Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324) comment rss

  • On the post: Producers Of Movie About Falling In Love With Nazis Using DMCA To Silence Criticism

    Rico R. ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2019 @ 11:55am

    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?

  • On the post: Copyright, Culture, Sharing, Remix… And A Congresswoman Dancing As A College Student

    Rico R. ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2019 @ 08:02pm

    “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!

  • On the post: Creators Of Dance Moves Suing Creators Of Fortnite Over Copyright Infringement That Can't Possibly Have Happened

    Rico R. ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2019 @ 02:14pm

    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.

  • On the post: Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites

    Rico R. ( profile ), 28 Dec, 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!

  • On the post: Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2018 @ 01:03pm

    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]

  • On the post: Latest EU Copyright Proposal: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, But Don't Use Upload Filters

    Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2018 @ 05:56pm

    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?

  • On the post: Tumblr's New 'No Sex' Rules Show The Problems Of FOSTA And EU Copyright Directive In One Easy Move

    Rico R. ( profile ), 05 Dec, 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?

  • On the post: Google, Village Roadshow Weigh In On New Search Blocking Amendments To Australian Copyright Law

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 06:53pm

    "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!

  • On the post: Apple, Amazon Team Up To 'Enhance Customer Experience' By Limiting Customers' Options

    Rico R. ( profile ), 20 Nov, 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?

  • On the post: RIAA Court Filing In Stairway To Heaven Case Warns Against *OVERPROTECTION* By Copyright

    Rico R. ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2018 @ 01:22pm

    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.

  • On the post: RIAA Court Filing In Stairway To Heaven Case Warns Against *OVERPROTECTION* By Copyright

    Rico R. ( profile ), 13 Nov, 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...

  • On the post: Denuvo: Every Download Is A Lost Sale For This Anonymous AAA Title We're Referencing, So Buy Moar Dunuvo!

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2018 @ 04:19pm

    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!!

  • On the post: EU Copyright Directive Update: Fresh (But Slim) Hope Of Stopping Link Taxes And Upload Filters

    Rico R. ( profile ), 25 Oct, 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!

  • On the post: The Entire Broadband Industry Just Sued California For Daring To Protect Net Neutrality

    Rico R. ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2018 @ 05:20pm

    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"!

  • On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright

    Rico R. ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2018 @ 02:57pm

    Re: So, obviously, your hysterical screeching was wrong.

    Can someone explain the logic as to how restricting content to certain regions has NOTHING to do with copyright? It has everything to do with copyright, or rather, the current copyright regime that believes they own the absolute right to control everything you buy. Forget taking the content you PURCHASED in one country to your new one; we have different deals with distributors/we have a slightly different version of the film in your new country/some other BS reason to take away what you've already bought with your own money. Copyright's purpose was to promote progress. Explain to me how taking content you legally purchased away just because you moved promotes progress?

    The reason people like me keep talking about the need to change copyright laws (or, as you put it, complaining) is that this nonsense is somehow allowed. Anti-consumer? Yes. Perfectly legal? Of course, it is! Yet Hollywood and other corporations think the only problem with copyright law is that there's nothing being done to stop piracy. News flash: This anti-consumer behavior is what pushes people to piracy. If this iTunes customer illegally downloaded those three movies instead of buying it on iTunes and uploaded those movies to his private Google Drive account, guess what? Those movies would still be there! Yet, rather than invest in ways to make their products and services better, they'd rather stick to the anti-consumer status quo and lobby for stronger copyright laws that will harm innovation. And if we don't stand up and speak out about these issues, who will?

  • On the post: Disney Fixes Its Sketchy DVD Rental License, Wins Injunction Against Redbox Over Digital Downloads

    Rico R. ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2018 @ 04:29pm

    The end of first sale is just the tip of the iceberg!

    Disney's actions are so troubling that it will only be a matter of time before they extend the "license terms" to DVD and Blu-ray Discs themselves. That could easily be done to prevent first sale of those items, but why stop there? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they could make movies like software by licensing and not selling discs. The license terms could prevent asserting fair use rights (DRM/DMCA 1201 claims notwithstanding), first sale rights, or even the right to make personal backups! In the eyes of the law, thanks to this ruling, they could easily do that and no one could stop them. Apparently copyright misuse is allowed when it's in a license agreement's clothing.

