A friendly editorial suggestion: while I think many of us can think of explanations for the Fifth's unwillingness to act on this stupid law, it's clear that doing so was a gross dereliction of duty.
So I propose modifying the headline to read "After Indefensibly Allowing Unconstitutional Book Ban To Stay Alive For Six Months, The Fifth Circuit Finally Shuts It Down"
FWIW, we're looking for a better term than "adversarial interop" - something like "unilateral interop" (ugh, but is better than the other one, "nonconsensual interop"). Suggestions welcome. Should connote that the interoperability is not contingent on the approval or assistant of the existing product or service.
To be clear, I'm not (merely) advocating for forced interop (that is, some kind of API mandate), I'm ALSO advocating for an absolute legal defense for "adversarial interop" that would apply to claims under patent, anti-circumvention, tortious interference, EULA/CFAA violations, etc:
I don't propose to solve that problem -- rather, I propose that solving that problem (coming up with a blend of metrics including random sampling, traffic analysis, self-reporting "Nielsen families," etc) is easier than solving either of these problems:
* How do you stop people from downloading?
* How do you stop the war on downloading from destroying the Internet?
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, Mike. I think, though, that you're putting words in my mouth. I very carefully do NOT propose a tax or levy -- rather, I propose a blanket licenses that ISPs *may* purchase, not one that they *must* purchase:
I just don't understand the CBC's position here -- if they have problems with potential commercial clauses then, yes, sure, not playing -NC music makes a certain amount of sense.
But this business of not being able to tell whether CC music is or isn't NC -- to the point of having to hire extra staff! -- is just dumb. If the words "NonCommercial" or "NC" appear in a license, there is a non-commercial restriction in the license. If no such tag appears, the work is licensed for commercial use. If you have to *hire extra staff* to make this distinction, then I can't understand how the denizens of the Broadcast Centre manage to turn on the lights or wipe their bums.
There are CBC programmes that have been using CC music that's licensed for commercial distribution (The Spark, Quirks and Quarks), so we already know that CBC's producers have the nous to manage this. The CBC's answer to this problem should be to send around a memo saying, "If you're using CC music in a show that goes to podcast, please make sure that the track's license doesn't say 'NC' in its title. If you must use a track with 'NC' in the license, please contact licensing to clear the track before you go to air."
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by doctorow.
/s/Inexplicably/Indefensibly/
A friendly editorial suggestion: while I think many of us can think of explanations for the Fifth's unwillingness to act on this stupid law, it's clear that doing so was a gross dereliction of duty. So I propose modifying the headline to read "After Indefensibly Allowing Unconstitutional Book Ban To Stay Alive For Six Months, The Fifth Circuit Finally Shuts It Down"
Re: Re: Re: A few points:
FWIW, we're looking for a better term than "adversarial interop" - something like "unilateral interop" (ugh, but is better than the other one, "nonconsensual interop"). Suggestions welcome. Should connote that the interoperability is not contingent on the approval or assistant of the existing product or service.
Not forced interop...adversarial interop
To be clear, I'm not (merely) advocating for forced interop (that is, some kind of API mandate), I'm ALSO advocating for an absolute legal defense for "adversarial interop" that would apply to claims under patent, anti-circumvention, tortious interference, EULA/CFAA violations, etc:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay
Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
I don't propose to solve that problem -- rather, I propose that solving that problem (coming up with a blend of metrics including random sampling, traffic analysis, self-reporting "Nielsen families," etc) is easier than solving either of these problems:
* How do you stop people from downloading?
* How do you stop the war on downloading from destroying the Internet?
Music tax vs blanket license
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, Mike. I think, though, that you're putting words in my mouth. I very carefully do NOT propose a tax or levy -- rather, I propose a blanket licenses that ISPs *may* purchase, not one that they *must* purchase:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8491168
Cory
The excuse doesn't hang together
I just don't understand the CBC's position here -- if they have problems with potential commercial clauses then, yes, sure, not playing -NC music makes a certain amount of sense.
But this business of not being able to tell whether CC music is or isn't NC -- to the point of having to hire extra staff! -- is just dumb. If the words "NonCommercial" or "NC" appear in a license, there is a non-commercial restriction in the license. If no such tag appears, the work is licensed for commercial use. If you have to *hire extra staff* to make this distinction, then I can't understand how the denizens of the Broadcast Centre manage to turn on the lights or wipe their bums.
There are CBC programmes that have been using CC music that's licensed for commercial distribution (The Spark, Quirks and Quarks), so we already know that CBC's producers have the nous to manage this. The CBC's answer to this problem should be to send around a memo saying, "If you're using CC music in a show that goes to podcast, please make sure that the track's license doesn't say 'NC' in its title. If you must use a track with 'NC' in the license, please contact licensing to clear the track before you go to air."