|
About Ima FishI'm a lawyer with a concentration in IP. I currently work as a clerk for a judge in the midwest. I also am a contributing editor over at John Dvorak's blog. (http://www.dvorak.org/) You can check out my rantings on my blog here. (http://newlin-deschler.com/blog/?cat=4) |
Brought to you by Floor64
About Techdirt | Contact Us | Advertise On Techdirt | Submit a Story | Twitter | Facebook
RSS
Twitter
(as Ima Fish)
The better title would have been: "Lily Allen: I don't know the difference between price and value." That's the real gist of her problem. She thinks that because people are not paying for her music, that they have no value.
Which is complete BS. I don't pay for Google, the Firefox browser, and plenty of other things, but I still value them.
Conversely, if I tried to sell my shit on ebay, the value would be the same regardless of the price I put on it.
Re: Re: Re: Nah... (as Ima Fish)
"I'm just not sure that playing the technicality card does that job effectively"
Maybe you're not getting what I'm saying, or maybe you simply don't care, but technicalities do matter. You seem to think that we should allow our government to take any action it wants, regardless of any written law, merely to serve some stated purpose.
Let's say for example that it's a felony to have 50 or more grams of cocaine. Let's assume that someone is charged because he had 49.9 grams. Under your theory, because the stated purpose of eliminate cocaine use is served, the guy should get a felony. I wholeheartedly disagree.
We should enforce laws only as written and we should not allow our government to act arbitrarily without legal authority merely to achieve some stated purpose.
Re: true...but (as Ima Fish)
"i generally share to 2.00"
But to reiterate my earlier point. Even if you share twice as much of the song/video that you've downloaded, chances are that you shared that data to possibly hundreds of people.
Is each portion of non-sequential data you're shared to individuals worthy of copyright protection? Maybe it will in the future, but I don't see how it is under the law now.
But as Mike says, most judges would never understand this.
Re: Re: Nah... (as Ima Fish)
"...are laws..."
Ooops, I meant our laws...
Re: Nah... (as Ima Fish)
"If our ideas are meritorious, we shouldn't have to rely on odd technicalities..."
The law is technical and there is nothing wrong or immoral about holding enforcement of are laws to the letter of the law.
So if sharing minuscule bits of data is not covered under copyright law, it should therefore not be illegal under copyright law. We're all in huge trouble when a chosen few in our country get to enforce laws that have never been written.
(as Ima Fish)
I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen this argued elsewhere as well
I've been saying this for years. Sure, the very first person who posts a file on bittorrent uploads the entire file, but everyone is able to get the entire file without uploading the entire file.
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they upload.
And here's the deal, are those bits of data that are being shared/uploaded even worthy of being considered infringement?
What I mean is that the data you share/upload is not sequential. Out of a three minute song, you're not sharing/uploading 30 sequential seconds of it, but nearly random bits and pieces of it. Heck, you're not even sharing individual notes or beats.
And even if you do somehow upload the entire song, you're not uploading it to a single person. You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
(as Ima Fish)
I've said this a while ago, but copyright enforcement will soon be our new drug war.
(as Ima Fish)
This is probably legitimate. Chapters/Indigo probably created psycho-acoustic simulation/remasters of these books which created new perpetual copyrights free from any fair use/fair dealing.
(as Ima Fish)
I've said it before, I'll say it again...
The Daily Show is not a comedy show, it's an actual news show that also happens to be funny. The news is real, it's merely presented in a funny and highly entertaining way.
Re: Re: (as Ima Fish)
Great one!
(as Ima Fish)
I'm shocked that Walmart is not fighting for a DMCA safe harbor type immunity from printing pictures of the public. To me Walmart is merely doing what its customers are asking. It should not be Walmart's duty to arbitrarily enforce possible copyrights.
(as Ima Fish)
3 strikes is not working? People are not suddenly buying music and movies despite being kicked off the net? This what you've been saying all along Mike.
Re: I can see some logic (as Ima Fish)
"it is a bit different that the record labels remastering a work they have the copyright to and then retaining copyright on the new work while the old one can be reclaimed by the original artist."
Certainly these situations are not completely analogous. However, in both situations Bluebeat and the labels are claiming a new copyright magically appearing out of either "psycho-acoustic simulations" or "remasterings."
The question is whether either "psycho-acoustic simulation" or "remastering" creates a new copyright?
Let's assume that Congress finally stops extending copyrights and the music of the Beatles is about to enter the public domain. Does merely increasing the bass and adjusting the mid-range give the Beatles an entirely new copyright that would last an additional X number of years?
To me whether you call it "psycho-acoustic simulation" or "remastering" you're not talking about a new copyrighted work.
However, if the labels are correct, then every time I adjust the bass while listening to the Beatles I'm creating new copyrights.
Re: Re: Made their bed, now they can lay in it (as Ima Fish)
You're probably right. First the vast majority of judges do not understand copyright law because it's not required in law school. So they're as ignorant as everyone else and believe that copyright protects a property right and that such rights should be protected at all costs.
In the case of Bluebeat, a judge determined that the company was obviously "stealing" from the legitimate owners. And in the future case where a label makes the identical argument that Bluebeat made, the judge will believe that the "legitimate business interests" of the labels will need to be protected.
(as Ima Fish)
And that's why I seriously think that the people behind Bluebeat are the copyright equivalent to the Yes Men. Remember, these were the same guys who ridiculously sued a bunch of companies for not suing their DRM, because not using their DRM violated the DMCA.
There is simply no way these guys are serious.
Re: The ads are awesome... (as Ima Fish)
"they are not misleading at all. They clearly state that it is 3G coverage and not all coverage"
That was AT&T's objection? That despite being clearly marked as 3G coverage, that some idiot might think it represents all coverage? I hope the fucktard who decided to bring this lawsuit, along with the additional attention it got, gets his arse fired real soon.
(as Ima Fish)
"Maybe we need to find another model?"
Note to Larry, TAXES ARE NOT BUSINESS MODELS!!!!!
(as Ima Fish)
"We already have taxes on fuel, which approximates the same thing"
Governments want another tax on top of the gas tax. There no law against duplicative taxes.
(as Ima Fish)
"'Fair use' is a very-broadly defined doctrine, of which I take a very narrow interpretation, and I expect my views to be respected."
Wow. Just fricken wow!
Re: (as Ima Fish)
"Combining delivery networks (Comcast) with content providers (NBCU) spells trouble for the users"
Agreed, I really hope the feds step in and block this.