Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

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

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 08:50am

    Second one is a must-read

    I just finished reading the second filing, and I think it's a must-read for everyone here, as well as everyone who is interested in copyright law.

    An example. I've argued pretty consistently that the First Amendment makes it unlawful to take protected speech out of circulation when removing unprotected speech. This is pretty clear from numerous cases: Fort Wayne Books, Ashcroft v. ACLU, CDT v. Pappert, and so on.

    The usual trope from the legal trolls is "well, those are obscenity or child pornography, not copyright infringement." They do not ever cite any copyright case that says that taking non-infringing speech out of circulation is perfectly OK, of course. The thing is, I don't have access to PACER, so I haven't been able to look up the majority of copyright cases.

    Well, it turns out (unsurprisingly) that it's not acceptable in copyright cases, either. And this filing cites a number of cases that make this clear: Silverstein v. Penguin Putnam, Abend v. MCA, Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Phelps LLC v. Galloway, New Era v. Henry Holt. I haven't actually hunted down these cases yet; I guess I've got a lot of reading to do.

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

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 07:37am

    Second link is incorrect

    The second link in the story is actually to the same document as the first (they both point to "gov.uscourts.vaed.275313.96.1.pdf"). I know you have them both embedded, but you might want to correct that.

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

    Karl ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 12:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CC0 ?

    Conditions can be things not inherent in copyright.

    If those things are not "inherent in copyright," then the copyright holder has no legal basis to impose it as a condition. For example, you can't legally demand a license for a public domain work.

    But that's getting way off track.

    I look forward to the day when someone uses a work under CC0 without attribution and gets sued by the CC0 licensor/affirmer in Europe.

    Yeah, I don't see that happening either. I just wanted to make it clear what CC actually does.

    If someone thinks they can outright plagiarize a CC0 work, then it's up to people like us to set them straight. They may not get sued (and probably shouldn't), but they should at least know what they're doing is not legally allowed. Unfortunately, there's so much misinformation out there about CC, that it's not surprising that these people would be confused.

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

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 11:46pm

    CC misconceptions

    I'd like to point out some inaccuracies in the article. They are understandable confusions, but unfortunately, some of the CC opponents have managed to exploit this confusion to act against CC itself.

    For example:

    Creative Commons (CC) is possibly the best-publicized of the efforts to create an artificial public domain

    This is not even close to what CC was intended to do. By labeling it an "artificial public domain," you're implying that it is without copyright; thus, artists could not e.g. restrict commercial reproduction, or limit derivative works. Of course, this is not remotely true - the vast majority of artists use NC licenses of one degree or another, and quite a few don't allow derivative works (or place limits upon them). This is certainly not placing works in the public domain.

    Rather it was an attempt to solve a different problem: how to allow people to give away or condition their long and strong copyright.

    Again, this is completely inaccurate. Most CC licenses are not designed for artists to "give away" their copyright. "Condition," perhaps, but they're still pretty strong conditions.

    People who put out CC music can still join collection societies like ASCAP or BMI (or Jamendo, which actually collects for their artists). Record labels are still legally required to give them royalties. They are still owed royalties from radio stations. They can still demand money (or outright block) some car company that wants to use their art in a commercial.

    Creative Commons is not looking to take away any of the many, many ways artists can exploit revenue streams. The only thing a CC artist can't do is sue ordinary users for sharing their art non-commercially.

    By presenting it as an "artificial public domain," you're simply providing ammo for people like George Howard at TuneCore. Considering that TuneCore is usually on the ball about these sorts of things, I'd say getting over this preconception should be of the utmost importance to CC artists.

    And considering how this article was primarily about how much the public domain and CC are not the same, I'd say it's a very glaring oversight.

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

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 11:30pm

    Re: DRM restrictions in CC license?

    It doesn't seem to me that this ought to prevent inclusion of a CC licensed work on a DVD with the usual DRM

    In fact, the language only states that DRM cannot be used to prevent activities that are allowed in the license itself.

    For example: if you released a DVD, encoded with the (required) DRM, you would have to make it explicit that circumventing the DRM would be legal if that circumvention is for the purposes of any activities allowed in the license. In other words, you would have to say explicitly that the DRM could be broken if you're sharing the movie non-commercially.

    Whether that holds up in court is another matter. I'm actually not even sure it's legally allowed (in the U.S.) for copyright holders to grant exemptions of the DMCA's anti-circumvention procedures.

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

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 11:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: CC0 ?

    It certainly doesn't *impose* attribution. At worst, it doesn't successfully get rid of it.

    True, but legally, "imposing" and "not getting rid of" are essentially the same thing.

    I was not trying to rag on CC, in case anyone was wondering. I fully support what they're trying to do. Just pointing out one little inaccuracy in the article. (There are many, but I'm reserving them for another comment.)

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

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 11:22pm

    Re: Re: CC0 ?

    That's me, by the way, posting from my phone. Apparently Techdirt's ability to claim content has some bugs to work out.

  • On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 03:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They don't play 60+ minutes of a pirated movie for free and then force you to get a membership to see the rest. They don't give you restricted download speeds or limited file counts to try to lead you to buy a "download pass" to get at infringing content.

