with many rights holders that do not have "big boy" resources being left behind in the dust with no effective recourse.
This assumes, incorrectly, that the only "recourse" is to issue a takedown. That's simply false. As you note, filing takedowns may be ineffective for some. But there are much better options: figuring out ways to use that interest to your advantage.
Almost every artist we've seen who has tried this strategy has found it pays off a hell of a lot better than trying to keep works hidden from fans.
I agree completely. It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.
I know you're being sarcastic, but it once again displays your sick double standard. Whenever we write about anything you insist on a very literal reading of every word -- and when we call you out on your bullshit claims, you weave between everything by insisting that you never actually said what you clearly said.
So, here, no one has said that the "entire burden" should be "placed upon the shoulders of rights holders." You're flat out lying, because you're a dishonest individual by nature.
What we are saying -- and have stated clearly -- that the various ideas and concepts, such as "notice and staydown" that seek to place a huge liability burden on third party intermediaries is stupid, unworkable and has tremendous collateral damage.
The *reason* (as you would know if you actually understood these things) that the burden is on the rightsholder is because they're the only ones who can know if the work is actually infringing. A third party does not know, as was clearly demonstrated in the Viacom/YouTube case. A notice and staydown provision doesn't just burden unrelated third parties for no reason other than that your friends don't know how to adapt, but (more importantly) it creates a massive barrier to the very innovation that is HELPING creators make more money.
i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.
I am a content creator. My content (I prefer to think it's not shit, though you may disagree) is copied every day by various sites and reposted. Furthermore, as others pointed out, plenty of people seek to "interfere" with our advertising business model by using ad blockers and the like.
So, I know how it feels. And I also know that we have lots of other ways to connect with our fans and to build a business, and I'm incredibly THANKFUL for all that the internet has enabled in terms of ways to build up a supportive audience.
Sorry but if you read the article you linked to, you'll see that Carney said the President made no comment one way or the other when the CIA revealed their intention to file the complaint. So your headline "did nothing to stop it" is deceptive
How so? I stand by it as 100% accurate. Upon informing the WH of what the CIA was going to do, it would have been entirely appropriate for the WH to say that's *crazy* to file criminal charges against your overseers. But it did not. Thus, it did nothing to stop it.
You have no idea how the internal politics between the executive and the spy agencies of this are breaking. You have no idea if POTUS is in league with Feinstein, sympathetic, withholding judgement or opposing her. I know it's hard to take a wait and watch approach, but that's what responsible journalist and citizens DO until the details can be ascertained, then they ACT.
The FACT is that the WH knew about these plans and did not stop it. As we reported.
Brennan doesn't seem to say anything about searching any computers other than the CIA's own. He only talks about checking the access logs on their own systems in that quote.
No, he admits it. He says: "CIA conducted a limited review to determine whether these files were located on the SSCI side of the CIA network and reviewed audit data to determine whether anyone had accessed the files, which would have been unauthorized."
If you've been following along, the CIA required the Senate staffers to work from a CIA office, but promised them a private network. SSCI is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." The "SSCI side" of the network is the Senate staffers' computers, which the CIA had previously insisted was entirely private from the CIA.
Am I the only one that thinks that any court being secret is an aberration in the first place?
If the purpose is to approve warrants to collect data in the process of an investigation, that seems like something that makes sense to be done in secret, no? The details should *eventually* become public, but during the course of an investigation, I think it's reasonable to keep them secret.
The truth be known, within the legal profession the ones who are generally acknowledged to best understand substantive law are those who are newly minted graduates. One need only understand, for example, the role that clerks play in the Supreme Court. They author opinions, but the justices take all the credit (of course justices review and revise, but nowhere near as much as one would expect). Thus, I long ago ceased to consider how long one has actually been practicing as a key factor in knowledge of substantive law because in many cases (far too many to my liking) the longer they have practiced translates into less than perfect understanding of the law.
Holy shit. You're lucky you comment anonymously, or I'd find a way to link back to the MANY, MANY comments from someone I'm sure is you repeatedly trumpeting your own decades of experience in the law as to why you understand these issues and we do not.
It makes me cringe to see Aero described as "innovative". It is a horrendously inefficient means of receiving broadcasts, with the one redeeming quality being that it is less horrendously inefficient than most other means imposed by the monopolistic regime of copyright.
Innovative, to me, means building something that the public wants. Aereo seems to qualify.
Please please keep this Representative out of the policies of the White House. I shutter to think of what would happen should he learn of DMHO (dihydrous monoxide) or of carbon monoxide and its' associated dangers as claimed by the White House.
I will buy hundreds of small DVD players, The smaller the better. I will then load requested DVDs into the players and rent out the DVD, player, and Player control so that someone over the net can watch the DVD.
His second in command, James Clapper is no bargain to succeed him.
You have your facts mixed up. Alexander reports to Clapper, not the other way around. Alexander is head of NSA. Clapper is Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates between all the intelligence agencies, including the NSA. Also, Clapper is not succeeding Alexander. Instead, it's Admiral Mike Rogers from the Navy who will be succeeding Alexander (not to be confused with House Intelligence Committee boss Rep. Mike Rogers). Clapper is staying in his position.
Your post is very interesting and certainly provides some valuable points. You could have made your point without insulting me and it would have come off as a lot more valuable, and you wouldn't seem like a world class asshole. But, to each his own.