The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Interesting Appellate Court Ruling on Copyright
Old 8th August 2012
  #31
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

interesting. Im not sure about the "circulating" links part - although i suspect its in terms of actual quoting rather than links. Its unclear from the rather better written article (which Techtrite once again selectively quote) at
Meltwater Group and PRCA win leave to appeal to Supreme Court

... check the FAQ section as it brings it much more into focus - both Outlaw and Techstimpys logical deductions are a little absurd to say the least!
Old 8th August 2012
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
You are arguing from a fairly ancient standard; the law was changed with The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Read the sections "Limitation for Transitory Communications" and "Limitation for System Caching."


Temporary files and their usage are a codified element of any modern copyright law. All data that any computer ever displays or accesses must reside at least temporarily on the local system and it is long since settled that mechanically created temporary files are not an act of infringement.
Hi,

Thanks for pointing that out.

But this is US only, any equivalent for the rest of the world?

It seems to me that this is written to protect the ISP. Because of the way networks work they want to be able to make proxy servers without having to apply for licenses each time things are copied around. And also there are buffers associated with router hardware etc which is fair to be accounted as not being infringement of copyright.

Also you have true streaming services which end up directly on a users computer viewable in quicktime player or equivalent. This of course involves buffers on the local computer and it's fair to explicitly make clear that this is not copyright infringement.

But none of this applies to youtube. Youtube is not streaming anything. It is purely a file download then subsequent playback. Flash player on mac creates individual files which persist after you quit safari. It is not correct to call this a buffer and i would certainly say that the data remains longer than is "reasonable".

If watching youtube is to be considered not in breach of copyright and equivalent to watching tv broadcast because it is just "buffering" then the same can be said for any file download and subsequent viewing/listening. The files are just being "buffered".

Individuals have been taken to court by record labels and lost because of illegally downloading files.

Record lables see youtube as free promotion so they're not going to take people to court but this does not make it legal unless they release the material through youtube on a different license.
Old 8th August 2012
  #33
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdrake View Post
Hi,

Thanks for pointing that out. ...

But this is US only, any equivalent for the rest of the world?
I have a few comments in reponse to your post.

The specific law that I linked is certainly only applicable in the United States, but there are equivalents elsewhere. To lack an equivalent would almost be tantamount to lacking any copyright law at all; it is impossible to respect a law that everyone would be in violation of through the course of performing everyday electronic tasks.

On "true streaming" services vs. Youtube: you are wise to point out that there is no form of media streaming without local buffers filled with unpacked data, and that such buffers must necessarily be exempted from infringement charges. You may be less wise to make distinction of Youtube and related services. "Streaming" is not a relevant legal term of art in the context of US law (to my knowledge, at any rate), and there is no specific legal requirement that would limit the size of the buffer or define an explicit limited duration for its persistence. Indeed, the DMCA itself acknowledges the legitimate value of a retained (but ultimately temporary) local buffer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 1998
The benefit of this practice is that it reduces the service provider’s bandwidth
requirements and reduces the waiting time on subsequent requests for the same
information.
Youtube videos are still an intermediate temporary storage carried out by an automatic technical process and as such there is no reason why the service would not qualify for exemption from infringement charges on the grounds that you suggest.

On lawsuits for "illegal downloading": It is incorrect to assert that individuals have been held liable for downloading files; no one has ever been taken to court (or, by extension -- lost in court) on the basis of liability resulting from downloaded files. It is only the act of uploading (as in distribution) where one can be -- or has been -- liable for infringement.

In general, I can appreciate your [uncommon (to these boards)] circumspection on the subject of streaming media and temporary buffers, although I don't think there is much reasonable or legal foundation for your conclusions in a US context.
Old 8th August 2012
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Youtube videos are still an intermediate temporary storage carried out by an automatic technical process and as such there is no reason why the service would not qualify for exemption from infringement charges on the grounds that you suggest.
it's going to be interesting to see people argue for DMCA safe harbor in light of contextual advertising. it's no longer dumb pipes... now that the pipes know what's in them, they lose DMCA safe harbor...

buckle up.
Old 8th August 2012
  #35
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
it's going to be interesting to see people argue for DMCA safe harbor in light of contextual advertising. it's no longer dumb pipes... now that the pipes know what's in them, they lose DMCA safe harbor...
I think you may be confusing your talking points here. Aren't the sites that you tend to allege as illegitmately benefitting from the distribution of unlicensed material already DMCA non-compliant? What are some examples of DMCA-compliant sites that you think have reason to be excluded from safe harbor on the basis of their contextual advertising?

