Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324) comment rss

  • On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2020 @ 02:00pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't know if you've made that number up to illustrate the copyright maximalists' nonsensical point, or if that number was actually raised in anti-piracy claims somewhere. But in 2017, the Worldwide GDP was $80 Trillion. Are you seriously telling me piracy is "costing" the economy almost 10 times what the actual economy itself is making? This doesn't even pass the laugh test!

  • On the post: Anti-Piracy Copyright Lawyer Decides To Abuse Trademarks To Shut Down Pirates

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2020 @ 01:40am

    Re: Honest Trailers?

    For the record, I do know about Screen Junkies and I love their Honest Trailers series... It would be a shame if I found out the guy behind it was knowingly helping in this anti-piracy shakedown!

  • On the post: Anti-Piracy Copyright Lawyer Decides To Abuse Trademarks To Shut Down Pirates

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2020 @ 01:38am

    Honest Trailers?

    In a world where Internet piracy runs rampant, yet Hollywood is seeing its best returns in years, one lawyer sets out to boldly go where no trademark law has gone before: Stopping the pirates. But what happens when the fellow YouTuber assisting in this battle gets a bogus DMCA claim from a studio that the lawyer is blindly serving? Will the lawyer realize the error of his ways and stand down from his holier-than-thou mission? Or will he continue the trek until copyright maximalism has all but guaranteed the Internet itself is no more? Find out in... The Copyright Troll Under the Bridge! Coming (hopefully) soon to a reality check near you...

  • On the post: That Coronavirus Image Is Public Domain, But That Won't Stop Getty From Trying To Sell You A $500 License To Use It

    Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2020 @ 02:15pm

    This isn't copyfraud... The original image doesn't have the CDC logo added as a watermark! If Getty doesn't sell licenses, how else would they be motivated to photoshop a government-made watermark onto a government-made photo? /s

  • On the post: President Trump Is So Upset About This Ad Showing His Failed Handling Of COVID-19 That He's Demanding It Be Taken Down

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2020 @ 11:19am

    Hail to the chief, who is acting like a baby!

    Trump’s mentality is that of an undisciplined, out-of-control child. He’s literally saying, “It’s only wrong when someone else does it!” Even painting this in a light most favorable to the President, if this video is doctored by taking things out of context, then all of Trump’s doctored ads are even more egregious!

    Even if he’s talking about the politicization of COVID-19, his base certainly didn’t see it that way! One of my Facebook friends who’s a major Trump supporter shared another Trump supporter’s post, literally positing how interesting it was that the coronavirus popped up right after impeachment failed... Not even true as the first case in China popped up in late November, well before the House even drafted the articles of impeachment.

    According to Trump, if he does something wrong, either it’s not wrong at all or someone else is at fault. But if someone else even suggests doing something wrong in Trump’s eyes, they’re completely evil and must pay with their immortal soul for all they’ve done to him. What’s next? Is he going to blame Obama for the problems with our COVID-19 response? Oh, wait...

  • On the post: Do Your Part, Rights Holders: Open The Vaults!

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2020 @ 04:46pm

    Re: Re: Viacom's already losing this battle!

    The same reason why "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go" is considered fair use. Star Trek elements in isolation would be infringing. The same goes for the Dr. Seuss elements. But in combination, you create a new work that is highly transformative, giving both works new character and insights. The same goes for fanvids. The video clips, in isolation, would be an infringing supercut of various show clips. The soundtrack, in isolation, would be just an infringing re-upload of the existing song. But together, the new work is highly transformative. I like to think of it as a mutual transformation. The song is transformed by the clips, and the clips are transformed by the song. But I went much further in my dispute than that brief overview. I went over the four statutory fair use factors and explained why the use of the House of Anubis clips (I didn't dispute the claim on the song) qualifies as fair use. I could repost the dispute here, but instead, I'll advise you to look at this article from FairUseTube, and while it refers to AMVs, it reflects my own thoughts on the matter of fanvids as well: http://fairusetube.org/articles/amv-fair-use The only thing I think that's worth mentioning is there's part of this particular fanvid of mine where the audio from a video clip is heard over the music, which helps diminish the use of the song as a market substitute.

