Zane’s Techdirt Profile


About Zane

Zane’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 26th, 2020 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for Linkin Park

    That only applies to the use of music in the actual campaign marches. The issue at hand is a video, where they use the music for a Trump propaganda video. Your link notes that permission is needed in these circumstances, just as anyone producing a commercial would need to gain permission. They did not get permission.

    I've not seen the video, but this is a description of what it apparently contained:

    The video Trump retweeted earlier featured a cover of “In The End” that begins quietly and ominously, apparently implying the Democrats are about to ring in the apocalypse. Then the song revs up with images of the military, cops busting into doors, MAGA fans and the president at the Lincoln Memorial. It was apparently made by Trump supporters and posted on Twitter, The New York Post reported.

    “Time is a valuable thing. Watch it fly by as the pendulum swings. Watch it count down to the end of the day,” warn the lyrics of “In the End.” “The clock ticks life away.”

    For me it's a textbook example of why copyright is needed. I wouldn't want my work or indeed my voice to be used for political propaganda that I was against, I struggle to believe anyone would. At the end if the day that is exactly why we need copyright.

  • Jul 23rd, 2020 @ 2:44am

    Re: how long?

    It's considered perjury to claim copyright for something you don't have the rights for. So yes, there potentially there are real penalties. I'd have thought if there were a real issue Twitter or some other body would haul the false claims through the court to create an example. Your point about own musicians given strikes for their own content. It's likely they signed away their copyright.

  • Jul 23rd, 2020 @ 2:38am

    Re: Re: Good for Linkin Park

    Mind you, they also seem incapable of picking a "patriotic" song that isn't a scathing indictment of America when you actually listen to the lyrics (Born In The USA, Fortunate Son, etc).

    Haha I agree to that. I don't know if their copyright claim is valid, or indeed if they have transferred it elsewhere. Assuming it is valid, it actually shows why copyright is actually needed. No way would I be happy for my music to be used to support a political campaign against my will. That is the whole point of copyright, to give some control of how their work is used. Copyright isn't the problem here, the problem is using material for which permission hasn't been sought.

  • Jul 23rd, 2020 @ 1:53am

    Good for Linkin Park

    They don't want their music to be associated with Trump, and I can understand that. Assuming it was a valid copyright claim, then that let's exactly what copyright is designed for. So no, it's not a problem with copyright at all. The Trump campaign is free to use music for which they have copyright permission to use.

  • Jul 18th, 2020 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways

    Not at all, I understand their business model, they don't want to do editorial role. They want to limit their legal responsibility but keep all the advertising revenue. Takedown requests were a compromise to avoid having to go through onerous moderation, and avoid liability. If you don't have takedowns, then people will call for those who are hosting the content to be liable for copyright infringements. I get that many on this site don't like copyright, but it's not magically going to go away for a variety of reasons.

  • Jun 25th, 2020 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re:

    At the moment the proper channels are to ask for consent from a complainant. If consent is not given, that limits the ability in some cases to investigate the case, and likely the defendants right of a fair trial. You need evidence to take forward a case. Phone data may not be relevant, it depends on the case. Of course the phone could have information which helps the complainant prove her case too. Politically the police cannot be seen as getting warrants and demanding that a complainants phone is examined, that would be seen as even worst than the current situation. It is likely to put off people reporting incidents if they will be forced against there will to hand over their phone.

  • Jun 25th, 2020 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways

    They are hosting the content, that makes them a key player, in my opinion. It's like saying an editor for a paper who decides to print absolutely any article anyone sends is a third party, because they choose not to moderate - or are reactive. But papers don't get away with that. I know they want to be seen as somehow as incidental, their business model depends on it. A third party in this situation could be an advitisor or someone very incidental.

  • Jun 25th, 2020 @ 6:47am

    Re: Re: Consequences should go both ways

    I'm not sure I'd call youtube a "Third party". They host the content, so they have some level of responsibility to act on removing material that shouldn't legally be there. At least when they are made aware. I know they want to shirk that responsibility as it doesn't fit their business model.

