Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2012 @ 07:36pm

    Shut it down

    This might be a good time to post this:

    I have started a petition at whitehouse.gov to shut down Operation In Our Sites:
    http://wh.gov/uZ8

    Even if it doesn't result in any action, at least the government will know we're watching them.

  • On the post: Judge Posner Dumps Ridiculous Patent Fight Between Apple & Motorola As Contrary To The Public Interest

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2012 @ 05:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Geometry fail

    No, a vector is infinite length

    No, a vector is an entity with both a magnitude and a direction. It can be visualized as a point in n-dimensional space (or, alternately, as an "arrow" with its head at that point, and the tail at the origin). The magnitude (or norm) is defined as the linear distance between that point and the origin.

    I just got done with both physics and linear algebra. So, sorry for the dorkiness.

  • On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2012 @ 04:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First, statutory damages have been a part of our copyright laws since at least as early as the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1790.

    And in all that time, individuals who committed non-commercial infringement were not sued for infringement.

    Second, punitive damages are only rarely circumscribed by law.

    But in the BMW case, they were. It was in Alabama code 6-11-20, which specified the punitive damages that could be awarded for "gross, oppressive or malicious" fraud.

    It was rewritten in 1999 as a result of the ruling. The upper limit is currently "three times the compensatory damages of the party claiming punitive damages or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), whichever is greater." So even now, they're circumscribed by law.

  • On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re: not arguing in good faith

    But when I got to "sells the music playing devices that many people use to listen to the songs" as a reason that Apple deserves a percentage on each song sold, I stopped reading.

    You shouldn't have. The point was that Apple isn't merely a "hosting service" for MP3's. They add value, and that added value is the reason that they have the ability to ask for a percentage of sales.

    And, if you'd read further, you'd learn that they take less of a percentage than brick-and-mortar retailers ever did. Despite the fact that, following Lowery's thinking, they are nothing more than a warehouse for CD's.

  • On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Read it here

    FYI, Lowery took the Facebook post down. However, the text version of his talk is up at The Trichordist:
    http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/

    It is even worse than Mike said it was. Here's a sampling:

    Musicians are constantly derided by the Digerati. It?s usually after someone like myself suggest that if other people are profiting from distributing an artist?s work (Kim Dotcom, Mediafire, Megavideo, Mp3tunes,) they should share some of their proceeds with the artists. At this point the Digerati then proceed to call us ?dinosaurs?, ?know nothings? or worse. Suddenly your Facebook page is filled with angry comments from their followers that seem to all be unsuccessful Canadian hip hop artists who proclaim:

    ?We are gonna turn you into Lars Ulrich and bitch your band sucks anyway?.

    (At the risk of getting the Canadian non-lethal equivalent of a "cap in my ass" I have to say: I am so scared!)

    The most virulent of these folks are almost always unsuccessful musicians. It fascinates me. I can only surmise that part of their anger seems tied to the hatred of the record companies that rejected them. Successful even marginally successful musicians are often viewed as some kind of traitors. A special kind of hatred is reserved for these apostates. The file sharing/cyber locker industry has figured this out and purposely stokes stokes them with a faux populism. I would say it?s juvenile but it?s really more medieval. That?s why I call them Freehadists.

    The entire article is filled with this type of smug prejudice. It is especially ironic, considering that Lowery (or one of his "apostates") has consistently and unremittingly spammed every single story on this site that champions musicians who are actually successful, deriding their success and often the artists themselves.

    And FYI, the Trichordist site is even worse.

  • On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2012 @ 03:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The law doesn't specifically say "corporate only". They laws are general in nature as they apply to both individuals and companies.

    The law doesn't specifically say "corporate only" because when the statutory damages were created, infringement itself was "corporate only." As a rule, individuals simply were not sued for copyright infringement.

    When that changed, the statutory damages were "grandfathered in," as it were.

    Also, the fact that the damages are "clearly defined" by statute had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. The punitive damages were also "clearly defined" in BMW.

  • On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating… Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2012 @ 12:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This movie was likely made by IP extremists with the intent that it would fail

    No, it's pretty obviously an indie filmmaker who wants to be mainstream, and has bought into all the bullshit lies that mainstream studios propagate.

    It would be sad, if it wasn't being used as a propaganda tool.

  • On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating… Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 11:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We're a nation of capitalists, Fidel.

