A couple of years ago Bloomberg reported about spy chips/hw backdoors in SuperMicro mainboards but to my knowledge without a smoking gun proof. Maybe they had to settle outside of court and also had to sign papers to help protect the company from further damage in the future. Using (other) Bloomberg material may have triggered this. Of course this is a wild speculation. I have no evidence or insider knowledge.
GN used Bloomberg clips of US Gov officials speaking on AI chip matters, fully under fair use.
And Bloomberg did a DMCA takedown through youtube, copystrike in parlance which pulled the video down for a week. GN had no recourse other than to wait and counterclaim.
Week timed out, Bloomberg did nothing but be the bully.
As always, Louis is being a bit sensationalist and stretches the truth to whip up outrage. Contrary to what he claims, GN could have easily quoted the president without Bloomberg's video, and that would be fine. "that outlet now has a monopoly on who is able to quote the president" is just a totally false premise. Moreover he tries to argue that GN's video falls under fair use, because it's a 1 minute clip in a 3 hour video. However it's not hard to think of a rebuttal to this. If news organizations can copy each other's clips of official speeches, who would bother going out and making such recordings? Usually how this would be resolved would be by citing precedents, but he doesn't bother citing any.
I disagree. HN discussions seem to have wildly liberal views of US copyright law and, in particular, fair use. Gamer's Nexus is surely commercial because they either make money (1) directly from YouTube, (2) directly from adverts / product placements, or (3) indirectly from merch.
I agree with the parent poster's point: "If news organizations can copy each other's clips of official speeches, who would bother going out and making such recordings?" When you see a head of state (or other VIP) making a speech and they show the media, there are normally 10+ different camera crews. If competitors can claim "fair use" for any of that footage, why would so many different media outlets send camera crews? The question answers itself.
A good counterpoint for fair use would be Wikipedia. They are very conservative about claiming fair use. I assume they have had pro bono (or not) lawyers review their policy and uses to confirm the strength of their claims. After hundreds of hours of reading Wiki, I can recall only once or twice ever seeing an artifact claim fair use. I think it was a severely downscaled photo of a no-longer-living person.
I think Wikipedia's relatively conservative (one might say erring on the side of safety) stance on free use is easy to understand when considering that they have a bank account stuffed to the brim with cash, minimal spend on hosting and developers compared to income and savings, and copyright lawsuits are one of very few of their exposed legal surfaces.
Additionally, folks don't like to rely on free use because the tests, though they have been well articulated, are inherently subjective and must be decided by a judge or jury. It's the sort of defense one wants to have available, but not depend on if possible, as a result.
Re: commercial use, in the US, just because a work is commercial does not automatically mean it loses fair use protection. Commerciality is only one factor of the four to be considered. Commercial parodies, for example, can still be fair use, especially where the work is transformative. IOW commerciality may weigh against fair use, but it is not dispositive. Google v Oracle involved fair use which was clearly commercial, for example.
GN's case would also be helped by the nature of the information being factual as opposed to artistic.
There are a lot of factors in whether or not an org can successfully take something to trial. Venue, judge, representation, jury selection, evidentiary rulings, all kinds of stuff. An imbalance in representation could easily swing it. So when I say that I think GN has a reasonable case, it's just me using the Supreme Court's rubric and some theoretical idealized court room which doesn't really exist. All I can say is that a good job could be done in arguing it. Whether or not GN could afford that work, or would want to, IDK.
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote for comprehension. 50% of their spending may be on tech, but their total spending is only 4% of their income. Apparently I'm more familiar with their financial statements than you.
I think people misunderstand the 4 tests. They are not in-or-out tests. Commercial use doesn't mean it's not fair use. Each factor is weighed against others.
In this case this case the purpose is for critique or review and it justifies fair use since the clip is only a small part of the video, GN isn't in the same business as BB and isn't substitutive for BB's work, and the clip was a recording of a factual event and had didn't have a substantial creative element.
>Brother, wait until you learn about the associate press.
The same AP that licenses content to its members and charges non-members for the privilege of reusing their content?
"Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the United States are AP subscribers, paying a fee to use AP material without being contributing members of the cooperative. As part of their cooperative agreement with the AP, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. "
> GN's use seems to satisfy all four factors.
It's weakest at #1 and #4.
#1: it's a commercial piece of work (so far as I can tell GN isn't a non-profit), and the use of the clip specifically isn't critical to the work. If you're critiquing a movie or something, and need to show a screengrab to get your point across, then that makes sense, but if the purpose of the video is just to establish "Trump said this", the video isn't really needed.
#4: see above regarding making recordings of official speeches.
Moreover I'm not trying to argue that GN is definitely not fair use, only that there's a plausible case otherwise. If there's actual disagreement over it's fair use or not, then the DMCA process is working as intended, and Bloomberg isn't abusing it as Louis implies.
Yeah yeah, everyone enforces their copyrights to the maximum extent possible. But this does not prevent massive amounts of both licensed copying and free use copying. The framework I outlined above is from the US Supreme Court's rulings on fair use so applies for everyone in the US.
[responses to edited-out portion of parent comment]
Re: #1, GN's work while commercial is an educational investigative journalism / documentary piece which are well established users of Free Use protection. GN's use is absolutely transformative.
