Are you able to provide one or more examples of US law that would be altered as a result of these discussions? Personally, I cannot think of any, but I am always willing to listen to others who may have a different view.
The leaked draft included information on setting up 3rd party liability for infringement, which went beyond existing DMCA liability, including requiring 3rd party deterrence of infringement.
Earlier drafts clearly included criminal sanctions for non-commercial internet file sharing as well as clauses for seizing computer equipment of those involved in non-commercial file sharing.
Would you care to post a copy of your email from the PR rep? Just curious to see what they had to say.
I'm not going to post the full email, since we don't have permission, to do so, but the subject line said that the article was "misleading" and needed to be "updated with YouTube POV." In the email, it asked why I had not contacted YT, and why there was no "YouTube/Google POV" and then said that it was "bad due diligence and poor journalism" before saying I needed to update the article with the bland PR statement that's already in the Wired article. It then linked to the Wired article suggesting I look at that (even though it was the basis of this very post).
Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law.
Wait, how do you know that this is misinformation? Almost all of the leaked drafts include rules that are plainly beyond what current US law is, and thus would certainly result in the alteration of US law.
But, of course, the bigger problem is that the whole thing is being done in secret, so we don't even know for sure. Yet, you are positive that it won't change US law? How?
You are free, of course, to express whatever opinion you may have, including a call for more "transparency", but to dismiss out of hand what is said by those with whom you disagee suggests to me that the issue is not more "transparency", but a continuation of your views regarding copyright law in general.
I did not "dismiss out of hand" what was said. I went through a detailed explanation -- which you clearly did not read -- of what was being said was a flat out lie, by those employed by the industries that benefit from stricter copyright laws. Did you even read it? Clearly, you did not.
The rules are based on what South Korea agreed to, which resulted in massive changes to South Korean laws. The word choices in the leaked copies suggest similar requirements here, placing significantly more burden on third parties and service providers. I am greatly concerned about this, because it has the possibility of representing a massive change in policy.
I find it stunning that you are so sure it wouldn't require any legal changes -- and declare it "dishonest" of folks who HAVE been through these sorts of negotiations to declare that it will. Are you a part of the negotiating team? What is your experiences in negotiating these sorts of deals?
Yes, the email said that my story was misleading, and that I needed to update it with their statement. They were also upset that I didn't contact them before posting it.
I see press articles like this all the time, and thereafter seeing not a whit of inclination to sue anyone. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. But to state in effect with such a degree of confidence for others to "watch out...they will be coming after you" is pure, unadulterated conjecture without any basis in fact.
So is suggesting that people sit around and wait until it's too late. It's perfectly reasonable to proactively go after bogus patents. Why wouldn't you think so?
Like I suggested, if this is something about which you feel strongly, visit them and talk about their technology. They are likely only a few block from your office and/or home.
Huh? Why should I visit them? You aren't making any sense.
Another thing to consider is that if it's going to cost more to fight a patent than to simply buy it I would much rather the EFF simply buy the patent.
Why? That rewards Volomedia for getting a bogus patent, and only serves to create incentives for others to get bogus patents in the hopes that the EFF or others "buys" it from them.
Volomedia should not receive money for abusing the patent system.
A: What are the chances that this person/entity will actually sue someone for allegedly infringing on the given patent. Does the patent holder have a history of suing people for patent infringement in general?
Very high. They put out a press release clearly stating that pretty much all podcasting was covered by the patent. You don't do that if you're just planning to sit on the patent.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the EFF overturning bogus patents but it just seems like a very tedious waste of resources to go after a bunch of patents, one by one, that aren't even likely to be used against anyone.
Again, Volo has given every indication that they are likely to use this patent against others.
While I don't mind the EFF going after this patent, I doubt that anyone will be able to enforce this patent against someone successfully.
The company put out a press release and emailed pretty much all of the tech press the day after they got the patent. That's a clear sign that they're planning to try to get companies to pay up for it. Take it on before they do that is a much better proposition.
As for the treaty, as Ben Sheffner has explained in detail access to those involved in negotiations includes a wide spectrum of interests. Moreover, no matter what comes out of the negotiations, which at this point are far away from achieving concensus among the negotiating countries, the proposed treaty would still have to be submitted to the Senate for approval. History teaches that treaty approval by the Senate proceeds at a pace approaching "glacial". Heck, the US finally signed up to the Berne Convention almost 100 years after it was initially promlgated.
I have to confess, I have never heard one example of anyone ever being harmed by having to pay to use copyrighted work. Seriously.
Then you really ought to look harder. We point to examples nearly every day.
There are all kinds of things that people have to pay for -- food, shelter, clothing -- which, if they can't afford it, will cause serious harm. A copyrighted work is not among these.
Indeed. And free speech... you can live without that too? So you don't complain if the gov't tells you not to speak, right?