  • Jun 25th, 2020 @ 6:31am

    (untitled comment)

    It’s a difficult situation. When it comes to a sexual assault claim, often it is a he said/she said situation. If they are examining the accused’s phone, then they probably should be examining the complainants too. I’m not sure how someone can have a fair trial if the police only look for evidence that is helpful for the complainants account, and do not even look at the complainants phone. The Liam Allan case is one such case where the complainants phone was examined, but the evidence was withheld from the defence. There were messages on that phone which proved that the complainants account was false. He would likely have served a lengthy prison sentence if this evidence never came to light. Disclosure is a very real problem in British justice, it’s the prosecution who decide what to disclose and when. But if they don’t thoroughly investigate by respecting the complainants privacy but violating the defendants privacy – I’m not sure how safe any conviction can really be in such circumstances.

    I get a bit tetchy when I hear the word “victim” used when it’s case when there are two different accounts, and the case has not been proven. If one person says they were sexually assaulted and another says it didn’t happen – both parties need to be treated equally and look at the evidence with an open mind. By using the word “victim” instead of complainant, it introduces bias – and implies that the sexual assault did take place. Which likely affects what evidence is sought. Of course if someone is falsely accused the defendant will be the actual victim. That’s why it is safer to keep with the word “complainant” in these types of cases, unless the case has been proven.

    Basically I don’t think they should really be differentiating between complainant and defendant. Maybe there needs to be some sort of immunity of prosecution for both the complainant and the defendant for unrelated matters, and agree there should be limits on what the police can search for and retain on the phones.

  • Jun 20th, 2020 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Artists fault

    Twitter or some other body could fund action in cooperation of the "injured party". Just a few test cases would be enough to put an end to the issue (if it really exists). An invalid takedown request is perjury - and as such anyone making a false takedown requests can be pursued through the courts.

  • Jun 20th, 2020 @ 6:45am

    Re: Re: Artists fault

    The DMCA also fails to provide any accommodation for licensed music. So when an user has permission, as this one did, it does not matter; there is simply no way to register that license and ward off further takedowns

    DMCA takedowns can only be initiated by the copyright holder or someone representing his wishes. It's a given that most copyright holders would be aware of who they had licensed content to. I'm sure Twitter has the resources to sue anyone who are making wrongful takedowns requests. So yes there are legal avenues. Although I'm not convinced it really is a significant issue, but if it was a few targetted lawsuits would make certain people do some checks first.
    Indeed wouldn't you just go to the copyright holder who you licenced the material to and say "hey you did a takedown request - but you shouldn't - I've got permission." who then should cancel the takedown.

  • Jun 19th, 2020 @ 12:59am

    Artists fault

    I don’t see this as a copyright issue. Only the copyright holder or someone authorised to act for him can make such requests.
    If the person didn’t have any right to make the DMCA request, then Twitter should take some action against the person who made the takedown request. It sounds like that is not the issue here though.

    It seems that the artist wanted DMCA takedown requests but forgot he had already given permission (or not told the person acting for him) – well that is an issue with the artists actions. An artist doesn’t have to do takedown requests – this artist obviously wants control of how his work is used, otherwise why do any takedown requests?

    I get how passionate you are against copyright. But there are limits to how much you can blame copyright for everything. Twitter had to take a copyright holders claim that a person doesn’t have rights to post content at face value. Maybe there does need to be a penalty for those who make inaccurate requests, or those like this artist who says he did give permission, but wasted everyones time by doing a DMCA request anyway.

  • Jun 9th, 2020 @ 11:51pm

    (untitled comment)

    Interesting discussion, particularly like the points about the cost and who is paying for it for those who are having to isolate and the economics for the individual. But also the society wide issue of having people who perhaps should be isolating and are not isolating because they are concerned about feeding their children. It just makes me think more seriously about a major change in how we do things, and perhaps Universal Basic Income in some form could be the answer.

  • Jun 7th, 2020 @ 11:50pm


    Look to the EU, they are miles ahead in looking at these issues. As much flack as GDPR gets, it actually makes a lot of sense.

