Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 54923 times)

Kazz · « **Reply #40 on:** July 23, 2008, 10:42:54 AM »

tinyurl is the only way around it

Thad · « **Reply #41 on:** August 14, 2008, 12:05:45 PM »

Information Week: appellate court rules that open-source licenses are legally binding.

Quote

"The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package," the court said.

The appeals court also ruled that Jacobsen could sue for monetary damages, even though his product is free. "The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration," the court said.

"There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects," the court ruled.

Score one for the good guys.

Mongrel · « **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2008, 02:42:34 PM »

A small amount of good news?

EDIT BY THAD: Here is the lede:

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge is allowing a Pennsylvania woman to sue Universal Music Corp. for forcing YouTube to take down a video clip of her baby dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy."

(FURTHER EDIT BY THAD: I wonder if the AP will issue a takedown notice for quoting their article, without considering fair use.)

Mongrel · « **Reply #43 on:** August 25, 2008, 04:17:46 PM »

Thad · « **Reply #44 on:** August 28, 2008, 11:26:53 PM »

Cnet: Court dismisses Io's suit against Veoh; says that Veoh is not responsible for the videos posted on it.

The comparisons to Viacom's suit against Google are what you'd expect; the people who support Google say this is a good precedent, while the people who support Viacom are pointing out why the Veoh suit is different. Namely: Io didn't issue any takedown notices, it just jumped straight into a lawsuit; also, Viacom is claiming YouTube's entire business model is built around piracy (which was relevant in the Napster case), while Veoh has substantial network backing.

sei · « **Reply #45 on:** August 29, 2008, 12:55:57 PM »

"Another important difference between Io and Viacom is that Io didn't prove Veoh's business model was dependent on piracy. In its ongoing lawsuit with YouTube, Viacom argues that YouTube is built on illegal content."

I wish bullshit like that would get a case thrown out.

Tangentially related video, on fair use, cobbled together from Disney clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

(Sorry if this was already linked here. Chances are it was; it's a little old.)

Thad · « **Reply #46 on:** September 23, 2008, 02:26:20 PM »

GP: multiple big national governments are trying to hash out an anti-piracy treaty -- in secret. EFF and Public Knowledge are suing under the FOIA. According to Hal Halpin of the ECA, Intel, Yahoo, and Verizon are on our side, pushing for more openness in the process and against any DMCA provisions.

Thad · « **Reply #47 on:** September 25, 2008, 11:59:34 AM »

Information Week: a federal judge has thrown out a $222K verdict for song-sharing.

Quote

U.S. District of Minnesota Chief Judge Michael Davis ordered a new trial for Jammie Thomas, saying the jury's punishment was "unprecedented and oppressive." Davis said that the term "distribution" does not apply to simply making music available. It requires actual dissemination, he said.

Brentai · « **Reply #48 on:** September 25, 2008, 12:43:20 PM »

So basically it's not distribution because they never bothered to prove that anybody actually downloaded it.

But suppose they did. What then? You're left trying to argue that she put those files up for legal copy only and it's not her fault that people were using that to make unauthorized copies. And, well, that's a line of bull you can only swallow if you're following every literal letter of the law.

Obviously I agree with overturning such a truly disproportionate ruling (cruel and unusual, yo), but I don't like the arguable logic that the decision comes with. Now the RIAA gets to use the fallacious but legally effective corollary: if they can prove that filesharing is distribution, then suddenly that fine is now totally justified.

sei · « **Reply #49 on:** September 27, 2008, 09:38:47 PM »

Quote from: http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4045

In one negative holding for RIAA opponents, Judge Davis ruled that MediaSentry’s downloading of music from Thomas’s computer is sufficient for distribution.

Quote
Thomas, herself, provided the copyrighted works for copying and placed them on a network specifically designed for easy, unauthorized copying. These actions would constitute more substantial participation in the infringement than the actions of the defendants in the Eighth Circuit cases who merely assisted in copying works provided by the investigators.

This is actually a huge negative for Thomas because it’s a clear signal that on retrial, with proper jury instructions, RIAA can prove distribution.

Peerguardian2 blocking Media Defender grows a bit more relevant.

Thad · « **Reply #50 on:** October 01, 2008, 12:01:16 AM »

LA Times: Hollywood studios sue to stop distribution of DVD-copying software.

Specifically, it's for copying DVD's to a computer.