    Leaving aside whether Megaupload did this, it is true that there are plenty of sites that do these things.

    Not once has any one of these activities ever been found unlawful in a court of law.

    There's a good reason for this: none of these things are (nor should be) considered charging for content. They work exactly the same no matter what is transferred.

    you have successfully shown why the "service provider" terms of DMCA are overly broad

    If you think "service provider" should be an ISP, then you're going to have a really, really hard time explaining why 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users") or 512(c) ("Information Location Tools"). The former clearly applies to sites like Megaupload (among many, many others); the second clearly applies to search engines.

    You're also going to have to explain why your definition of a "service provider" explicitly only applies to 512(a), and Congress purposefully added a second definition in 512(k)(1)(2), which applies to all sections, in which a service provider includes "a provider of online services."

    The terms are exactly what Congress intended, and have been interpreted by judges exactly as they should be. They are not "overly broad" in the least.

  • On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    Re:

    i say ask for one years access to all copyrighted material from all the compnanies involved, or an insane amount of money as an alternative.

    Since this is a criminal investigation, he would have to sue the U.S. and N.Z. governments. The actual people behind it (RIAA/MPAA) would be untouchable.

  • On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Re:

    this troll seems to be the typical mainstream spoon-fed peon

    This troll is an anti-Techdirt, pro-big-media shill. Not only does he not represent most Americans, "mainstream spoon-fed peons" or otherwise, he doesn't even represent most American artists.

  • On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence

    Karl ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    Re:

    ignoring the criminal copyright laws of the US entirely

    Every single thing the judge said applies to U.S. copyright law as well. Even if the government's allegations are true, none of "Dotcom's" actions have ever been considered criminal infringement in any U.S. court of law.

    New Zealand has similar laws regarding resale of copyright goods without permission

    Unfortunately for you, that this is not remotely what Megaupload was doing.

  • On the post: Author Tells DOJ The Authors Guild Doesn't Speak For Him & Amazon Is The Only Company Encouraging Competition

    Karl ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 06:15pm

    Re:

    So why can't we launch an anti-trust suit against the RIAA, MPAA, and/or Author's Guild for attempting to crush any and all competition from their industries and to maintain high royalties and/or other fees associated with accessing products through them?

    As a matter of fact, some people are:
    Supreme Court Allows Music Price-Fixing Suit to Go Forward

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 02:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

    Talk about horseshit, if you have the desire to download it, then you already had the reason to buy

    Yes, because if you can get something for free, that automatically means that you would have paid for it, no matter what the price. Right?

    Talk about horseshit. Obviously, the reason people are downloading is because they don't have a reason to buy. If they did, they would have bought it.

    And there are plenty of reasons not to buy. Perhaps they've never heard the music before, and don't know if they like it or not. Perhaps they simply can't afford it. Perhaps they literally can't buy it, due to windowing or regional restrictions. Perhaps they know that the money will mostly go to businesses that they don't want to support.

    Or perhaps it's as simple as this: they like it enough to get it for free, but not enough to spend money on it. Lots of people listen to the radio or watch sitcoms on TV, but very few of those people ever buy the CD or DVD.

    That may not justify piracy. But even if they don't pirate, they still wouldn't pay for it. Which means you have two choices as an artist: don't get paid, or don't get paid. At least with piracy, there's a good chance that those same people will pay later, or pay for a different album, or come to shows, or what have you. Pirates, after all, spend far more money on legal purchases than non-pirates. If they simply don't listen, then even that opportunity is gone.

    So, the question is: why on Earth would any musician want to keep people from listening to their music? Why would they want to wall themselves off from the public like that?

    For most musicians, the answer is that they don't. That's why most don't actually care about filesharing very much. Amanda's and Albini's philosophies are pretty common among musicians. The ones who are against it are mostly the creatures of the major labels, who have the label executives whispering lies in their ears, like Iago to Othello.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 27 May, 2012 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

    Easy to answer "Why do you hate it so much when artists succeed?" Karl: because he is not succeeding today.

    That is a good point, but it still doesn't explain the outright hatred. Plenty of musicians (most, even) are not succeeding today. They don't dismiss the artists who are successful, nor do they dismiss the amazing amount of tools that the internet makes possible.

    He doesn't care one whit about an "ethical internet." And he is actively against artists who make a living outside the traditional label system. No, this is pretty clearly a person who worked as the king's jester, and is blaming the peasantry when the castle walls collapse.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 27 May, 2012 @ 08:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

    If it's not censorship, than why censor it?

    Obviously, if it's not censorship, then nobody is censoring it. Duh.

    So, you're asking, why report it at all?

    Simple. You're a spammer. Calling you a "troll" isn't even accurate: what you are posting here is spam. The same text, over an over, with a link to some website you want to promote.

    You're as relevant to this discussion as someone offering "cheap CjaL1s".

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 27 May, 2012 @ 07:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

    I care about artists and not labels so I don't really care about the RIAA, or any of it...

    You don't care that the major prevented a way for musicians to make money from filesharing? Really? I guess you don't care about a "fair and ethical internet" after all...

    your solution to one injustice (piracy)

    Why the fuck are you still going on about this?