  • Jun 6th, 2020 @ 6:32am

    Individuals privacy

    So who protects the individual, say who has inaccurate information about them posted on a platform, and I am talking more about a member of the public who is unfairly identified and defamed as opposed to someone who has a public role. I get and support the reasons generally for not going after platforms for the content. As you note they can’t moderate all content – but there will be circumstances when perhaps they should moderate, or at least consider it and give a reason for their stance. The concentration on the right of free speech is good, but there needs to be some thought about the rights of privacy, and some responsibility for platforms who do not intervene in certain circumstances. Some sort of balance. Most private individuals are unlikely to have the funds to fight defamation, and although that’s great for platforms and those who abuse them – it’s not great for the little guy who may not be able to find a job because someone posted something inaccurate or misleading on a platform.

  • May 7th, 2020 @ 3:22am

    Press release removed

    Looks like they've removed the press release:
    From experience, people who write press releases sometimes exaggerate to make the story more interesting, and they don't always wait to get the researchers approval before publicising. It's terrifying how much Comms departments and journalists will stretch the facts. I've had my work inaccurately described in the past. The issue could be more about bad journalism than bad research. But I'm speculating, based on the removal of the press release, and on the outlandish claims. It will be interesting to see the research once published.

  • May 5th, 2020 @ 11:50pm

    (untitled comment)

    Outside of the USA, the default is that the loser pays the other sides legal fees. This means that vexatious cases are unlikely. Quite frankly this guy would be broke in no time at all if he tried this in most western countries

  • May 5th, 2020 @ 8:27pm

    OK, squatter

    Of course the term "property" was meant to signify something that is owned as opposed to specifically a dwelling. Like a painting, a book etc. A piece of "property" that is well like a typical copyrighted work. Of course, if you want to use the term Landlord, then what do you refer to the person who is not paying rent, and is there illegally - a squatter?

  • May 2nd, 2020 @ 12:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Added an update

    "unless there is big money it is always a case of somone just removing the content if the copyright owner objects."

    That just isn't true. As Prenda and assorted other shady outfits have demonstrated.
    Your entire argument reads as frantically trying to pick out the few possible advantages from an otherwise unacceptable situation

    I prefer to think of it is as injecting a bit of objectivity/reality to the discussion.
    Prenda is a particularly bad example. One of them get 14 years for his actions. So I would be surprised if these actions were repeated by others. It's like saying murder should be lawful, just because someone was framed or encouraged another to do the deed. You can still think murder is wrong.

  • May 2nd, 2020 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re:

    "They're only locked if you the creator wants them locked up"
    This is false, and ridiculous. Because for most people they won't know what kind of mindfield they're entering into, the images are as good as locked up.

    Not ridiculous at all. It’s up to the copyright holder if they want to have their images “locked up”. They can make them copyright free, put them under creative commons or something similar, or simply ignore any copyright infringement they discover. The default is that they can be protected under copyright, but the copyright holder does not have to assert that right. Many people don’t assert that right, or make it clear that their works are copyright free. Or often just want to have control of where the work can be used and the circumstances. Indeed, to strengthen protection – copyright holders can register their work.

    "I guess I would ask who the hell expects a picture of their cat to be used by anyone for any reason"
    That's got literally fuck all to do with the purpose of copyright. If you want to stop people's creativity, that's on you

    It’s exactly what copyright is for, allowing the copyright holder to decide who uses his work, and if he wants to stipulate restrictions. Saying “fuck all” every now and then, doesn’t strengthen your argument. Stopping creativity? Well, it depends. If it means a website or book pays a photographer for their work, then that means people can make a living in that industry. If there was no copyright restrictions, why would any publisher bother paying for content?

    "Personally l like the fact that if somone puts my white cat Fluffy as the main image on a White Power site, I can assert my right to ask them to stop using it using my rights under copyright."
    You're making a moral rights claim. That's actually outside of what US copyright is designed for (it is allowed in the EU).

