mfioretti: copyright*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

440 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. 1)The UK Government have announced they have developed an algorithmic tool to remove ISIS presence from the web.
    2) Copyright industries have called for similar programs to be installed that can remove un-approved creative content in the United States.
    3) The European Commission has suggested that filters can be used to “proactively detect, identify, and remove” anything illegal – from comments sections on news sites to Facebook posts.
    4) The Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, currently being debated by MEPs, is proposing using technical filters to block copyrighted content from being posted.

    There’s a recklessness to all of these proposals – because so much of them involve sidestepping legal processes.

    EFF coined the term “shadow regulation” for rules that are made outside of the legislative process, and that’s what is happening here. A cosy relationship between business and governments has developed that the public are being left outside of when it comes to limiting online speech.
    Voting 0
  2. Ever since the European Commission presented its hugely controversial proposal to force internet platforms to employ censorship machines, the copyright world has been eagerly awaiting the position of the European Parliament. Today, the person tasked with steering the copyright reform through Parliament, rapporteur Axel Voss, has finally issued the text he wants the Parliament to go forward with.

    It’s a green light for censorship machines: Mr. Voss has kept the proposal originally penned by his German party colleague, former Digital Commissioner Günther Oettinger, almost completely intact.

    In doing so, he is dismissing calls from across the political spectrum to stop the censorship machines. He is ignoring one and a half years of intense academic and political debate pointing out the proposal’s many glaring flaws. He is discarding the work of several committees of the Parliament which came out against upload filters, and of his predecessor and party colleague MEP Comodini, who had correctly identified the problems almost a year ago. He is brushing off the concerns about the proposal’s legality several national governments have voiced in Council. And he is going against the recently published coalition agreement of the new German government – which is going to include Voss’ own Christian Democratic Party – where filtering obligations are rejected as disproportionate.
    Voting 0
  3. The central issue, which is also hidden in plain sight, is – after all – the moral rights of authors (“Lockean natural rights”) as established in the Enlightenment and as enshrined in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886)

    5/ Both the EC and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have shown no interest in addressing this set of rights, given the inherent abstract nature of such rights and given that both are operating on behalf of industry in a global IP campaign that resembles the “weaponizing” of IP rights

    6/ Given that economic data (or any empirical proof) confirming that free copying of works or appropriation by platform cultures benefits the author is impossible to produce, whether justified through the murky term “transformative use” or “discoverability”, all such arguments, as used on both sides of the debate (by publishers to e-license copyrighted works and by advocates of Open Access to justify authors giving their works away for nothing) devolve to mere speculation based on the bias of the beneficiaries
    Voting 0
  4. Beyond how vomit-inducing the video is generally, one wonders just how closely the message in the video overlaps with actual UK law. While UK law is more stringent on free speech when it comes to so-called "insulting" speech, it seems far too simple an explanation to state that any parody that is found insulting would be illegal. Let's say, for instance, that Ed Sheeran considers this parody depiction of him, complete with an anti-piracy message that comes off as the opposite of his own, is insulting. Is the UK's IPO really saying that its own video suddenly becomes illegal?

    Now, while the videos generally tread upon long-debunked ground...

    After the Meerkats found out that people were downloading their tracks from pirate sites and became outraged, their manager Big Joe explained that file-sharing is just the same as stealing a CD from a physical store.

    “In a way, all those people who downloaded free copies are doing the same thing as walking out of the shop with a CD and forgetting to go the till,” he says.

    “What these sites are doing is sometimes called piracy. It not only affects music but also videos, books, and movies.If someone owns the copyright to something, well, it is stealing. Simple as that,” Big Joe adds.

    ...there is also some almost hilarious over-statements on the importance of this messaging and intellectual property as a whole. For instance, were you aware that the reason it's so important to teach 7 year olds about copyright and trademark is because navigating intellectual property is a full-blown "life skill?"
    Voting 0
  5. The Authors Guild -- notorious for advancing extremely broad, censorious theories of copyright -- told Lee that the Guild "does not support extending the copyright term, especially since many of our members benefit from having access to a thriving and substantial public domain of older works,If anything, we would likely support a rollback to a term of life-plus-50 if it were politically feasible." It will be very difficult to sell term extension as a measure to benefit artists if prominent artists' groups are speaking out against it.

    The other factor is that Congress is a total shambles, its calendar dominated by shutdowns and chaotic attempts to ram through the extreme agenda of the GOP electoral majority that represents a numeric minority of Americans, and the chances of any laws getting passed are slim.

    But there's always the possibility that copyright term extension would be slipped into must-pass legislation, a budget or a key appropriation. That's a risky game, given the possibility that this would spark a public uprising to kill it (there's plenty of Conservative animus for the entertainment industry, after all, and the 1998 term extension was counted as a major achievement by Bill Clinton and his acolytes, so this could be painted as greedy, corporate-money-fattened Republicans helping to preserve the hated legacy of the Clintons).
    Voting 0
  6. The deal puts Fox's movie studio, 20th Century Fox, under the Disney umbrella, bringing with it the studio's intellectual property. Having 20th Century Fox's "X-Men" and "Avatar" under the same roof as Disney's "The Avengers" and "Star Wars" could have huge ramifications in both the streaming world and the film industry.