    Piracy is not "my solution" to the old label system. Kickstarter, CD Baby, Soundcloud, Bandcamp, eMusic, iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, and the thousands of other way the internet is helping musicians make money is my solution.

    Why do you hate it so much when artists succeed?

    And there is no question that the major labels are far worse for musicians - amateur or pro, indie or mainstream - than sites like The Pirate Bay could ever hope to be. Unlike the major labels, The Pirate Bay doesn't require you to assign your copyrights to them; doesn't stop you from putting your music on YouTube (or other places); doesn't control the artistic direction of the albums. You're not forced to sign with The Pirate Bay to get your music on commercial radio or television. And they don't keep a single dime of any money you make through selling albums, touring, selling merch, Kickstarter, or what have you.

    And, far more important to me and most artists, The Pirate Bay isn't paying politicians to pass insane laws or treaties like SOPA, PROTECT IP, ACTA, or TPP. And it has never used the legal system to literally rob artists of their copyrights, unlike the current Senior VP of the RIAA.

    Finally, let's not forget that the majors are guilty of worse outright piracy than The Pirate Bay could ever hope to be. The Pirate Bay may be unjust, but it's far less unjust than major labels.

    You may think it sucks that The Pirate Bay netted $168,885.60 (before costs) by putting ads on a site that facilitates peer-to-peer noncommercial infringement. That hasn't stopped thousands of artists from flocking to it.

    Why are you trying to take that choice away from them?

    Why do you hate artists so much? Why are you telling them to fail?

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 27 May, 2012 @ 06:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

    factually not true...

    No, in fact, it is factually true that it is easier to make a moderate living in the industry.

    You're linking to a site that is full of lies, and that I showed you was full of lies. Run by David Lowery, who Techdirt has taken to task for not making any sense, and who in return came here and acted like a twat.

    Just like you are.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 26 May, 2012 @ 02:15am

    Re: Re: Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

    More TD Censorship...

    It's not censorship if it's not censored. The original text is still there, viewable with the click of a mouse button.

    It would be censorship if, say, it was blocked completely in your country, or if the government took it down entirely.

    Also, way to be a total douchebag, spamming the comments with exactly the same text multiple times.

    Why, whatever would we do without some asshole calling us all pirates? Even though the entire article is about how particular artists don't care about sharing their music, so sharing their music is not piracy?

    Oh, by the way, if I can't pay for music, nowadays I just do without. I already own hundreds of albums anyway. Do you know how much my lack of piracy earns artists? Zero dollars. Exactly the same as they would get if I did pirate their music.

    On the other hand, if artists do allow their work to be shared, then they'll probably earn more money - seeing as every independent study shows that people who pirate legally purchase far more music than people who do not.

    But, you're absolutely right. If musicians are actively against filesharing, then don't download their music. And don't buy it either.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 07:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

    I'm fighting for a fair and ethical internet.

    By the way, you know who is keeping the internet from being "fair and ethical?"

    The major labels.

    At this point, the man sitting next to me said, "I'm Hank Barry, the CEO of Napster. Nice to meet you." This is a very interesting way of meeting someone that you are suing. Nonetheless, recovering from my shock of having just given my whole spiel directly to the opposing side, I immediately explained that I was not against Napster existing, but that I just wanted musicians to be paid for their work. He told me that he originally wanted to charge for downloads and pay the artists, but the major labels wouldn't play ball, so he decided to force the issue by promoting the idea that file sharing was good for the advancement of the Internet and would not harm artists. Little did he know that this would become a popular myth that changed the public's attitude about paying for music permanently, causing the collapse of the entire music industry, making even Napster's business plan obsolete. I explained that I had a whole plan to create a statutory rate for downloads, just as the recording industry had a statutory rate that it could use to simplify publishing agreements. I handed him a paper that detailed my proposal. He read the proposal, and then told me that he agreed with much of it and would read some of it in his CNN interview after the hearing. [...]

    Hank Barry went on to lobby Congress to create a system very similar to my statutory rate proposal. Ironically, Napster not only stole my music, but also my solution to their problem. Unfortunately, that solution was opposed by the major labels. Sen. Orrin Hatch was at first intrigued by the proposal, but after the major media companies called it government price-fixing, he opposed it. Never mind the fact that the same companies love statutory rates when they benefit from them in negotiations with publishers. I made another proposal, Open Market Digital Distribution, which would have allowed copyright holders to set their own rates for statutory licenses, but the major labels opposed that as well, likely because it would have given the artists more power than they had at the time.

    The major labels won their battle against Napster, but lost the war against illegal downloads, perhaps partly because they held on to their power over artists at the expense of creating a business model for downloads that would have worked for everyone.
    - Hilary Rosen's Uncomfortable Truths About Politics And The Music Industry

    (And this is from someone who is on your side.)

    It's pretty much been the same ever since. The "tech industry" wants to play ball, but the majors fight them every step of the way.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 07:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

    That's the most satisfying bitch-slap I've seen on this site in several months.

    Thanks. I really hate this douchebag. All he's ever done here is encourage artists to fail. It shouldn't get under my skin, but it does.

Next >>