Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324) comment rss

  • 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 @ 11:36am

    Agreed. Genius owns nothing. The publishers do!

    You wouldn't steal a copyright infringement claim.

  • On the post: Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Funded Patent Troll, Claiming Antitrust Violations For Patent Trolling

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2019 @ 03:01pm

    Antitrust and IP

    For years, I've argued that since patents and copyrights are government granted monopolies, it seems pretty straightforward to me that abusing those laws to stifle speech, innovation, or competition should be viewed as an antitrust violation. It's taken a while, but earlier this decade, the Supreme Court actually agreed with regards to patents (it's not there yet on copyright...).

    One thing that I've been thinking about for a while with regards to antitrust violations and copyright, especially when it comes to major movie studios, could this new age of streaming platforms being owned by every single studio be a violation of antitrust law?

    The main reason why this could be a possibility is because of a similar decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1948: United States v. Paramount Pictures. This case dealt with the old Hollywood system, which mainly was the block booking of films by the studios that owned both the theaters and the copyrights on the film. Essentially, if you wanted to see a Paramount movie, you had to go to a Paramount-owned theater.

    Similarly today, every studio wants to cut the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon middleman and create their own streaming service (HBO Max, Disney+, etc.). The end result, if taken too far, could mean that every streaming service would only consist of exclusive titles by the said studio. As a result, studios won't be competing with each other in the streaming market, while simultaneously driving potential consumers to piracy because of the cost involved in gaining access to certain content they want from dozens of different streaming services whose total cost just as much as cable. It's essentially the digital equivalent of block booking.

    The only difference I see so far is that block booking theaters resulted in showing movies at certain times as to not compete with another theater, but with streaming services, you can watch the content at any time from nearly anywhere with an Internet connection, regardless of exclusivity. And it's ironic that the advent of online streaming is one of the reasons the DOJ just announced they're terminating the Paramount Consent Decrees that resulted from that lawsuit. But if Hollywood's desire for copyright maximalism and cash has taught us anything, another antitrust lawsuit could be on the horizon. As to whether courts will do something about it in the 21st century is another story!

  • On the post: The Color Magenta, Or How T-Mobile Thinks It Owns A General Color

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2019 @ 09:19pm

    Trademark Infringement: Don't try this at home, kids!

    And now, I'll be waiting for Nickelodeon to be sued by T-Mobile for having a character both named and colored Magenta on Blue's Clues!

  • On the post: Congress Looks To Rush Through Unconstitutional Pro-Copyright Trolls Bill, Despite Promising To Explore Alternatives

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2019 @ 11:04am

    Re: A clause to, hopefully, reduce trolling

    Yeah, it seems about as effective as Article 13's "Nerd harder to avoid all mistakes" measure.

  • On the post: House Overwhelmingly Votes To Empower Copyright Trolls And To Bankrupt Americans For Sharing Photos

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2019 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech vs Copyright

    I used to think the same way about the extreme of copyright abolition. In all honesty, if the case of someone selling copies of someone else's copyrighted work was the ONLY thing copyright was able to curtail, I might be on board with leaving some level of copyright in place. However, as Stephen said before me, abolition would also open the doors for an immense more amount of creativity that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Another thing worth considering is the problem of a creator being paid for their work (or even the reason they created the work in the first place) has NOTHING to do with copyright. I guarantee you your favorite band doesn't write songs because of copyright. Furthermore, consider the fact that if you buy a CD (using the same music example), it's often because you wish to support that band financially. So, even without copyright, chances are you would seek out chains of commerce that pay the members of the band when you buy the CD. A bootlegger, big or small, wouldn't be making money long-term because eventually, the fact that the band is not getting paid when you buy from this source will be outed, and therefore demand for their CDs would go down. See, it's not a matter of whether or not a work is copyrighted, but the source of acquiring the copyrightable good in question. This is similar to the reasoning behind Nina Paley's creator-endorsed mark. If you wanted to, you could create some sort of false advertising tort for claiming that a source of a creative work is a chain of first sale that benefits the artist when it really doesn't. I'll admit this solution isn't perfect, but it shows that copyright law isn't strictly needed to solve this problem. Also, remember the Prohibition period in the United States? No one here will say that prohibiting the purchase and sale of alcohol was done with ill intent. However, after about a decade, it became clear that Prohibition wasn't having its intended effect. Rather than stopping most crimes, organized crime rings sprang up prolifically financed mainly by bootleg purchases of alcohol, thus making the problem worse. So, we literally passed and ratified a new Constitutional amendment to overturn the previous one that prohibited the sale of alcohol. So my question is this: Is stopping this one type of copyright infringement (selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted works) worth the countless problems that is current copyright law, especially with the Internet making such bootlegging operations increasingly rare? I'd argue it's not, and while I don't foresee the repeal of all copyright laws within my lifetime, I do believe it is possible that it could be repealed in the not-too-distant future.