    Disney announced in August that it will pull its content from Netflix, effectively ending its relationship with the streaming service to start its own in 2019. This means Netflix users will no longer be able to watch content from Lucasfilm, Marvel, Pixar and Disney Animation.

    The deal between the two media giants means that Disney's streaming service will include its own deep vault of intellectual property, as well as Fox's decades of popular franchises, which would most likely get pulled from streaming competitors. As much as this deal is about the content that Disney would be getting from Fox, it's also about content competitors like Netflix would not.

    The deal also means Fox's stakes in Hulu now belong to Disney, which already has an equal stake along with Comcast. With a majority stake in Hulu, Disney could change the award-winning streaming service's offerings.

    "A 'Disneyflix' with Lucasfilm + Marvel + Pixar + Disney Animation + Disney Channel + ABC + 20c Fox + FX would be ... attractive," tweeted Derek Thompson, a writer at The Atlantic, last month.
    Voting 0
  7. Imagine that, photographers who understand that their work has value. Who then copyright it to give them some legal recourse when people steal their work. And then pursue those who steal said work.

    I still love that he thinks we shoot images to upload to the Internet just so we can sue people for stealing them. That we have teams of people just waiting to pounce. That he actually calls it a “business model”.

    He also seems to not understand that images don’t actually need to be registered in order to have copyright protection. Sure, registration allows you to claim damages and whatnot, but you still own the copyright the instant you create the image. In other countries, there isn’t even a registration mechanism, and you get all the rights (including damages) regardless.

    So, it’s not much of a surprise then that he also doesn’t know that images are copyrighted even if there’s no actual copyright statement accompanying the image.
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2017-10-23)
    Voting 0
  8. Si tratta di uno studio, costato 360.000 euro e completato nel 2015, sugli effetti della pirateria sui contenuti vincolati dal diritto d’autore. Si intitola Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU, è lungo oltre 300 pagine e oggi è scaricabile qui, ma non era mai stato reso pubblico.

    Sappiamo di questo studio non grazie alle indagini dei complottisti, ma alla tenacia di una parlamentare europea, la tedesca Julia Reda, che ha scoperto che esisteva questo rapporto grazie alla Regola dell’Informazione Laterale che cito spesso nelle tecniche d’indagine giornalistica digitale: per sapere se un dato è vero o falso conviene sempre cercare le informazioni di contorno a quel dato. Se un documento è stato omesso o segretato, può darsi che altrove ci siano informazioni amministrative che ne tengono traccia.

    In questo caso, per esempio, la parlamentare si è accorta dell’esistenza di questo studio perché ha scoperto la relativa gara d’appalto, risalente al 2013, e a quel punto ha richiesto accesso al documento. La Commissione, racconta la Reda, non ha risposto in tempo alla richiesta ben due volte.

    Come mai tanta riluttanza nel pubblicare uno studio costato fior di quattrini? Può darsi che sia colpa dei suoi risultati, che “non mostrano prove statistiche dello spostamento delle vendite da parte delle violazioni del coypright online” con l’eccezione dei film più popolari e recenti. Risultati che stridono con i vari provvedimenti governativi che mirano a sorvegliare il traffico dei file caricati su Internet di tutti gli utenti, indistintamente, con la giustificazione della tutela del diritto d’autore.

    Sia come sia, è indubbio che servono prove robuste per legittimare un intervento del genere e che, come dice la parlamentare, “dati preziosi sia finanziariamente, sia in termini di applicabilità dovrebbero essere disponibili a tutti se sono finanziati dall’Unione Europea: non dovrebbero raccogliere polvere su uno scaffale fino a quando qualcuno li richiede attivamente”.
    Voting 0
  9. Last October, the Dr Seuss estate used legal threats to halt a wildly successful crowdfunded Seuss/Star Trek mashup called "Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go," whose contributors included comics legend Ty Templeton and Tribbles creator David Gerrold.

    The Seuss estate argued that the book infringed its trademarks and copyrights. Now, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California court has ruled on the trademark question and found that there is no valid trademark claim thanks to "nominative fair use," and also indicated that it would be favorably disposed to fair use defenses on the copyright question.
    Voting 0
  10. Reason Hollywood is "helping" China monitor set top boxes & smart tv's for copyright infringement is nothing more than Hollywood fill another one of their wet dreams which is aimed straight at restricting what you can view on those smart tv's and your set top boxes.

    Think about how Hollywood has waged war on torrent files and streaming sites, URL blocking and it's latest was on Kodi and other boxes.

    Hollywood is using China as a proof of concept to block users from seeing content that Hollywood doesn't want you to have access to (without kicking them some money first) or by the way of a license to enable you or the box provider to view or allow it to be distributed via a program or add on to the box, this concept would also be applied to smart tv's no doubt.

    Hollywood would never get away with doing a trial like this to block or censor set top boxes or smart tv's in the U.S. or UK, but China one could see allowing Hollywood do it with a large contribution of cash from Hollywood to get the goverment to okay it.

    China also benefits because they to can use this to have another way to filter what their citizens see and where they are getting it from and then blocking access to views that it doesn't like from reaching the public.

    You can bet if this proves effective that Hollywood will push this revelation of battling copyright infringement to other countries by saying the stats prove this is most effective and will save thousands of jobs and the infusion of cash that Hollywood needs to survive from all that piracy that threatens to push Hollywood to the brink of collapse... or so they say.
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2017-05-22)
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 44 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: copyright

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle