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.
I think he meant the people doing everything they can to maximize profits from content.
And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.
And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.
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
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.
Out of curiosity, Ray, have you ever thought of becoming a judge yourself?
I would love to be a judge, but it ain't gonna happen.
Fix the title of your article if you want any SEO at all. Right now the title is showing a path on your C drive... interesting read though.
Thanks for the advice. Wish I had a clue as to what to do about it.
I stand corrected. What are the criteria for deciding that btw?
Regrettably, they vary from judge to judge and from court to court and are not predictable, since they are "discretionary".
I can tell you that if I were deciding UMG v Veoh I would have awarded Veoh its attorneys fees.
But does it really take that much work? Why do you even need such a huge number of lawyers for what appears to be a pretty simple case?
As I said, the judiciary has a number of rules, and engages in many practices, which make the cost of lawyering more expensive than it needs to be. I could write a book on the subject.
No it doesn't need as many hours of legal work as most big firms put into a case, which is why a good small firm like mine is wildly more efficient than the big firms, and can beat much bigger firms day in and day out. But under the rules and practices in place, it's still an unnecessarily expensive undertaking to litigate.
I don't make the rules; but I have to live with them in my daily life.
I just honestly don't understand where all the money goes.
The money goes to pay lawyers. With expensive cases, these days it's usually large teams of clones run by large, usually multistate, often multinational, law firms. The judiciary has a number of rules and engage in a number of practices which are based on the assumption that the parties have endless means with which to pay lawyers, and which benefit the large law firms and the wealthier clients who can afford them. So the real fault is with the judiciary.
Woe betide the client with limited means, and woe betide the small law firms that get caught up in these affairs if their clients don't have that kind of dough. My small law firm can kick the butt of any large law firm, but only if we have a client that can afford to pay the bills.
Ideals like, it's ok to make treaties with other nations and then break them. It's ok to invade and steal someone else's land. It's ok to have colonies and empire, so long as you don't call them that. It's ok for big business to hire thugs to shoot workers who just want a fair deal. Yeah, the USA is exceptional alright.
Hey have you been reading about our actual history? Don't you know that's not permitted.
"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still