Like they are really going to disclose all this? Google's search ranking? Right...
Sec. 120.051. PUBLIC DISCLOSURES. (a) A social media
platform shall, in accordance with this subchapter, publicly
disclose accurate information regarding its content management,
data management, and business practices, including specific
information regarding the manner in which the social media
platform:
(1) curates and targets content to users;
(2) places and promotes content, services, and
products, including its own content, services, and products;
(3) moderates content;
(4) uses search, ranking, or other algorithms or
procedures that determine results on the platform; and
(5) provides users' performance data on the use of the
platform and its products and services.
(b) The disclosure required by Subsection (a) must be
sufficient to enable users to make an informed choice regarding the
purchase of or use of access to or services from the platform.
Yes some of those industries are profitable exactly because they have tended to abuse copyright, to wit the publishing companies which have regularly exceeded the terms of the licenses granted to them
Instead of music consider another medium. Let's say you think of a hilarious joke (like the one about the three nuns in a taxi?..) and you tell a friend. She thinks it's the funniest thing she's ever heard and tells her friends and they tell all their friends and soon it spreads like wildfire. You go on a trip to another state and are at a party and someone asks you "did you hear the one about the three nuns in a taxi? " You say "hey that's my joke, you stole it. You can't tell it. You have to pay me."
Now it sounds ridiculous but digital content is somewhat like this. In economic terms it is non-exclusive, meaning it's not really possible to prevent it spreading. Try telling people not to tell your joke.
To be sure there are still differences between music. Oral jokes are not copyrightable; but if you wrote it down after you told it, then it would be. Also joketelling is not a commercial enterprise so you aren't expecting to be paid. But in terms of how easy it is to transmit and how unlikely you are to be able to prevent it spreading, it is very similar indeed.
That's the larger problem we are facing long-term, not copyright, but that with digital technology created content is becoming less like a private good, such as books and cars, and more like a public good, such as language, and we don't know exactly what to do about it
Ebert mentions "Competition from other forms of delivery" and you add "Competition from other forms of entertaintment."
More significant I think is competition from all the other movies made in the past.
You can't see them in theaters, but only via home rentals of some sort. With today's technology we are no longer restricted to seeing just the few films most recently released and being marketed, but can, at our leisure and on our own time, see any of tens of thousands of films.
I'd gladly have seen 3:10 to Yuma, Unforgiven, Gone With the Wind in theaters last year but they weren't showing anywhere so I watched them on Netflix.
There aren't enough cinemas to show even a fraction of films people want to watch and this is an inevitable consequence of today's technology.
What about the fact that they registered a trademark in the word Righthaven?
"IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Searching and retrieving information, sites, and other resources available on computer networks for others. FIRST USE: 20100301. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100301"
Although SOPA refers to copyrighted material the motivation behind it is exclusively focused on Hollywood films and big label music.
Does anyone think for a minute that the Attorney General, or the ISPs or anyone else will be interested in, or capable of, identifying infringements of photographs, poems, fonts, children's drawings, quotations, logos and distinguishing them from licensed usages or fair use? Not a chance.
This in effect provides for elevated copyright protection for a very small subset of content, films and music, supported and paid for by MPAA and RIAA.
I read the NY Times quite often and enjoy it as one of my news sources along with BBC Reuters the Washington Post and (recently) Al Jazeera, and sohave no problem paying a small amount for doing so with ease.
$35 a month is way way too high in my opinion. When I found out you could get full digital subscription by subscribing the Weekend Book Review for $1.75 a week I signed up. That's about $7.50 a month, which is more reasonable (the right price, I'd say, would be $4.99 a month)
They since seem to have disabled the link, but you might still be able to get a subscription.
As for hacks, the easiest way of all I found was to go to nytimes.com and then instead of clicking on links, do a right-click-copy-link-open-new-window-paste. No ?args. No paywall.
Even so that's a pain and I chose the $7.50 a month instead.
I donate $1 + a month to you, Mike, and they write many more stories than you do.
Making it a highly porous barrier may turn out to be a fair compromise. Traffic will tell.
The Social Science Research Council?s study is a landmark in the copyright literature: an actual empirical investigation into what works and what doesn?t in the enforcement arena. If policy makers want to be guided by evidence and not rhetoric, they will begin with the Council?s study and stay with it for a very long time.
Like they are really going to disclose all this? Google's search ranking? Right...
Sec. 120.051. PUBLIC DISCLOSURES. (a) A social media
platform shall, in accordance with this subchapter, publicly
disclose accurate information regarding its content management,
data management, and business practices, including specific
information regarding the manner in which the social media
platform:
(1) curates and targets content to users;
(2) places and promotes content, services, and
products, including its own content, services, and products;
(3) moderates content;
(4) uses search, ranking, or other algorithms or
procedures that determine results on the platform; and
(5) provides users' performance data on the use of the
platform and its products and services.
(b) The disclosure required by Subsection (a) must be
sufficient to enable users to make an informed choice regarding the
purchase of or use of access to or services from the platform.
If conservative websites think Section 230 is so terrible let's see one of them voluntarily waive all their Section 230 protections and immunities.
Still waiting….
Perhaps a bit tangent to the topic but I see that today Apple gave notice to Parler that they should enact a moderation policy.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/apple-threatens-ban-parler
My question is how does Sec 230 affect Apple with respect to 3rd party apps in the App Store?
Do they have the same liability protection as the app itself? Or are they protected in some other way? or not as protected?
Congrats
Congratulations Mike. Glad not to see them get away with it.
Wonder why he wants this URL to be removed from search:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/
lol
"What does this signal for copyright owners who expect to get paid for their content?"
"It signals nothing."
I am a photographer and make my living licensing images.
Even so I agree with the article completely. The C of C is just ridiculous
Yes some of those industries are profitable exactly because they have tended to abuse copyright, to wit the publishing companies which have regularly exceeded the terms of the licenses granted to them
And what about the Church?
I'm surprised they didn't charge the local Catholic Church for not being sufficiently prayerful, or for uttering ineffective prayers.
Maybe they are next.
Violating a Twitter name
Clearly the most egregious and illegal activity was violating his twitter name!!
Eh, what??
was it used
Mike, it is unclear from the article whether the researcher actually ended up publishing the image.
If not, why the reticence in discussing details?
There's probably a market opportunity then for non-SABAM books free from any such restrictions.
It's a joke
Instead of music consider another medium. Let's say you think of a hilarious joke (like the one about the three nuns in a taxi?..) and you tell a friend. She thinks it's the funniest thing she's ever heard and tells her friends and they tell all their friends and soon it spreads like wildfire. You go on a trip to another state and are at a party and someone asks you "did you hear the one about the three nuns in a taxi? " You say "hey that's my joke, you stole it. You can't tell it. You have to pay me."
Now it sounds ridiculous but digital content is somewhat like this. In economic terms it is non-exclusive, meaning it's not really possible to prevent it spreading. Try telling people not to tell your joke.
To be sure there are still differences between music. Oral jokes are not copyrightable; but if you wrote it down after you told it, then it would be. Also joketelling is not a commercial enterprise so you aren't expecting to be paid. But in terms of how easy it is to transmit and how unlikely you are to be able to prevent it spreading, it is very similar indeed.
That's the larger problem we are facing long-term, not copyright, but that with digital technology created content is becoming less like a private good, such as books and cars, and more like a public good, such as language, and we don't know exactly what to do about it
well I'll just charge them $3 for the privilege of receiving my payment
Competition from backlist
Ebert mentions "Competition from other forms of delivery" and you add "Competition from other forms of entertaintment."
More significant I think is competition from all the other movies made in the past.
You can't see them in theaters, but only via home rentals of some sort. With today's technology we are no longer restricted to seeing just the few films most recently released and being marketed, but can, at our leisure and on our own time, see any of tens of thousands of films.
I'd gladly have seen 3:10 to Yuma, Unforgiven, Gone With the Wind in theaters last year but they weren't showing anywhere so I watched them on Netflix.
There aren't enough cinemas to show even a fraction of films people want to watch and this is an inevitable consequence of today's technology.
Trademark
What about the fact that they registered a trademark in the word Righthaven?
"IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Searching and retrieving information, sites, and other resources available on computer networks for others. FIRST USE: 20100301. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100301"
Movies and Music
Although SOPA refers to copyrighted material the motivation behind it is exclusively focused on Hollywood films and big label music.
Does anyone think for a minute that the Attorney General, or the ISPs or anyone else will be interested in, or capable of, identifying infringements of photographs, poems, fonts, children's drawings, quotations, logos and distinguishing them from licensed usages or fair use? Not a chance.
This in effect provides for elevated copyright protection for a very small subset of content, films and music, supported and paid for by MPAA and RIAA.
Not a good idea at all.
It's a question of price
I read the NY Times quite often and enjoy it as one of my news sources along with BBC Reuters the Washington Post and (recently) Al Jazeera, and sohave no problem paying a small amount for doing so with ease.
$35 a month is way way too high in my opinion. When I found out you could get full digital subscription by subscribing the Weekend Book Review for $1.75 a week I signed up. That's about $7.50 a month, which is more reasonable (the right price, I'd say, would be $4.99 a month)
They since seem to have disabled the link, but you might still be able to get a subscription.
As for hacks, the easiest way of all I found was to go to nytimes.com and then instead of clicking on links, do a right-click-copy-link-open-new-window-paste. No ?args. No paywall.
Even so that's a pain and I chose the $7.50 a month instead.
I donate $1 + a month to you, Mike, and they write many more stories than you do.
Making it a highly porous barrier may turn out to be a fair compromise. Traffic will tell.
The Social Science Research Council?s study is a landmark in the copyright literature: an actual empirical investigation into what works and what doesn?t in the enforcement arena. If policy makers want to be guided by evidence and not rhetoric, they will begin with the Council?s study and stay with it for a very long time.
? William Patry, senior copyright counsel, Google
ten ones
nice work he has there. funny that very few of the images are actually NY Times images. Most are artwork or historical
More at Volokh
There's a lengthy discussion over at the law blog
http://volokh.com/2011/02/25/suppression-of-jury-nullification-advocates-speech-outside-courthouse/