While these types of things are always on a case-by-case basis, so this is not legal advice (blah blah blah), it seems pretty clear to my this is a derivative work. One of the exclusive copyrights offered to creators of original works is, generally, the right to make derivatives.
The authority is, as always the law, in this case 17 USC 106: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:... ...to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
While it's not PIRACY as we normally think of it, it's still a copyright violation.
"Or the DMCA form did not allow for another choice than "copyright infringement"."
Of course the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act form doesn't have have an option for anything other then copyright. It's not for anything else. It's right there in the name!
I don't care why this is being done, I've gotten three calls from fucking "card services" today. The only thing that would make me happier is to line the bastards against a wall.
If anyone hasn't seen it, Leonard French has a video covering the original ruling. When I first saw this I was ready to side with the building owner, the facts of the case changed my mind.
It's actually worse then that. Even if the companies wanted to produce a phone that lacked the easy ability to track you, they are prohibited from doing so because that exact ability is what's required for the E911 roll-out!
My subpeona you mean a reasonable writ, upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?
To be clear, if there's actually a case of police either not getting consent or not getting a warrant (which is specifically called out by the constitution), I'll be the first to start passing out pitchforks.
Until then it's much ado about nothing.
That's not what's happening. I was ready to be outraged when this first broke, but as soon as I did any looking I found out that the homeowner consent is obtained before releasing the video.
"Police do not automatically have access to Ring video streams. Law enforcement has access to a portal, and then needs to directly request information from Neighbors app users if it wants to watch footage. Ring says it does not share information with law enforcement unless a user consents."
If I had to guess, A number of these types of laws determine how they affect a provider based on how much the provider brings in. The idea is that it's not fair to put the same burdens on a one-man-shop as a multi-billion dollar mega-corp. So, the court is probably going to use it to determine how much can be reasonably asked.
It's also worth noting, Devin Nunes (or his attorneys) are not the ones getting this information. It's going to the judge, who then will make determinations.
Geolocation DBs certainly do have issues with accuracy. I'm regularly shown in AR, despite living in IL. I've only been in AR for brief periods while driving to other states.
Re: Re:
While these types of things are always on a case-by-case basis, so this is not legal advice (blah blah blah), it seems pretty clear to my this is a derivative work. One of the exclusive copyrights offered to creators of original works is, generally, the right to make derivatives. The authority is, as always the law, in this case 17 USC 106: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:... ...to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 While it's not PIRACY as we normally think of it, it's still a copyright violation.
Re:
WTF are you talking about? https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9cOEC1M44Dy3qjcC2j03Gd-qlpT0tuRP That's not even a fully list, just the point he got board reporting on people getting charges for Jan 6.
Re: YouTube mistake?
"Or the DMCA form did not allow for another choice than "copyright infringement"." Of course the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act form doesn't have have an option for anything other then copyright. It's not for anything else. It's right there in the name!
Re: Why go after IMDb?
Obviously it's not an easy target.
Spinning up Ken White
Was there a mention of ponys?
Re:
The door is right there. Don't let it hit you on the way out.
Re: Re: Re: Correct responce
You need to put these up for sale.
Honestly
I don't care why this is being done, I've gotten three calls from fucking "card services" today. The only thing that would make me happier is to line the bastards against a wall.
If anyone hasn't seen it, Leonard French has a video
If anyone hasn't seen it, Leonard French has a video covering the original ruling. When I first saw this I was ready to side with the building owner, the facts of the case changed my mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBOKhU8sLiY
Correct responce
Everyone wear offensive shirts when at the senate.
I have a better idea:
Jail time.
I'll also accept disbanding the FISA court.
Re:
It's actually worse then that. Even if the companies wanted to produce a phone that lacked the easy ability to track you, they are prohibited from doing so because that exact ability is what's required for the E911 roll-out!
Re:
Funny you should mention that, John Deere has been at the forefront of novel ways to combat the ability to repair.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm having problems seeing the issue...
My subpeona you mean a reasonable writ, upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?
Re: Re: I'm having problems seeing the issue...
To be clear, if there's actually a case of police either not getting consent or not getting a warrant (which is specifically called out by the constitution), I'll be the first to start passing out pitchforks. Until then it's much ado about nothing.
Re: Re: I'm having problems seeing the issue...
That's not what's happening. I was ready to be outraged when this first broke, but as soon as I did any looking I found out that the homeowner consent is obtained before releasing the video. "Police do not automatically have access to Ring video streams. Law enforcement has access to a portal, and then needs to directly request information from Neighbors app users if it wants to watch footage. Ring says it does not share information with law enforcement unless a user consents."
I'm having problems seeing the issue...
If private citizens want to put camera on their private property, and provide videos from them to the police, why do I care?
If amazon wants to facilitate this, why should I care?
Re: Fishing expedition much?
If I had to guess, A number of these types of laws determine how they affect a provider based on how much the provider brings in. The idea is that it's not fair to put the same burdens on a one-man-shop as a multi-billion dollar mega-corp. So, the court is probably going to use it to determine how much can be reasonably asked. It's also worth noting, Devin Nunes (or his attorneys) are not the ones getting this information. It's going to the judge, who then will make determinations.
Re: Re:
Geolocation DBs certainly do have issues with accuracy. I'm regularly shown in AR, despite living in IL. I've only been in AR for brief periods while driving to other states.
" the DNC should stream and broadcast the debate itself and then license network and cable TV providers to rebroadcast it. "
NO! No, no no no no.
They should run the debate, stream it, declaring there is no licenses, partners, or copyright on the stream. Make it public domain.