    Copyright is designed to give control to the copyright holder. The copyright holder needs to prove an infringement, the reason for them asserting their right isn’t at all relevant. So yes, even in the US it is highly likely that someone will assert their copyright for certain sites that they disapprove of, and not bother about other sites. You take away copyright, then you take away that control. Unless you put something else in its place, but then things become even more confusing and controversial. Of course we can make our work copyright free too, or licence it with certain conditions like in Creative Commons licence, or individually respond to requests.
    If what you say is true and the USA doesn’t have moral rights claims in addition to copyright, then that just strengthens the need for copyright.
    Although this case springs to mind:

    " Why should a publisher be using a photo of Fluffy and making profit in his cat book, instead of just taking his own photos or paying to use the photo."
    You again choose a very specific scenario -- one that is rare and unlikely to happen, ignoring how much other creativity is stifled under this system.

    Not rare at all, actually a fairly typical example of cases that actually make it to court. Often it’s only worth suing those who can be shown to have made a profit from the infringement, and are likely to have the funds to pay. Saying that, publishers will almost always make sure they have the copyright permission. And why is that? It is because they don’t want to be sued for copyright infringement. If it’s perfectly legal to use any content without permission, then many publishers will not pay for content, and it will likely to become a common occurrence. The incentive to gain permission is gone, as it is not needed. It’s always good to look at the likely consequences of changes.

    "If you own the copyright and don't care, then you don't have to do anything about it."
    This is wrong. As others have pointed out to you, estates can get in the way, or simply people won't be willing to make use of your works because of a fear of getting sued. "You" have nothing to worry about... except for the fact that it will scare people off. How selfish are you anyway?

    You criticised my other point (rather unfairly in my view) of being “one that is rare and unlikely to happen”. But then suggest this, which lets face it, probably has never happened. I struggle to take seriously that anyone would think that the inheritor would even be aware, recognise, or pursue a copyright infringement claim of some pet photos. Even I’ve gone through old photos, and have no memory of taking them, or struggle to recognise my cat from 20 years ago – so a relative is unlikely to even know some years, decades later. Indeed, they would have to prove that they owned the copyright in order to sue, and unless it is listed in the will, or a copyright notice has been filed – then that isn’t going to happen. The problem, takes care if itself.
    Yes, your second point has some weight- it should put people off using material which isn’t copyright free, or where it is against whatever licence exists, or where the person hasn’t asked the copyright holder. But that is what copyright is designed for. Is that selfish, or is it selfish to use others work without permission (outside of fair use)?

    "So what? WHY DO THE PHOTOS NEED COPYRIGHT? We lock up ALL CREATIVITY for around 100 years, despite no economic value in doing so. That's truly messed up. It's messed up for culture. It's messed up for society. You seem to think only in specific commercial terms, and that's not how this works.."

    It’s not locking up “all creativity”. Again, it’s up the copyright holder if they want to make it copyright free, or allow others to use in certain circumstances.

    If I see a cute cat photo that someone took online, and I want to share it with my friend who likes cats -- why should I have to get permission or pay a license fee? That's insane

    It depends how. Again, if it is copyright free, or within the terms of the licence, you can – no problem with that. If you retweet, then that is absolutely fine. The person who uploaded should be sure that he has the right to do so though. If you just email, or share through facebook that’s locked down- is anyone ever going to know? Or maybe you just send a link to the actual image you saw online?

    "Even if the work wasn't created for economic purposes, it doesn't mean others won't use it for economic purposes."
    So what? If someone uses a work you didn't create for economic purposes, why should you care? You weren't going to use it for economic purposes in the first place, so why does it matter?

    The point was that sometimes we decide later to try and profit from our own work, or again it may be an organisation that we disapprove of. Or perhaps we think the commercial sector should be paying for the work they use to increase creativity, meaning that artists can make a living and produce more work. Why can’t they just use work they have permission to use, be it copyright free, or licence an artist?

    To grift off someone who decided to try to make money where you explicitly chose not to?
    You're very very confused.

    “Explicitly choosing not to”, would be if you offered your work as copyright free, made your wishes known through Creative Commons, or gave permission in some other way etc. Which is the opposite of what you have been saying. Not confused at all – just trying to inject a bit of reality into the topic.

More comments from Zane >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it