  • On the post: Do Your Part, Rights Holders: Open The Vaults!

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2020 @ 01:16pm

    Viacom's already losing this battle!

    I uploaded a fanvid to YouTube yesterday, combining clips of the Nickelodeon show House of Anubis with the song "Don't You Worry Child" by Swedish House Mafia. Well within the realm of fair use. That didn't stop Content ID to put claims on behalf of the rights holder of each. I normally let music claims slide for this as long as they're not blocking the video worldwide. That said, Viacom's policy did block the video worldwide, which I immediately disputed. I'm just hoping that either they realize this video is in fact a fair use, or they let it slide because now is not the time to be filing DMCA takedown notices. But it's Viacom, so my hopes aren't that high.

  • On the post: As Congress Explore New Awful Copyright Plans, Maximalists Look To Rewrite The History Of SOPA/PIPA

    Rico R. ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2020 @ 07:46pm

    Re:

    My theory as to why Congress kisses up to Hollywood's demands is because of media and press coverage of their elections. Think about it: The same entity that owns NBC owns Universal Studios. The same goes for Warner Bros. and CNN. CBS recently acquired Viacom (again), which owns Paramount Pictures, and I don't need to remind you that ABC likes to always speak well of its parent company, Di$ney. At the end of the day, they need as much good press coverage as they possibly can to get re-elected, and if they dared stand up to them, that could quickly go away. No press/bad press does not bode well for re-election bids, so copyright maximalism is the future we have to look forward to. It might be another reason why the media seems to favor Biden over Sanders as the Democratic nominee. I'm not saying it's right at all. Heck, it's very corrupt if you think about it. And this is one reason why I find it almost baffling that most copyright abolitionists (as well as those pushing for common-sense copyright reform) are libertarians. I've found most libertarians side with conservatives on how to solve corruption (i.e., the problem lies with the special interests, not on the government, anti-corruption regulation won't help, etc.). Yet, as a liberal, I see it as a liberal issue. By giving the voice of democracy back to the people, Di$ney-style lobbyists won't be able to have the same effect they once had. People won't want to have the Internet broken just to help legacy media industries make more money because they failed to adapt to the Internet. Di$ney's the reason we have very long copyright (Thanks for nothing, Mickey Mouse!), and these corporations are the ones pushing and lobbying for more draconian copyright enforcement efforts. With Gen Z and the generation that comes after it (which I like to call the post-meme generation, for reasons I'll explain) being regular internet people, they will quickly learn that everyday internet fun (i.e., creating memes, sharing them, etc.) is branded by these media corporations as the same kind of activity of those who want to profit off of selling content wholesale without authorization. As such, they will not exactly see these corporations in the most favorable light, and fight back against their copyright wish-list. And eventually, people who will be born into a world with the Internet and meme culture already in existence will be the oldest ones in power. Copyright may very well look to the world as a bad idea to these people of the future, just as slavery of the 1800s pre-Civil War does to us today. And at the end of the day, when these people are the ones in power, copyright abolition could become a reality. Laws only can remain effective as long as people are willing to enforce them. No one in Virginia is charging people with the crime of having pre-marital sex (even though such a law is on the books), and the same thing can easily happen with copyright law, and eventually (as I believe is recently happening with the aforementioned Virginia law), it can be repealed.

  • On the post: Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2020 @ 09:30pm

    How can anyone side with the DOJ here?

    First off, I was completely unaware that Chelsea Manning was back in prison after Obama commuted her sentence until I got an email from Demand Progress, well after she was in prison and the UN had already condemned the US's actions in her new case. That must speak volumes of the US must like to sweep stories like this under the rug. Yet, how can anyone point the DOJ in a positive light with this story? It shouldn't take a suicide attempt for a court to wake up and see that this treatment of Manning was clearly wrong.