  • On the post: Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously

    Rico R. ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2018 @ 12:29pm

    Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?

    From the Presidential administration who killed Net Neutrality rules comes a brand new way to make sure the Internet works best for those at the top: State-sponsored mandatory Internet "fairness". Rather than allowing people to express their ideas and political beliefs online and get equal treatment regardless of opinion, it now must be positive of the President or else it will be demoted to the back of search engine results. Now, instead of getting a lot of fake news like CNN and MSNBC, get the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, and everyone's favorite conspiracy exposer Info Wars much more easily. Act now to get it for the low, low price of the end of our democracy as we know it!!

  • On the post: Irony Alert: Disney (Yes, DISNEY!) Whines About 'Overzealous Copyright Holders'

    Rico R. ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2018 @ 07:59pm

    Loss Aversion 101

    Disney seems to think copyright law is so magical, fair use is a legal right that only applies when Disney is the one asserting it!

  • On the post: The War On Fan-Subtitles Comes To Australia in The Form Of Site-Blocking

    Rico R. ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2018 @ 08:47pm

    Copyright gives you certain rights; being jerks to fans who love your copyrighted works but doesn't understand the original language it's in isn't one of them. If you really want fansubs to go away, instead of blocking them, create official subtitles to sell with your official product. But that's way more work than suing fansubs out of existence, right?

  • On the post: Guy In Charge Of Pushing Draconian EU Copyright Directive, Evasive About His Own Use Of Copyright Protected Images

    Rico R. ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2018 @ 10:52am

    Re: Proves for all past and future times that Techdirt supports copyright!

    I can't speak for Techdirt, but I can speak for myself. I support copyright. I support creators and pay for content whenever possible. What I don't support is using copyright law to censor others, or using it just to make sure they get as much money as humanly possible. So I guess you could say I'm against the current copyright regime as-is.

    It's funny how you fault both Techdirt and Buzzfeed of accusing someone of infringing copyright without lacking any real evidence because under the DMCA (and most notice-and-takedown procedures elsewhere), that's all that's needed to file a takedown request and remove content from the Internet. It doesn't matter if you had permission or a license. It doesn't matter if it was a fair use or a fair dealing. Baseless accusation in a takedown notice = content taken down.

    The hypocrisy highlighted here is that Voss took some images in a way that likely infringed copyright, but he wants everyone to either license the copyrighted work (which often means paying) or simply don't use the work. While we can debate as to whether or not it really is infringing or illegal, that doesn't factor into whether or not it's hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is simply the act of setting a set of rules for others and then you not following them yourself. Whether or not the act was illegal does not factor into whether it was hypocrisy or not.

    And since when does owning a copyright mean that you have the absolute right to all profits you can get from the copyrighted work? Copyright's purpose is to promote progress, to incentivize creators to create copyrightable works so that the public can use them down the road, not to make sure the creator gets a boatload of cash for any and all uses of their work. Unfortunately, thanks to corporate interests who think differently (especially one who thinks the public must NEVER own a certain cartoon mouse), copyright is lasting longer and is applied more strictly than ever before.

    What's worse is that you're attempting to say that any act of copying or sharing of copyrighted material is a form of piracy. That couldn't be further from the truth. Ever heard of fair use? You know, the most important exception that makes sure copyright doesn't infringe on free speech rights? And even if someone firmly believes their use is fair and a court disagrees, that doesn't make it piracy. In fact, grouping together all copying, infringing or otherwise, as "piracy" is very dangerous and does not bode well for those who make fair uses of copyrighted works.

    Finally, while the law may be clear on copyright, morality doesn't dictate it. Copyright infringement is not as clear-cut as morally wrong as, say, murder. Copyright isn't a divine right like free speech. In fact, many people who are for either copyright reform or copyright abolition are often fighting for it on moral grounds. And there are plenty of examples of being outside the law as morally right, even outside of copyright. Remember the US Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s? Many peaceful protests were illegal but moral. So, the fact that something is illegal does not automatically make it immoral.

Next >>