Hacker News Reader

Comment by dec0dedab0de | Hacker News Reader

Good to see a win for fair use. Don't broadcast publicly if you dont want it to be public.

Tell that to the NFL.

Everyone has broadcasting rights. This man should as well.

Honest question: Do you think Facebook's ToS grants him exclusive rights to anything Published or Broadcast to the General Public by way of their platform?

There is this to the contrary:

" When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)"

Thanks for posting that - I was genuinely curious and I'm fairly certain what you quote is legally supportable against the personal broadcast rights notion in this case. The "newsworthy" threshold in Fair Use almost isn't needed, but certainly seems to help.

I don't have any expectation of Copyright Ownership on whatever I broadcast on Periscope...different rights might be entailed (e.g. endorsement, use of likeness) but that public visible thing is hard to reconcile in this instance...and I think that's totally okay.

Yes. he's the creator and it's up to him as a matter of legality to decide where and how his creations are distributed. Much like what the NFL does. (regardless of how easy it is to pirate something)

Everyone holds the copyright to their work immediately during and after its creation. There's no filing like you'd have to do with a Trademark.

Putting in on a medium that's FCC regulated means he may have some recourse.

To be clear, you don't have to register copyrights in order to have a copyright in a creation, but you do have to register copyrights in order to sue for damages.

Strictly speaking no, you can still sue for economic damages and win, but registering lets you get statutory damages which are punitive in nature, up to 3x the economic damages. Economic damages are limited to what you'd have been owed if they licensed it at prevailing rates.

Sorry, yes. I had it backwards.

He has the same rights everyone else does, copyright on his creative works, including this video. That's not the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is: Is if Fair Use to use 22 seconds of a 45 minute video to report on newsworthy topic?

The answer is yes. Showing select excerpts of copyrighted work for the purposes of news and commentary is a classical Fair Use example.

The reverse of your statement is also true:

Everyone has right to assert a Fair Use exemption. This news agency should as well.

This is like the famous assertion that the rich as well as the poor are free to sleep under bridges. To ignore the relative financial strength of the two actors is inequitable.

Regardless of who the actors are, this is classical Fair Use. The reason you don't see the opposite very often (major media company's materials being used in a Fair Use manner) is that company's lawyers are smart enough to see it's Fair Use, and that their case would be thrown out of court almost immediately.

I believe most sports and/or news channels show NFL highlights using the same "fair use" argument as was used to show a portion of his Facebook video. They can't re-broadcast the entire game, nor would it be appropriate for a news broadcast to simply re-broadcast the entirety of a Facebook Live stream.

>Don't broadcast publicly if you dont want it to be public.

Ah, to live in the 90's again. I remember when the motto was "Don't share anything on the internet that you don't want to be public."

Isn't that still true?

(And Streisand effect is '00s, not '90s)

Streisand is giving something more attention by trying to hide it/cover it up. Different thing altogether.

I'm talking about how people were raised in the 90's and early 00's. In the late 00's and turn of the decade in the 10's we saw a drastic turn against protecting individual privacy, with the rise and fall of various social media sites. We went from telling people to never share their full names to asking them to enter them on their profiles [0].

There is a cost/benefit of this. Many people on HN share their names/LinkedIn accounts/position in the company they work for. This allows them to network or have authority when they speak on a subject. OTOH, they throw away their privacy.

[0] http://i.imgur.com/h7kZcxF.png

Yeah, and especially "don't ever, ever put your real name, phone number, or location into ANY online system".

It was the way to preserve the benefits of anonymity and free speech without opening the door to (much) serious abuse. Then people realized they could make money promoting their "personal brand" online, and companies realized they could get people to tell them everything about themselves and sell that data, so common-sense behavior that permitted a very free environment to thrive with few negative externalities was destroyed by the profit motive and... here we are.

Some of us still hold to those basic protective measures. I see it as the difference between using ATM's, and walking all the way home while flashing your cash at everyone who walks by.

I practice psuedonomity instead of anonymity. "Nadya Nayme" is just a play on "Not a name". It allows me to have an identity while speaking my mind and hiding my real self from the general population. I don't think anonymity against a state power is realistic, so I don't consider it a part of my threat model. Twitter users organizing to harass my employer into firing me is much higher on my list of concerns. Especially because I've had people threaten "they would if they could."

Some people still value privacy. But most only value privacy when it is convenient - and are willing to throw it away for more convenience.

I'm exactly the same way, and as you say, I don't expect that my antics would give a state actor even a momentary pause. I'm more concerned about doxxing, or other low-level junk than jackboots kicking down my door. It is a little inconvenient, but it's worth it.

I do the same thing. No one ever seems to pick up the play, so in a way I've developed a second full name that works reasonable well.

A profit motive is a pretty basic part of human nature and my memory of the 1990s was that a lot of people were demanding a reliable way to shop online without all the tedious business of printing out order forms on paper or trudging to the nearest store.

Lest you think I'm making excuses, I've never run any kind of online business unless you count occasionally profitable eBay transactions in a niche used-goods market.

was?

It will be interesting to see whether the lawyers in the recent cases where people live-streamed their crimes can keep the video out of evidence in their criminal trials.

On what grounds?

I have no idea. That's why it would be interesting. Lawyers are pretty creative sometimes.

I was curious about the idea and did some Googling. Apparently some people have tried to use copyright to exclude evidence against them at trials. Citing a document at a trial doesn't usually reduce it's commercial value so Fair Use is typically the rule. The one exception in the page I found was when a lawyer commissioned the copyrighted work for one trial and then tried to introduce it in another trial without the permission of the copyright holder.

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2014/08/when-can...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com