Sounds like Mr Zufuckwit is feeling a bit too entitled. Too bad there's not a way to retroactively revoke the copyright. If only there were a way for someone with the money and cojones to fight it to quote his father fairly.
So, again, what would happen if someone in the States or the Netherlands says something that someone in the UK considers libelous? If both that person and the website are not in the UK, what would be the outcome?
Given the nature of the Internet and Youtube, I sort of have to wonder just how many of those people are even in Italy? I would be willing to bet that a fair number of them are not even in the country and therefore wouldn't (or shouldn't) fall under an Italian court's jurisdiction for this issue. Not that that ever seems to stop these courts from issuing ridiculous judgements anyways.
It gets even more muddy if the video is hosted in the US and commented on by someone in the US. Bah!
I really hope this is one instance where Google refuses to roll over (like it seems to be doing a lot lately) and actually fights back on it.
Oh, gee. You know, we'd like to turn over those records, but we just can't find them right now. We are looking for them though. What's that noise in the background? Oh, that's not a paper shredder, they're just, um, doing some construction. Yeah, construction.
I don't have one myself, not having a Zune HD. But I have heard lots of good stuff about the Zune Pass. If you keep your 15 tracks a month (I thought it was only 10 though) then it's not really costing you all that much extra for it. One key difference with it from other music services, though, is that you can access it directly from your Zune and can download music and stream audio anywhere you can find a wi-fi connection.
Not That Chris: Obviously you are new. Otherwise you'd see story after story about a patent troll getting a patent on something obvious or with clear prior art and starting to sue the heck out of people. Believe me, something as simple as prior art won't even slow these guys down. You might as well try to stop a rampaging tank by parking a car in front of it. Hell, companies that MADE the prior art have been sued...for the prior art!
If keeping a copy of the work for the filter is found to be infringing then all of the search engines are going completely screwed. Every last one of them keeps a copy of everything they find on their servers. Not only that, but they actually make that content available to ANYONE upon request. If Google, MS, etc are smart, they will weigh in on the side of Scribd with amicus briefs; ESPECIALLY Google, what with the implications a finding against Scribd would have for YouTube.
That being said, I would be surprised if this gets anywhere. As the story noted, they would appear to be pretty clearly protected by safe harbor provisions.
On the one hand, I think the artists SHOULD be getting a lot more money from this. I know Weird Al said awhile back that, as tiny as their CD royalties are, he would earn several times as much from someone buying a CD as if they bought the album on iTunes.
So, what I see happening is the artists get more money, something like 50% of net revenues instead of the couple percent they get now. Now the labels want to charge $2 per track instead of $1 so that they earn the same amount. People say screw this and go back to pirating the music more than ever. The labels then go crying to congress demanding help and either A) try to force mandatory drm on, well, everything or B) a CD tax like canada on anything that can be used to store music. CDs, mp3 players, flash drives, hard drives, etc or C) a $5-10/mo tax assessed on every household or possibly x amount per GB of transfer.
Adams was an engineer, I really doubt he was confused about the difference. Notice how Dilbert said they should get out of their current business. CHW has it right, Trademark seems to be what everybody is trying to ab-use these days.
While normally I would consider having the police raid somebody's offices over a copyright dispute to be a bit over the top, how many times have we criticized RIAA et al for similar tactics, in this case I can't help but think that there's a certain amount of justice in it. Now if only we could get that happening more often maybe we could teach them a lesson.
Exactly. They can have my network when they pry the (20 character) security key from my cold dead hands. Oh, wait, I don't have it written down. Oh well, I guess they're just screwed then.
Um, no. Use of a jamming signal is very much NOT a legal solution, not in the US at least. Plus in order to cover an area as large as a stadium, you are either going to have to A) have a LOT of low power devices all over the stadium or B) use a single higher power transmitter that is almost certainly going to leak over into surrounding areas. Just wait until your jammer affects the phone of somebody that isn't even at the game and just happens to be nearby and they aren't able to call 911 when something happens. Can we say lawsuit? Can we say BIG freaking lawsuit?
@Valkor Not just Apple. Microsoft too with the Zune would also fall under this. Probably some others as well. If those two both get on the same side in trying to take these guys down they may have bitten off more than they can chew. We all know they've both got rabidly vicious lawyers.
While I don't know that there are too many wolves in Alaska, the number of predators will tend to balance itself out with the available food supply, there ARE too many deer in most of the US. Because man has gone and chased out most of the predators of the deer, especially wolves but also coyotes, cougars, etc, there is much less control on their population. They still breed but fewer of them die off and so they overforage and overpoop which harms the ecosystem. This results in a number of deer starving and/or dying of various diseases that wouldn't normally happen. Basically, since man has eliminated the natural predators of the deer, man must take their place in the food chain.
