Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances - Revision history

User777: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-15T20:15:04Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 15 March 2013
Line 136:		Line 136:
	Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.		Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.
	[[User:User777\|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		[[User:User777\|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
			***

	:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Ryanb: /* Links */

2013-03-13T14:31:44Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 13 March 2013
Line 41:		Line 41:

	== Links ==		== Links ==

			===Links From Adobe Connect Session===
			WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/

			More on WIPO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization

			More on the DMCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

			Google frequently changes their algorithms: http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/25/technology/gaming_google/index.htm

			A (not entirely impartial) analysis of the dajaz1 case: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

			Counter notice form on Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf

			The Baby Dancing to Prince Story: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/home-video-prince/story?id=3777651

			Sociological research on user understanding of copyright - http://alexleavitt.com/nocopyrightintended/

			Low-Orbit Ion Cannon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Orbit_Ion_Cannon

			Molly Sauter's Lunch Talk: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2013/01/sauter

			A site that tracks some of the real-time cyber attacks around the world: http://map.honeycloud.net/

			Neil Gaiman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman

			Thrift Shop Music Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

			Article on the UStream issue: http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-awards

			Copyright on Federal Government Works 17 USC 105: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105

			Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

			Retraction Watch's comments on what happened: https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/anil-potti-posts-restored-to-retraction-watch-following-false-dmca-claim/

	== Class Discussion ==		== Class Discussion ==

Johnathan Merkwan: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T21:41:06Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 12 March 2013
Line 149:		Line 149:
	The advent of the six-strikes rule speaks of the integrated and basically unambiguous power of Empire to replicate and self-instantiate over the voiceless objections of the Multitude. In these spaces, I have previously discussed critiques of the ontology of intellectual property. In particular, I have sought to cast doubt on the doctrine that the Internet promotes or even allows a harmonious equilibrium of online behaviors in which the distribution of power is subject to communitary consensus. In no sense should these attacks be construed as hostile to the project of copyright enforcement as such. Although prephilosophical fallacies involving the "natural rights" of "creators" mislead us with mellifluous rhetoric, the reality of bourgeois governance remains, as always, rooted in the persistence of the state. It is the height of unintentional self-destruction for the disorganized proletariat to imagine that it can continue its expropriative rampage against the culture industry, for the endless and inward-curling systems of Empire still function unambivalently in the service of the elite. Whether or not this is to be "desired" is essentially irrelevant, as the "problem," so modeled, is insoluble. It is unrealistic to imagine a more indulgent regime with regard to copyright infringement; internal tensions between the cultural, governmental, and telecommunicative modules of the Empire have granted 5- count em, 5- opportunities for unaccountable criminality to the Multitude. To imagine the possibility of another world is impractical and self-delusive.		The advent of the six-strikes rule speaks of the integrated and basically unambiguous power of Empire to replicate and self-instantiate over the voiceless objections of the Multitude. In these spaces, I have previously discussed critiques of the ontology of intellectual property. In particular, I have sought to cast doubt on the doctrine that the Internet promotes or even allows a harmonious equilibrium of online behaviors in which the distribution of power is subject to communitary consensus. In no sense should these attacks be construed as hostile to the project of copyright enforcement as such. Although prephilosophical fallacies involving the "natural rights" of "creators" mislead us with mellifluous rhetoric, the reality of bourgeois governance remains, as always, rooted in the persistence of the state. It is the height of unintentional self-destruction for the disorganized proletariat to imagine that it can continue its expropriative rampage against the culture industry, for the endless and inward-curling systems of Empire still function unambivalently in the service of the elite. Whether or not this is to be "desired" is essentially irrelevant, as the "problem," so modeled, is insoluble. It is unrealistic to imagine a more indulgent regime with regard to copyright infringement; internal tensions between the cultural, governmental, and telecommunicative modules of the Empire have granted 5- count em, 5- opportunities for unaccountable criminality to the Multitude. To imagine the possibility of another world is impractical and self-delusive.
	[[User:Johnfloyd6675\|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:30, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		[[User:Johnfloyd6675\|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:30, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

			***

			This section of Editing Copyright Part 2, is about Enforcement and Balances, and it spoke a lot about plagiarism and identity froad. Hereis why.
			Who cares? Not Wittgenstein!
			Now what? PDF's are more secure than webpages.
			What's next? A system of infalalibility because internet communication is not the next thing enymore. So basically What's next is not a sitcom.
			Is this really worth mentioning? No.
			What is this author's opinion? Get a life!
			To conclude, merely the act of enforcement is not something Balances pertain to because Enforcement is a power of the Judiciary only at a policing level; whereas, Balances are required by the Court, good to be in the House and Senate, and are a sign of a good Democratic President. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan\|Johnathan Merkwan]] 17:41, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

			***

Johnfloyd6675 at 21:30, 12 March 2013

2013-03-12T21:30:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 12 March 2013
Line 144:		Line 144:

	[[User:CyberRalph\|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		[[User:CyberRalph\|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