    Copyright is not capitalism. It is a government-granted monopoly. It is exactly as "capitalist" as the Dutch East India Company.

    If you want laissez-faire capitalism, you'd get rid of copyright, and let any publisher sell any book that they want - including reprints of other publishers' books - free from enforced monopolies.

    Now, I am not a copyright abolitionist. Nor am I a strict laissez-faire capitalist. I do believe that some government regulations are often necessary, and that includes some form of copyright (though not the form we have now).

    But, make no mistake about it: copyright reformers are not in any way advocating socialism. They are advocating for its opposite.

  • On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating… Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 11:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You don't seem to understand the difference between hobbyists and those who aspire to be professional film makers.

    Filmmakers at exactly the level of "And Then Came Lola" are exactly the type of filmmakers that Techflaws was talking about.

    These are the type of filmmakers who benefit the most by technological change: the same technological change that allows filesharing to exist. There is no evidence whatsoever that file sharing actually harms filmmakers like this.

    So, what is it? Are people like Seidler "hobbyists?" If so, then that's pretty insulting, and also incredibly hypocritical that you would even present the link in the first place.

    If not, then you have to provide evidence that filesharing actually harms indie filmmakers at that level. You've presented none. And, in fact, the popuppirates site presents absolutely zero evidence that filesharing hurt "Lola," either. (Nor that Google hurt them - and Google, not the pirates, is her real target here.)

  • On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating… Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 04:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Go to popuppirates.com

    You're not fooling anyone, you know.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120423/01452218599/bands-ex-manager-accuses-reddit-profiting-piracy-debate-with-co-founder.shtml#c1504

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer Raises $1.2 Million On Kickstarter, And The Crowd Goes Wild

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2012 @ 02:31am

    Re: Misleading

    Had they not already had industry driven success, I highly doubt they'd be doing so well with these projects.

    A common criticism. And, in Amanda's case at least, totally wrong. One more time:

    And because of that decision [to sign with Roadrunner], the band did receive pockets of radio success in markets like St. Louis and Arizona. The attendance at those shows spiked in 2006 when a few Dolls songs were receiving airplay. Awesome, right? Well, now it's 2009 and we've returned to some of those markets. Many of those radio fans don't turn up anymore. Yet, the hardcores or "1000 true fans" are still there, just like they have been since they organically founded The Dresden Dolls back in the day. They still line up outside for hours, know every word of every song (whether or not it has been released), and wait around for Amanda's autograph. They don't need a top down marketing plan to tell them what to like. And who are the new hardcore Dolls/ Amanda fans? They are the younger siblings and friends of the original fans, who continue to spread the gospel about an artist who's work they love so much they can't not talk about.
    - http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/07/an-insiders-view-of-amanda-palmers-success.html

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer Raises $1.2 Million On Kickstarter, And The Crowd Goes Wild

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2012 @ 01:14am

    Re:

    For every person paying $50, how many will freeload?

    Or, put another way: for all those that freeload, how many would pay $50?

    Well, more than non-"freeloaders," that's for sure. Every independent study has shown that people who pirate music legally purchase more music than people who do not.

    If anything, this is a perfect example of a smaller group of people financing the fun of a larger group.

    Yeah, just like those who buy albums are "financing the fun" of those who just listen to the radio.

    "People download illegally and don't pay because they don't care if the artists are rich or not".

    Well, the RIAA certainly doesn't believe people think this way. Presenting filesharing as hurting "average musicians" is a consistent talking point from the traditional music labels. It's like Joe the Plumber for music. And just like Joe the Plumber, it's pure propaganda. The anti-filesharing crowd cares about your average musician exactly as much as Republican politicians care about your average plumber.

    They see the pictures of the shows, the big stage set, the lights, the costumes...

    You mean, the rock/rap star myth that the major labels have deliberately built up to glamorize pop music? The myth that keeps musicians looking for that "one big break," that presents a label deal as the epitome of musical success, with all the groupies, blow, and trashed motel rooms that come with it? The brass ring that gets people to pay money to ride the merry-go-round?

    Yeah, so maybe that backfired on them. Boo fucking hoo.

    Of course, the fans that actually care about the artist don't begrudge them for making money. They're more than willing to support the artist however they can, whether they are filesharers or not.

  • On the post: RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Does placing a limit on the number of requests mean you didn't follow the DMCA? Don't know - there's no mention of it in the statutes.

