Peter’s Techdirt Profile


About Peter

Peter’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 14th, 2018 @ 8:31am

    How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a change?

    Before requiring that others respect copyright, how about the rights holders figure out who owns it? We have seen with "Happy Birthday" (Warner cashing in for a copyright they did not own) and "Peltham vs Kraftwerk" (two rightsholders and several courts arguing for two decades about the copyright for a 2-second music sample) that even the rights holders don't know who owns the rights to specific works.

    As with Article 13, rights holders and collection societies are very happy with the situation - they collect the money, and, eh, look after it in case somebody comes along and claims it.

    Before we even start talking about third parties respecting rights, somebody needs to work out what rights exist, who owns them, and exactly what is protected.

    The current situation where anybody can come out of the woods and send demand letters claiming to own rights is bad enough; giving those letter senders the benefit of doubt, and putting the burden of proof on intermediaries is not only sheer madness, it is hard to see how it might serve the creatives or the public.

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 5:32am

    The NYPD is correct

    The safest places on earth were the old communist police states and military dictatorships with unlimited powers for secret police, the military and the police.

    If that the the NYPD's vision for the future of America - go ahead with the efficiency drive at the expense of freedom and democracy. If not, we will need to have a debate about how to balance freedom and safety.

  • Dec 4th, 2018 @ 1:28pm

    It took the courts and some powerful stakeholders ...

    ... several decades to figure out who owns the copyright to "Happy Birthday"! Just for the text, mind you, not specific performances where additional artists come into play.

    Does anyone seriously believe that a might algorithm can sort this mess out for 60 hours of video uploaded to Youtube alone? Or that any company, even the ones with really deep pockets like Google or Facebook, can agree fair contracts with anybody queuing up with claims of rights to a few seconds of video or a few lines of texts uploaded anywhere on some platform?

  • Dec 1st, 2018 @ 12:13am

    About time ...

    the US of A finds out what it feels like to have their legal system bulldozed over by some other country that uses legal finickery (strictly on foreigners only!) to bulldoze away the legal protection their own country provides.

    Enemy combatants sound familiar? Targeted Assassinations? NSA spy programs? Wars in Irak, Afganistan - all around the world?

    All of these are illegal in the countries where people are targeted. And none of these would be possible without those journalists banging the war drums, cheering along the audience. Journalists who consider themselves as moral, with high integraty, ethical.

    If America wants back Democracy, Human rights and the rule of law - start at home, please, and not by demanding things from others that you are not prepared to do yourselves!

  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 1:09am

    The lack of tech experience indicated by the enquiry...

    ... about Faraday bags suggests an alternative option: Perhaps the phone wiped itself automatically after detectives entered a wrong password too often.

  • Nov 19th, 2018 @ 6:54am

    On a separate note ...

    The request is a pretty good template to send to any business you have a grudge with. Should cost them a pretty penny to compile all this information.

    And yes, while it is a pretty far-reaching interpretation, the GDPR does appear to provide a legal basis for requesting this information. Although it is not clear if a government office can blanket-request copies of these data without breaching data protection laws themselves. After all, the GDPR is about the relationship between individuals and businesses, with government agencies acting as referees or enforcers, but not data collection authorities.

  • Oct 2nd, 2018 @ 8:07am

    The court does have a few points that lawmakers should work on

    1. It is indeed not clear what Twitter may do with the content. While it would be reasonable that Twitter gets some rights, it does not seem fair that Twitter would, for example, get any and all royalties of, say, the video of an event of global importance that somebody happens to post on Twitter. Right now, journalists ask if the poster they may reproduce the content. The process appears to work, and it appears to be fair to both the poster and to Twitter. Even though, technical, Twitter's T&C would allow Twitter to re-sell the content.

    2. It is not always clear if the poster actually owns any rights to content they post. If Twitter automatically gets a world wide license for any and all uses, this may put the original rights holder at a serious disadvantage. An example - Facebook, not Twitter: Users are encouraged to upload address books. Which may contain information that the contacts in the address book may not want to share with Facebook (confidential email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses). It appears that Facebook will not even inform people that Facebook has this information about them, let alone delete it. Both on the grounds that they acquired it legally through third parties (who had no right to share it in the first place).
    The only recourse would be to sue the person who shared the data. Which would be difficult as long as both Facebook and the sharer refuse to confirm that data have been shared.

