Rico R.’s Techdirt Profile

wizoomer95

About Rico R.




Rico R.’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 21st, 2019 @ 1:40pm

    Re: copyrightMinimalists

    I’m a progressive liberal that’s all for common-sense copyright reform (if not abolishing copyright altogether). Considering you likely believe the Di$ney view on intellectual property, keep in mind that Walt Disney built his company using a once robust and fairly-recent public domain, had rumored ties to anti-semitism, and his family has lobbied to extend copyright so many times just to keep the first Mickey Mouse cartoon (which itself was a ripoff of Steamboat Bill) outside of the public domain. Calling this anti-copyright movement a part of the “alt-right” is so low a blow that it makes you and the rest of the trolls more desparate than our treasonist President. And considering Smollett is likely to be found guilty of faking his attack, there is more to the Covington story than we were first led to believe, and the general fact that copying is not theft, that should be enough to discredit you altogether. Get your facts straight and make a logical argument, or get a new hobby.

  • Feb 19th, 2019 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    Copyright is not legacy. Companies purchase the rights from artists who lack mass distribution, and in return most artists get rich. Those who get screwed usually deal with fly-by-night labels or people they trusted, not the biggest players. That's why the top-shelf talent won't even work with indies. Listen to the horror stories of unprofessional productions (lack of insurance being one example), or not getting paid, nonunion work or union rules not being followed, and there's a reason these companies have that "legacy."

    I'm an independent musician who has put ALBUMS on iTunes, Spotify, etc. I have not had any sales, only streaming royalties totaling up to less than $5. So you would think I would be ALL FOR Article 13. You'd be wrong. If a major label offered to turn me into a star tomorrow in exchange for my rights, I wouldn't take their deal. NOT because I don't want to move up within the industry, but because of the industry's view on copyright not aligning with mine. What I'd consider "free publicity" they'd consider "copyright infringement". They'd call money from Content ID claims "royalties", but I don't want that kind of royalty.

    Furthermore, you're really generalizing artists who get screwed over who signed to a major label. And nowadays, why would you want to go to a gatekeeper with a chance to get screwed over when you can put music out independently without gatekeepers? That way, if you don't like what you're getting, it's 100% in your control and you can do whatever you want. As far as collaborating with "indies", you again are generalizing it. There are plenty of independent productions that follow the union rules, get union workers, all without the need to go to a gatekeeper for their blessing. You're painting a picture where the gatekeepers and the industry has everything figured out, and that anyone who says they can do it without them is destined to fail. That's no longer the case in the 21st century.

    Masnick, on the other hand, is a loudmouthed, cowardly (as in lets his commenters bully people as if he shouldn't endure any consequences for that), NOBODY whose sole purpose seems to be seeding Google with sentence-long headlines that people can read without even clicking to his site.

    Bully. Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. Bully. Verb. Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants. Tell me this: How is what you say not make you a bully? Furthermore, using sound, logical arguments to rebut arguments like this is not bullying. Even if you're feelings are hurt because you don't like what you're reading doesn't make that bullying.

    What was in the other post? The top 20 searches on YOUTUBE (owned by Google) said something, yet Google itself talked about "good censorship." This is predicated on a belief that the audience is stupid and easily manipulated.

    Is there a source saying Google talked about "good censorship"? And as far as the audience being manipulated, come on! Even those in the US who are for copyright law are against Article 13. Just because you disagree with their logic, and Google sides with their logic, does not mean Google manipulated those people. What's next: Assuming everyone who uses an Android phone is against Article 13 because of Google?

    Copyrightholders and governments have had enough of piracy. One way or another, it's on the way out. Anyone who doesn't like what this does to the internet should blame the pirates, not the government.

    First off, copyright holders lobbied the governments for this kind of law that will screw up the Internet. I already addressed how Article 13 won't kill piracy in another comment (presumably to you), but to recap: Article 13 won't stop piracy; it'll only mess up the rest of the internet platforms who are trying to avoid copyright infringement (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, etc.). If we want to stop Article 13, we need to talk to government officials. Talking to "pirates" will do absolutely nothing!

  • Feb 11th, 2019 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Never mind your lack of proof on people getting rich off of piracy. Never mind the fact that your mention of a mailing list makes absolutely no sense. (The only time I have to enter my email for a mailing list for free content is when the said free content is made available for free in exchange for my email by the copyright holder themselves. That is NOT "piracy" because it's authorized by the copyright holder.) Let's talk about "the end of Piracy Raod" because if you think that Article 13's passage is going to result in a quick and painful death for TPB and Torrent sites, you're sadly mistaken.

    If, as you will put it, someone wants to go out of their way to create a site or app whose sole purpose is to help facilitate copyright infringement, they're going to do so. Article 13 would only add the liability they already face when they do so, and I'm not even sure it's going to do that. If you think that those that run sites like TPB are going to stop operating if Article 13 passes, then you've got another thing coming. The DMCA in the US didn' stop piracy, and you think passing another law in another region is going to change that? Copyright infringement is already illegal, but the "pirates" behind the "piracy" don't care, and they could care less about how copyright law is going to change.

    All Article 13 will do is take sites that aren't trying to help its users infringe copyright, follow the DMCA to the letter, and even has a plethora of user-generated content that is wholly original, and make them liable if even 1 second of an infringing upload is found. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, and many more have WAY more to worry about with Article 13 than TPB. YouTube's copyright system is broken to the point where abusive Content ID claims are almost laughable at this point, and if Article 13 passes, not only will Content ID be here to stay, but it will likely be made a billion times worse. I wouldn't even be surprised if all monetization claims are blocked in the EU because of this.

    So no, Article 13 won't be the end of Piracy Road. Piracy will continue unscathed, while the rest of the Internet gets screwed over.

  • Feb 1st, 2019 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Movies Anywhere ...

    Can you blame the media companies? All their asking for is Fair Play in the digital world!

  • Jan 8th, 2019 @ 11:55am

    (untitled comment)

    I may not have seen the movie, but if you're using the DMCA to silence criticism of a Nazi film that critics decry as God-awful, how is this any different from the book burning practiced in Nazi Germany? And this should be brought up before any copyright or fair use discussion; even if you believe in your hardest of hearts that clips of your movie juxtaposed to criticism is copyright infringement worthy of a DMCA takedown (which it's not), and you then even use the DMCA takedown process to silence someone else TALKING about the previous takedown, how is this not seen as censorship? What's next: replacing content taken down for "infringement" replaced with anti-piracy propaganda?

  • Jan 4th, 2019 @ 8:02pm

    “Lock her up... for copyright infringement”?

    If the media didn’t have a slightly liberal bias (another topic, I know, but keep in mind that, despite my subject line, I’m about as progressive as Bernie Sanders), I wouldn’t be surprised if the copyright maximalists that are the media conglomerates would cry for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‘s impeachment. But then again, is copyright infringement an impeachable offense? Maybe, considering the GOP impeached (but didn’t convict) Bill Clinton on something about as trivial as any DMCA notice issued to Twitter against AOC’s account!

  • Jan 2nd, 2019 @ 2:14pm

    On the copyrightability of dances...

    It might sound crazy at first, but hear me out: Can dances even be copyrighted? At first glance, it may seem like yes, looking at Title 17 U.S.C., Section 102. Subsection (a)(4) states that pantomimes and choreographic works are original works of authorship that can be eligible for copyright protection.

    However, in order for copyright to take effect, section 102(a) states that the work must be "fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Obviously, written instructions on how to perform the dance or a video of such a performance can be copyrighted and registered accordingly, but the underlying dance is another question.

    Given written instructions, can the dance itself be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" directly? No. Can the dance itself be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" with the aid of a machine or device? I suppose you could argue that your body is the "machine" doing the dance, but if judges went as far as to say that monkeys can't own copyrights because they're not human (therefore not a person), I wouldn't be surprised if copyright law, as it is currently written, is ruled to not include choreographic works because humans aren't technically machines or devices, and therefore can't be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

    I suppose you could then argue that when you do the dance, you're communicating something directly, but how do you fix that in a tangible medium of expression? The recording of the performance is not necessarily the same thing as the performance itself. Just a random thought I had on the copyrightability of dances.

  • Dec 28th, 2018 @ 12:55am

    Re: Re: Clarifying my original comment

    Obviously, the "[/sarcasm]" (which in BB Code, would translate to "end sarcasm") was lost on most people. The whole comment was meant to be a joke. The point I was trying to make is this: where does site blocking in an attempt to avoid liability and/or prevent illegal/immoral behavior end? I merely piggybacked off of the "You can block for copyright, so right not X?" remark in the article and took it a few steps further. The idea that site blocking is the ONLY answer that seems acceptable by Hollywood and some judges (like in this case) is ludicrous.

    Furthermore, if people can misconstrue my sarcastic words as being serious, whose to say that someone at some college's IT department couldn't judge discriminatory text as being innocent and face liability because of it? This is why this ruling is so troubling!

  • Dec 26th, 2018 @ 1:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    Universities block sites that can be used for copyright infringement, so why can’t they also block sites that can be used for discrimination? And while they’re at it, why not block sites that show how to hack their systems? And sites that people can use to collude on assignments (i.e. - Google Docs)? And sites that people can plagiarize on assignments? And block Tor, VPNs, proxies, and pretty much anything else that can help students circumvent these blocks? Better yet, just turn their internet connection to an intranet connection, so students can only access systems they have 100% control over! [/sarcasm]

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Not to be religious, but...

