Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

TechDirt has a rundown of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is neither anti-counterfeiting nor a trade agreement but an attempt to strengthen the DMCA and expand it to the rest of the world.  The primary focus is on secrecy -- in a nutshell, there's a good reason the backers of this thing don't want the public to know what's in it.  (I have a rant all saved up for the healthcare thread about the Democrats not letting C-SPAN cover their closed-door negotiations.  Obama said something on the campaign trail about how he would allow C-SPAN in so the American people could see who was serving them and who was serving the insurance companies, but I think he's answered the question for us.)

Hat tip to GP.

[Mongrel]

Viacom suing YouTube for not being vigilant enough in protecting copyrights.

  version:

In their opening briefs in the Viacom vs. YouTube lawsuit (which have been made public today), Viacom and plaintiffs claim that YouTube doesn't do enough to keep their copyrighted material off the site.

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.

And a response from a friend of mine:

Sometimes I have other people beat my family members to death so I can get other people to protect my family members from getting beaten to death afterwards. I am very crafty.

[Miichan]

In Viacom's defense, they aren't suing over the videos they uploaded.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

...

At least they aren't INTENTIONALLY suing over videos they uploaded.

[Büge]

Who's running that company? Hank Pym?

[Lottel]

Who's running that company? Hank Pym?

Are you saying the company is shrinking? Or growing?
Or is very good at science?

[TA]

Hank Pym, aka Ant-Man, aka Giant-Man, aka Goliath, aka Yellowjacket, aka The Wasp.

[Büge]

I was referring to the time he built a robot in secret that he would 'defeat' to redeem himself.

[Mongrel]

I was referring to the time he built a robot in secret that he would 'defeat' to redeem himself.

"You don't say?"

[Royal☭]

AFP Suing Photographer They Stole Images From

It's hard to explain a mind-blowing mess like this one, but AFP is suing a Haitian photojournalist for "antagonistic assertion of [his] rights" after it distributed his news-breaking earthquake photos all over the world without his permission. AFP is mad because the photographer, Daniel Morel, sent cease and desist letters to numerous AFP clients, allegedly made false and defamatory statements about AFP, and made unreasonable monetary demands of AFP for infringement.

Emphasis mine.

It's an interesting case, as it shows the need for copyright reform in the age of the internet.  This story also follows on the heals of Al Gore's Current TV clearing itself in a misappropriation case.  The website for Current TV used one of Ken Light's photographs on it, and he sued in small claims court for damages.  He ultimately lost, but it shows that we need a model so that small artists and creators can make money on the work they do, without providing free content for bigger entities.

[SCD]

If Pacobird ever gets the time, I'm curious on how India's recent Copyright law is, after all the media love.

[Brentai]

You know what's an antagonistic assertion of rights?  The Boston Tea Party.

[Thad]

Shit, if it's illegal to make an antagonistic assertion of your rights, then every major media distributor in the country is in serious fucking trouble.

[A²]

WHAT IS WITH THE HUGE NAMES ON YOU PEOPLE

[Büge]

asked the pot to the kettle

[sei]

EFF Wins New Legal Protections for Video Artists, Cell Phone Jailbreakers, and Unlockers

...exemptions from the statute’s prohibition against circumvention of technology that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work...
(1)  Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

    (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

        (ii) Documentary filmmaking;
        (iii) Noncommercial videos

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

    (i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
    (ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.  A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

[McDohl]

The jailbreak thing also belongs in Applepocalypse.

[Thad]

And also that thread where a bunch of people told me I was stupid for thinking that being able to run homebrew software was a consumer right.

[Pacobird]

And also that thread where a bunch of people told me I was stupid for thinking that being able to run homebrew software was a consumer right.

You know that scene at the end of the Untouchables where that reporter is like MISTER NESS PROHIBITION IS OVER WHAT WILL YOU DO NOW and Costner says WELL I THINK ILL GO HAVE A DRINK and the camera pans out as he walks away into the hustle and bustle of a Chicago morning?

This is like that.

(also homebrewing is not generally done for the purpose of security testing iirc but feel free to correct me)

[Büge]

And also that thread where a bunch of people told me I was stupid for thinking that being able to run homebrew software was a consumer right.

You know that scene at the end of the Untouchables where that reporter is like MISTER NESS PROHIBITION IS OVER WHAT WILL YOU DO NOW and Costner says WELL I THINK ILL GO HAVE A DRINK and the camera pans out as he walks away into the hustle and bustle of a Chicago morning?

This is like that.

Any excuse to post great music

[sei]

"It is also important to note that unauthorized modification of the iOS is a violation of the iPhone end-user license agreement," the company wrote. "Because of this, Apple may deny service for an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch that has installed any unauthorized software."

Standard procedure, but still annoying.  Shows that the victory doesn't mean a hell of a lot if AT&T gets on board with whatever Apple means by "deny service."

Correct me if I'm wrong on this next part.

You can't fully escape this kind of shit by going the Android route.  Manufacturers have rules about not bypassing their firmware/bootloaders, some of which will only support up to a certain version of the Android OS.  This means manufacturers can effectively halt your ability to keep your phone modern, unless you're willing to void your warranty (or whatever EULA they've whipped up).

(There's something to be said about Motorola and the case of the Droid X and Droid 2 vs the original Droid, but I'm too busy to do the proper research.  Maybe I'll get back to this.)