  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 1:26pm

    authors, musicians, journalists&content creators cheered this on

    They may wake up with a had hangover after the party. When they realize that the bad guys are not the pirates. It is the publishers that rob them blind.

    The very publishers that have expanded and cemented their position with the new law.

    Case in point: The European court of justice recently declared it illegal to channel a (large) part of their revenue to publishers - it should belong to the creators. For books, that meant several hundred million extra Euros for authors in Germany.
    Not much longer: the new law reversed the decision, that money will go to the publishers in the future.

  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 12:02pm

    Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft

    After you purchase something, it is yours. You decide what to do with it, not Apple. If they want it back, they can make you offers and hope you'll accept. Helping themselves to your property is a criminal offense, no different from a vendor stealing back a washing machine they sold you.

    Imagine the roles were reversed and you were to help yourselves to money you paid Apple for a product - without Apples consent and without returning the product. You'd find yourself in jail in no time. Why should it be different if Apple is the stealing party?

  • Aug 21st, 2018 @ 7:05am

    Not just terrorism

    The current voluntary agreement already covers anything from terrorism to hate speech, child porn, counterfeit products and, of course, copyright infringement.

    Germany and France, the puppet masters of the current EU-Initiative, have already made clear that the law has to cover at least as much. Someone with enough money doesn't like it - they'll have their personal red button to zap it, no questions asked.

    We used to get upset about evil dictators censoring internet and media - now they seem to serve as inspiration.

  • Jul 31st, 2018 @ 9:40pm

    What a cowardly ruling!

    Why would a court think first amendment rights do not apply unless a higher court has established they do?

    And why would it matter why the police broke the law? Rogue cops, wrong policies - the authorities are responsible for the actions of the officers working for them.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 10:54pm

    Trade wars

    Google's first commandment (though shalt not distribute other Androids next to mine) will likely cause problems for asian device manufacturers if the trade wars expand - Android being the product of an American company, the US Government can stop Chinese manufacturers from using it. This may be the EU taking sides against the US.

  • Jul 3rd, 2018 @ 1:12pm

    The "creative" industries claim to generate 4.5 % of EU's GDP

    ... despite several decades of unregulated internet.

    How then can they claim that the internet threatens their existence?

  • Jun 25th, 2018 @ 11:56pm

    (untitled comment)

    Scary thought that even a pro-law-enforcement, pro-government, conservative supreme court thinks the lines have been crossed twice in one week ...

  • Jun 22nd, 2018 @ 2:16pm

    Is it time to reverse the old industry slogan?

    The industry used to say "Don't use pirated copies unless you want spyware".

    Now it is "use pirated software to reduce the risk of spyware."

  • Jun 15th, 2018 @ 8:17am

    Why is Comey not in prison?

    Given the current sensitivity to election meddling, why is there no investigation into Comey's meddeling with the election. Regardless of who he may or may not have supported, Comey has clearly overstepped the lines with his investigations into both candidates and the various media leaks he used to influence public opinion.

    Why are we tolerating his actions?

  • Jun 14th, 2018 @ 12:29am

    Springer actually opted in!!!

    Springer thought that robots.txt, an opt-out solution, was too much of a burden to their IT people, and lobbied the government to introduce the snippet tax in Germany. Which the government did.
    Google delisted Springer.
    And Springer begged Google on their knees to list them again. Free of charge, of course, since the extra traffic Google generates makes them a lot of money. Especially since they introduced paywalls for their major products ...

    Raises the question why Döpfner wants to repeat the exercise on a European level...

  • Jun 13th, 2018 @ 2:42pm

    We don't steal Butter. They do!

    Ok, granted, in many cases, they just repackage Butter someone has given them freely: most of the reporting is just re-written PR-stuff from government and corporations.
    Not always, though: Springer management has been quoted instructing their staff to lift crime victims pictures and info from Facebook and other social media - stating that grieving parents have other things on their mind than suing newspapers for copyright infringement.

    Some cheek for the Master Thieves to accuse the rest of the world of stealing!

  • May 22nd, 2018 @ 6:49am

    What happened to the third-party-doctrine?

    When the government wants data from its citizens, it argues that "releasing" data to any third party effectively puts data such location, purchase histories, internet browsing histories into the public domain, for anybody to access. Even if the data have only been "released" to (or generated on) a secure server at a service provider.

    Wouldn't the same apply to confidential information?

  • Apr 24th, 2018 @ 7:32am

    Both WP and TD are missing the point

    Lack of competition is the problem, not bundling.

More comments from Peter >>