It's pretty much the same shenanigans the RIAA recently tried to pull by laughably suggesting it's illegal to copy CD's you own to your own computer. I would assume the main difference here is that there's no CD rental industry; DVD ripping software makes it trivial to rent a DVD, copy it to your computer, and then have a permanent copy of the movie for the price of a rental.

Still, it has substantial noninfringing use, and I'm hoping the courts will recognize that.

Thad · « **Reply #51 on:** October 01, 2008, 05:12:01 PM »

Doctorow has more on same. He adds something that I didn't notice in the other article: RealDVD STILL slaps DRM on DVD's it rips. The MPAA is suing because the program strips out their DRM and PUTS SOMEBODY ELSE'S ON IT.

Crazier still, and the main point Doctorow notes in his post, is that the MPAA's lawyers ASK NOT TO BE NAMED.

Quote

Wait wait wait wait: what? These unnamed lawyers are on a press-call with the media, as spokespeople for their company, and they "asked that their names not be published?" And journalists complied?

Truly, this is a new low in chickenshittery that has me scraping my jaw off my chest. These lawyers aren't deep-throat whistle-blowers sneaking information out of their employers' filing cabinets: they're the official spokespeople for the firm. And they get anonymity?

Thad · « **Reply #52 on:** October 08, 2008, 03:53:00 PM »

Ars via GP: the statistics that the RIAA, MPAA, and ESA always trot out for money and jobs lost to piracy appear to be completely made-up.

I mean, I always naturally assumed they were exaggerated, but I assumed there was at least some bullshit formula used to come up with them, like the RIAA's $2000 per pirated song or whatever -- it may be vastly inflated, but at least it's a mechanism for calculating a total. Ars Technica says it can't find a primary source for the "750,000 lost jobs and $250 billion" figures anywhere, and there's no telling where the hell they even came from.

And yet, Congress has been writing laws, and the FBI has been enforcing them, based on those numbers for the past 15 years.

Mongrel · « **Reply #53 on:** October 08, 2008, 03:59:03 PM »

The real question is: Will anyone with the power to do anything actually see this and... do anything?

Classic · « **Reply #54 on:** October 08, 2008, 04:10:07 PM »

I guess they're arguing that bribing senators to pass draconian protection laws is a natural outcome of piracy? And then they fire 750,000 people just to piss on the working man.

Thad · « **Reply #55 on:** October 08, 2008, 06:52:01 PM »

Quote from: Iron_Mongrel on October 08, 2008, 03:59:03 PM

The real question is: Will anyone with the power to do anything actually see this and... do anything?

...you're trying to get me to go to law school, aren't you.

Mongrel · « **Reply #56 on:** October 08, 2008, 07:11:20 PM »

Well, all of my OTHER friends online seem to be lawyers or are on their way.*

*This was in no way deliberately my choice.

Arc · « **Reply #57 on:** October 08, 2008, 08:09:41 PM »

THAD, YOU HAVE TO DEFEND ME ON THESE DOMESTIC ABUSE CHARGES.

OH, AND CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT MY COMPUTER?

Romosome · « **Reply #58 on:** October 08, 2008, 08:15:10 PM »

Quote from: Thad on October 01, 2008, 05:12:01 PM

Doctorow has more on same. He adds something that I didn't notice in the other article: RealDVD STILL slaps DRM on DVD's it rips. The MPAA is suing because the program strips out their DRM and PUTS SOMEBODY ELSE'S ON IT.

Crazier still, and the main point Doctorow notes in his post, is that the MPAA's lawyers ASK NOT TO BE NAMED.

Quote
Wait wait wait wait: what? These unnamed lawyers are on a press-call with the media, as spokespeople for their company, and they "asked that their names not be published?" And journalists complied?

Truly, this is a new low in chickenshittery that has me scraping my jaw off my chest. These lawyers aren't deep-throat whistle-blowers sneaking information out of their employers' filing cabinets: they're the official spokespeople for the firm. And they get anonymity?

The MPAA loves being anonymous just because it says so.

JDigital · « **Reply #59 on:** October 09, 2008, 12:19:42 AM »

I'm sort of surprised nobody's called the RIAA on their bullshit, but I guess it doesn't work that way. Maybe when you keep as many lawyers in a job as the RIAA does, it's hard to find a law firm who's quick to complain.

Remember when they sued a Russian company for the entire monthly GDP of Russia?

News:

Author Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 54923 times)