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 11th August 2012
  #61
Lives for gear
 
aTelecine-Lex's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrotto View Post
Some folks are saying it's not that cut and dry.

Read the article on copyhype.com. It's a much more thorough and nuanced analysis, from an actual lawyer.
I have yet to take firm position on the opinion in the instant case; Therefore my following comment is not for the purpose of argument for a particular litigant.

With the above qualification - I would like to point out that while "some" may very well not see it as "cut and dry" - Posner's opinion for the Court is what carries the ultimate weight. What's more his reasoning is that of a Judge. While I give Terry all due respect as a lawyer, and indeed enjoy his thoughtful and insightful views of cases in this area - It appears, at least your comment implies to me that somehow a lawyer whom was not even involved in the instant case has a better reasoned position of the issue then Judge Posner who wrote the opinion?

You may well have meant it differently - However it would surely more prudent for anyone interested in this case or similar issues to first read the full opinion of the court before legal commentary (as brilliant as it may or may not be)

I would like to read the opinion more thoroughly, when I have occasion;

However, it appears to be a well reasoned and intriguing opinion. Of course some will disagree but from my quick reading of it's not based on any quickly constructed "cut and dry" legal reasoning.

I have not read Terry Heart's opinion on the ruling, but Posner is generally known for having intellectual and typically vert well reasoned opinions. In fact, I like many others were quite surprised he took the position he did.

Perhaps it would be of greater import to ponder what this opinion will mean for future issues which share similar aspects to this case.

Particularly as it seems the imbedding of all sorts of content is a rapidly increasing activity along many different social networks.

*Edit I read it more clearly now that you meant to contrast Terry's analysis with that of TechDirt. I stand with my the main point (that people should first read the actual opinion in totality before any other commentary) I do stand corrected insofar as I am sure Terry offered a much better and likely more fair analysis the TechDirt likely did.
Old 11th August 2012
  #62
Quote:
Originally Posted by aTelecine-Lex View Post
Perhaps it would be of greater import to ponder what this opinion will mean for future issues which share similar aspects to this case.
like the theft of compensation to creators? yeah, I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aTelecine-Lex View Post
Particularly as it seems the imbedding of all sorts of content is a rapidly increasing activity along many different social networks.
Just because a lot of people are doing something does not conclude that it is legal to do so. I'd read Terry's summary when you get a chance.

Flava Works v Gunter: Injunction Vacated | Copyhype

Understanding Flava Works v myVidster: does inline linking infringe copyright? | Barry Sookman

maybe review this as well...

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and...hanna?page=0,0
Old 11th August 2012
  #63
Quote:
Originally Posted by aTelecine-Lex View Post
*Edit I read it more clearly now that you meant to contrast Terry's analysis with that of TechDirt. I stand with my the main point (that people should first read the actual opinion in totality before any other commentary) I do stand corrected insofar as I am sure Terry offered a much better and likely more fair analysis the TechDirt likely did.
that's an understatement. there is nothing fair or balanced about techdirt... it's an astroturf disinformation outlet funded by Google and the CCIA.

here's the real issue...

there's nothing free or open about human trafficking, money laundering (ad laundering), racketeering, etc...

Isohunt: Bringing People Together on the Wall of Shame

you should at least know how many and what crimes you are supporting, and who is committing those crimes.
Old 12th August 2012
  #64
Lives for gear
 
aTelecine-Lex's Avatar
I am not quite sure what, if any, intention was behind the replies you offered after quoting some text from my previous post.

In the interest of clarity, I would like to point out that irrespective of one's position on the issue, my intent was to suggest that we look how this issue may effect or inform the future of this on going issue.

And with regard to the links you provided in the later portion of your reply - They may indeed be interesting reviews or commentary about separate, but interrelated matters. However, I am personally only concerned with the instant case - at least insofar as any comments I have made (or may make) on this topic.

Best,
Lex
Old 17th August 2012
  #65
What is important to understand is how musicians, artists and creators will be protected and compensated for their labor. It's really that simple. What we can hope going forward is people act responsibly and think twice about the consequences before ripping off artists and creators.

It's funny how musicians are accused of whining when we get robbed, but it looks like someone should get eric goldman a warm bottle to settle him down... the faithful are going to be really bummed out when they learn what we already know, this is about money, pure and simple. There are no great ideologies at work here other then capitalism and greed.

Why Did Google Flip-Flop On Cracking Down On "Rogue" Websites? Some Troubling Possibilities - Forbes



Quote:
“What would I say to the people that are sitting in front of their computers–believing in revolution–I would tell them that they are subjects or victims of false consciousness, that they’re wrong— that they’re believing in something that doesn’t really exist–that they’re dupes–they’re exploited, particularly those that give away their labor for free so that young men in Silicone Valley can become infinitely rich.” – Andrew Keen
Old 18th August 2012
  #66
Lives for gear
 

Ironically, I suppose the same could be said for the peace and love and drug "revolution" of the 60s, which made a few rock stars rich and powerful as well as the business men who owned and sold them.
Old 18th August 2012
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
Ironically, I suppose the same could be said for the peace and love and drug "revolution" of the 60s, which made a few rock stars rich and powerful as well as the business men who owned and sold them.
I don't think it's ironic at all, just history repeating itself. those who don't learn from the past are forced to (er uhmmm) profit from it...
Old 18th August 2012
  #68
Lives for gear
 

The irony is that that generation's musicians sang "imagine no possessions" and 'imagine all the people sharing all the world", and, as it turns out, musicians are the first ones on the chopping block.

Be careful what you wish for.
Old 18th August 2012
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
I don't think it's ironic at all, just history repeating itself. those who don't learn from the past are forced to (er uhmmm) profit from it...
Or not, as the case may be.....
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump