This Week In Techdirt History: May 30th - June 5th
from the collected-recollections dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2016, we were pleased to see a dearth of support for the Burr-Feinstein anti-encryption bill, but not so happy about the 4th circuit rolling back its warrant requirement for cell site location info. We were also watching the fallout from the second ruling in the Oracle/Google trial and digging into just what happened in an episode of our podcast. Meanwhile, an independent musician was suing Justin Bieber and Skrillex over a sample they didn't use, just as two recent rulings from around the world looked like they might clear the copyright barriers to sampling. And one court gave a very bad copyright ruling, saying that remastered old songs can get a brand new copyright.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2011, the copyright nonsense was widespread, with an EMI executive saying people should pay again to stream their own music, and both an industry lawyer and the RIAA talking about the supposed evils of the public domain. The push was on to criminalize more infringement too, with some senators seeking to make embedding videos a felony and the RIAA wanting to do the same for music subscription service password sharing. Amidst all this, we took a deep dive into why the PROTECT IP Act would break the internet.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2006, Canada was doling out entertainment industry propaganda to kids in the form of an embarrassing new character called Captian Copyright (who might have himself been engaging in infringement), while the industry was hard at work on the next generation of terrible DVD copy protection. We took a closer look at some easily-misinterpreted statements about net neutrality from the creator of BitTorrent, and at an early example of a still-ongoing tradition: fake public comments about net neutrality. But there was no need to worry about a lack of regulation, because AT&T's chairman promised they would absolutely definitely not violate net neutrality principles.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Re: Bieber & Skrillex
I remember the lawsuit over Justin Bieber's "Sorry", but Skrillex did himself prove where he got the original sample. I wonder what happened to the lawsuit. Did they settle?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bieber & Skrillex
Don't forget these classics from Stories From Norway - The Musical, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCP2Buha1NQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYHfxZgfCwU
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bieber & Skrillex
Thanks for showing me those YouTube videos, Bobvious. They were really funny!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber & Skrillex
You're very welcome. What better way to end the week than a bit of Scandinavian entertainment, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjuphuG3ndw
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA says there is no value in the public domain, and you see Michael Slonecker busying himself with working as their PR intern.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's All Just A Little Bit Of History Repeating
Mike, you may be optimistic, but I read this flashback and I just get more miserable. You know the end of year posts you make about why you are so optimistic? How about a mid-year morale boost on July 1st?
(I know these flashbacks are compiled by Leigh but I assume someone would point this comment over to Mike if they think it's a good idea)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's All Just A Little Bit Of History Repeating
Well, The Great Gatsby is in the Public Domain, and already we have some great works, not to mention the book being available on Project Gutenberg, in audiobook format on librivox, and through many, many print adaptations in my local Barnes & Noble.
While I wouldn't say that any year where new works enter the public domain is a good year (or else that would apply to 2020), it does show that even in the worst of years, sometimes we the public get some major benefits.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's All Just A Little Bit Of History Repeating
Mikhail Mouse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngu2a2QvbUM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Gatsby is also available on Standard Ebooks, which does a hell of a job on formatting and the like. They even included the original cover art, Celestial Eyes by Francis Cugat.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole Captain Copyright debacle is one thing I'd like to know more about. Too bad that a character who represents the concept of copyright has himself become buried in obscurity, and by the very same concept he helped promote.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you really say that?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210409/00165046581/patent-loving-judge-keeps-pissing-off-patent- appeals-court-doesnt-seem-to-care-very-much.shtml#comments
"It is beyond sketchy."
Did you really say that Alan D Albright is "beyond sketchy"?
You didn't say that, right? No one would say that about this man.
"I'd argue that in both stories, highly-biased judges have been bending over backwards to blatantly favour "Intellectual Property" rights-holders/claimants -- regardless of the actual facts, the actual the relevant law, and even the ethical obligations pertaining to carrying out their actual judicial duties."
You didn't say that about Alan D Albright, did you? No one would say that about this man.
"The whole state seems to run on the golden rule (have gold make the rules). This one sounds like there should be an FBI investigation into the judge and his relationships with certain litigants."
You didn't say that about Alan D Albright, did you? No one would say that about this man.
No one in their right mind, anyway.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you really say that?
What an odd comment. Did you have something constructive to say about this post?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you really say that?
Yes! Thank you for asking. I have something very constructive to say.
Irrespective of your intentions, what you said and what you posted under other phony names was just wrong. Not that your intentions are honorable, they are certainly not, you have a long history of defaming good people. That aspiring Senator, that Email guy, for example. You ruined his career, without you, he would be a senator today.
Your intentions are legally and morally repugnant, hostile, abominable, appalling, awful, disgusting, distasteful, dreadful, evil, foul, gross, hideous, horrendous, horrible, horrid, loathsome, nasty, nauseating, noxious, obnoxious, obscene, odious, rancid, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, shocking, sickening, ugly and well, just lacking in any taste whatsoever. You are a cad. But enough about you.
The Judge once said "The last thing anyone should think about WDTX is that it is patent plaintiff friendly".
Do you understand what the Judge is saying here? It means you are likely to LOSE as you are to WIN. That's his job. He's objective, fair minded, patient, open-minded, courteous, tactful, courageous, punctual, firm, compassionate, humble and filled to the brim with common sense. Two billion dollars for one case, zero dollars for another. That's how he rolls, he lets actual PEOPLE decide, not cads like you who hide in your underground bunkers in California trying to destroy American tradition and long cherished American Law.
The Judge just wants to get the cases FINISHED. It does not serve justice to have patent infringement cases just laying around doing nothing. He wants to Judge them on the Merits and then MOVE ON to OTHER THINGS. Bicycling, for example.
Did you see how the Judge sent those Meth criminals to JAIL? PRISON! Wow, he's a tough guy, he is, when someone is in the wrong. Just ask those Meth guys, they understand. They're sorry they acted like criminals, you should be sorry too. You should apologize, you and your whole nasty foreigner crew.
I'd think about that, if I were you. Come to Waco much? Let's sit down, drink a beer, eat a Kolache and shoot some stop signs! I invited you before, but you never came. I'm still waitin! We love to see you city slickers come to Texas. Come on down! Call me "odd" to my face with a gun in my hand and 12 beers in my belly. I dare ya'll!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did you really say that?
Call me "odd" to my face with a gun in my hand and 12 beers in my belly. I dare ya'll!
Are you threatening me?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
forget it, Mike, it’s Hamilton
you’re talking to someone who is in dire need of either more or less of their medication — damned if I can tell which one, though
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you really say that?
What a sensitive sad pussy boy you are.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you really say that?
You're the one waving the gun in your hand.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you really say that?
I read that in Mike Judge's voice as the Great Cornholio.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Throughout the period where the lawsuit from Shiva was still ongoing, several users theorized that the poster who came to be known as "Hamilton" was, in fact, Shiva himself. Whether or not that's true, the fact that he's still here, shedding tears over some hack who had to bully his way into everything he got in life, is nothing short of hilarious.
You lost bigly, Hamilton. Up yours.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply