PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the las-vegas-dreams-dashed dept
It's been a good week for articles that interest me personally, a good thing as I've been asked to write this post about my favorites! First mention has to go to Jonathan McIntosh's great recap of the problems he's had to go through at the hands of Lionsgate. In short, despite his Twilight remix video having been mentioned by the US Copyright Office itself as an example of fair use, he still struggled to convince YouTube to keep it up since Lionsgate didn't want to keep it up without obscuring it with ads (despite the current version being ad free and not monetized by McIntosh in any way himself). It's a nice illustration of how even those who try to keep within the law fall foul of corporate greed if they decide they don't like something. If something already illustrated as fair use can be treated like this, imagine the problems faced by anyone in a grey area!
On a similar note, rapper Kid Cudi yet again noted how disappointed he was in his label's commitment to his new single, just one year after having similar problems with his last album. While some were noting that he was silly to have signed for a label in the first place, this was another illustration as to how even successful artists can be let down by the legacy industry and how many artists simply don't need them.
Something slightly more disturbing to me personally is the story about a gambling software programmer being shut down and raided. The story appears to go that despite offering services that are perfectly legal everywhere that he licensed the software, he fell afoul of the US's inexplicable anti-gambling obsession anyway because he's based in the US and people in NY may have somehow touched his software. As someone who working in Gibraltar, a place whose industry is largely built by offshore gaming companies (some of whom were similarly attacked when US authorities suddenly decided that their companies were offering illegal products), this is a worrying trend. It also sadly means that my dreams of being invited to help set up a Las Vegas branch of one of those companies might still be a long way away!
On a lighter note, UK police were arguing about who first thought up their Twitter offers of free iPads to lure the stupidest criminals alive into their arms. Neither of them apparently remembering the episode of The Simpsons where Homer was successfully lured by the promise of a free boat.
Meanwhile, back in the entertainment industry, Sony offered the most naked example yet of profiteering and the back of what should be public domain material when they released a new Bob Dylan compilation entitled the "Copyright Collection Volume 1." Regionally restricted, of course, and containing rare material that will inevitably be pirated as it's not available anywhere else. It's particularly odious because the mere 100 copies they released were openly intended to stop classic material from going back to the public under the original deal made when they were recorded. At least they've dropped the pretense of helping the fans, I suppose.
The movie industry also made some wrongheaded moves in an attempt to promote their silly Ultraviolet service (yet another in a long line of DRM that offer customers less than a pirated version under the pretense that it somehow benefits the consumer). The pretense is that by offering free movies with purchases of TVs and Blu ray players, they can convince people to use and love it. Having unfortunately tried it myself (unsuccessfully) on a movie I received for Christmas, I suspect it will just let people know not to bother.
Finally, on a lighter note, it's nice to see some figures for Kickstarter's year and their great success in funding a wide range of projects. Over 2 million people funded projects this year (myself included), so here's hoping that many more independent artists get funded in 2013!
Re: Re:
More truthfully - they only had their rights because the nurse refused to give the cop what he was demanding. It was the medical staff, not the law enforcement, who retained their rights.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Both ways
Also from that link:
"American and British intellectual property lawyers Mary M. Luria and Charles Swan said that because the creator of the photograph is an animal and not a person, there is no copyright on the photograph, regardless of who owns the equipment with which the photograph was created.[27]"
"According to University of Michigan law professor, Jessica Litman, "No human author has rights to a photograph taken by a monkey," . . . "The original monkey selfie is in the public domain".[28]"
Hmmm... almost like you're picking and choosing so that you can attack Wikimedia and others here with no care for the overall pitcure.
I know you have some kind of major issue about this, but the case is clear - thus far, nothing has been ruled to state that the picture has a copyright applicable to the human photographer. Rulings *have* been made that state that the monkey cannot hold a copyright, and thus the picture is in the public domain. Therefore, everybody from me to you to Wikimedia have the legal right to use the photo, no matter how much you personally wish they should have to pay.
"But, since you're obviously all legal experts"
I've never claimed to be any such thing. I only argued with your false definition of the public domain and your attempt to attack people here for correctly applying the real definition.
Feel free to make your own legal arguments in response, but the facts are against you from what I can see.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Both ways
Brush up on facts, please. You've had 6 months since the article you're commenting on was written to gather them. Every tired argument you're trying to make has been made by many others before you, and the court has sided with the idea that this photo cannot be copyrighted, and is thus public domain. The monkey is the legal author and he cannot legally hold copyright.
The other questions you pose are similarly tired, but they have nothing to do with the fact that this picture is public domain, according purely as per the definition of the term. Your attempt to attack others has failed.
Try this for a primer, since you've chosen to be wilfully ignorant of the history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
"Also, If I take 20 public domain photos and combine and make them into a piece of art – that art is my work and I own it."