(I do assume that you are speaking of internet-based services ["sites"] and not internet service providers ["pipes"], because pipes are still "dumb;" contextual advertising is executed by web servers, and not by network infrastructure. Feel free to issue any corrections if this is a misguided assumption.)
Old 8th August 2012
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
... Feel free ...
"Feeling free is not free!"
Old 8th August 2012
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I think you may be confusing your talking points here. Aren't the sites that you tend to allege as illegitmately benefitting from the distribution of unlicensed material already DMCA non-compliant? What are some examples of DMCA-compliant sites that you think have reason to be excluded from safe harbor on the basis of their contextual advertising?
youtube. google.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
(I do assume that you are speaking of internet-based services ["sites"] and not internet service providers ["pipes"], because pipes are still "dumb;" contextual advertising is executed by web servers, and not by network infrastructure. Feel free to issue any corrections if this is a misguided assumption.)
if google is hiding behind the dmca because they don't know what they're serving, but they know what they're serving to provide targeted advertising... well then... they're lying. and if they know what they're serving to serve targeted, specific advertising against specific content, than well, it's not dumb pipe, it's pretty smart actually.

illegal advertising, or "ad laundering" will be the undoing of all of these schemes. it's where the money is made, and it's where the crime is taking place. there is company that has captured and logged over three years of screen shots linking major brands, advertisers and illegally operating sites together.

illegal filehosting and P2P sharing is a massive, enterprise level, organized crime in billions of dollars annually. this is not about "fans and sharing."

Artists, Know Thy Enemy – Who’s Ripping You Off and How… | The Trichordist

Wall Of Shame : BMW Willing to “Drive” Without License | The Trichordist

remember, google paid a half a billion dollars last year in a non-prosecution settlement to keep it's board from being indicted... IE, they had knowledge of wrong doing.

while we're playing ring around the rosy here on GS, there are people in the world actually working on real law enforcement for real crimes. the illegal exploitation of artists work is just collateral damage in a much, much larger picture of illegal activity.

stay tuned...
Old 8th August 2012
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
"Feeling free is not free!"


" Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
Old 8th August 2012
  #39
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
youtube. google.



if google is hiding behind the dmca because they don't know what they're serving, but they know what they're serving to provide targeted advertising... well then... they're lying. and if they know what they're serving to serve targeted, specific advertising against specific content, than well, it's not dumb pipe, it's pretty smart actually.

illegal advertising, or "ad laundering" will be the undoing of all of these schemes. it's where the money is made, and it's where the crime is taking place. there is company that has captured and logged over three years of screen shots linking major brands, advertisers and illegally operating sites together.

illegal filehosting and P2P sharing is a massive, enterprise level, organized crime in billions of dollars annually. this is not about "fans and sharing."

Artists, Know Thy Enemy – Who’s Ripping You Off and How… | The Trichordist

Wall Of Shame : BMW Willing to “Drive” Without License | The Trichordist

remember, google paid a half a billion dollars last year in a non-prosecution settlement to keep it's board from being indicted... IE, they had knowledge of wrong doing.

while we're playing ring around the rosy here on GS, there are people in the world actually working on real law enforcement for real crimes. the illegal exploitation of artists work is just collateral damage in a much, much larger picture of illegal activity.

stay tuned...
Old 8th August 2012
  #40
AyA
Lives for gear
 
AyA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfinger View Post
" Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
Steven Write said "You can't have everything, where would you put it."