Public performance is one of the rights embodied in copyright.
Indeed. No one said otherwise.
The performing rights organizations collect money for public performance of songs and compositions.
Again, no one said otherwise. But we're pointing out how the actions actually harm up and coming musicians. Are you disputing that?
If someone sings a Gershwin song in a performance at a theater, they collect a fee for that. If someone plays that song on a jukebox, or the radio, they collect a fee for that. The promoter for the theater and the owner of the bar are making money on those performances, otherwise they wouldn't bother to have the music played in the first place, but they do so because they think it will attract people to their establishment.
Sure. But they also paid for the music in the first place. So this is them double paying. Just as others have pointed out, they also paid for the painting of the walls and the artwork on the walls, but the painters don't ask them for a cut of the revenue every day.
There are arguments against intellectual property, as there are arguments against all kinds of property,
Copyright is not "property." Don't get fooled by the words used by lobbyists.
but I never see anyone on these forums arguing for the outlawing of real property, business property or personal property.
Indeed. We're strong property rights believers. But copyright is not property, and these issues are not property rights issues.
If someone sings your song, you haven't "lost" anything. There is no property taken away from you.
My belief is this is because they do not ever imagine themselves creating something of value, so they do not want to grant protection to those that do.
Your belief is wrong (and obnoxious and pedantic). We create tons of things of value, and we've learned to make more money by giving them away and not using copyright.
More like a band wanting the protection and income of being "in the game" and still want to suck up to their fans. Sorry guys, it's either in the pool or out of the pool.
Uh, no, not quite. These collection societies tend to cover performance rights, and so they want to collect on that. It should have no impact on distribution rights. Details are important.
There are multiple "pools" here, and the band worked with TONO in one, but it's trying to control the other.
This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
Wait... what's my double standard? I would be honored if anyone used by work. They are free to do so at will. I'm not saying it's bad that the Times copied. I'm saying it's bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.
The only double standard here was with the Times trying to claim that copying is bad... and then copying.
yes I could wikipedia it, but short definitions of the jargon would really enhance the article. no economics background here.
Hi Jesse, which jargon is confusing? There really isn't too much econ jargon in the post. "Winner take all" is about it, and that's basically self-descriptive. It's the argument that in particular markets, the leader has a disproportionate share.
What would happen if a group of American citizens sued the government over ownership of copyrighted works that are only under copyright because the copyright was extended? The claim would be that congress does not have to right to retroactively change an agreement between content creators and the public.
Tragically, it was done, and it failed. There are a few reasons why it failed -- some of which had to do with how the case was argued, and some of it had to do with the Justices' understanding of copyright law. The book "No Law" has a very depressing, but thorough analysis of how badly the justices screwed that one up.
This is a ridiculous statement and absolutely false.
The quote was directly from BMI. Who are you claiming is incorrect? Us? Or them?
Performing rights societies protect artists, composers, musicians period. Take it from me a working musician and composer. We depend on these societies for our livelihood.
No one denied that some folks relied on them. That's your mistake. It's dangerous to rely on others for your living, especially when they're making it that much harder for your music to get heard. If you were willing to actually build a smart business model, you might realize you don't need to rely on them at all.
I don't see how it's propaganda to show you how the organizations that you support are harming many up and coming musicians.
Don't listen to the propaganda that this site is spewing support the arts & music - support performing rights societies...or not.... what do I care it's protected by copyright law anyways...thank god
I love how all the people swearing that we're wrong don't point to a single factually incorrect thing. They just scream "you're wrong!!!!!!! they give me money!!!!!"
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC collect and pay performance royalties to songwriters and publishers. I crack up every time I hear another "expert" spouting off about how they pay "artists."
You don't consider songwriters artists? Sorry, I do. But I was pretty clear in the post explaining that this was for songwriters and composers.
Sure, the writer may also be a recording artist, but these are royalties generated by performances of the copyright - not the sound recording (you stupid shits) - the inherent copyright.
Um. Ok. Thanks for the insults. Though, before spewing such profanity, perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension, since we didn't say anything wrong at all.
So shut your fucking mouths until you know what you're talking about - please.
Or, learn to avoid cursing people out until you've actually learned to comprehend what was written. Might help.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Are you able to provide one or more examples of US law that would be altered as a result of these discussions? Personally, I cannot think of any, but I am always willing to listen to others who may have a different view.
The leaked draft included information on setting up 3rd party liability for infringement, which went beyond existing DMCA liability, including requiring 3rd party deterrence of infringement.
Earlier drafts clearly included criminal sanctions for non-commercial internet file sharing as well as clauses for seizing computer equipment of those involved in non-commercial file sharing.
Re: Hey mike... (as Mike Masnick)
Would you care to post a copy of your email from the PR rep? Just curious to see what they had to say.
I'm not going to post the full email, since we don't have permission, to do so, but the subject line said that the article was "misleading" and needed to be "updated with YouTube POV." In the email, it asked why I had not contacted YT, and why there was no "YouTube/Google POV" and then said that it was "bad due diligence and poor journalism" before saying I needed to update the article with the bland PR statement that's already in the Wired article. It then linked to the Wired article suggesting I look at that (even though it was the basis of this very post).
Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law.
Wait, how do you know that this is misinformation? Almost all of the leaked drafts include rules that are plainly beyond what current US law is, and thus would certainly result in the alteration of US law.
But, of course, the bigger problem is that the whole thing is being done in secret, so we don't even know for sure. Yet, you are positive that it won't change US law? How?
You are free, of course, to express whatever opinion you may have, including a call for more "transparency", but to dismiss out of hand what is said by those with whom you disagee suggests to me that the issue is not more "transparency", but a continuation of your views regarding copyright law in general.
I did not "dismiss out of hand" what was said. I went through a detailed explanation -- which you clearly did not read -- of what was being said was a flat out lie, by those employed by the industries that benefit from stricter copyright laws. Did you even read it? Clearly, you did not.
The rules are based on what South Korea agreed to, which resulted in massive changes to South Korean laws. The word choices in the leaked copies suggest similar requirements here, placing significantly more burden on third parties and service providers. I am greatly concerned about this, because it has the possibility of representing a massive change in policy.
I find it stunning that you are so sure it wouldn't require any legal changes -- and declare it "dishonest" of folks who HAVE been through these sorts of negotiations to declare that it will. Are you a part of the negotiating team? What is your experiences in negotiating these sorts of deals?
Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement? (as Mike Masnick)
Seriously?
Yes, the email said that my story was misleading, and that I needed to update it with their statement. They were also upset that I didn't contact them before posting it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
I see press articles like this all the time, and thereafter seeing not a whit of inclination to sue anyone. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. But to state in effect with such a degree of confidence for others to "watch out...they will be coming after you" is pure, unadulterated conjecture without any basis in fact.
So is suggesting that people sit around and wait until it's too late. It's perfectly reasonable to proactively go after bogus patents. Why wouldn't you think so?
Like I suggested, if this is something about which you feel strongly, visit them and talk about their technology. They are likely only a few block from your office and/or home.
Huh? Why should I visit them? You aren't making any sense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Another thing to consider is that if it's going to cost more to fight a patent than to simply buy it I would much rather the EFF simply buy the patent.
Why? That rewards Volomedia for getting a bogus patent, and only serves to create incentives for others to get bogus patents in the hopes that the EFF or others "buys" it from them.
Volomedia should not receive money for abusing the patent system.
Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
A: What are the chances that this person/entity will actually sue someone for allegedly infringing on the given patent. Does the patent holder have a history of suing people for patent infringement in general?
Very high. They put out a press release clearly stating that pretty much all podcasting was covered by the patent. You don't do that if you're just planning to sit on the patent.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the EFF overturning bogus patents but it just seems like a very tedious waste of resources to go after a bunch of patents, one by one, that aren't even likely to be used against anyone.
Again, Volo has given every indication that they are likely to use this patent against others.
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
While I don't mind the EFF going after this patent, I doubt that anyone will be able to enforce this patent against someone successfully.
The company put out a press release and emailed pretty much all of the tech press the day after they got the patent. That's a clear sign that they're planning to try to get companies to pay up for it. Take it on before they do that is a much better proposition.
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
As for the treaty, as Ben Sheffner has explained in detail access to those involved in negotiations includes a wide spectrum of interests. Moreover, no matter what comes out of the negotiations, which at this point are far away from achieving concensus among the negotiating countries, the proposed treaty would still have to be submitted to the Senate for approval. History teaches that treaty approval by the Senate proceeds at a pace approaching "glacial". Heck, the US finally signed up to the Berne Convention almost 100 years after it was initially promlgated.
Weird. I addressed almost all of those points and why they are wrong in this post: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1904177017.shtml
You don't even answer any of them, and instead take the word of Sheffner, who is employed by one of the companies that signed the above letter?
Re: morality . . . (as Mike Masnick)
I have to confess, I have never heard one example of anyone ever being harmed by having to pay to use copyrighted work. Seriously.
Then you really ought to look harder. We point to examples nearly every day.
There are all kinds of things that people have to pay for -- food, shelter, clothing -- which, if they can't afford it, will cause serious harm. A copyrighted work is not among these.
Indeed. And free speech... you can live without that too? So you don't complain if the gov't tells you not to speak, right?
Public performance is one of the rights embodied in copyright.
Indeed. No one said otherwise.
The performing rights organizations collect money for public performance of songs and compositions.
Again, no one said otherwise. But we're pointing out how the actions actually harm up and coming musicians. Are you disputing that?
