"They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines... To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited... That will end [it] for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run...."
Drudge added "that web users were being pushed into the cyber ‘ghettos’ of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram": "This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
111 comments:
Could somebody with knowledge of these things clearly explain to me how hyperlinking to another site using the other sites headline text somehow violates current copyright laws?
It just goes to show how stupid and corrupt Republicans are. Copyright law reform is one area the Republicans can really put the screws to the Democrats.
Good luck with that.
Drudge will be replaced by a copycat in Russia or China, where they will laugh at the complaints.
Heck, Drudge might be able to just host his site in another country.
Or he'll change his format in some clever way.
Unless he wants to retire to a tropical island or run for Congress or whatever else he might want to do.
Race-Baiting Crackpot Gives Interview
What the MSM is up to is open to public debate. Hence a free speech protection.
No Justice would say that.
Rash. Off-the-cuff. Not judicial.
AReasonableMan said...
Race-Baiting Crackpot Gives Interview
I don't have time to follow the link, but I assume this is the same Obama interview the Professor commented on earlier in the week.
Other countries want more limits put on the internet. The UN is trying to pass common sense controls. Obama is trying to make it a government utility.
This is just another brick they are trying to build in the wall.
Drudge seemed to be talking about the possibility that the Copyright Act will be amended to add provisions that might impact his site. Under current copyright law, there is no such problem. Here are the basic rules that apply today -- the material quoted below is from a recent federal case in CT summarizing how copyright law works when a claim of infringement is made. None of this is controversial, and I'm quoting the case because it is easier than reinventing this particular wheel.
“[A] principle fundamental to copyright law [is that] a copyright does not protect an idea, but only the expression of an idea.” Kregos v. Associated Press, 3 F.3d 656, 663 (2d Cir.1993) (citing Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879)). Thus, “the essence of infringement lies in taking not a general theme but its particular expression through similarities of treatment, details, scenes, events and characterization.” Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir.1976). “In order to establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and the defendant's infringement by unauthorized copying.” Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1992).
“To satisfy the second element of an infringement claim—the ‘unauthorized copying’ element—a plaintiff must show both that [her] work was ‘actually copied’ and that the portion copied amounts to an ‘improper or unlawful appropriation.’ ” Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Castle Rock Entm't v. Carol Publ'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir.1998)).
“It is only after actual copying is established that one claiming infringement then proceeds to demonstrate that the copying was improper or unlawful by showing that the second work bears substantial similarity to protected expression in the earlier work.” Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 137 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A] determination of substantial similarity requires a detailed examination of the works themselves,” Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 583 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and asking “whether a lay observer would consider the works as a whole substantially similar to one another.” Id. at 590. The Second Circuit has noted that “[w]hen we determine that a work contains both protectible and unprotectible elements, we must take care to inquire only whether the protectible elements, standing alone, are substantially similar.” Id. at 588 (quoting Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir.1995)).
So, there would be two basic problems in trying to use copyright law to shut Drudge down. Does Drudge engage in unauthorized copying of copyrighted material, and does the copied work bear "substantial similarity" to protected expression in the original work? Note also that titles (of books, plays, etc.) are generally not protected by copyright. In addition, the 'fair use' doctrine would also come into play, but you don't need to get to that on this one.
Drudge usually copies or paraphrases the headline of an article, and then links to the original. A paraphrase is almost certainly not a copyright problem (copyright protecting only an original expression of an idea, not the idea itself and certainly not any factual matter), and in all events, the headline is in the same category as a title -- probably not protected by copyright absent some special or unusual circumstance. Linking to the original is the opposite of copying -- just the electronic version of telling an interested reader where to find the original, copyrighted material that Drudge is not copying.
It would take a radical rewriting of basic copyright law principles to reach what Drudge is doing. Very doubtful that will happen. And the idea that a Supreme Court justice would engage in the kind of off the cuff prognosticating that Drudge claims is very hard to believe.
They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law...
I hope no judge would say something that stupid. Why would you need votes to enforce a law? You would need votes to change a law.
" Ignorance is Bliss said...
They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law...
I hope no judge would say something that stupid. Why would you need votes to enforce a law? You would need votes to change a law.
10/14/15, 11:59 AM"
Don't be silly. You need 5 votes on the Supreme Court to say that the law means what it says, otherwise it doesn't.
Thanks Richard Dolen, that was informative.
So it seems like Drudge is just being provocative... or more accurately, Drudge is being Drudge.
It just goes to show how stupid and corrupt Republicans are. Copyright law reform is one area the Republicans can really put the screws to the Democrats.
Blows my mind, too. Limit ALL IP protection to 10 years. Period. Not a day more.
It would take a radical rewriting of basic copyright law principles to reach what Drudge is doing
Or SCOTUS saying it is the case.
Incoming links from a site like Drudge = incoming visitors = ad revenue. Who would want to stop that? It doesn't make any sense.
The real problem is with the way the Patent Office is rubber-stamping business process (software) patents these days.
Thank you @Richard Dolan.
I see that allowing customers to go over their data limits on Pandora or Netflix is now a "net neutrality" violation.
But let's keep going with this whole "regulate the internet" thing.
I am sure that kings and popes of the past would have tried to control movable type had they been able to do so perfectly. They could have prevented the enlightenment from ever happening.
Who would want to stop that?
Hillary.
"The problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers."
Look, she even has ARM bashing the messenger. I wonder if he gets one of those bus boy outfits that flying monkeys get?
@Richard Dolan A lot of it is not paraphrased (and not in quotes either), including the headline I linked to.
Check them out.
I'm skeptical that an actual Supreme Court justice said that.
What Drudge does is so minimal, that even if the law changed, you'd have to kill the very nature of the web (links), for it to have any meaning for Drudge.
News aggregators should have implicit ability to in fact link to news stories. After all, its not like Drudge is doing anything but linking to another sites page. If I want to read that link, I go to that page.
News aggregators should have implicit ability to in fact link to news stories. After all, its not like Drudge is doing anything but linking to another sites page. If I want to read that link, I go to that page.
tim in Vermont wrote:
see that allowing customers to go over their data limits on Pandora or Netflix is now a "net neutrality" violation.
But let's keep going with this whole "regulate the internet" thing.
there will be SOME regulating the internet going on. How could there not be?
damikesc wrote:
Blows my mind, too. Limit ALL IP protection to 10 years. Period. Not a day more.
HOw is that reasonable? So, Coke can't have an exlusive on Coca Cola after 10 years?
If I am the owner of intellectual property that is profitable for me I dont' really want damikesc to tell me how long I have to earn profit from it before he starts earning profit from my intellectual property.
"A lot of it is not paraphrased (and not in quotes either), including the headline I linked to."
True enough, and I thought I said as much. As for the use of quote marks, that is sometimes a factor and can be important when a 'palming off' issue is in play. But I don't see the lack of quote marks as creating a significant issue under copyright law for Drudge, since his basic approach is to use the headline (maybe 10 or 15 words at the most) as a teaser and then link you to the original, presumably copyrighted work. The part he copies is essentially just the title, and as I noted, absent unusual circumstances, titles don't get copyright protection. So I don't see the problem under current copyright law. That none of the copyright holders have tried to shut down Drudge (and all the other aggregators out there doing the same thing, while often quoting much more of the actual text of the underlying work) suggests that they don't see one either.
Anyone who believes the supreme court will protect individual liberties and civil rights has not been paying very close attention.
Those pushing an end to IP seem much more libertarian than conservative. To me, its as basic as defending property rights against eminent domain. Don't tell me what to do with MY property. You want to put out something, that resembles my stuff, compete with me by putting out your own brand. So, if Popeye's wants to fight KFC, may the best company win. But KFC doesn't have to give up its secret formula because it only can get 10 years of protection. S
As to regulating the internet, and how that's wrong, is it really?
We have rules for fair use. Lets say Metallica wants to sell their music. Are they FORCED to sell on iTunes or does iTunes have to contract with Metallica to sell Metallica's music? If it were any company not on the internet it would be a given that any company that wants to sell Metallica records has to do so legally. Why should the internet be any different?
so now we have an internet company that does sell Metallica's music legally. (say, iTunes or Amazon). How did they get the right to do so? By contracting with Metallica or their management. The terms of use are laid out specifically and any profit accrued on both sides is clearly laid out. As is the terms of use. If you want access you have to pay the cost. if they want to give it away for free, they can do so, but they are the determiners of how their music is in fact distributed.
Now take another company that decides instead to make money selling hard drive storage space and uses the same music as their selling point? They allow you to share the music with anyone. How are they allowed to profit off of Metallica's music without getting express consent when Apple has to go into contract with Metallica to distribute the same music?
If you want any kind of business online the corresponds to business rules, you have to regulate commerce. otherwise, there is no reason Apple has to sign any contracts before distributing Metallica.
Copyright rules in this country are ridiculous and every so often congress steps in to make them worse. Work is supposed to fall into the public domain after a decent interval, but that interval keeps getting stretched. When I grew up it was 28 years, then the life of the author plus some, now it is even longer. By all reasonable copyright rules, Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain but he isn't because the congress wants campaign donations from Disney and it's ilk.
I think completely ending all IP would be a horribly bad idea, but I believe the current duration of US copyrights is absurd (life +70 years). Patents aren't quite as bad at only 20 years though.
Well I don't expect that Drudge used Alex Jones as a avenue to give ARM a masturbatory fantasy about shutting down the hated Drudge Report but Matt clearly likes to stir things up. And in the era of big media and the government working so closely together, its not wise to hope that some random congressman will protect your rights.
Even if Drudge is stating the issue correctly, who would come after him for this "violation"? Who is harmed? He is driving web traffic to third parties - in a just world they would be paying HIM!
That's what Drudge gets for outing Bill Clinton as as serial sex abuser.
Drudge seems to be a lying liar.
Metallica was angry with Napster, that was straight out stealing and everybody knew it, AFIK, Spotify and Pandora only play music for which they have the performance rights bought and paid for.
If I am the owner of intellectual property that is profitable for me I dont' really want damikesc to tell me how long I have to earn profit from it before he starts earning profit from my intellectual property.
Intellectual property is the lone exception to anything else anyone produces. For anything else, you have to make MORE of the product to make more money; for IP, you work once, and get to live off the earnings for ever and ever. It's a load of crap.
Nope. I'm with damikesc here. It needs to be limited at some point. The fact that Bob Seger won't release any of his music to Apple because his producer is as dumb as a box of rocks and thinks that everything will get pirated is a good example of why this shit needs to stop.
Drudge seems to be a lying liar
I would love to hear about any lies he has told. I don't like liars, but I don't think the definition of "lie" includes saying things you wish weren't said or that you disagree with. That seemed to be Al Frankin's definition though.
If you believe that "property is theft" and somebody else says they own something, is that person a "liar"? Sure by your world, but it is nice to know your premises.
SteveR said...
Well I don't expect that Drudge used Alex Jones as a avenue to
ISIS? Issa? ISIL? What is the meaning of IS?
It would be great if everybody had to pay a royalty to use the inclined plane, or to pay somebody who has convinced the courts that he is Shakespeare's heir every time the word "beclowned" is used.
Where libertarians fall down is that these rules are not abstract principles separate from our lives, somehow handed down by a creator, but these rules are designed for the greater good, which means that this stuff becomes public at some point, and the culture grows.
It is possible to build an intellectually consistent set of rules around the idea that "property is theft" but it is hard to actually feed everybody by putting it into practice. That is the only real test of a system of ideas. Anything else is just more mental onanism.
jr, no one believes that IP is forever because then it would be worthless. So as Winston Churchill said to Lady Astor. Now we're just haggling over the price.
If I recall correctly coca-cola and KFC recipes are not patented or copyrighted because then they would be known and expire. If memory serves, they take extreme physical security precautions to keep the Colonel's formula between him and the chickens.
Drudge for some reason is considered a "conservative" site, so, yeah, the regulators want the power to shut him down, or at least be able the threaten him with that unless he behaves himself.
And by the way I'm not sure where some people got the idea that Libertarian's view all "property as theft". In fact I believe the concept of property rights is actually one of the fundamental core concepts of Classical Liberalism.
Mary Beth said:
"Incoming links from a site like Drudge = incoming visitors = ad revenue. Who would want to stop that? It doesn't make any sense."
I don;t think they are doing it to protect the news publishers revenue- they are doing it to stop Drudge, and others like him, who put a bees nest, on a regular basis, under their [the powerful elites] well appointed and comfortable seats.
HOw is that reasonable? So, Coke can't have an exlusive on Coca Cola after 10 years?
Yes. If a knock-off can taste the same and not cost more, why is it MY job to protect Coke? I have no interest in protecting Coke from the market.
I'm pro-market...not pro-business.
If I am the owner of intellectual property that is profitable for me I dont' really want damikesc to tell me how long I have to earn profit from it before he starts earning profit from my intellectual property.
I wouldn't expect you to like it. IP holders seldom do. That is why the concept of "public domain" is effectively dead. Because IP companies like Disney keep throwing around money to protect themselves financially. Wanting to protect your piece of the pie is logical, but it is a "your" issue, not "our" issue. Taxi drivers in NYC hate Uber because it makes their medallions far less valuable. Guess whose problem that is?
But why should ANYBODY actually support that?
A government-mandated monopoly is a bad idea.
Don't tell me what to do with MY property.
Nobody is. We're saying we're not going to protect you from others who can improve on your idea. There isn't any real scarcity in IP rights. Ideas are fairly infinite.
Imagine if, say, the alphabet was copyrighted. Man, wouldn't the world be fucked up?
But KFC doesn't have to give up its secret formula because it only can get 10 years of protection.
Why should I, as a citizen, care if they have to give it up? Have they not had plenty of time with it to profit? Are they incapable of improving it? Is it even copyrighted (I am fairly sure it is secret, not copyrighted --- proving a copyright claim would require them to divulge the herbs and spices) If I can make chicken as good as KFC, why should I be barred from doing so and selling it to others for less?
Lets say Metallica wants to sell their music. Are they FORCED to sell on iTunes or does iTunes have to contract with Metallica to sell Metallica's music?
And when their 10 years are up, it's public domain, as it should be, and fair game. Metallica is always able to write more songs. If they don't get their near infinite IP protection, what are they going to do? Stop playing music? Because their skill sets, I'm sure, are massive enough to just pick up other work easily.
How did they get the right to do so? By contracting with Metallica or their management. The terms of use are laid out specifically and any profit accrued on both sides is clearly laid out. As is the terms of use. If you want access you have to pay the cost. if they want to give it away for free, they can do so, but they are the determiners of how their music is in fact distributed.
Public domain isn't horrible. It isn't the end of the world. It's what IP was supposed to eventually lead to. So, let's make it lead to that. If the "creators" are "hurt", that's too bad. It's not a government's job to protect you from the market.
They can make MORE music if they wish to do so. But what they made a decade or more ago? I don't feel much empathy.
We should also strictly tighten WHAT is actually copyrightable.
Ignorance is Bliss wrote: I don't have time to follow the link...
Don't bother. The link is ARM's attempt to exploit Althouse's popularity to drive up views of his own execrable trash-blog.
Drudge is the best thing that has happened to the newspaper industry since the Huntley-Brinkley Report. Ink and paper newspapers are dead, though a few continue to twitch. Without Drudge or someone like him the online newspapers would be bleeding out just like their "dead tree" brethren.
No joke. I love the whole "Drudge lies". All Drudge does is link to news stories. He does virtually no reporting. He is an amazing aggregator.
If "drudge lies", it's the media he is linking to...not him.
damikesc said:
How is that reasonable? So, Coke can't have an exclusive on Coca Cola after 10 years?
Yes. If a knock-off can taste the same and not cost more, why is it MY job to protect Coke? I have no interest in protecting Coke from the market.
The formula for Coca-Cola is a trade secret, and not patented, so you are not protecting Coke, the corporation is doing so by continuing to keep the formula secret, safe and secure.
But KFC doesn't have to give up its secret formula because it only can get 10 years of protection.
Why should I, as a citizen, care if they have to give it up? Have they not had plenty of time with it to profit? Are they incapable of improving it? Is it even copyrighted (I am fairly sure it is secret, not copyrighted --- proving a copyright claim would require them to divulge the herbs and spices) If I can make chicken as good as KFC, why should I be barred from doing so and selling it to others for less?
There is no legal barrier preventing you from making chicken as good as KFC, provided you haven't obtained the recipe of seven herbs and spices through corporate espionage.
Quaestor said...
Don't bother. The link is ARM's attempt to
This is a bizarre complaint, given the topic is links. And, did you actually read what Drudge said? He is a complete crackpot. I had always assumed he was at least a bit smart. The interview is a monumental embarrassment.
ARM
Drudge is the "complete crackpot" whose website can lead one with a single click to Daily Kos, the Guardian, Nation, Pravda, NKorean News, Islamic Republic Wire, Itar-Tass, Plus some lefty stuff.
It is always great to hear a voice like ARM's providing commentary on that which he has not bothered to see. One wonders what lefty site links to right wing news or commentary.
Michael said...
Drudge is the "complete crackpot"
Did you actually read the interview? ISIS/Issa? Total fruitcake. I was surprised, and I did not start out with high expectations.
ARM
You are easily tooled.
BTW, can you point me to a lefty site that would have links to conservative publications? Oh, I think I see the problem.
Michael said...
BTW, can you point me to a lefty site that would have links to conservative publications?
What does this have to do with Drudge's diminished mental capacity?
Well, Matt, if they're going to take you out, you might as well name names (don't be coy).
damikesc wrote:
Yes. If a knock-off can taste the same and not cost more, why is it MY job to protect Coke? I have no interest in protecting Coke from the market.
I'm pro-market...not pro-business.
If you come out with your own brand of cola that has its own formula you are welcome to do so. You have no right to appropriate Coke's formula.
"I wouldn't expect you to like it. IP holders seldom do. That is why the concept of "public domain" is effectively dead. Because IP companies like Disney keep throwing around money to protect themselves financially. Wanting to protect your piece of the pie is logical, but it is a "your" issue, not "our" issue. Taxi drivers in NYC hate Uber because it makes their medallions far less valuable. Guess whose problem that is?"
Typical libertarian bullcrap. IP's like Disney created the brands. If you want to use their property PAY THEM. You could always come up with your own intellectual property, ANd then if someone wanted to use it, they can pay you. Taxi drivers hate uber because Uber is acting like a saboteur to an existing business and doesn't play by the same rules. There are all these rules setup for cab drivers they have to abide by, like limiting the number of cars that can be out at one time, tolls they need to pay to go to the airport etc. Uber simply ignores those rules that limit cab companies ability to do business. if you come on the scene and operate under a totally separate set of rules it might piss off other businesses that have been playing by the rules up till now. Fuck Uber.
A government-mandated monopoly is a bad idea.
Its bad if a company is the only company producing a certain type of good. Like if apple was the only company that produces macs. But a companys line is now a monopoly? What?! Why wouldn't apple have a monopoly on iPhones? They made them. YOu have no right to make iPhones. You have a right to make YOUR phone. Or pay apple what they want and THEN make iPhones. WHere do you get the idea that you are entitled to the fruits of their labor?
"Nobody is. We're saying we're not going to protect you from others who can improve on your idea. There isn't any real scarcity in IP rights. Ideas are fairly infinite."
You can improve on YOUR idea. no one is stopping you from getting into the same business as Apple. You just can't put out Apple products. You have to design your own stuff. What are you, China?
"Imagine if, say, the alphabet was copyrighted. Man, wouldn't the world be fucked up?" But no one could copyright the alphabet because its used in all our words. if you copyrighted the alphabet no one could communicate. So it's a ridiculous analogy. You could however come up with your own programming language. And then set terms of use. If you don't like those terms you either find a different computer language to use, or come up with your own. And then compete with that model.
"
Its bad if a company is the only company producing a certain type of good. Like if apple was the only company that produces macs"
Sorry, that should have said computers, not macs. If the only computer in town was a mac, and no one else could produce a computer, then it would be an unhealthy monopoly. But your argument is like Gucci has a monopoly if no one else can produce Gucci bags. No one else should be able to. But it doesnt' stop them from making their own bags, which will compete with Gucci.
Companies or artists should be allowed to wring as much from their intellectual propertly as people are willing to pay. If, 50 years after the fact people still want to buy Sgt Pepper and Paul McCartney owns the rights he should get paid. It shouldnt' got to YOU. What did you do to earn it? Why SHOULDN"T he earn the money for his work? This is like a variation of income inequality that the socialists use, only from the libertarian side. HANDS OFF!
damikesc wrote:
Why should I, as a citizen, care if they have to give it up? Have they not had plenty of time with it to profit? Are they incapable of improving it?
Why do they have to improve it? They sell chicken fine. And why should the have to give it up. that's complete bullshit. Now there is a time limit on time to profit? The libertarians are as much into wealth redistribution as the liberals!
"If I can make chicken as good as KFC, why should I be barred from doing so and selling it to others for less?"
No one is saying you can't. There may be a better recipe for chicken than KFC and you may have it. It is YOUR recipe though. You came up with it. YOur company will rise or fall based on how much people like your chicken. YOUR chicken. If you are successful, I hope your company stays in business for 1000 years.
The statute of limitations should be on how long there is still a market for your chicken. Not some arbitrary date set by some radical crackpot who doesn't respect intellectual property.
I had a ghost over for dinner. Wanna see his plate?
Metallica wrote:
Lets say Metallica wants to sell their music. Are they FORCED to sell on iTunes or does iTunes have to contract with Metallica to sell Metallica's music?
And when their 10 years are up, it's public domain, as it should be, and fair game. Metallica is always able to write more songs. If they don't get their near infinite IP protection, what are they going to do? Stop playing music? Because their skill sets, I'm sure, are massive enough to just pick up other work easily.
That is completely immoral. Make your own music and compete with Metallica. You have no right to their music. In 10 years or 50 years.
Maybe Drudge should sell out to Edward Snowden. Problem solved.
I Callahan wrote:
Nope. I'm with damikesc here. It needs to be limited at some point. The fact that Bob Seger won't release any of his music to Apple because his producer is as dumb as a box of rocks and thinks that everything will get pirated is a good example of why this shit needs to stop.
Its his choice to make. He can be a dummy. No one is REQUIRED to do business with Apple.
I Callahan wrote:
Intellectual property is the lone exception to anything else anyone produces. For anything else, you have to make MORE of the product to make more money; for IP, you work once, and get to live off the earnings for ever and ever.
SO?
What if no one wants your product 20 years down the road. You don't make much money. Those are the breaks. But if you made a product that people still want 20 years from now, then you are entitled to the money. It sounds like you're jealous.
So Druge is a loon. Noted.
Copyrights are government created monopolies. Rent seeking. Its why the founding fathers limited the life of copy rights and stated they were only given to people for the public good.
These days, the billion dollar companies like Disney bribe enough congressmen to ignore the founding fathers intent and establish 100 or is it 200 year old copy rights.
Screw that. stop rent seeking because 70 years ago you wrote a song or made a move.
AReasonableMan said...
Michael said...
Drudge is the "complete crackpot"
Did you actually read the interview? ISIS/Issa? Total fruitcake. I was surprised, and I did not start out with high expectations.
And yet you're going to vote for Bernie Sanders. Interesting.
Typical libertarian bullcrap. IP's like Disney created the brands. If you want to use their property PAY THEM.
And I'm not opposed to that.
For a reasonable period of time.
You could always come up with your own intellectual property, ANd then if someone wanted to use it, they can pay you.
If Disney makes a new Mickey Mouse movie tomorrow, that should be protected for 10 years. Should "Steamboat Willie" still be protected? Fuck no. That's insane.
Taxi drivers hate uber because Uber is acting like a saboteur to an existing business and doesn't play by the same rules.
Forgive me if you cannot notice the violin I'm playing here over that. I admit it's tiny.
There are all these rules setup for cab drivers they have to abide by, like limiting the number of cars that can be out at one time, tolls they need to pay to go to the airport etc. Uber simply ignores those rules that limit cab companies ability to do business.
Uber serves a market need and the people who use it seem to like it dramatically more than they like taxis, who've had DECADES to adapt and refused to do so. Tough shit for them. They had a chance to avoid all of this and failed to do so. Now, there is a better alternative.
You're pro-business. Got it. I'm pro-market. World of difference.
Its bad if a company is the only company producing a certain type of good. Like if apple was the only company that produces macs. But a companys line is now a monopoly? What?! Why wouldn't apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
Every new iPhone they'd make would be protected for 10 years. If, in 4 or so years, somebody wants to make a better version of the ORIGINAL IPhone, so be it. It won't sell since phones are far better now than they were then. But if somebody wants to do it, they can knock themselves out.
They made them. YOu have no right to make iPhones.
If I can reverse engineer and make an IPhone 1 (not the 6s, mind you --- the 1) when 10 years are up from when it was launched, who would it hurt? It's not going to sell since it's a huge step down. If Metallica makes a new album, it'd be protected for 10 years. Their stuff from the 90's? Nah, no more protection. It's not even really complex.
You can improve on YOUR idea.
So, do away with public domain entirely? THAT seems to be your plan here. Do you understand the concept of public domain?
if you copyrighted the alphabet no one could communicate.
But if I MADE it, why the fuck should YOU be allowed to profit off my creation? Sure, it being public domain benefitted humanity immensely, but you OPPOSE public domain pretty clearly here.
It shouldnt' got to YOU. What did you do to earn it? Why SHOULDN"T he earn the money for his work? This is like a variation of income inequality that the socialists use, only from the libertarian side. HANDS OFF!
Nobody says he cannot. Why should the government make sure only he does? He is free to sell it. If somebody else sells a copy of equal or better quality (given that he has the original masters, it's unlikely), so be it. Why should a work created 50 years ago and not improved on be protected?
Why do they have to improve it?
Because they want ME to help protect it with my tax dollars. Drug companies don't get indefinite patents. Why should fucking music, which is markedly less useful?
SO?
What if no one wants your product 20 years down the road. You don't make much money. Those are the breaks. But if you made a product that people still want 20 years from now, then you are entitled to the money. It sounds like you're jealous.
Should the same be for drugs as well? Should a life-saving drug be guaranteed to one company permanently and they can set the price to whatever they want for as long as they want? Because it's not the case now, but if you support that, I'll get on board with the asinine IP bullshit too. Let's make the entire system asinine.
First off, since it is easy - Coke is, of course, a registered trademark, and their formula is a Trade Secret (TS). The basic requirement for trade secrets is that they must be kept secret, which Coca Cola has done for their recipe for over a century now. It is free,mexcept for the cost of keeping the trade secret secret.
Most of the states have adopted, at a minimum, some form or another the Unform Trade Secret Act (UTSA). Unfortunately, the details of how they differ, state to state, are critical. For example, in CA, partially to protect the UC system, the statute of limitations (how quickly you need to sue) is not stayed while the breach is secret. In the case I was involved in, the formation was disclosed, then those involved lied abut the disclosure lied about it until the state of limitations had run. In most states stay would have stayed the running of the statute of limitations at least as long as it was impossible for the owner to know of the breach. Oh, and last time I checked, a state or so hasn't adopted the UTSA, which means that they still look to the Restatement of Torts (First, I think, since it was removed from later versions in favor of the UTSA). There is a continuing move in Congress to implement a national TS law. They hold hearings, we get proposed language, and that is about as far as it goes.
Rusty said...
And yet you're going to vote for Bernie Sanders.
Provide evidence or admit you are as big a flake as Drudge.
Two places the Jstices could make the changes that Drudge s talking about. The first would be to reduce the number of words required for copyright protection to the number in a headline. Currently, most headlines are too short for copyright protection. But Drudge copies headlines less than many other aggregators, and all one would need to do to avoid this is come up with your own headlines for linked articles.
The more likely place would seemingly be to treat links to articles as equivalent to copying the article itself. I seem to remember something about this a decade or two ago, when the Internet was much younger. My memory is that this involved secondary infringement, notably contributory infringement and inducement to infringe.
Finally, the big protection that aggregators have had is Fair Use. After all, their mere linkng involves commentary, in the form of the links they believe to be important out of the millions and millions published every day on the Internet. And commentary is one of the statutory classes or examples of Fair Use. So, I suspect that the Supreme Court would have to cut back Fair Use a bit too, to get the Drudges of this world to be infringers for their aggregating.
damikesc wrote:
Every new iPhone they'd make would be protected for 10 years. If, in 4 or so years, somebody wants to make a better version of the ORIGINAL IPhone, so be it. It won't sell since phones are far better now than they were then. But if somebody wants to do it, they can knock themselves out.
No, they don't get that right. They can make their own phone. Why would they have a right to make an iPhone as opposed to a phone?
damikesc wrote:
But if I MADE it, why the fuck should YOU be allowed to profit off my creation? Sure, it being public domain benefitted humanity immensely, but you OPPOSE public domain pretty clearly here.
How is an alphabet a product? Your example is RETARDED.
No, they don't get that right.
They should. You're simply incorrect.
They can make their own phone.
Also incorrect. Generics exist in many other areas of life. Should be the same here. It's why I have few qualms about "piracy".
Why would they have a right to make an iPhone as opposed to a phone?
Why are generic drugs allowed to exist?
And why do you hate public domain so much? Did it drive over your dog or something?
damikesc wrote:
If Disney makes a new Mickey Mouse movie tomorrow, that should be protected for 10 years. Should "Steamboat Willie" still be protected? Fuck no. That's insane.
its not insane. You can make your own animated characters. Why are you trying to poach off of other peoples work. It sounds like you don't really have any good ideas of your own.
How is an alphabet a product? Your example is RETARDED.
Somebody designed the characters. How is it NOT a product? It's widely used. It deserves protection more than shit phones and shit music.
You don't like examples of the absurdity of your position. Got it. I wouldn't like people pointing out how silly my position was either.
damikesc wrote:
Also incorrect. Generics exist in many other areas of life. Should be the same here. It's why I have few qualms about "piracy".
I can tell you don't. You probably bittorent everything. Probably supported megaupload and thought the media companies needed to adapt to the new economy. Even though megaupload didn't actually have any products of their own that competed with the entertainment industry. They used the content illegally to line their pockets.
its not insane.
Absolutely is. If I reprint a collection of Shakespeare plays and print them, I am freely able to do so. Why should a cartoon have more protections?
You can make your own animated characters.
Generics exist. Deal with it. People will eventually recognize the farce that is IP and, when it happens, my offer of 10 years will seem generous.
Why are you trying to poach off of other peoples work. It sounds like you don't really have any good ideas of your own.
Sounds like you expect one idea to feed you for life. Not the way it works. If I don't have to pay for the courts to prosecute violation of this idiotic law, I wouldn't care.
But I have to subsidize this monopoly. I choose to not do so. Which is why I use torrents for so many things now.
Why IP (intellectual property)? Because it is one of the basic underpinnings of where we are technologically and culturally.
Patents and trade secrets in particular, but also copyright in some areas (notably software) are the ways that investment in technology research and development is protected, which translates into how it is funded. It would be hard to financially justify spending money n product R&D absent these forms of IP, and notably investment in this country in software products has crashed over the last year or so after the Supreme Court released their Alice decision.
Copyright is the underpinning for culture and entertainment. Movies and TV shows wouldn't be made without copyright protection. Many fewer books and computer programs would be written and songs recoded. Copyright is how these areas are monetized.
damikesc wrote:
Somebody designed the characters. How is it NOT a product? It's widely used. It deserves protection more than shit phones and shit music.
You can't copyright letters or numbers. Those are not products. And you would never know who came up with the numbers anyway. You COULD have terms of use with a computer programming language though. But if you don't like the terms of use of one, you can always use another.
If I came up with a computer programming language, I set the terms of use. Why can't you respect that its not yours to use, unless you follow the rules? who the hell are you?
I can tell you don't. You probably bittorent everything.
For older stuff, yes. Anything I can find. I'm just taking a collection of 1's and 0's. How they're arranged is immaterial since nobody owns 1 or 0. And I know the Beatles didn't write in binary, so their claim to rights seems specious.
Probably supported megaupload and thought the media companies needed to adapt to the new economy.
No. New IP should have protections. Until it is long enough. Then yes, torrent the hell out of it. It is puts entertainment companies out of business, it's not my problem. They should probably make good new IP more often.
Even though megaupload didn't actually have any products of their own that competed with the entertainment industry. They used the content illegally to line their pockets.
If they're older than 10 years, they did nothing different than media companies do. I have no dog in that fight.
damikesc wrote:
You can make your own animated characters.
Generics exist. Deal with it. People will eventually recognize the farce that is IP and, when it happens, my offer of 10 years will seem generous
You could have a mouse named Mikey Mouse. And he could look similar to Mickey Mouse. But its hard to make a generic Mickey Mouse when Mickey Mouse is an established character. What is generic about your mickey mouse? he's Mickey Mouse!
damikesc wrote:
For older stuff, yes. Anything I can find. I'm just taking a collection of 1's and 0's. How they're arranged is immaterial since nobody owns 1 or 0. And I know the Beatles didn't write in binary, so their claim to rights seems specious.
Thats a specious argument. Your bank account is similarly a collection of 1's and 0's. Why am I not entitled to the money in there? Your identity online would similarly be a collection of 1's and 0's, why can't I have a business where I distribute those 1's and 0's for a fee?
You can't copyright letters or numbers.
Can you explain WHY? And WHY there should be limits on what can and cannot be copyrighted? And then include data on when you being named God occurred.
Those are not products.
Absolutely are. Just because they weren't licensed doesn't mean they couldn't be. Hell, they could be the most valuable products in history.
And you would never know who came up with the numbers anyway.
Again, lucky they weren't copyrighted, huh?
If I came up with a computer programming language, I set the terms of use. Why can't you respect that its not yours to use, unless you follow the rules? who the hell are you?
I'd hack it and release it publicly for free after a few years. Why should I spend my money to protect you?
damikesc wrote:
If they're older than 10 years, they did nothing different than media companies do. I have no dog in that fight.
Anything younger than 10 years is also 1's and 0's. Yet you think THOSE 1's and 0's should have protection. How are those 1's and 0's technically different? Nobody own's 1's or 0's whether the content was produced yesterday or 20 years ago, correct?
I don't really care if they get protection. That's just being nice. If they got no protection, I'd be fine.
damikesc wrote:
Absolutely are. Just because they weren't licensed doesn't mean they couldn't be. Hell, they could be the most valuable products in history.
You can't copyright a chord or a musical note. But you could copyright a collection of chords and musical notes that go on tho be a hit song. You can't copyright a word or a letter. But you can copyright an idea expressed as a novel. The building blocks of things are not the same as the expressed ideas.
If you put out a dictionary, you can't prevent others from also putting out a dictionary. since a dictionary is simply a collection of words. But you can certainly prevent others from putting out YOUR dictionary.
damikesc wrote:
I don't really care if they get protection. That's just being nice. If they got no protection, I'd be fine.
I'm sure you would. Because you are that much of an asshole.
Given I take my pay in cash, I'd be impressed. I use prepAid credit cards when I need to do so but those are awfully brief in existence.
But I'm impressed that you compare IP to ID theft.
I might be an asshole. I'm not expecting you to spend money to protect millionaires and billionaires. So I'm far less of one than you.
damikesc wrote:
I don't really care if they get protection. That's just being nice. If they got no protection, I'd be fine.
You just undermined your whole argument. You are simply out to steal peoples content and make your own rules as to what you will appropriate. Therefore your "reasonable" arguments are simply justification for your theft. I on the other hand support the work that you steal. You should thank me for subsidizing your use.
If I find anything of yours, whether it be an idea, or a thought, or a product or a bank account, it can be converted into 1's and 0's and therefore I think I'm entitled to it. And not just me, but the whole world. But then again, you wouldn't actually produce anything original.
You keep saying "you cannot copyright..." without any reasoning beyond that you happen to be OK with it.
Jr, I'm willing to compromise on IP. You are a greedy asshole who will not.
damikesc wrote:
I might be an asshole. I'm not expecting you to spend money to protect millionaires and billionaires. So I'm far less of one than you.
and now the libertarian is showing his class envy. Aww,, the rich have too much money! Boo hoo! I need free stuff. Waaah!
I'm not expecting you to spend money to protect millionaires and billionaires. I'm expecting you to pay for things that you use, and not make ME pay for them so you can use them. If that means millionaires make more millions, oh well. If I don't want the product I wouldn't pay the money. That's simply how markets work.
If I make a Mickey doll with an unusual outfit, I see no issue.
Jr565 Congress isn't obligated to extend certain types of copyrights for a longer period of time than others. Eff Hollywood and Silicon Valley. A copyright shouldn't extend a longer term than a patent. A patent is for an original idea not a specific expression.
Why value a specific idea for a greater period of time than an original idea. Using Hollywood length patents Edison's heirs would have been collecting royalties on every movie made until at least 1970. As it is, there is too much abuse with copyrights, for instance you can copyright a photo of a sunset which just to show how low the bar of creativity is. Your arguments are better suited for trademarks in which the value created is due to the public recognition which comes about from heavy duty marketing.
damikesc wrote:
Jr, I'm willing to compromise on IP. You are a greedy asshole who will not.
How am I a greedy asshole? I don't make money if KFC gets to keep its secrete recipe since I have no involvement with KFC. I respect the right of a company to keep its intellectual property because it produced it. What is this arbitrary 10 year deadline on profits.
Uber should only have 10 years to exist as a company before they cease making profits? After 10 years I can create a company called Uber and do the exact same thing that Uber does? and just start using their app as if it were my own? I don't even have to change the name? I can literally take their work and start profiting from it?
cubanbob wrote:
Jr565 Congress isn't obligated to extend certain types of copyrights for a longer period of time than others. Eff Hollywood and Silicon Valley. A copyright shouldn't extend a longer term than a patent. A patent is for an original idea not a specific expression.
Why value a specific idea for a greater period of time than an original idea. Using Hollywood length patents Edison's heirs would have been collecting royalties on every movie made until at least 1970. As it is, there is too much abuse with copyrights, for instance you can copyright a photo of a sunset which just to show how low the bar of creativity is. Your arguments are better suited for trademarks in which the value created is due to the public recognition which comes about from heavy duty marketing.
I won't say there is no abuse of copyrights. But 10 years is ridiculous. If Paul McCartney is still alive why shouldn't he get to say what is done with his work. If he wants to lock it in a vault, he should have the right.
Take the company Pandora. They want to have any song written before 1978 be exempt from royalties. Pandora is a company profiting from people listening to music. Oldies may in fact be very popular. Why should THEY get to build a business on the streaming of those songs, but the people who wrote those songs get nothing for their use? Why does Pandora get to dictate how those songs are used and profit from them? if anyone should get the money its the people who own the song. That's what I'd be listening to, not something Pandora put out. pandora has no original content. no generics.
And they are making a lot of money. If there is still an interest in those songs, enough that I would play them on Pandora, then those that own the copyright should still make the money from the song.
damikesc wrote:
No. New IP should have protections. Until it is long enough. Then yes, torrent the hell out of it. It is puts entertainment companies out of business, it's not my problem. They should probably make good new IP more often.
If it were new content it's still 1's and 0's so you are still probably bit torrenting the shit out of it. And if you aren't, everyone else bittorrenting the shit out of it is. For many there should't be a 10 year moratorium on bit torrenting, there should be a 10 minute moratorium on bit torrenting. And you are probably one of those people. I doubt you check the date of the release and wait literally 10 years before downloading. "This movie is 9 years, 6 months old . Cant' download for 6 more months." my ass you do that.
Your, I respect copyright after 10 years is bull. You simply don't respect copyright. At all.
by the way damikesc Uber launched in 2009. By my count that means they only have 4 more years to exist before they stop profiting. Anything past that point has to be open source. I don't want to be protecting billionaires.
Given that Uber is actively in business, no. Just as somebody cannot claim to be Metallica. People know who the Beatles are so if somebody wishes to use their name, the issue of fraud occurs. Ditto any major band. And public domain doesn't give one the.right to sell the material. They can use it snd, if a unique thing is developed, they can sell that.
You seem confused on IP vs ID theft/fraud.
cubanbob wrote:
As it is, there is too much abuse with copyrights, for instance you can copyright a photo of a sunset which just to show how low the bar of creativity is.
But others can also do a photograph of a sunset. and no one has to use your photo of a sunset. if however, you as a company wanted to use a picture of a sunset in your ad, what are your choices. Well you could take a picture of a sunset. OR, you could use someone else's picture of a sunset. If you do that, why should you not have to abide by the terms set for that picture? Since you are profiting off of that picture.