  • On the post: Congress Looks To Rush Through Unconstitutional Pro-Copyright Trolls Bill, Despite Promising To Explore Alternatives

    Rico R. ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2019 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Re: Is it really unconstitutional?

    As a regular Lawful Masses viewer (I even support Leonard on Patreon), I still strongly disagree with the CASE Act, regardless of whether or not there were changes made since then. (Based on the article, I'm inclined to say a little or nothing has changed, but that's not my point.) Here are some of my problems with the law as written:

    • In California (where a majority of Hollywood studios are), the maximum amount you can sue in regular small claims court is $10,000 for individuals and $5000 for businesses, with even lower limits if you file more than one case in a given calendar year. That's a far cry from the CASE Act's limit of $30,000, with no lowering of the limit if you file more than one case.
    • As affirmed by the Supreme Court and even copyright maximalist RBG (and I'm saying that as someone politically liberal), if you file in "big boy court", you are required to have registered the copyright on the work and wait for the certificate to come in the mail BEFORE you can sue. Yet, in the CASE Act, there is a mechanism that allows you to sue WITHOUT the work being properly registered. Meaning, cases can be brought under the CASE Act that would be dismissed in regular court for failure to state a claim (due to the work not being registered). If Congress wants to reverse course and allow you to bring claims without registration (which it shouldn't), it should modify the rules for regular court and not set up a new tribunal for those who don't meet the requirements to file a lawsuit.
    • Many people who support the CASE Act as an "Access to Justice issue" with regards to fair use and false DMCA takedowns are missing the point: The CASE Act sets up the tribunal at the US Copyright Office. If recent history indicates anything, the Copyright Office sees copyright owners as customers and cater to their needs. Every time Public Knowledge tries to push for a DMCA exception to allow format and space shift video content on DVDs and Blu-rays, it's denied for various reasons, despite the DRM-free equivalent in music CDs being considered fair use. When they asked for public comments and held hearings over the effectiveness of DMCA Safe Harbor laws, those hearings showed they were leaning towards the industry's demands and even considered notice-and-staydown procedures as opposed to the current notice-and-takedown procedure. And also, they have come against the right of digital first sale, despite the fact that consumers are only increasing the consumption of digital-only goods. Why would we trust the Copyright Office to handle fair use online well?
    • Copyright law does need to be reformed, but THIS isn't how it should be reformed. Copyright trolling is going to increase if the CASE Act becomes law, and it's also going to result in worse consequences. Copyright law should be updated to curb the trend of copyright trolling. Other problems in copyright law need to be addressed as well.
    The positive elements outlined by Lawful Masses are outweighed by the negatives. So, no, I'm not on board with the CASE Act.

  • On the post: How A Key Story About The 1919 Black Sox Scandal Was Completely Made Up… Due To A Confused Understanding Of Copyright

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2019 @ 08:08pm

    Re: Since NOT a fact, it's protected by copyright!

    That’s not what the Supreme Court said in Feist (which you would have known if you clicked the link in the article). And just because something isn’t real doesn’t necessarily make it copyright protected. A talking time machine doesn’t exist, but if you were to create a story about one, that doesn’t mean you infringed on my copyright. It’s the idea/expression dichotomy, not the truth/myth dichotomy, sheesh! Maybe, after 20 years, you STILL don’t understand copyright, frequent troller!!

  • On the post: The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush

    Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2019 @ 10:20am

    The penultimate embedded tweet in this article now has ALSO been taken down due to a DMCA Notice.

    When I say, “Be kind to one another,” I don’t mean only the people who think the same way you do. I mean, “Be kind to everyone.”

    Tell me how taking down a transformative video with copyright because you don’t like it’s message doesn’t fly in the face of this message? Ellen DeGeneres, you’ve got some explaining to do!

  • On the post: New Study On Effects Of Manga Piracy Show Piracy's Effects Are More Nuanced Than Good Or Bad

    Rico R. ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2019 @ 02:38pm

    More nuanced than this study lets on...

    Interestingly, if a manga series is a completed finished product with no more issues being produced, antipiracy efforts show positive sales effects for that series. On the other hand, for ongoing series, antipiracy efforts actually reduce future sales of that series.

    One thing that some copyright nutjob might take away from this story is that it only makes sense to stop "piracy" if the series is 100% complete, with no new episodes/issues being released. In the realm of select TV shows, this couldn't be further from the truth.

