Hmmm.....Walmart takes a photo of you leaving their store, tweets it, with your real first and last name attached, saying "______ _______just can't stay away from walmart." Am I to believe that, 1)It's not an advertisement? 2) If they did so you shouldn't be compensated? I go lots of places, but I don't think I want to be associated with them just cause I went there. Gotta get permission and pay me for it.
"Ease of use/access drives people to piracy, it doesn't matter if the content is available, if paying for and watching it involves signing up for a bunch of different services, and jumping through dozens of hoops before you can get to it, so they'd need to streamline that and make it easy to pay, and easy to watch/listen."
I totally agree and agree with the majority of your points. Most industries are slow to change and the movie industry will be forced to change and make content available globally as the internet has erased borders, just as the music business was forced to. How to determine the price for access to content transitioning from a model determined by regional licensing. That is the issue, not either piracy is the sole issue/reason for profit loss or that piracy great and nothing should be done about it.
I do not comment for you to take me seriously nor for your approval and personally could not care less. If you want to talk about Prenda, please find a forum to do so. I think the simplest solution for you would be, simply, buy some porn if you are upset or worried there may be legal repercussions from pirating it.
"Nobody has ever claimed that "piracy has had no effect on the movie business".
What is the title of this article?
"Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs."
It's the likes of you that " continually mis-frame the issue."
Mis-framing the issue is showing the revenue generated from ticket sales and trying to say piracy has had no effect or little on the movie business. So by the same logic, piracy has not effected the music business because of the number of people that go to concerts?
"What people take strong issue with is the loud and continuous claim that piracy is the sole cause of massive industry losses."
So industries that lose money to piracy should do nothing about it and not try to combat it? I don't understand the logic and no other industries would be inactive if a consumer could acquire product for free.
"Here's a tip, change the message because nobody believes you."
I didn't know I was the voice of the movie and movie business. But I will take your tip under consideration.
So... box office revenue has gone up as ticket prices have gone up and ....piracy has had no effect on the movie business. Piracy effects the sale of DVDs other platforms after release. Why continually mis-frame the issue. I can only assume you believe that more movies are released in 3-D because it is cool and not an effort to persuade patrons to go to the box office. In other techdirt news, piracy doesn't effect the music business either....
I don't claim Viacom's innocence. Their incredibly lazy execution and inaccurate interpretation of the law was what became apparent throughout out the litigation. However, I am sure there were those at Youtube that knew of specific infringement. Viacom just couldn't prove it. That is what I found so interesting.
"they can't just say 'There's infringing stuff on your site, it's your job to find it and take it down.'
Absolutely. I think that is why the litigation was so important for everyone especially innovators and copyright holders.
"In the end, the case is perhaps one of the most perfect examples of how old media reacts badly to new innovations and immediately reaches for the only real tool in its toolbox against disruptive innovation: flailing about angrily in the court system, hoping to kill the innovation."
I do not agree and find it disappointing you don't put the case filing into historical context. The suit was filed in 2007. Youtube had been in operation for 2 years and infringement of Viacom's content was rampant. Reading some of the emails between Walker, Karim, and Hurley, it was obvious they new infringing content was being uploaded. 512c is supposed to give you safe harbor if you are unaware of infringing content. They were aware. It is not as if Youtube was offering to license the material. The licensing agreement wasn't reached until 2008. Using the reasoning of the Grokster, Youtube was not made primarily for infringement purposes however, a reading of the emails makes it clear Youtube founders knew the popularity of the site, in the beginning, would be in large part from infringing content. Why Viacom didn't drop the suit after the licensing agreement? They wanted money from the site their content helped to build. Viacom wasn't trying to kill off innovation,they were trying to get paid for the use of their content.
I am not familiar with California divorce law but Robinson's argument about regaining rights seems spot on. "Smokey Robinson claiming his ex-wife isn't entitled to profits (but presumably his heirs are) -- is twisting the law to assert control." I don't think so. I he were to pass and they were still married, then she would have rights as well as his children. With the dissolution of marriage, she loses those rights.
I feel for the modern day professional photographer. I was at a conference recently and a gentleman that represents photographers says they are getting killed. They post an image and people just rip it and don't pay them anything. He was actually lamenting that they would have more power to collect monies if they had something akin to the performing rights organizations that music has. Getty sues because they run a business based on licensing. If they don't sue, why would anyone license use of their images or videos, especially businesses that can afford to/need to use their services. I find this pretty smart and it seems they are looking towards the future trying to strike a balance between revenue and reality.
Then they are joint authors? That agreement must be explicit and decided at the onset.... Then perhaps she gave an implied non exclusive license to use her performance and she has decided to rescind that license? Or she saw them filming and didn't realize her image would be used. She must have wandered on set.
The ruling of this judge makes my stomach turn. Actors in motion pictures are unequivocally performing works for hire and as such surrender rights in their performances. Yet the court says she has rights in the performance separate from the words and actions in the script? I can only envision the 9th circuit judge somehow tying the theory of right of publicity (a state claim in California) to grant rights to this actress and thus granting a copy right interest into the work. Then is she involved in a joint work between her and the filmmaker? That has to be shown as the intent of both parties from the onset and explicitly at that. This ruling makes no sense.
"Fans interested in bootlegs tend to be the kinds of fans who buy everything and spend tons of money on live shows as well."
I couldn't agree more. This and many of have his past copyright litigation decisions seem out of touch and ill advised. Bootlegs generally sound so crappy you'd have to be a die hard fan to listen. If he wants the links taken down that is his prerogative, but the monetary/ damages aspect is disappointing,
"For all that some people constantly claim that 'infringement = theft', the law certainly treats them completely and utterly different in severity and punishment."
Absolutely. The theft of a cd/dvd is the theft of a physical thing that retails under $20. Infringement is the taking of the underlying content that could have cost millions to produce. In addition, this appropriation of content then could allow someone else to reproduce it and sell it (bootlegs) (someone else making money instead of the producer) or interfering with the producers ability to commercial exploit their product (offering it for free on the internet).
"By the light that turns on when you're recording."
Are you implying there is no way a red light can be disabled to record secretly?
"The other point about this particular incident is that he was wearing the glasses when he bought his ticket and when he gave his ticket to the ticket-tearer."
Perhaps this was meant to catch him in the act. The more I think about it, I don't think it was a pr stunt. They were operating under the assumption he was recording.
Yes, this whole situation was unfortunate. It's a story because he wasn't doing what they thought he was. Yes they made a mistake. If he was recording the same thing would have happened except he would have been arrested.
I believe that is why he was questioned as opposed to being arrested.
"If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago."
He wasn't breaking ANY statute.
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act 2005
18 U.S.C.A. § 2319B
(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or (2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both. The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense
"I love how you assholes justify breaking everyone's balls because of "copyright"
I am sorry you feel there is something wrong in enforcing this law.