free would clearly be deemed an unreasonable burden.
Mike — first and fifth amendment arguments are mostly there to preserve on appeal, which is why they're not given great length. They might/will be relevant later on, in front of an appellate court, but don't need to be reached here (except, again, court rules say that you need to make the argument to preserve it on appeal).
Yes, it's a stupid argument, and extending it to the Library of Congress is even stupider (not that anyone has, thus far). But when Biden was the Senate judiciary committee chairman in 1992, he said, "If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up". Obama wasn't even a state senator yet at that point, but I don't have a hard time believing that he would have taken the same attitude.
Sure. I have no doubt that if the parties were reversed, the other side would be making the same stupid argument. It's clearly a stupid political argument and it's a stupid political argument no matter which party is making it, so not even sure why you felt the need to bring up the parties. I didn't.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the folks that wrote the original copyright laws did not (or could not) foresee a time when things didn't have to be "real" to exist. As much as I despise most things copyright, and I totally understand Mike's point here, the fact is that if the concept of digital files had been conceived then, they would likely have included it in the way the Copyright Office describes.
Yes. I actually agree. I think that given everything about copyright, it *should* include digital files. But that's not what the law says. And it does seem weird to say "well, let's just ignore that" rather than, say, fixing it.