Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion (Score 2) 49

When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

Comment Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?

Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)

Comment Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.

It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.

Submission + - YouTube wins again 3

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: Once again YouTube has defeated Viacom and other members of the content cartel; once again the Court has held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually does mean what it says. YouTube had won the case earlier, at the district court level, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although ruling in YouTube's favor on all of the general principles at stake, felt that there were several factual issues involving some of the videos and remanded to the lower court for a cleanup of those loose ends. Now, the lower court — Judge Louis L. Stanton to be exact — has resolved all of the remaining issues in YouTube's favor, in a 24-page opinion. Among other things Judge Stanton concluded that YouTube had not had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement, been 'willfully blind' to any specific infringement, induced its users to commit copyright infringement, interacted with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements, or manually selected or delivered videos to its syndication partners. Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again.

Comment Re:The only problem I see... (Score 1) 215

As opposed to facebook which set the share prices way too high and gave no one else proper voting rights... this guys is a total head case. He should just absolve it all, give what money back he can, and move on. I got through most of page one but I do not even know if I want to read the rest to see if he redeems himself in any way.

Submission + - Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal (theverge.com)

sarysa writes: The Supreme Court has refused to hear the latest appeal of the 7 year old Jammie Thomas case, regarding a single mother who was fined $222,000 in her most recent appeal for illegally sharing 24 songs. Those of us hoping for an Eighth Amendment battle over this issue will not be seeing it anytime soon. In spite of the harsh penalties, the journalist suggests that: "Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000."

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown

Working...