    I can see one might want to argue that a lawful subpoena must be obeyed (but in Chelsea's case, I don't think that it really was all that lawful), but I'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who would think a proportionate response would be torturing the subpoena dodger. And that's what it was: Torture. She wasn't just imprisoned, she was put in solitary confinement, which experts are now saying that if someone is in there for more than 30 days (or is it 14?), that it is equal to torture. Furthermore, the UN's top officials accused the US that their treatment of Manning was, in fact, torture, and that they need to release her immediately.

    The DOJ's treatment of her wasn't just wrong, it's inhumane. It goes well beyond the cruel and unusual punishment standard under the Constitution, so how can anyone say that Chelsea Manning's actions that led to her imprisonment were proportionate with her "punishment"? Our country needs to do better!

  • On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition

    Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 01:46pm

    At least dogs can breathe a sigh of relief with this news; they’re no longer being framed for eating homework the kids didn’t do!

  • On the post: Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post

    Rico R. ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2020 @ 03:20pm

    We need a Trumpian dictionary to understand POTUS's terms!

    Defamation, noun. Any written piece that is negative towards the President of the United States. See also, Fake News.

  • On the post: Can You License A Video You Don't Hold The Copyright Over?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2020 @ 05:01pm

    "Respective... Discoveries" are for patents, not copyrights

    What would be interesting is if the owner of the camera came forward and sued Junkin for copyright infringement. The only way I could see Junkin spin their defense is saying something like how the copyright clause in the constitution permits people to hold exclusive rights for a limited time to their discoveries: "The person discovered the camera and the footage. How else are people going to be incentivized to obtain footage that falls out of the sky?" The court would buy such a ludicrous argument when that person's pig starts to fly!

  • On the post: CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer

    Rico R. ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2020 @ 08:01pm

    There is a Marketing/Anti-Piracy Alliance at CBS, which itself is an acronym for this Alliance's strategy: Claiming BullSh*t. After all, the Alliance's mission is to boldly go where no copyright maximalist has gone before!

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Gun Rights Advocate Gets Video Taken Down With Bogus Copyright Claim

    Rico R. ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2020 @ 04:32pm

    Re: Re: Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright aboli

    You realize the same flowchart applies equally well to reporting a rape or mugging (with some minor edits), right?
    There is a profound difference between rape and mugging (a clearly immoral and violent act that puts people in danger) than illegally uploading copyrighted content (technically illegal, but at most the only thing hurt is the copyright holder's bottom line). Furthermore, while anyone with knowledge at hand (and not just the victim) can report a mugger to the police, only the copyright holder has the legal authority to issue a DMCA takedown notice. Plus, there are volumes of stories where the DMCA was abused (The H3H3 case, Oh the Places You'll Boldly Go, Lenz's dancing baby video, etc.). Yet, while there are a plethora of recourses for law enforcement to take against someone who files a false complaint, there is little to no recourse to those who file false DMCA takedown notices (ironically, in large part thanks to the Lenz case).
    That being said, I have since come to regret making the original comment. I made it in rushed, bad taste, and I would have deleted it within hours of making it if there was an option. I don't mean to paint anyone and everyone who has ever sent a DMCA takedown notice as a "complete jerk", yet in countless cases (like in the original story above), filing a DMCA takedown notice is a very jerky way of going about criticism. So I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and regardless of my own personal views on the subject, consider this my retraction of the original comment above.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Gun Rights Advocate Gets Video Taken Down With Bogus Copyright Claim

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2020 @ 06:39pm

    Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright abolitionist

    1. Does the content in question actually contain copyrighted content that you own the rights to?
      IF YES: Continue to next question.
      IF NO: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.

    2. Does the uploader have a valid fair use case with regards to the copyrighted content?
      IF YES: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.
      IF NO: Continue to the next question.

    3. Are you a complete jerk?
      IF YES: Reassess your life priorities, and once you’ve done that, go back to question #1.
      IF NO: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice. Stop.

    TL;DR: Do not file a DMCA takedown notice UNLESS you want to be seen as a complete jerk.