			***

			The advent of the six-strikes rule speaks of the integrated and basically unambiguous power of Empire to replicate and self-instantiate over the voiceless objections of the Multitude. In these spaces, I have previously discussed critiques of the ontology of intellectual property. In particular, I have sought to cast doubt on the doctrine that the Internet promotes or even allows a harmonious equilibrium of online behaviors in which the distribution of power is subject to communitary consensus. In no sense should these attacks be construed as hostile to the project of copyright enforcement as such. Although prephilosophical fallacies involving the "natural rights" of "creators" mislead us with mellifluous rhetoric, the reality of bourgeois governance remains, as always, rooted in the persistence of the state. It is the height of unintentional self-destruction for the disorganized proletariat to imagine that it can continue its expropriative rampage against the culture industry, for the endless and inward-curling systems of Empire still function unambivalently in the service of the elite. Whether or not this is to be "desired" is essentially irrelevant, as the "problem," so modeled, is insoluble. It is unrealistic to imagine a more indulgent regime with regard to copyright infringement; internal tensions between the cultural, governmental, and telecommunicative modules of the Empire have granted 5- count em, 5- opportunities for unaccountable criminality to the Multitude. To imagine the possibility of another world is impractical and self-delusive.
			[[User:Johnfloyd6675\|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:30, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

CyberRalph: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T21:26:09Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 12 March 2013
Line 134:		Line 134:

	Super Bust and The In Rem Forfeiture paper presented further disturbing evidence of the disconnect between how the internet operates and how it is governed. It seems to me that the judges may not have understood that the domain names were property with potential income streams attached, and that the crimes they were accused of were commercial and non-urgent. I'd like to think that because the alternative seems so much more disturbing. Possibly again I am being naive. I have seen those forums, though not the chat rooms, and I agree, that if you are looking for a quick way to stream or download free movies, books, music and TV shows, you'll find plenty there to help you. I was interested to learn that these discussions were protected by the First Amendment, I think I'd just assumed that there were too many of them to shut down. I am, however, coming around to believe that something effective should be done about the piracy of these works. We have, over the last ten years or so, seen a tremendous transfer of value from the movie studios and music publishers to those willing to download illegally. It seems to me it is time to capture that value and account for it. I think, if I thought about it at all, I justified arguing against devoting law-enforcement to controlling piracy to the assumption that these companies were shifting revenue outside the U.S. to avoid taxes. I think I found it distasteful that they would then turnaround and insist that we, the public, help them capture lost income. (I certainly am not willing to pay the taxes to support jail time for those downloading content illegally.) I understand that many people who download without purchasing would not purchase, as many who stream without paying would also not purchase. I do believe though, that they would do something else, and I'm wondering if we are capturing that aspect accurately. I'm also wondering if somehow, we were able to capture that value, it might pay for some or all of the needed up-grade to our internet infrastructure. [[User:Raven\|Raven]] 15:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		Super Bust and The In Rem Forfeiture paper presented further disturbing evidence of the disconnect between how the internet operates and how it is governed. It seems to me that the judges may not have understood that the domain names were property with potential income streams attached, and that the crimes they were accused of were commercial and non-urgent. I'd like to think that because the alternative seems so much more disturbing. Possibly again I am being naive. I have seen those forums, though not the chat rooms, and I agree, that if you are looking for a quick way to stream or download free movies, books, music and TV shows, you'll find plenty there to help you. I was interested to learn that these discussions were protected by the First Amendment, I think I'd just assumed that there were too many of them to shut down. I am, however, coming around to believe that something effective should be done about the piracy of these works. We have, over the last ten years or so, seen a tremendous transfer of value from the movie studios and music publishers to those willing to download illegally. It seems to me it is time to capture that value and account for it. I think, if I thought about it at all, I justified arguing against devoting law-enforcement to controlling piracy to the assumption that these companies were shifting revenue outside the U.S. to avoid taxes. I think I found it distasteful that they would then turnaround and insist that we, the public, help them capture lost income. (I certainly am not willing to pay the taxes to support jail time for those downloading content illegally.) I understand that many people who download without purchasing would not purchase, as many who stream without paying would also not purchase. I do believe though, that they would do something else, and I'm wondering if we are capturing that aspect accurately. I'm also wondering if somehow, we were able to capture that value, it might pay for some or all of the needed up-grade to our internet infrastructure. [[User:Raven\|Raven]] 15:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

			****

			With regards to the DMCA and, more specifically, the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions, it seems to me that anything that facilitates the access to or general interaction with the Internet (such as ISPs or search engines) should not be held responsible for specific content. However, services such as web hosting and individual websites that allow public posting should be held responsible for the information that they are actively providing the public since they are the one and only means by which that information can be accessed.

			After hearing the Slung-lo song, I have to admit that while it's not my typical genre of music, the tune is catchy and to my untrained and unprofessional ear there is no doubt whatsoever that the song was copied. However the article seemed to focus too much on the emotions of the legal battle and less on the legal technicalities and nuances, which would have been much more interesting.

			Finally, one comment with regards to the so-called seizure of domain names. In the instance referenced by the Super Bust posting, as best as I can tell, the government only succeeded in forcing the registry redirect nameserver requests and did not succeed in blocking all traffic to those sites. In practical terms, if someone wanted to access these websites, all they would presumably have to do is enter the IP address into their web browser and they would still have full access.