Given that Uber is actively in business, no. Just as somebody cannot claim to be Metallica. People know who the Beatles are so if somebody wishes to use their name, the issue of fraud occurs. Ditto any major band. And public domain doesn't give one the.right to sell the material. They can use it snd, if a unique thing is developed, they can sell that.
But what about generics. They can profit off of generics, right? People know who the Beatles are and they also know who Mickey Mouse is. You seem to think that you can use Mickey Mouse for generic purposes. Why not the name Metallica? And Why would you make a distinction between selling and distributing other peoples work?
Companies can profit off an artist work by freely distributing it, and getting revenues from the advertising. But they still distributed the work. Which was for sale. Since they profited, and they used the artists work to get that profit, should they not have to get the artists permission before doing so?
Apple gets permission from Metallica, when they sell the song. Why shouldn't the guy getting money off the advertising for the bit torrent?
Also, If Weird Al wanted to do a parody of a song, believe me, he pays the artist who's songs he's parodying. Thats the way its supposed to be done. He respects fair use. Simply appropriating the song wouldn't be an example of that.
damikesc wrote:
Given that Uber is actively in business, no.
If Paul McCartney is actively in business, how is his work fundamentally different from Uber's? You'd make Paul Mccartneys work open source after 10 years, (because he earned enough profits) why would the product Uber produced not similarly become open source after 10 years? You'd certainly bit torrent Uber's product if it were sale, after 10 years correct?
If Paul McCartney is actively in business, how is his work fundamentally different from Uber's?
And Paul's new music would be protected.
His stuff from 50 years ago? Not so much.
I'm not sure how to explain this more simply. New products get protected. Older (10+ years) products do not. Make a new product and, boom, protection. For that specific product.
You'd make Paul Mccartneys work open source after 10 years, (because he earned enough profits) why would the product Uber produced not similarly become open source after 10 years?
If somebody wishes to perform a transaction on Uber after 10 years, feel free. I doubt Uber would care, however. They'd have to wait 10 years after that particular car ride to do so, though. Not sure why anybody would do that, but hey, it's your example.
You'd certainly bit torrent Uber's product if it were sale, after 10 years correct?
Just checking --- do you have a clue what Uber does? Because your example makes, literally, no sense if you do. Unless you can bit torrent a car ride with a payment, which I'm not sure how one would do that. Would I have to hire performance artists?
But what about generics. They can profit off of generics, right?
As a hint --- THEY ALREADY DO PROFIT OFF GENERICS. Drug companies don't much like that.
People know who the Beatles are and they also know who Mickey Mouse is. You seem to think that you can use Mickey Mouse for generic purposes. Why not the name Metallica? And Why would you make a distinction between selling and distributing other peoples work?
Because McCartney is actively touring, as is Metallica. The brand is being used actively. Mickey Mouse? Generic the hell out of it.
Companies can profit off an artist work by freely distributing it, and getting revenues from the advertising. But they still distributed the work. Which was for sale. Since they profited, and they used the artists work to get that profit, should they not have to get the artists permission before doing so?
No more than restaurants should have had to pay rights for the "Happy Birthday" song.
So...no.
Apple gets permission from Metallica, when they sell the song. Why shouldn't the guy getting money off the advertising for the bit torrent?
Let Apple pay for the rights for their new stuff. The old stuff? No, protection isn't warranted or needed.
Also, If Weird Al wanted to do a parody of a song, believe me, he pays the artist who's songs he's parodying.
The parody also isn't normally done ten years after the song's release. If you can name one that was, I'd love to hear it.
But others can also do a photograph of a sunset. and no one has to use your photo of a sunset. if however, you as a company wanted to use a picture of a sunset in your ad, what are your choices. Well you could take a picture of a sunset. OR, you could use someone else's picture of a sunset. If you do that, why should you not have to abide by the terms set for that picture? Since you are profiting off of that picture.
Again, you're a tool for entertainment industries. You feel a fervent need to spend your money to protect millionaires and billionaires. Congrats. I feel no such compunction.
by the way damikesc Uber launched in 2009. By my count that means they only have 4 more years to exist before they stop profiting. Anything past that point has to be open source. I don't want to be protecting billionaires.
Again, I fear I'm unable to dumb things down enough for you to follow here.
Feel free to point to where I said McCartney can never profit from anything he does ever again.
I'll wait.
And you are probably one of those people.
While I'm touched you're offering rent-free housing in your head, you are quite inaccurate.
I doubt you check the date of the release and wait literally 10 years before downloading. "This movie is 9 years, 6 months old . Cant' download for 6 more months." my ass you do that.
If it seems close, I don't do it.
Not out of any requirement. Because I'm being nice.
Your, I respect copyright after 10 years is bull. You simply don't respect copyright. At all.
A copyright of zero days wouldn't cause me to lose sleep, no. Again, I'm willing to negotiate and compromise. You, as you've shown repeatedly, are one of the sad few who thinks are IP laws are just fine.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
And yet you're going to vote for Bernie Sanders.
Provide evidence or admit you are as big a flake as Drudge.
What I especially enjoy is your either/or view of the world. ARMs viewpoint and everybody else.
Vote for Hillary, then.
Jesus
If I may add this, without judging. Colt Firearms effectively invented among others the m1911a1, the classic .45 pistol, and the m16, the US standard military rifle since JFK. (yes yes armalite shut up).
Eventually these went out of patents and now probably a dozen or 100 manufacturers make 45 clones and AR clones. Colt, perhaps not coincidentally, has filed for bankruptcy. They made a few other attempts to innovate in firearms, but it didn't go so well. They tended to rely on the government contracts and somewhat scorned the masses.
I don't offer this, again, with any judgment, but merely to provide an illustration in the physical world as opposed to software which nobody but five people understands.
"Feel free to point to where I said McCartney can never profit from anything he does ever again. "
Why should he have to compete with himself for his work? If you had control of his music and he had control of his music, why should you have ability to profit from it, or dilute his profit because you also have rights to it?
Post a Comment