If someone sings a Gershwin song in a performance at a theater, they collect a fee for that. If someone plays that song on a jukebox, or the radio, they collect a fee for that. The promoter for the theater and the owner of the bar are making money on those performances, otherwise they wouldn't bother to have the music played in the first place, but they do so because they think it will attract people to their establishment.
Sure. But they also paid for the music in the first place. So this is them double paying. Just as others have pointed out, they also paid for the painting of the walls and the artwork on the walls, but the painters don't ask them for a cut of the revenue every day.
There are arguments against intellectual property, as there are arguments against all kinds of property,
Copyright is not "property." Don't get fooled by the words used by lobbyists.
but I never see anyone on these forums arguing for the outlawing of real property, business property or personal property.
Indeed. We're strong property rights believers. But copyright is not property, and these issues are not property rights issues.
If someone sings your song, you haven't "lost" anything. There is no property taken away from you.
My belief is this is because they do not ever imagine themselves creating something of value, so they do not want to grant protection to those that do.
Your belief is wrong (and obnoxious and pedantic). We create tons of things of value, and we've learned to make more money by giving them away and not using copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
As a business model, it becomes glaringly more stupid as the days go by.
Other than the fact that it, you know... works.
Whereas trying to sell what is abundantly available, does not.
I like living in reality where we focus on what works, rather than pretending that what does not work really really should work.
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
More like a band wanting the protection and income of being "in the game" and still want to suck up to their fans. Sorry guys, it's either in the pool or out of the pool.
Uh, no, not quite. These collection societies tend to cover performance rights, and so they want to collect on that. It should have no impact on distribution rights. Details are important.
There are multiple "pools" here, and the band worked with TONO in one, but it's trying to control the other.
Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Its slightly less wrong now, but my original mistake of 'burg vs 'berg still keeps it wrong.
Messed that one up good.
Aye! Fixed again. :)
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
Wait... what's my double standard? I would be honored if anyone used by work. They are free to do so at will. I'm not saying it's bad that the Times copied. I'm saying it's bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.
The only double standard here was with the Times trying to claim that copying is bad... and then copying.
Re: I wouldn't say he's exactly blaming the internet (as Mike Masnick)
Here's the link to the story (which you should have provided).
Um, we did provide it. It's the blue highlighted stuff in the post...
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
yes I could wikipedia it, but short definitions of the jargon would really enhance the article. no economics background here.
Hi Jesse, which jargon is confusing? There really isn't too much econ jargon in the post. "Winner take all" is about it, and that's basically self-descriptive. It's the argument that in particular markets, the leader has a disproportionate share.
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
it's www.gutenberg.org
Fixed.
Re: I was wondering (as Mike Masnick)
What would happen if a group of American citizens sued the government over ownership of copyrighted works that are only under copyright because the copyright was extended? The claim would be that congress does not have to right to retroactively change an agreement between content creators and the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
Tragically, it was done, and it failed. There are a few reasons why it failed -- some of which had to do with how the case was argued, and some of it had to do with the Justices' understanding of copyright law. The book "No Law" has a very depressing, but thorough analysis of how badly the justices screwed that one up.
Re: This Article Is Misleading (as Mike Masnick)
This is a ridiculous statement and absolutely false.
The quote was directly from BMI. Who are you claiming is incorrect? Us? Or them?
Performing rights societies protect artists, composers, musicians period. Take it from me a working musician and composer. We depend on these societies for our livelihood.
No one denied that some folks relied on them. That's your mistake. It's dangerous to rely on others for your living, especially when they're making it that much harder for your music to get heard. If you were willing to actually build a smart business model, you might realize you don't need to rely on them at all.
I don't see how it's propaganda to show you how the organizations that you support are harming many up and coming musicians.
Don't listen to the propaganda that this site is spewing support the arts & music - support performing rights societies...or not.... what do I care it's protected by copyright law anyways...thank god
I love how all the people swearing that we're wrong don't point to a single factually incorrect thing. They just scream "you're wrong!!!!!!! they give me money!!!!!"
Ok. Good luck to you.
Re: read your music biz 101 books you idiots (as Mike Masnick)
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC collect and pay performance royalties to songwriters and publishers. I crack up every time I hear another "expert" spouting off about how they pay "artists."
You don't consider songwriters artists? Sorry, I do. But I was pretty clear in the post explaining that this was for songwriters and composers.
Sure, the writer may also be a recording artist, but these are royalties generated by performances of the copyright - not the sound recording (you stupid shits) - the inherent copyright.
Um. Ok. Thanks for the insults. Though, before spewing such profanity, perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension, since we didn't say anything wrong at all.
So shut your fucking mouths until you know what you're talking about - please.
Or, learn to avoid cursing people out until you've actually learned to comprehend what was written. Might help.