Yes, but each work remains in the public domain, only the new work you have compiled will have copyright. The works are free for you and any member of the public to use as they wish, as is its entire purpose, whether or not you like what has entered that status.
"The work was created by the photographer because the monkey is incapable of creating a work"
No, he's absolutely capable of creating a work, he's just not legally able to hold the copyright for it. Had a small child activated the camera in the same way, that child would hold the copyright, not the photographer. Similarly, had Naruto held a paintbrush and created a work that way, he would legally be the author and not whoever bought the brush.
"Mind you, my only "friend of the court" interest in this is that Wikipedia is using the photo for free"
As is their legal right for any image that's in the public domain. I'm sorry this is so confusing for you, but that means that it's free for the public to use.
Re: Re: Re: Both ways
"The legal term public domain refers to works whose exclusive intellectual property rights have expired,[1] have been forfeited,[2] have been expressly waived, or are inapplicable.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
People aren't "having it both ways" by applying the term public domain, they're using it by its correct definition. If copyright is not applicable to the work, as has been judged in this case, then it's public domain.
It's very simple - legally, the author of the work was the monkey, not the photographer. Legally, copyright cannot be held by a monkey. Therefore, copyright is inapplicable and it's public domain.
Re: Both ways
You seem confused as to what the public domain is, and how it's defined.
Re:
Outside of the US, where calling people who actually care about their constituents "socialists" doesn't push ill-informed voters toward corporatists, theocrats and oligarchists.
Re: Re: Re:
I think the AC may have been a little sarcastic ;)
Essentially, that seems to be one of the arguments from the content providers. You can't possibly be happy with one or 2 streaming services, you must have to subscribe to a whole host of them in order to replicate the content you have access to with a full cable package, and this saves you zero money!
As is often the case, the argument falls apart when faced with how things operate in the real world, where people either choose one or two services they're happy with and stick with those, or rotate as they find the content stale.
BTW - there's a *lot* of streaming services you're not thinking of, but many of them are geared toward niche tastes.
(untitled comment)
"When you book a hotel, you expect “complimentary” mattresses, sheets and towels, rather than renting each individually. When you go to a restaurant, you don’t pay extra to enjoy the use of a plate."
Erm, that's not bundling, that's the provider supplying a service in a usable state. Yes, I'd be rather annoyed if the service provider didn't provide a service that could be used at the basic price point. On the other hand, if all you want is an internet connection, the extra TV channels are needless waste and I'd rather not be charged for things I don't want to use.
"your bargain airline charges you to choose a seat or bring luggage"
Did the US somehow miss out on this kind of thing? The author should try flying Ryanair.
Re: straw man argument
"She specifically says add up "the cost of the subscriptions you’d need to *replicate your current viewing habits*"
Which, inevitably, will be completely different for each individual, which is the point. Also, having the choice makes people re-evaluate those habits. Do you actually want to pay service X just for that one show, or can you do without? Do you watch enough sport to keep ESPN? Most people will find they will happily not bother with some things if there's a new monthly charge - and the new streaming services they subscribe to will offer new content they're not currently getting on top.
Will the old way still be better for some people? Sure. Will the old, one size fits all, hundreds of channels you never watch to get the ones you do approach be the best for most people? Almost certainly not.
(untitled comment)
"I just couldn't understand how smart people could not see the social costs to stopping judges, in appropriate cases, from ordering access to electronic devices."
It's very simple. Smart people weigh the costs of them having too ready access to data, and the other risks that leaving backdoors, etc. entail, and have found that the public's interest is greater than the judge's/FBI's/etc. Smart people have looked at all the data and decided against your wishes. You have never had ready access to all available data and every piece of personal information at any point in law enforcement, you don't need it now.
If you have a problem with this, the trick is to work with them to get realistic solutions. Not tell them that they have to violate the rights of their customers or come up with magical solutions like a "secure backdoor", you have done so far. Demanding miracles and then whining when they don't sell out the population of the country/world to you is clearly not working.
"The leaders of tech companies don't see the darkness the FBI sees"
Or, they do, and realise that the darkness that may be created by the things you demand is greater than the realistic threat faced by most of them in regards to terrorism.
"We see humankind at its most depraved, day in and day out…"
Which is perhaps why your viewpoint is rather skewed. Step back and look at the bigger picture - where, for example, the average person is far, far more at risk from criminals exploiting an FBI-demanded back door in encryption than they are from a terrorist attack.
"Of course the Silicon Valley types don't see the darkness -- they live where it's sunny all the time and everybody is rich and smart."
If you think the damn weather has anything to do with it and not, say, Silicon Valley types knowing a lot more about the tech than you do, might I suggest booking a holiday somewhere you can clear your head? You clearly need one.
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
"Oh, and a START on appearing FAIR would be NOT censoring my comments for NO visible reason"
Except, we've been telling you exactly why your comments are being hidden. You just choose to ignore the explanation.