I know around here there are still plenty of hunters, but I also live in the south. I also know that the government sponsors hunts even in wildlife preserve areas to keep populations under control. A few months ago, Ft Campbell even held a deer hunt and let the public come in and go hunting (there were a limited number of slots, of course). Not sure why the army couldn't do it. You would think they would be well equipped and that it would be good practice for the troops but, hey, whatever.
@DarkHelmet You stole my thunder as they like to say on talk radio. The idea that it's a green card infused with carbon, thus removing it from the atmosphere, was exactly what I thought of.
Then again, diamonds are also carbon. Maybe the carbon is in the form of diamond dust mixed with the plastic. Might explain the $500/yr fee.
All they had to do was hire a US attorney to go to court and request a subpoena for the information. Or, you know, have their diplomat request help from the US Attorney's office for the same. I'm sure Yahoo would have been glad to hand it over in that case.
Hephaestus, I could see another way it could go too. The RIAA convince their pets in congress to introduce a bill that adds a new tax, excuse me, a license fee to every internet connection. Say $5 or $10/mo. A reverse compulsory license if you will. The money would then go into a pot to be split among the various IP holders to cover things like youtube videos and music on websites and such.
Or, worse, a license fee that gets added into your income taxes when you file. Say $20/person/yr. If you have two parents and three kids then you would have to pay $100. I believe there are about 350 million people in the US so multiply that by $20 and you have 7 billion USD/yr of free money for these people. And, yet, the artists would STILL not see the royalties. The executives and lobbyists would probably see a nice bonus though.
RSS
Twitter
(as Avatar28)
Sounds like Mr Zufuckwit is feeling a bit too entitled. Too bad there's not a way to retroactively revoke the copyright. If only there were a way for someone with the money and cojones to fight it to quote his father fairly.
Re: Re: laws on the intarwebs (as Avatar28)
So, again, what would happen if someone in the States or the Netherlands says something that someone in the UK considers libelous? If both that person and the website are not in the UK, what would be the outcome?
how many of those are outside of Italy? (as Avatar28)
Given the nature of the Internet and Youtube, I sort of have to wonder just how many of those people are even in Italy? I would be willing to bet that a fair number of them are not even in the country and therefore wouldn't (or shouldn't) fall under an Italian court's jurisdiction for this issue. Not that that ever seems to stop these courts from issuing ridiculous judgements anyways.
It gets even more muddy if the video is hosted in the US and commented on by someone in the US. Bah!
I really hope this is one instance where Google refuses to roll over (like it seems to be doing a lot lately) and actually fights back on it.
(as Avatar28)
Oh, gee. You know, we'd like to turn over those records, but we just can't find them right now. We are looking for them though. What's that noise in the background? Oh, that's not a paper shredder, they're just, um, doing some construction. Yeah, construction.
Re: Re: Skype is Hype (as Avatar28)
I don't have one myself, not having a Zune HD. But I have heard lots of good stuff about the Zune Pass. If you keep your 15 tracks a month (I thought it was only 10 though) then it's not really costing you all that much extra for it. One key difference with it from other music services, though, is that you can access it directly from your Zune and can download music and stream audio anywhere you can find a wi-fi connection.
Not That Chris: Obviously you are new. Otherwise you'd see story after story about a patent troll getting a patent on something obvious or with clear prior art and starting to sue the heck out of people. Believe me, something as simple as prior art won't even slow these guys down. You might as well try to stop a rampaging tank by parking a car in front of it. Hell, companies that MADE the prior art have been sued...for the prior art!
Chilling Effects? (as Avatar28)
Would this be a good submission for the EFF's Chilling Effects database?
Re: douchebagalista (as Avatar28)
Sorry, Kevin, but I believe that Kanye West already has the trademark on that one.
:)
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, et all need to weigh in on this (as Avatar28)
If keeping a copy of the work for the filter is found to be infringing then all of the search engines are going completely screwed. Every last one of them keeps a copy of everything they find on their servers. Not only that, but they actually make that content available to ANYONE upon request. If Google, MS, etc are smart, they will weigh in on the side of Scribd with amicus briefs; ESPECIALLY Google, what with the implications a finding against Scribd would have for YouTube.
That being said, I would be surprised if this gets anywhere. As the story noted, they would appear to be pretty clearly protected by safe harbor provisions.
good and bad from this (as Avatar28)
On the one hand, I think the artists SHOULD be getting a lot more money from this. I know Weird Al said awhile back that, as tiny as their CD royalties are, he would earn several times as much from someone buying a CD as if they bought the album on iTunes.