I just want to know what everything tastes like.
Old 8th August 2012
  #41
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I think you may be confusing your talking points here. Aren't the sites that you tend to allege as illegitmately benefitting from the distribution of unlicensed material already DMCA non-compliant? What are some examples of DMCA-compliant sites that you think have reason to be excluded from safe harbor on the basis of their contextual advertising?
youtube. google.
if google is hiding behind the dmca because they don't know what they're serving, but they know what they're serving to provide targeted advertising... well then... they're lying. and if they know what they're serving to serve targeted, specific advertising against specific content, than well, it's not dumb pipe, it's pretty smart actually.
From the US Copyright Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by § 512. C
(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users.—

(1) In general. — A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, ... if the service provider -
...
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
...
I take it that this contention is based on the bolded paragraph §512.C(b). The implication you make is that Google or Youtube should not qualify for the limitation of liability expressed in §512.C because you claim that they can identify the licensing status of material and can determine whether it is infringing on a copyright. Do you have a link to the blog where this talking point originated? I'm curious whether there is any more-comprehensive legal analysis to support these claims, because by my view they seem unactionably weak.

The only material that Youtube can identify is that which has been enrolled in the Content ID program. Contextual advertising is only -- and can only be -- based on the text fields surrounding the video content, because software simply cannot identify a non-fingerprinted video or audio stream, and certainly cannot affirmatively identify whether the uploader is licensed to distribute the material. Copyright status is mechanically intangible as I've said in the past, and identifying infringing material is no simple task. And for the finger-printed material which can be affirmatively identified, Content ID provides control above and beyond the legal obligations.

When a user submits video to Youtube, that user affirms himself as being an authorized license-holder of the content he is uploading. Combined with a DMCA policy to handle content alleged as infringing, Youtube is indemnified from liability barring additional circumstances.

It is an interesting talking point to suggest that contextual advertising could forfeit DMCA protections (and again, if you can link the blog of its origination I would be interested to read it), but I can't see how it can address the fact that the context for that advertising is not based on the allegedly-infringing material, but rather on satellite text fields and on user-profiles developed elsewhere.
Old 8th August 2012
  #42
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdrake View Post
Watching analogue tv broadcast or listening to analogue radio broascast is not illegal because you are not making a copy.

Recording tv or radio broadcast onto tape always has been illegal. I have never heard any broadcaster definitively explain that a viewer/listener be allowed the right to record a broadcast.

Watching youtube is illegal because it is not streaming. The way it works is that a file is copied and then viewed.

There is no way round this unless the law is changed or the technology is changed.

For the public, youtube may SEEM similar to watching analogue TV. But this is because of their technical ignorance and/or because youtube don't want to properly inform. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But it is the current situation.

If a judge says that watching youtube should not be considered illegal (although technically it is) then surely you can take his descision and apply it to people using bit torrent as well? They use different protocols but at the end of the day data is just copying from one computer to another.

How could you stand in court and say copying of data is technically illegal via youtube and illegal via bittorrent, but via youtube it should not be considred illegal because to the user it SEEMS like they are not performing a file copy?
It's not really what the technology does behind the scenes, but what it "seems" to do in the eyes of the human operating the technological device that matters. CD players for instance make a "copy" of the song in memory for shock-protection, yet I never heard of anyone being sued for playing a CD on a CD Player with shock protection. I'm sure a radio these days does similar things to smooth out the broadcast (also stuff like error-correcting codes, where are derived from the original copyrighted signal).

Computers in general make copies of data very often in process of processing it (in persistent devices, in RAM, in L1 cache, in L2 cache, in registers, etc.). So if we consider what is actually happening behind the scenes, everyone violates copyright thousands of times per second.
Old 8th August 2012
  #43
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
From the US Copyright Code:

I take it that this contention is based on the bolded paragraph §512.C(b). The implication you make is that Google or Youtube should not qualify for the limitation of liability expressed in §512.C because you claim that they can identify the licensing status of material and can determine whether it is infringing on a copyright. Do you have a link to the blog where this talking point originated? I'm curious whether there is any more-comprehensive legal analysis to support these claims, because by my view they seem unactionably weak.

The only material that Youtube can identify is that which has been enrolled in the Content ID program. Contextual advertising is only -- and can only be -- based on the text fields surrounding the video content, because software simply cannot identify a non-fingerprinted video or audio stream, and certainly cannot affirmatively identify whether the uploader is licensed to distribute the material. Copyright status is mechanically intangible as I've said in the past, and identifying infringing material is no simple task. And for the finger-printed material which can be affirmatively identified, Content ID provides control above and beyond the legal obligations.