    Wouldn't work; God's against copyright law. What do I mean? As a Christian who's warming up to the idea of copyright abolition, I can actually point to the Bible (aka the Word of God) to say maybe copyright isn't a good idea. "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other. So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 31; NRSV) Copyright, by its very nature, means the copyright holder's creative endeavors are made for the glory of themselves, and not for the glory of God. Not to mention Hollywood's lobbyists are only concerned about making sure copyright law lines the pockets of the corporations they represent with money. Tell me: What did Jesus say about whether or not you could serve both God and money?

  • Dec 5th, 2018 @ 12:47pm

    Sometime in the not-to-distant future...

    The part where Tumblr flagged their own post about the flagging reminds me of this one scene from Thomas and the Magic Railroad. I'd show you the clip, but Article 13 censored it, even with the Tumblr logo and the flag icon covering the two characters. You'll just have to take my word for it... Again, tell me how we're not in an Orwellian future?

  • Nov 26th, 2018 @ 6:53pm

    "A business model strengthened by theft..."?

    First off, copying is not theft. But if we live in your disillusioned world for a second, where sneaking bread from a 7-11 into your backpack and walking out of the store without paying is exactly the same as downloading a movie you found on a Torrent site using Google to find it, Google is no more in the pirated movies business than backpack manufacturers are in the shoplifting bread business!

  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 12:36pm

    It's all in the name!

    People have always wondered why Apple products start with "i": iPhone, iPod, iPad, etc. But it's not that they begin with "i", but rather "iP". Get it yet? "iP"? IP? Intellectual Property? Apple's beliefs that IP laws are there to enforce their anti-consumer will because it's more profitable for them? Cue the Illuminati music... Apple just got their true colors exposed! Why else would they want people not to exercise their first sale and repair rights?

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: The REAL reason the RIAA filed this response

    Well, let's see... This year I downloaded a leaked version of Owl City's Cinematic (which was leaked on May 31, less than 24 hours than it's official release on June 1 here in the US) when I already had it pre-ordered on iTunes ($10) AND on Vinyl ($25), with concert tickets already purchased for September (2 tickets for $33 each, plus a $5 fee and $14 insurance). Sounds like according to you, I must owe Adam Young an additional amount of money for my ILLEGAL act of downloading an album leak ON TOP OF the $120 I spent on the full album experience I had already paid for...

    Did I really not break out my wallet enough times? Am I depriving poor independent musician Adam Young of money? Is that download considered a lost sale? The answer to the above is all no.

    Not every big artist is as protective of their music like Taylor Swift is. If I recall properly, Brendon Urie of Panic! At the Disco replied to a tweet of a fan complaining he couldn't afford to pay to download their latest single to literally rip it from YouTube. Miley Cyrus stated on Jimmy Kimmel that she doesn't care whether or not people downloaded her album when it leaked. But the RIAA detests all these actions a fan might take. Copyright maximalism is a double-edged sword, and all the RIAA wants to do is stop it from cutting themselves while they continue to allow it to cut others.

    The point is, if copyright was abolished tomorrow, fans of any artist would still pay for copies of albums and concert tickets to support the artist. Copyright doesn't factor into that logic, and it has NOTHING to do with an artist making money.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 11:09am

    The REAL reason the RIAA filed this response

    “Copyright law only applies to file sharers and streaming services that underpay us in royalties. Whenever an artist of ours is unjustly accused of copying a song, we of course will stand with artists to stop them from being sued to oblivion by this system we helped create.”

    Now if only they’d stand with artists when they publicly state they’re okay with people downloading their album when it leaks or ripping their own songs from YouTube...

  • Nov 9th, 2018 @ 4:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    Denuvo has become a bigger economic threat than piracy. One causes the developer to lose an unknown amount of money, and the other is piracy! Game developers need to take a chill pill about potential revenue being lost to piracy when there is actual revenue lost when paying for a DRM software that boasts of protection for only an hour!!

  • Oct 25th, 2018 @ 11:24am

    The key to copyright legislation is to find the balance...

    ...between the good and the bad! So, you want to do good by eliminating the link tax and upload filter? We need to counter that with the bad of requiring existing exceptions to meet the requirements of new exceptions! See? It's the balance that makes copyright work the way it does!

  • Oct 3rd, 2018 @ 5:20pm

    (untitled comment)

    Funny how ISPs are calling themselves BIAS, as they clearly are showing how biased they are against the free and open internet they want to "protect"!