  • On the post: Joe Biden Can't Tell The Difference Between The 1st Amendment & Section 230; Still Thinks Video Games Cause Violence

    Rico R. ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2020 @ 12:02pm

    I was never going to vote for Biden in the primary, but the fact he helped create SOPA and doesn’t understand section 230 of the CDA really solidifies the fact that I won’t be voting for him! I pray to God he doesn’t get the nomination, because if he does, I’ll be forced to choose between the greatest threat to our democracy and the greatest threat to the free and open internet!!

    But what about third party candidates?

    If the greatest threat to our democracy wasn’t the incumbent President running for a second term, I might consider it, but I’d rather vote for the lesser of the two evils from the two biggest parties than throw away my vote and watch Trump get re-elected. Oh, how I wish we had a ranked voting system!

  • On the post: Dear Larry Lessig: Please Don't File SLAPP Suits

    Rico R. ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2020 @ 11:55am

    A chilling reminder that no one is infallible

    It’s a shame to see someone I look up to like Larry Lessig stoop so low as this. I really liked his work with Creative Commons and copyright reform. He is one of the few people who recognized that remixes and mashups of many kinds should be encouraged and welcomed, not pushed underground. So to see him do something just as chilling as filing a SLAPP suit because the New York Times said something about him that he didn’t like is disheartening, and it also is a reminder that our heroes shouldn’t be put on pedestals, as nobody is perfect.

    Larry: don't let this be your legacy.

    But if I may make a counterpoint, must we define someone by their faults and bad decisions instead of the good that they have done? I’m NOT excusing Larry’s recent behavior in the slightest, but we still shouldn’t forget all the good things he has done, such as pushes for copyright reform, helping establish the Creative Commons, etc. Perhaps a bigger philosophical argument than the one Lessig was making is if we should regard someone’s legacy as the bad or good things they do, and I’d argue that we remember the good.

    But above all, it’s sad to see Larry Lessig file this lawsuit.

  • On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2019 @ 02:54pm

    Re: Re:

    "Quintessential", you say? My mind immediately went here (from Lawful Masses's video on H3H3 winning in court)!

  • On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2019 @ 11:50am

    To me, this whole article highlights the massive tension between the first amendment right to free speech and copyright law. Here, we have elected representatives essentially telling a private entity that they can't say what they want to say about copyright law. We're not even talking about the fair use of a copyrighted work, but rather to express an interpretation of copyright law. Even if you're a copyright maximalist, you cannot deny that the state is essentially pressuring and intimidating someone to not say something they (or the copyright industry, which likely donates heavily to these politicians) don't like. This screams a first amendment violation if I ever saw one.

    If people in Congress were telling someone to not write an interpretation of copyright law that copyright maximalists agreed with, there would be a massive outcry from the MPAA, RIAA, and the like. But since there's a slight chance this could even be slightly balanced, they riot and applaud Congress's support. We're now at the point where we're not even talking about how to harmonize the first amendment with copyright law; simply talking about copyright law in a way the copyright industry doesn't like is enough to get state actors involved and attempt to silence them. But go on, anonymous copyright maximalist, tell me how copyright has nothing to do with censorship.

  • On the post: It Doesn't Take A Genius To Recognize How Dumb Genius' Lawsuit Against Google Is Over 'Stolen' Lyrics

    Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2019 @ 11:50am

    Re: Agreed. Genius owns nothing. The publishers do!

    But in all seriousness, if two parties licensing the same rights from the same copyright holder(s) are deemed to be infringing each other, it goes to show how backward copyright has become. First, how does a win for Genius constitute a win for the promotion of the "progress of science"? If anything, it hinders it as that lowers the number of parties where you can receive licensed views of lyrics. Second, copyright infringement only concerns the "protected" elements that were allegedly copied. Because Genius doesn't own the copyright of the lyrics, at most, they own the copyright of the special way they formatted apostrophes and/or spaces to spell out "red-handed" or "Genius". Even though the way they spell out the simple words are clever, I'd argue it isn't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Genius can't own the copyright to a phrase and a word that's been used before for a super long time. It's crazy that this is what copyright infringement lawsuits have been reduced to.

Next >>