    There are many TV shows, like my childhood favorite TV show, Zoom (1999-2005) that has NO official DVD release. This could be for a handful of reasons, depending on the show. Zoom, in particular, had a few specials released on VHS, but other than that, it's had no home video market. Not on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime. Not in DVD box sets. Not even being shown on TV in reruns. But you know where you can still watch the episodes? YouTube! A handful of fans digitized their own collection of episodes recorded off-the-air and then uploaded the episodes to YouTube.

    Is it copyright infringement? Yes. Is the series releasing new episodes? No. Does that mean anti-piracy efforts need to be directed towards the show? Of course not! Even though it would be within the copyright holders' (WGBH) rights to do so, I believe they recognize that this fan preservation is the only way that Zoom lives on today. If they start issuing DMCA takedown notices, then there is no option for watch Zoom, barring an official release from WGBH.

    Zoom is not just an isolated incident. Many shows have no official releases online or elsewhere. That could be because of music or other licensing issues that can even throw copyright maximalists for a loop. It's only through fan preservation that the show lives on. Even TV Tropes created a trivia page for this phenomenon: Keep Circulating The Tapes, which gets its name from Mystery Science Theater 3000. Shout! Factory had to clear a lot of rights due to the same licensing issues mentioned above just to release episodes of MST3K on DVD.

    So at the end of the day, as Techdirt points out, piracy is not always black and white. It's a lot more nuanced, and in certain circumstances, it's the only way to enjoy a show from the past.

  • On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2019 @ 01:53pm

    Re: Re: Hollywood’s Wishlist

    Thanks to Techdirt’s report on this story, my shred of respect I had for Spectrum just got even smaller!
    I said "shred of respect" for a reason. It was already pretty low. It's not that I was singing Spectrum's praises until this story. They've skyrocketed prices, and our price is about to go up as well. I can't say that I've had as many tech support/customer service issues as others have complained about, but that doesn't mean that those complaints aren't valid. And of course, Spectrum says they "support" net neutrality, when it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they're against it. So, overall, there are some pros and cons to Spectrum, but the cons (especially here) definitely outweigh the pros. (And to be perfectly clear, we had Charter in my area, so I never had to deal with Time Warner Cable's shenanigans until after the merger.)

  • On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2019 @ 11:29am

    Hollywood’s Wishlist

    • No password sharing
    • No using VPNs to bypass georestrictions
    • No circumventing DRM
    • Every studio each has their own streaming service with their own exclusive content
    • Absolutely no piracy!

    With this list, every Hollywood executive must think everyone has the same salary as them, and therefore, everyone can afford paying for every little piece of content they consume. Not only is this not true and completely unrealistic, data shows that #1-4 on the list only pushes people to piracy, and without piracy, they wouldn’t be consuming the content at all. Some Techdirt troll will probably attack me/them/everyone else who agrees with me that this is being sympathetic to pirates, when it’s simple supply and demand and other simple economic principles.

    And what’s worse, stories like this make me want to leave Spectrum and take my business elsewhere, but thanks to Cable, ISP, and telecom monopolies, there is no elsewhere for me to take it. I would have to pay about the same price (or even more) for Cable TV alternatives, and I have essentially 0 options for an alternate ISP. (cue South Park Cable Company scene)

    Thanks to Techdirt’s report on this story, my shred of respect I had for Spectrum just got even smaller!

  • On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand

    Rico R. ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2019 @ 01:40pm

    Re: me thinks you doeth protest too much.....

    like everything you write, almost without exception, is to protect the interests of big corporate ass-ets.
    You mean the assets Article 17/13 are supposed to protect the interest of? Many big corporations want upload filters to stop copyright infringement, and even to bring the language of Article 17 stateside. But I'd be hard-pressed if you'll find any of those talking points here on Techdirt, apart from quotes from politicians in the EU that are as clueless as Hawley is when it comes to technology!

  • On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand

    Rico R. ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2019 @ 01:54pm

    Hawley's straw-man proves he's as insane as his bills

    Reporter: Your bill doesn't make any sense. Tell me how this doesn't make you the "product manager of the internet"?
    Hawley: Let me tell you a little something about the problem with the way big tech is raising our kids today...
    Me, facepalming: That's not what he asked you! That's not what's happening, and your bill doesn't even say anything about parental controls!!

  • On the post: NY Times Goes Off On Amazon Because Some People Are Publishing Fake George Orwell Books

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2019 @ 04:06pm

    Re:

    Sure, make an American company liable for allowing non-Americans to sell books that are not infringing in their region... That’s exactly the best way to respect the wishes of a dead author who wrote a dystopian novel about the dangers of Big Brother, state control, and censorship!

  • On the post: NY Times Goes Off On Amazon Because Some People Are Publishing Fake George Orwell Books

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2019 @ 04:01pm

    1984, anyone?

    Can someone tell me how copyright is NOT Orwellian based on this story?

