#infringement

azurecerulean@diasp.org

#Quad9 Turns the #Sony Case Around in #Dresden | Quad9

Today marks a bright moment in the efforts to keep the internet a neutral and trusted resource for everyone.

Quad9 has received word from the courts in Dresden, #Germany in the #appeal of our case versus Sony Entertainment (Germany). The court has ruled in favor of Quad9, clearly and unequivocally. The text from the court is available here in German and in English.

Needless to say, we are elated at the news.

Background

Sony Entertainment (Germany) started a legal proceeding against Quad9 more than two years ago to force Quad9 to stop resolving certain domain names which they claimed were involved in #copyright #infringement behavior.

https://quad9.net/news/blog/quad9-turns-the-sony-case-around-in-dresden/

opensciencedaily@diasp.org
tpq1980@iviv.hu
tpq1980@iviv.hu

The #Democrats & their #UniParty "#Republican" enablers are setting a #trap for Constitutionalist #gun owners.

"Red Flag" #laws are intended to target #Constitutionalist Americans via #Internet #surveillance, sending #law enforcement to confiscate #guns from people who are passionate about their #rights & will use their guns to defend those rights from infringement.

When Constitutionalists defend their rights against #infringement of them through the use of "Red Flag" laws, Democrats will falsely claim these incidents are #proof "Red Flag" laws #work & then use them to #disarm #Americans with impunity.

#redflaglaws #redflaglaw #redflags #redflag #usa #2ndamendment #2a #righttobeararms #trap #subterfuge #con #setup #usconstitution #rinos #shallnotbeinfringed #nra

frithnanth@pluspora.com

This is incredibly cool!
#music #copyright #lawsuit #freedom #infringement #publicdomain

Musicians Algorithmically Generate Every Possible Melody, Release Them to Public Domain - VICE

Programmer, musician, and copyright attorney Damien Riehl, along with fellow musician/programmer Noah Rubin, sought to stop copyright lawsuits that they believe stifle the creative freedom of artists.

Often in copyright cases for song melodies, if the artist being sued for infringement could have possibly had access to the music they're accused of copying—even if it was something they listened to once—they can be accused of "subconsciously" infringing on the original content. One of the most notorious examples of this is Tom Petty's claim that Sam Smith's “Stay With Me” sounded too close to Petty's “I Won’t Back Down." Smith eventually had to give Petty co-writing credits on his own chart-topping song, which entitled Petty to royalties.

Defending a case like that in court can cost millions of dollars in legal fees, and the outcome is never assured. Riehl and Rubin hope that by releasing the melodies publicly, they'll prevent a lot of these cases from standing a chance in court.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain

dredmorbius@joindiaspora.com

Copyright All the Melodies ... or maybe not so much

I've watched Damien Riehl's amusing TEDxMinneapolis talk recently in which he and a partner algorithmically ran an exhaustive brute-force attack on all melodies consisting of 12 notes of 8 tones (the chromatic scale), as an end-run around copyright closing in on all possible musical melodies.

The methods are ingenious, and the goals admirable. The reasoning, however, seems faulty on at least two points.

Standing

If Riehl & co have in fact contributed their works to the public domain, instead of licensing them, they've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders: Ceding standing.

Though not precedent, the example of Highsmith vs. Getty, in which a photographer (Carol Highsmith) contributed her life's work to the US Library of Congress and the public domain, was sent a cease-and-desist by Getty Images / Almy / LCS demanding a licensing fee, and in turn sued, in a somewhat celebrated case, for $1 billion.

Getty claimed in press that they would mount a vigorous defence, and apparently did:

Highsmith had no right to claim misuse or infringement, said Getty, because she gave up that right when she donated her images into the public domain.

In late October [2016], the courts agreed with Getty, basically destroying Highsmith’s case.

-- $1 Billion Getty Images Lawsuit Ends Not with a Bang, but a Whimper

I'll note that Highsmith's actions did spare her the licensing demand. But they denied her (and the countless others who receive such utterly baseless claims daily) any true justice. Individual property rights are apparently well-defended in US courts, but collective rights ... not so much.

Authorship

The other notable hole in Riehls theory is of course 17 USC 102, Subject Matter of Copyright

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Note the components. Fixity in a tangible medium is necessary but not sufficient. The work must be not only original (arguably met in at least part) but of authorship, on which algorithmic exhaustive search ... is on markedly thinner ground. Is this a mere compilation of facts (Feist v. Rural Electric), or a nonhuman author (Slater v. PETA "monkey selfie").

I suspect others have raised these, similar, or other objections.

I do appreciate the spirit and effort, however.


Adapted from an email sent to Fastcase, Mr. Riehl's employer.

#DamienRiehl #copyright #infringement #publicDomain #law #NiceTryBut