Oh, and the community is fair - we flag anyone acting like a ranting idiot who is more obsessed with their own ego than discussion with anyone about the subject in the article. That you're the sole person who usually does this does not make it unfair, it means that you are the only person who fairly deserves such a response.
"And STOP LYING that's "community" and not approved by an Administator."
As ever, provide your evidence, else you are actually the one lying. Wouldn't that be stupid, huh? Ranting about a conspiracy when the thing you refuse to believe is actually true?
"So be neutral -- OR ELSE"
Or else what? lol
Re: Re: just go to: https://torrentfreak.com to see how that's turne
The one with stories like "Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 04/23/18" near the top of the page as I look at it now, yes.
I'm sure he had a point somewhere in that half-boiled cabbage on top of his neck.
Re: Re: Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
"My pile of DVDs hasn't gotten any bigger"
Mine has, though I tend to purchase from boutique labels specialising in genre movies with real effort put into packaging and special features, rather than whatever Hollywood happens to have released that week. In terms of "blockbusters", I buy virtually nothing nowadays, but that has nothing to do with piracy.
That's one of the things I love about this particular basket case - his very premise is so totally wrong he's literally attacking people who consciously avoid doing what he claims to hate. He has no proof that any regular poster here has every pirated (unless they have stated as such in comments, of course), he just assumes that people who are against their rights being stripped by corporations in order to be screwed over by corporations who refuse to offer the product their customers want must be pirates.
"Well then I guess TD should start censoring you then since you lack both of the above."
His lack of self-awareness is glorious.
Re: Re: Don't be so coy.
There's also the point that not everybody working in that industry is doing so willingly. I don't often hear of people being forced against their will to peddle street drugs, but denying sex workers a voice where they may themselves be the actual victims of the crimes being committed is not a good thing. Part of the problem with such things being illegal is that abuse (and worse) is encouraged and the victims have nowhere to turn because in seeking help they have to confess to a felony (in the areas where it's not legal, anyway).
Also, the fact is that we do want these things out in the open. It may distasteful, but having open forums that can be monitored by authorities to deal with illegal behaviour is far more desirable than forcing everything underground. The only effect of these rules is to make investigation more difficult.
Re: I see you HAVE given up on censoring this old thread, though!
No, it's because most people have better things to do than answer some ranting moron on a stagnant thread that nobody else has commented on since February.
If waiting until a thread is long dead then posting nonsense that nobody is likely to reply to counts a win for you, then have it. But, as per usual, it neither proves what you think it does nor does it mean anything of any substance.
Re: Re: Re: hypocritical and fearful: hollywood
"The Muslim’s god doesn’t get attention because Muslims are such a small number in the US"
Yes, people tend to pay attention to who is biggest and loudest. I don't see many depictions of Sikhs in US media either, because they are not a large or vocal group in the US>
Hypocritical "Christian" preachers on the other hand...
"blacks are a minority too ya know"
Not as much of a minority as Muslims, and there's actually a sizeable number of people who belong to both groups. Also, there's plenty of depictions of Muslims, just not so much their deity - do you see the vital difference between that and what's discussed here?
"Truth is, Hollywood won’t make fun of Islamic diety because they’re afraid of terrorists reprisals."
Or, because it's more fun to wind you people up because you're afraid of any criticism than it is to mock people who most likely live in theocracies that will never let them see your movie to begin with.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except that "benefit to the local community" inevitably includes "how many people will want to watch this movie""
Not really. The number of Tunisians who might watch Star Wars wasn't really a consideration when they shot part of it there. The potential local audience for the end product is not a big factor.
"Another criterion might be that it portrayed the cultural environment of the local area inaccurately."
That might be a concern, but then they could insist that local people are hired as technical advisors to ensure that doesn't happen. As long as they aren't government officials being hired for a side job to push a religious agenda, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
"Note that it is not the personal religious leanings of the offical that (should) count here but rather his/her opinions about the religious opinions of others."
So, not based on any evidence, then, just whatever the official decided to make up.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and I am saying that excuse doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly.
Re: hypocritical and fearful: hollywood
"Where are the negative depictions of allah and buddah and such?"
They're around, but Buddhists don't get irate about things like the thin-skinned Christians who comprise the vast majority of religious folk in the country Hollywood is in. Muslims might do, but they're still a vast minority in the US so don't get the same attention domestically.
"Christians are such an easy target because..."
...there's so many of you represented in US public life, and so many of them do so many silly things, including those that are against their supposed scripture.
"if God is real"
That's a big if.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm not tryimg to defend them here"
No, you're just making excuses as to how government workers can evade the law.
"What I meant was that whether the coose to fund (or subsidise) the film or choose not to fund (or subsidise) the film then they are making a judgement on a religious issue - and hence violating the separation of church and state."
So, you agree with what I'm saying, then. The only question is why you're trying to find loopholes so they can pretend they're not in violation.