    In regions where the book is in the Public Domain, creators are free to do whatever they please with the work. Yet, Amazon is on the hook for not policing copyright law the way the news reporter sees fit? If we’re going off of US public domain standards, we have to wait until 2044 (95 years after publication, in the case of 1984), while nearly everyone else will get a chance to adapt it at the beginning of next year (2020 marks 70 years since the author’s death)!

    So does that mean that new versions of the work can’t be sold on an American site, effectively controlling and censoring new works? Sounds an awful lot like a 1984-type future to me!

  • On the post: Why Is MLB Claiming Revenue From Obviously Fair Use Videos On YouTube?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2019 @ 06:53pm

    A thought experiment I had about fair use and sporting events...

    I kid you not, I thought of this in the shower earlier today. Suppose for a second that instead of re-using actual footage from TV (which is copyrighted to MLB), they used their own footage they captured in the stands. Regardless of whether everything else was the same (providing transformative commentary on various parts of the game) or not, then MLB could NOT raise any successful copyright infringement complaints. I still think they would try, but I think such an action could lose in court.

    Legally speaking, even though using TV footage under the right circumstances would still be fair use, if they tried to claim copyright infringement on footage the uploader had shot from the game, the uploader could counter-claim for copyright misuse. Recording gameplay on the camera in your phone means you own the copyright to that footage, and the underlying gameplay is not copyrightable the same way as, say, a recording of a concert or a Broadway musical. This same theory could also be tested with NFL and NBA games. (And that's not to mention that their "account of the game" statement in their copyright disclaimers can't legally hold water under the fair use doctrine!)

  • On the post: Reaping What They Sowed: Recording Industry Now Quite Upset About Copyright Run Amok

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2019 @ 10:58am

    I couldn't resist a parody here...

    So you wanna play with copyright law?
    Boy, you should know what you're falling for.
    RIAA, do you dare to do this?
    Flame's coming at you like a Dark Horse.
    Are you ready for, ready for...
    Infringement suits galore, suits galore.
    'Cause once all IP's mine, IP's mine...
    There's no going back!
    (Cue the "Infringing" Ostinato)

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rico R. ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2019 @ 02:33pm

    How the heck did I miss the article about Hawley’s new bill?

    But clearly he has his priorities straight to the real problem with technology. Net neutrality? Not an issue. Neither is all the false copyright claims online (which, according to the WIPO, no longer has any rights to due process). The monopoly on Telecoms and ISPs? Forget about it! The biggest problems facing the Internet is the fact CDA 230 protects politically biased sites and that endless scrolling and auto playing videos (that aren’t ads) are creating social media addictions. “I’m Josh Hawley, and I’ve been elected to Congress to fix problems with the Internet that you don’t care about!”

  • On the post: Authors Take Copyright So Seriously They Hides Jokes In Their Copyright Notices

    Rico R. ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2019 @ 06:07pm

    Re: It's not just Literature.

    Honestly, I think The IT Crowd did it better!

  • On the post: WIPO Says Websites In Its Pirate Database Don't Deserve Due Process Because 'They Know What They're Doing'

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2019 @ 12:27pm

    The open internet is dead, just so that you can make more bread!

    That subject is from a line in an original song I wrote about copyright. I wrote it in anger right after the EU voted to approve Article 13/17 in their copyright directive. Unfortunately, this article only proves that this is sadly going to become a reality.

    Forget copyright for a second. Let's call the situation for what it is: A new invention that enables all of humanity to communicate with each other at the click of a finger. This invention allows you to say whatever you want to whoever will listen, all without the need of someone else in some high-up company to approve of what you're going to say. But those same higher-ups hate this new invention. They want to control everything and hold a monopoly on enabling people to speak. So they throw a tantrum over not being able to keep making profits like they used to, and for whatever reason, the government listens to them, sides with them, and passes and enforces laws that enable them to hold a monopoly.

    The above statement can apply to the Internet, but it also can easily apply to the printing press. Sadly, history is repeating itself. Copyright was never about trying to protect creators or stop people from ripping off artists. It wasn't even about making sure authors and artists are paid for their work. It's all about making sure the gatekeepers stay in control and keep making huge profits like they used to.

    No. They know what they're doing.

    Yes, someone knows that they're ripping off artists and making a quick buck off of their hard work. But if you think that the "pirates" are the ones doing so, I think you better look in the mirror. The gatekeepers are the ones who "know what they're doing", and unfortunately the government is handing them tools to allow censorship in hopes that they can start making legitimate profits. What's going to happen when the Internet is gone, every legitimate site is blacklisted, and you STILL aren't making the profits you want to make? Stop making a scapegoat out of piracy and evolve with the times. The internet has allowed a massive increase in creativity; don't let greed destroy it by turning copyright into a tool to censor the creativity it is supposed to help foster.

Next >>