#4: Bloomberg would have to prove a financial loss to have standing. That would mean that GN must have no other option than to use Bloomberg's clip, and pay the license, which I don't think would fly. GN would have just produced the segment differently.
With regard to whether or not a work is transformative, the Supreme Court’s formulation from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, a case about parody, asks whether the new work merely supersedes the original, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.
A practical way to think about it is this:
What is the new use for?
Courts look first at whether the secondary use serves a different purpose from the original, not just whether it looks different. Uses for criticism, commentary, parody, scholarship, search/indexing, or other new functions often have a stronger transformative argument.
Is there new expression, meaning, or message?
That still matters, but after Warhol, a claimed new meaning by itself is usually not enough, especially when the secondary use is being exploited in a similar commercial market as the original. The Court emphasized that the inquiry is tied to the specific use at issue and whether that use has a distinct purpose.
Does it substitute for the original in the same market?
Even if the new work has some new meaning, it looks less transformative if it is serving basically the same licensing or audience function as the original. That overlaps with factor 4 as well.
How much was taken, and was that amount justified by the new purpose?
A use is more defensible when it takes only what is reasonably needed for the transformative aim. In parody, for example, some copying may be necessary to “conjure up” the original, but not more than needed.
All of which I think can fairly be evaluated in GN's favor. Though as you point out, the lawyers are paid to argue each point.
They did have the video uploaded to archive.org (or at least link to someone else who did) and gave permission to anyone else to repost it. Which is how I saw it, some rando burner account on YouTube :)
Equally important, it was of a US government official speaking, not content Bloomberg specifically created, such as one of their employees giving analysis.
The problem with fair use is that the rules are subject to challenge and interpenetration. Defending an argument for fair use costs a lot of money, and involves significant risk.
The content creators know this, and they'll leverage their money and legal teams to sue for copyright violation, ignoring fair use. Fair use is a valid defense, but the defense must be presented and adjudicated, and that takes time and money.
That comparison is really cool. I was mostly paying attention to the 4K77 vs 2011 bluray, and in most cases I thought 4K77 looked better. Not sure why they felt the need to mess with the colors so drastically in the 2011 version.
It's very sad and a stark commentary on the current state of Hacker News that a post by Bruce Schneier on cyber security is still flagged over an hour after it was posted.
The flagging system has good intentions, but seems like it was designed assuming good faith behavior from users. It does not appear to be resistant to partisan brigading.
I think it's working as intended in terms of HN not being a place for partisan issues and discussion in the vast majority of cases. There's literally an automatic downvoting of submissions where the comment to vote ratio is too high. It's not the type of discussion HN wants or is intended for.
This is one of the unspoken assumptions of online communities, that will cease to be true, and lead to the implosion or imposition of rules on HN, which will lead to its fracturing.
There is no running away from certain conversations, especially when your information ecosystem is intentionally made partisan. The flavor of american political discourse is architechtured to achieve very clear rhetorical and emotional goals.
At best, HN can choose how it wants to handle the schism. For that everyone needs to realize it is coming.
> In the span of just weeks, the US government has experienced what may be the most consequential security breach in its history
Which is a ridiculous level of hyperbole and just factually not even close to accurate. Solarwinds, the 2014 OPM breach, snowden leaks, chelsea manning leaks, the DNC email leak, moonlight maze - there's a massive list of real, consequential security incidents that are nowhere nearly as bad as Elon and whatever his dumb team are doing.
The key words being "may be." The fact is that a bunch of kids working for an essentially unofficial department of the government were given root access to all sorts of systems with no oversight. We simply have no idea how deep the damage goes.
You seem to have a different definition of hyperbole to most people. I think everyone here understands the security implications of physical access to a server, the protocols that are usually put in place surrounding that and the reasons for them being there. The servers gave been compromised. We know that. To downplay the dangers of that surely makes someone guilty of the kind of misrepresentation that you're concerned about
Prompt: list the next friday febuary 9ths occurring on leap years
Response: Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a Friday, February 9th occurring on a leap year. Here’s why:
• February only has 28 days in a typical year and 29 days in a leap year.
• Since a month consists of 4 weeks (28 days), the day of the week for any particular date repeats every 4 years.
• This means that if February 9th falls on a Friday in a non-leap year, it will fall on a Monday in the next year, Tuesday in the year after that, Wednesday in the third year, and back to Friday in the fourth year.
• However, since the fourth year is a leap year with an extra day in February, February 9th “shifts” by one day, falling on a Saturday instead of Friday. Therefore, it’s impossible for February 9th to be a Friday in a leap year. The next Friday, February 9th will occur in 2029, but it will be a common year, not a leap year.
To make these EUV mirrors, each 2 to 4 nanometer layer of molybdenum and silicon has to be deposited one by one. Fifty times, without fatal defects.
After that, each mirror has to be painstakingly polished. The acceptable surface deviation metric is 50 picometers, or 50 trillionths of a meter. That is a staggering number.
To put that into perspective. 50 picometers on a mirror that is 450 millimeters wide. If that 450 millimeter mirror was blown up to the size of the United States, 4,500 kilometers or 2,800 miles wide, then 50 picometers would be just 0.5 mm tall.
Altho there's a couple ways to define an atomic radius, molybdenum's and silicon's empirically measured covalent atomic radii are 145 and 110 picometers respectively [1]. So 50pm is a very small bump indeed.
And the entire Bloomberg takedown drama added fire to the flames.