    Oops, my bad. It turns out that if those limitations are there for technical reasons, the service provider absolutely is covered under the DMCA. It's in 512(i)(2)(C).

    So, you're completely wrong.

  • On the post: RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 07:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"

    You will rarely see actual stats about the hit to miss ratio for larger organizations, most of them probably do a very good job

    ...or not:

    Over half - 57% - of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors[.]
    - Efficient Process or "Chilling Effects"? (PDF)

    dynamic pages and shifting URLs

    ...which are not indexed by most search engines. (It's why Apache has mod_rewrite.)

  • On the post: RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 02:44pm

    Re:

    Google shouldn't have any limits on DMCA reporting, the law does not allow.

    Just so you know, this is completely false. Companies may place limits on DMCA notices all they want.

    In fact, companies are not required to go through the DMCA process at all. It is completely voluntary. The only thing you gain from following the DMCA, is automatic immunity from secondary liability. On the other hand, if you don't follow the DMCA process, that doesn't necessarily mean you're liable for infringement.

    Does placing a limit on the number of requests mean you didn't follow the DMCA? Don't know - there's no mention of it in the statutes. If that limit is there for technical reasons (e.g. to keep your database from crashing), then almost certainly it wouldn't. But even if it does, it's doubtful that any judge would find you liable in any case.

    Of course, that's all moot, since Google only caps the number of takedown requests per form, and you can submit multiple forms per day.

  • On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 08:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think the point that Mike might be reaching for [...] is that "inducement" in the criminal law might not mean exactly the same thing as it does in the Grokster opinion and in civil copyright cases. I, for one, think that's probably right.

    (I "ellipsised out" the ad hom attack, just to keep things civil)

    I think it's pretty obvious that this is exactly what Mike said. The part you're referring to is known far and wide as the "aiding and abetting" statute. It has some very clearly delimited rules about who can and cannot be charged with it, and it is completely different from the Grokster "inducement" standard in civil cases.

    And, generally speaking, criminal "inducement" does not apply to copyright cases. How do we know? Because in 2004, Congress considered adding it to the copyright statutes. The bill was called the Induce Act, and it was defeated.

  • On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 05:12pm

    Re: Re: Second one is a must-read

    It seems to apply perfectly to this situation and how illegal this entire thing has been (the government side of things). Can someone explain why this isn't being pushed harder?

    It is being pushed, particularly in the Rojadirecta case. Sadly, after more than a year, the court proceedings have not reached a stage where such arguments could even be raised. (It's a long story, I suggest you search around for details.)

    Incidentally, the government's argument is that Arcara v. Cloud Books allows the stifling of free speech when non-protected speech is suppressed. Unfortunately, Arcara doesn't say anything of the sort; it was a case where a bookstore was shut down due to prostitution happening on its premises. Essentially, the government is arguing that the distribution of copyrighted materials is no more "speech" than prostitution.

    It's ridiculous, of course, and the text of Arcara makes it clear that it's ridiculous. That doesn't stop the government (and their apologists here) from making it.

  • On the post: Fair Use, Public Domain And Creative Commons: They're Not All The Same

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How the heck do you have more copyright? The copyright laws have not be expanded to cover more, they haven't added more than wasn't covered in the past.

    That's exactly what they did. Prior to 1976, if you didn't register a copyright, it didn't exist; you didn't have any sort of copyright protection on your work at all. It was an "opt-in" system. After 1976, all works are covered by copyright from the moment of creation.

    And, just recently, they took material out of the public domain. See Golan v. Holder.

    They've also included things under copyright which were not covered before: architectural drawings, hull designs, etc.

    And, of course, they've expanded the definition of what constitutes infringement. One of the biggest mistakes that Congress made was criminalizing noncommercial infringement.

    So, if fair use has expanded, it's only because it needed to expand.

  • On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: Second one is a must-read

    Where are the precedents for figuring out what is and is not protected?

    Depends on the type of speech that loses protection. Obviously it would be different for child pornography vs. libel or slander, for example.

  • On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Second one is a must-read

    Only if you want to see the actual docket from those cases do you need PACER.

    It's less a matter of reading the cases, so much as it is finding them in the first place. PACER has a ton of search options that Scholar doesn't. Or so I'm told.

    Plus, a lot of things just aren't up on Scholar yet (mainly lower court cases).

    I'm not knocking Google Scholar, of course; I think it's brilliant. It's just not the same thing, really.

Next >>