So, what I see happening is the artists get more money, something like 50% of net revenues instead of the couple percent they get now. Now the labels want to charge $2 per track instead of $1 so that they earn the same amount. People say screw this and go back to pirating the music more than ever. The labels then go crying to congress demanding help and either A) try to force mandatory drm on, well, everything or B) a CD tax like canada on anything that can be used to store music. CDs, mp3 players, flash drives, hard drives, etc or C) a $5-10/mo tax assessed on every household or possibly x amount per GB of transfer.
But maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
(as Avatar28)
lmao. That is too funny. I was just playing this on my Xbox this weekend.
I doubt Adams was confused (as Avatar28)
Adams was an engineer, I really doubt he was confused about the difference. Notice how Dilbert said they should get out of their current business. CHW has it right, Trademark seems to be what everybody is trying to ab-use these days.
payback's a bitch (as Avatar28)
While normally I would consider having the police raid somebody's offices over a copyright dispute to be a bit over the top, how many times have we criticized RIAA et al for similar tactics, in this case I can't help but think that there's a certain amount of justice in it. Now if only we could get that happening more often maybe we could teach them a lesson.
Re: (as Avatar28)
Exactly. They can have my network when they pry the (20 character) security key from my cold dead hands. Oh, wait, I don't have it written down. Oh well, I guess they're just screwed then.
Re: (as Avatar28)
Um, no. Use of a jamming signal is very much NOT a legal solution, not in the US at least. Plus in order to cover an area as large as a stadium, you are either going to have to A) have a LOT of low power devices all over the stadium or B) use a single higher power transmitter that is almost certainly going to leak over into surrounding areas. Just wait until your jammer affects the phone of somebody that isn't even at the game and just happens to be nearby and they aren't able to call 911 when something happens. Can we say lawsuit? Can we say BIG freaking lawsuit?
let's see how serious they are... (as Avatar28)
I'm thinking that maybe I should make it a point to go to an SEC game this fall, Vanderbilt, maybe, and tweet updates all the way through the game.
Re: Crack legal intimidation (as Avatar28)
@Valkor Not just Apple. Microsoft too with the Zune would also fall under this. Probably some others as well. If those two both get on the same side in trying to take these guys down they may have bitten off more than they can chew. We all know they've both got rabidly vicious lawyers.
population control (as Avatar28)
While I don't know that there are too many wolves in Alaska, the number of predators will tend to balance itself out with the available food supply, there ARE too many deer in most of the US. Because man has gone and chased out most of the predators of the deer, especially wolves but also coyotes, cougars, etc, there is much less control on their population. They still breed but fewer of them die off and so they overforage and overpoop which harms the ecosystem. This results in a number of deer starving and/or dying of various diseases that wouldn't normally happen. Basically, since man has eliminated the natural predators of the deer, man must take their place in the food chain.
I know around here there are still plenty of hunters, but I also live in the south. I also know that the government sponsors hunts even in wildlife preserve areas to keep populations under control. A few months ago, Ft Campbell even held a deer hunt and let the public come in and go hunting (there were a limited number of slots, of course). Not sure why the army couldn't do it. You would think they would be well equipped and that it would be good practice for the troops but, hey, whatever.
Green card (as Avatar28)
@DarkHelmet You stole my thunder as they like to say on talk radio. The idea that it's a green card infused with carbon, thus removing it from the atmosphere, was exactly what I thought of.
Then again, diamonds are also carbon. Maybe the carbon is in the form of diamond dust mixed with the plastic. Might explain the $500/yr fee.
If they wanted the information (as Avatar28)
All they had to do was hire a US attorney to go to court and request a subpoena for the information. Or, you know, have their diplomat request help from the US Attorney's office for the same. I'm sure Yahoo would have been glad to hand it over in that case.
the other possibility... (as Avatar28)
Hephaestus, I could see another way it could go too. The RIAA convince their pets in congress to introduce a bill that adds a new tax, excuse me, a license fee to every internet connection. Say $5 or $10/mo. A reverse compulsory license if you will. The money would then go into a pot to be split among the various IP holders to cover things like youtube videos and music on websites and such.
Or, worse, a license fee that gets added into your income taxes when you file. Say $20/person/yr. If you have two parents and three kids then you would have to pay $100. I believe there are about 350 million people in the US so multiply that by $20 and you have 7 billion USD/yr of free money for these people. And, yet, the artists would STILL not see the royalties. The executives and lobbyists would probably see a nice bonus though.