When a user submits video to Youtube, that user affirms himself as being an authorized license-holder of the content he is uploading. Combined with a DMCA policy to handle content alleged as infringing, Youtube is indemnified from liability barring additional circumstances.

It is an interesting talking point to suggest that contextual advertising could forfeit DMCA protections (and again, if you can link the blog of its origination I would be interested to read it), but I can't see how it can address the fact that the context for that advertising is not based on the allegedly-infringing material, but rather on satellite text fields and on user-profiles developed elsewhere.
It's very important to note that copyright and the infringement thereof is not an attribute of data ("mechanically intangible" as you said). It's only really a court of law that can determine that some specific situation is copyright infringement, not Google and certainly not rack_gear.

The whole "Content ID" system is an example of a website operator, in this case Google, overstepping their bounds. It's absolutely inappropriate and unfair from a justice perspective that an automated system with no regards to things like fair use is some kind of arbiter of what is legitimate in a legal sense. Kind of funny that rack_gear thinks it doesn't go far enough, but not surprising. Copyright as a "law" has always been inconvenient to its largest proponents, as has been the judicial process that is typical present in a democratic and progressive country.
Old 8th August 2012
  #44
Lives for gear
 

There is a difference between a buffer and a full computer file copy.

A computer file represents a completed work which can be viewed or listened to.

A buffer is just a bunch of temporary data which by itself is pretty meaningless, it only makes sense in context. You cannot open up a router or hdmi cable and "see" a whole movie.

If you download a file you have made a copy of a piece if work. I do not see how you can argue this as being the same as a buffer.
Old 8th August 2012
  #45
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdrake View Post
There is a difference between a buffer and a full computer file copy.
...
If you download a file you have made a copy of a piece if work. I do not see how you can argue this as being the same as a buffer.
The law does not split those hairs, and it is wise not to. We don't want laws that so strictly define what a "buffer" is or is not, because then we must design technology around those definitions which will likely already be outmoded by the time they are passed. Why should a buffer have to exist exclusively in RAM, anyway? If it's offloaded to disk, the RAM can be used for other things. What's the real difference between RAM and a disk drive, anyway? Is there one; does there have to be one? What about pagefiles? What about RAM drives (which are getting more and more popular now with consumer-level SSDs, incidentally)? Data in RAM can be captured through user action just the same as a temporary object in a file system can be.

Can you answer these, and many more questions in a legally clear manner without resulting in government deciding how computers and software should be designed, structured, and operated? If not, then it's probably best that the legal language remain broad enough to encapsulate an intent without constricting technological and scientific advancement.
Old 9th August 2012
  #46
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
The law does not split those hairs, and it is wise not to. We don't want laws that so strictly define what a "buffer" is or is not, because then we must design technology around those definitions which will likely already be outmoded by the time they are passed. Why should a buffer have to exist exclusively in RAM, anyway? If it's offloaded to disk, the RAM can be used for other things. What's the real difference between RAM and a disk drive, anyway? Is there one; does there have to be one? What about pagefiles? What about RAM drives (which are getting more and more popular now with consumer-level SSDs, incidentally)? Data in RAM can be captured through user action just the same as a temporary object in a file system can be.

Can you answer these, and many more questions in a legally clear manner without resulting in government deciding how computers and software should be designed, structured, and operated? If not, then it's probably best that the legal language remain broad enough to encapsulate an intent without constricting technological and scientific advancement.
Agreed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App
Old 9th August 2012
  #47
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdrake View Post
There is a difference between a buffer and a full computer file copy.

A computer file represents a completed work which can be viewed or listened to.
Not necessarily. I can save one byte in a computer file that represents a small fraction of a "work", and that computer file doesn't have to be permanent or even stored in storage devices with a long term persistence capability.

Quote:
A buffer is just a bunch of temporary data which by itself is pretty meaningless, it only makes sense in context. You cannot open up a router or hdmi cable and "see" a whole movie.
A 'buffer' says nothing about its persistence strategy. It could be on your computer for 1 millisecond, or forever. Or it could be a circular buffer, where the duration of persistence is not even easily determined in advance. Throw in the complexity that virtual memory and the fact that deletion only deletes inodes adds and you'll never know if data was actually moved, removed, or where the hell it is without tracing the kernel's execution.

