I had an interesting comment thread going between a few friends of mine on facebook after I shared the last Manning article, that because Manning was still under military command, that he was exampt from the civilian form of due process, and was still subject to military justice.
I am not condoning his alledged treatment at all, but things tend to take on a different light when you realise this is not a private citizen, but a member of the armed forces who has "signed away" certain rights to be in that position.
I don't mean to play Devil's Advocate here, but my facebook friends, some who have served for the US, have family who served, and some others who are more articulate in their expression, point out that "whistleblowing" really has no meaning when it comes to military justice.
I don't know enough to really take a side here, but one thing I can say, is that there needs to be some expediancy due with the Manning case, for the longer it drags on, the worse it looks for the US, just like in the David Hicks/Guantanomo Bay saga.
"You wouldn't steal a car, would you?" ~ No, but I'd download one if I could.
Your argument is invalid.
Clearly the prosecutor thought there was criminal infringement occurring and the judge agreed.
Well done. You just proved Mike's point about what is wrong here. There was no prosecutor. There was no Judge. LMAO!
I sure hope Sam is short for Samantha.
WTF dude? This article has nothing to do with patents and copyright! Please stop posting. Your shit is getting old.
MY IDIOTS?
Over 75% of my subscription feed videos have a HD option.
Oh good lord please make it stop.
A single mum is ordered to pay $1.5m for illegally downloading 24 songs yet this company gets basically a slap on the wrist for exposing pretty important data. Yeah.
(Has anyone ever encountered a "radio rip" on The Pirate Bay?)
Oh we all know how copyright is supposed to work. But that isn't the issue here is it. It is however, in reality, indeed being used as a club to beat down speech.
Great post Nina, but it still didn't go half way to expressing the frustration that such license confusion causes. Perhaps because the article is written from a content creator's point of view. Lets face it, you created the content so how can you get into trouble for using it?
My frustration involves YouTube. I've always wanted to get into the whole Machinima scene. More specifically, I wanted to record my computer/console gameplay footage and edit it to music, for upload to YouTube for my friends to see. Seems innocent enough doesn't it? As many here would already know, the problem arises because content creators don't see YouTube as simply a service provider/hosting service, but as a commercial entity.
Now for the confusion.
YouTube has of course implemented a ContentID system to identify copyrighted works but the way in which "Big Media" chooses to handle instances of identification. Some allow the use to continue, placing an iTunes link and/or advertisement to attempt to monetize the use and some choose to have the audio muted and a strike placed against your account. This creates some anxiety if I want to use my favorite artist in a video as I can't afford to gamble on the outcome. YouTube's three strikes policy causes fear enough not to chance it.
So one day I saw a link right here on TechDirt in another article about music suitable for YouTube videos and I thought it would be a viable alternative to not being banned from the service. [i]Boy was I wrong[/i]. As mentioned before, many license holders see YouTube as commercial use regardless of the intentions of the user so the majority of the music on these CC sites use a CC-NC-ND license so there is confusion as to whether putting it in my gameplay video is acceptable use.
The next problem is that none of the sites on this supposed "YouTube friendly" list separates the artists into license categories. This means one must trawl the entire site looking for instances of ShareAlike licenses. With thousands of artists finding an artist whose music you actually like [i]and[/]i] is covered by a CC-SA is quite a time consuming process.
A final problem arises when I need to find a song of a particular length to fit the video where the length of the video can't be altered. I came to the conclusion after about 6 hours of searching for a song (a) I liked, (b) of the appropriate length and (c) published under the appropriate license, that the project was totally futile and that these sites claiming to have music appropriate for YouTube videos were in fact a total lie.
Consequently I have uploaded only one video, using a song my friends band offered for use and I have not bothered since.
Dammit! Gonna have to delete all my episodes of Rex Hunt Fishing Adventures.
I honeslty couldn't find anything of theirs worth downloading...
It costs folks like you and me. And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five who will?
Or pay somebody from some Marine Science Organization to strap it to a fucking turtle or something.
Patent Wars!
Tune in next week as the Red Team and the Blue Team battle for ultimate supremacy in the courtroom.
Simple typo. Since the "f" key is so close to the "t" key, I suspect the word "into" -- which so gloriously massacres that sentence -- was in fact meant to be "info", which would make it considerably more readable ;-)
Re: ICE did not issue any seizures, The Court did. you're legal system did.
Please, learn your damn homophones.