			[[User:CyberRalph\|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Asellars: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T21:05:53Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 12 March 2013
Line 94:		Line 94:

	::::It's totally possible that the fact that it wasn't the scene of a death was evident to anyone viewing the clip closely. I just didn't watch closely. And I do appreciate the need to pressure event sponsors to ensure adequate public safety, especially if the attendees lack the good sense to manage that aspect of self-preservation for themselves. But must Google earn advertising revenue from the repeated viewing of another's misfortune? Or must Google pay for the hosting of such a video, if they cannot or will not earn revenue from hosting it? I don't think your point about whether we are viewing a death or a severe injury or merely a prolonged hospital stay is a minor one. I also don't think that we've been given enough evidence that Google has an obligation to host the video. However, I am willing to learn that that is because I haven't been paying sufficient attention. I don't mean to take censorship lightly, I hope that I don't. Nor do I mean to say that we should have some public morals squad, out removing videos that offend. I wouldn't want that either. I just would like to understand more clearly why it is in our best interests to tell Google what they can and cannot host on their servers, when what they are hosting could be offensive to many and the value the content provides to anyone is not clear. If you say that the existence of that video on YouTube saved lives, or provided some other public good, and you also say that we, the public, have given Google something other than our time and attention, something valuable that gives us the right to insist that they provide bandwidth to save lives, then ok. I can get behind that. [[User:Raven\|Raven]] 14:51, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		::::It's totally possible that the fact that it wasn't the scene of a death was evident to anyone viewing the clip closely. I just didn't watch closely. And I do appreciate the need to pressure event sponsors to ensure adequate public safety, especially if the attendees lack the good sense to manage that aspect of self-preservation for themselves. But must Google earn advertising revenue from the repeated viewing of another's misfortune? Or must Google pay for the hosting of such a video, if they cannot or will not earn revenue from hosting it? I don't think your point about whether we are viewing a death or a severe injury or merely a prolonged hospital stay is a minor one. I also don't think that we've been given enough evidence that Google has an obligation to host the video. However, I am willing to learn that that is because I haven't been paying sufficient attention. I don't mean to take censorship lightly, I hope that I don't. Nor do I mean to say that we should have some public morals squad, out removing videos that offend. I wouldn't want that either. I just would like to understand more clearly why it is in our best interests to tell Google what they can and cannot host on their servers, when what they are hosting could be offensive to many and the value the content provides to anyone is not clear. If you say that the existence of that video on YouTube saved lives, or provided some other public good, and you also say that we, the public, have given Google something other than our time and attention, something valuable that gives us the right to insist that they provide bandwidth to save lives, then ok. I can get behind that. [[User:Raven\|Raven]] 14:51, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

			:::::That's a great set of points. As to Google's right or reason for hosting it on YouTube, all I would add for perspective is the practical fact that having websites like YouTube substantially lowers the barriers to entry for participation online. (Imagine how tough a space this would be if everyone had to understand web publishing from DNS registration and CNAME setup through FTP through HTML in order to have a web page.) So all forms of online publication platforms - YouTube, Blogger, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, etc. – all serve an important value-added in that they lower the technical literacy necessary to get material online, and provide a platform that increases the likelihood that at least some network of people will see it. They, in effect, become the public squares of the online world. Should the profit, should they not, should they or the users decide what goes into the public debate – these are the really, really tough questions that we face now. What Section 230 does in the defamation/privacy world and Section 512 does in the copyright world is push a lot of the liability – and thus a lot of the legal pressure on the decisionmaking process, onto the user. But this doesn't mean the social media spaces will simply do what the user does – it can also mean that they can exercise their own editorial judgment based on their own values, and there's not much we can do as users to persuade them to change their mind. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 17:05, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

	****		****

Asellars: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T21:00:18Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 12 March 2013
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)		:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

	:Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		::Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

			:::Were NASCAR to do that expect me to argue the case for the student pro bono. :-) (By the way, the credit card slip argument was the best I could come up with as to a writing, but I think it's a failure as well.) More seriously, NASCAR can always exercise the rights of trespass law and remove someone once their presence was no longer welcome – and that right is what keeps NBC from cutting into Fox's exclusive coverage by buying a ticket and showing up. As to Google's role, it's worth nothing that Google's decision was not without a risk – by exercising its own discretion there what they did was remove their chance to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, and thus exposing themselves for a potential contributory liability claim by hosting the material. Their decision to take that risk is very interesting, and not unlike how they would approach any other liability question outside of the DMCA world – they are immune from suit either way, and opt to decide based on their own interests. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 17:00, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

	****		****

Joshywonder: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T20:28:11Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 12 March 2013
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)		:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

	:Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would ~~like~~ be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		:Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

	****		****

Joshywonder: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T20:27:20Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 12 March 2013
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)		:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

	:Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would like be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)		:Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would like be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

	****		****

Joshywonder: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-12T20:26:19Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 12 March 2013
Line 49:		Line 49:

	:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)		:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars\|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

			:Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would like be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder\|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

	****		****