Quote:
If you download a file you have made a copy of a piece if work. I do not see how you can argue this as being the same as a buffer.
Not really. If I pipe that download to /dev/null, I do not ever retain a copy of that work in any form I can easily play back. The thing is, once you send your data over the pipes or through the air ("true" broadcast), you have no idea what the endpoint devices will do with it. The key thing here is what the sender does is not connected to what the receiver does. In any medium.
Old 9th August 2012
  #48
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
The law does not split those hairs, and it is wise not to. We don't want laws that so strictly define what a "buffer" is or is not, because then we must design technology around those definitions which will likely already be outmoded by the time they are passed. Why should a buffer have to exist exclusively in RAM, anyway? If it's offloaded to disk, the RAM can be used for other things. What's the real difference between RAM and a disk drive, anyway? Is there one; does there have to be one? What about pagefiles? What about RAM drives (which are getting more and more popular now with consumer-level SSDs, incidentally)? Data in RAM can be captured through user action just the same as a temporary object in a file system can be.

Can you answer these, and many more questions in a legally clear manner without resulting in government deciding how computers and software should be designed, structured, and operated? If not, then it's probably best that the legal language remain broad enough to encapsulate an intent without constricting technological and scientific advancement.
++ Better said than me.
Old 9th August 2012
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
When a user submits video to Youtube, that user affirms himself as being an authorized license-holder of the content he is uploading. Combined with a DMCA policy to handle content alleged as infringing, Youtube is indemnified from liability barring additional circumstances.
for now... if there's knowledge, there's no longer safe harbor.

and that's just the tip of the iceberg...
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/8135323-post58.html
Old 9th August 2012
  #50
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
When a user submits video to Youtube, that user affirms himself as being an authorized license-holder of the content he is uploading. Combined with a DMCA policy to handle content alleged as infringing, Youtube is indemnified from liability barring additional circumstances.
for now... if there's knowledge, there's no longer safe harbor.

and that's just the tip of the iceberg...
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/8135323-post58.html
So to clarify, you aren't actually accusing Youtube and Google, which you explicitly named as sites that have reason for exclusion from the DMCA "safe harbor" provision... of doing anything that would warrant the forfeiture of their limitation of liability?

If so, then, and not to accuse you of anything so underhanded as baselessly fear-mongering by peppering your posts with oblique references to drug lords, mafiosos, and slavers whilst accusing those who suggest gaps in your reasoning of supporting the same... but are you baselessly fear-mongering?
Old 9th August 2012
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
So to clarify, you aren't actually accusing Youtube and Google, which you explicitly named as sites that have reason for exclusion from the DMCA "safe harbor" provision... of doing anything that would warrant the forfeiture of their limitation of liability?
no, actually I am. if they know what they have on their networks (which they do), than they lose DMCA safe harbor. want proof? context based advertising. do you think it's a coincidence that BMW was advertising against the "Drive" Soundtrack? I don't think so, sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
If so, then, and not to accuse you of anything so underhanded as baselessly fear-mongering by peppering your posts with oblique references to drug lords, mafiosos, and slavers whilst accusing those who suggest gaps in your reasoning of supporting the same... but are you baselessly fear-mongering?
Sorry if you are offended by the truth... google already paid half a billion dollars to settle a non-prosecution agreement to keep it's board of directors being indicted for having knowledge of wrong doing serving ads for illegal drugs.

there is a petition now against the village voice to stop the aid of human tracking and sex slavery.
http://mashable.com/2012/03/29/village-voice-backpage/

and the letter to larry page has still gone unanswered...
Google’s Human Trafficking Ad Policy Questioned - Search Engine Watch (#SEW)

you're rooting for the wrong team...
https://musictechpolicy.wordpress.co...wall-of-shame/

advocacy, or astroturf? hmmm...
Google and Facebook's new tactic in the tech wars - Fortune Tech

there's nothing wrong with the internet, any more than there's anything wrong with guns, roads or cars, but when they are used illegally, there should be consequences.

buckle up.
Old 10th August 2012
  #52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
You can read it over here: List of Documents in case

Judge Posner did not create new law, but clarified copyright law, especially the acts of viewing/streaming content and embedding/linking content. It's not a surprising decision, but it is a good one none the less.

The key point is that simply consuming copyrighted content that wasn't authorized is not copyright infringement. IE: I can't sue you for reading this text that I wrote right now. If you copy the text and put it on your personal website, that's a different story.

The implications of this is it is impossible to commit copyright infringement by browsing videos on YouTube for instance. You can commit copyright infringement by uploading unauthorized videos, or using a tool to persist them onto your computer. It is also impossible to commit copyright infringement by linking or embedding a unauthorized video. The infringement liability is entirely on the original uploader.

Again this not all surprising, but it's good clarification to have since it seemed to be a quazi-gray area. He attacked the issue directly.

This is still a gray or even black area if anything in other countries in the world. One strange place for this is the United Kingdom, where visiting a website for any reason is still considered copyright infringement unless you get documentation that the site owner authorizes you to access his copyrighted material (ie. the site). That is, visiting this website (gearslutz) is probably copyright infringement if you live in the UK.
I don't believe that anybody has ever claimed that simply browsing videos is copyright infringement. Certainly not around here.

However certain folks have vociferously claimed that people have claimed that.

It's kinda like people claiming that the RIAA sues people for downloading when in fact it's (A) the record companies, not the RIAA, and (B) the suits were for filesharing, i.e. uploading, i.e. distribution, not simple downloading.

Most of the anti-copyright crew's most vociferous arguments are based on misstating and mischaracterizing the facts.
Old 10th August 2012
  #53
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...
Most of the anti-copyright crew's most vociferous arguments are based on misstating and mischaracterizing the facts.
Why argue facts when you can make up your own reality?
It's much easier to get people riled up if you feed them lies.


P.S. WB John!
Old 10th August 2012
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
no, actually I am. if they know what they have on their networks (which they do), than they lose DMCA safe harbor. want proof? context based advertising. do you think it's a coincidence that BMW was advertising against the "Drive" Soundtrack? I don't think so, sorry.
Actually it seems that BMW themselves knew nothing about placing their ad against the "Drive" soundtrack, it was 100% Google's doing. When BMW was alerted to it happening they immediately pulled the advertizing and instituted a reexamination of their policies on ad placement and placement providers.

BMW’s Response to Ads for Its Brands on Pirate Sites | The Trichordist
Old 10th August 2012
  #55
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

.
I just decided to bypass all the BS, and read what the Judge actually
wrote
.
...My favorite line so far:
"Brevity is the soul of wit and tediousness
its limbs and outward flourishes."
.
Old 10th August 2012
  #56
You know, the title of this thread is quite misleading - it wasn't really a ruling on copyright at all - it was a ruling on a technicality in one specific case.

Sure, it's a copyright case - but the ruling was essentially that the plaintiff hadn't provided sufficient evidence of infringement to support a suit.
Old 10th August 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 

John, in hindsight I guess I could have made the thread title "Interesting Appellate Court Ruling "IN" Copyright Case". Was not trying to mislead, just alert. What makes it interesting to us are elements / concepts in that particular ruling others will cite in future cases. I would guess this judge specifically crafted this ruling to be used this way or it could have been short with no specifics and reasoning so in reality it will have an effect "ON" copyright cases.
Old 10th August 2012
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Actually it seems that BMW themselves knew nothing about placing their ad against the "Drive" soundtrack, it was 100% Google's doing. When BMW was alerted to it happening they immediately pulled the advertizing and instituted a reexamination of their policies on ad placement and placement providers.

BMW’s Response to Ads for Its Brands on Pirate Sites | The Trichordist
Old 10th August 2012
  #59
AyA
Lives for gear
 
AyA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Actually it seems that BMW themselves knew nothing about placing their ad against the "Drive" soundtrack, it was 100% Google's doing.
Actually pointing fingers and calling each other names is a waste of effort and something I learned about fifteen minutes after I started socialising...


Have you ever socialised?


Did you ever find out what an analogy is?


Are you well?
Old 11th August 2012
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AyA View Post
Actually pointing fingers and calling each other names is a waste of effort and something I learned about fifteen minutes after I started socialising...


Have you ever socialised?


Did you ever find out what an analogy is?


Are you well?
BMW took appropriate action when notified of wrong doing. This is the correct response.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump