Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
from the dolphins-in-the-fish-nets dept
In the recent amicus filing by the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel the need to pay up, as it's cheaper to do so than to hire a lawyer and fight. It looks like that's already happening. Ars Technica is reporting on a number of people proclaiming innocence over the filings. What you get is a picture of frustration as well. Many were informed by their ISP that they had just a couple days to try to quash the subpoena or their info would get handed over to USCG. Even those that tried to understand the details of what they were being threatened with were left in the dark:"Originally we got a letter from our ISP stating they have a subpoena for our name and address. We literally had 2 business days to research and try to find legal counsel on this matter. I called a local ISP lawyer here in [state redacted]. His advice was to contact a lawyer over where this lawsuit originated (Washington, DC). Well, we do not have the monetary means or time to try and fight this..."Another example:
"I received a subpoena notice from [ISP redacted] on May 4, with a deadline of May 7 for response. It included NO INFORMATION as to what the subpoena was about so I immediately tried to contact the sender of the notice. After countless e-mails & phone calls, I finally reached an informed, live person by calling [ISP's] corporate line (which I found online and was NOT included in the notice).We've had numerous defenders of these sue-em-all programs in our comments say that false positives are few and far between, and that it's "easy" to get the case dropped if you didn't do it. I'm guessing most of those people have never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit. It is not a good feeling -- especially when it is incredibly expensive to defend your innocence. I have no doubt that many, many people on the list actually did make unauthorized copies of these files. But is it worth this sort of collateral damage on innocent people to go after them?
"I was finally provided a copy of the subpoena itself and I recognized the date that I was accused of downloading Far Cry (a movie I never heard of) as a period when I was having Internet connection and wireless router issues. I suspect my neighbors may have been using my connection without my permission and my ISP should have record of my support calls...
"Unfortunately, I tried to hire an attorney that could help me with this and I was repeatedly told there was little I could do without further information from [ISP], and certainly nothing I could do in the very short period before the subpoena deadline. I did all this in the span of only a few days and STILL DIDN'T GET ANYWHERE. I assume my identity has been sent to the plaintiff and I can only imagine what others are going through trying to figure out what is going on here."
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
Filed Under: innocence, pre-settlement
Companies: us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a waste
Sometimes a movie just isn't worth the space it wastes on your disk. It doesn't matter if it is highly compressed or if you have 10TB of space for your movies.
Some things are just not worth the bother.
If your stuff isn't being pirated, then you really need to worry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a waste
Rampage wasn't too bad, although I agree about everything he's made that I've seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source
Oh well, glad it got used and not ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If i were these people, though, I would definitely cancel my service with the ISP asap. better to have no internet than a company who will fuck you over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You didn't give a number or percentage so it's hard to argue the point, but the IP address gets associated with the name of the account holder. According to the last Census the average household size is 2.59. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts
So the odds that the name on the account matches the user behind the keyboard is less than 39%.
Then you can take into account the number of people with open Wifi and the likelihood of the account holder being the pirate gets even lower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is like a Monty Python sketch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hopefully next time Mike or anyone else writes an article like this they can point out that according to the statistics, the probability of the account holder being the actual infringer is less than 39%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should know that common sense means nothing to these scumbuckets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither of us would download from unauthorized sources, so if either of us were to receive a threat, I am sure we would see the accusation as defamation, refuse to bow down to their extortion, and file a counter claim for malicious prosecution. It would be interesting to see how they think a Californian could download through a Pennsylvania modem.
I wonder how egregious this systemized extortion will have to become before some AG files criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moral of the story: if you have a wireless, at least take a moment to secure it. ignore what chris anderson of wired and what mike are says is cool, think about the implications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Buy the DVD or pay $1 for VOD. You did not do it - your fault.
Best,
AP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suspect that many people would, if VOD was in fact $1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, unfortunately, the answer to your question is almost a yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have my temporary IP address and nothing else.
It only gets easier the more you move around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The number of individuals who have gone to court and lost is much less than those who have gone to court and had their case dropped.
The number of individuals who have received "guilty" verdicts is roughly the same as those who have been awarded lawyer fees.
In other words: Yes, the majority of people who have gone to court from these lawsuits are, in fact, innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are thinking about the RIAA lawsuits - these are different. IN this type of lawsuit both numbers are zero.
These people are trying to make money. Actually going to court is not on the agenda. This is the reason why they are trying to get the initial subpoenas done en mass. If they intended to actually take people to court then the damages that they could obtain would far outweigh the cost of the initial subpoenas - but they don't. They intend to shake people down for a few hundreds of dollars each - hence the legal economy drive is needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These people get falsely accused of file sharing, scammed out of thousands of dollars, and you point at them and say secure your network. I guess for you it's better to have people remove their own freedoms instead of going after the people truly doing illegal things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and no, you cannot complete secure wireless. you also cannot completely secure your house or car. but from a legal standpoint, there are differences between door wide open and door closed, or a locked car and one with the door open and the key in the ignition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liability
> long distance calls, you are responsible for the bill.
Because that's part of the contract between private parties. Not federal law.
A better analogy would be if you left your phone on a table and someone came along and phoned in a bomb threat. You would not be criminally liable for that use of your phone. Only the person who actually made the call would be liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability
Don't expect a lowercase coward response to logic, that is not his forte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But from a legal standpoint even having left the key in the ignition would not make you liable if someone stole your car and used it in a bank robbery. It just means the insurance might not pay out for the theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Solutions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calm down now
The best advice - as found in the speculative invoicing handbook is as follows.
1) You are unlikely to be able to stop your ISP from revealing your identity - unless they were minded not to anyway - don't bother fighting this stage.
2) If/when your ISP reveals your details - switch ISP if you can and tell your old ISP why.
3) When you get a letter direct from US copyright group make a simple reply denying everything and noting that they do not have reliable evidence against you. Do not, under any circumstances give them any information that they do not already have and do not give them any money
4) Repeat this tactic if you receive further letters. If you wish you could at this stage add a rider that you consider their repeated approaches to be harassment and that you will begin proceedings against them if they send any further letters.
No one who has followed these tactics has actually been sued in the UK. It is not in US copyrights interest to do so since it would cost them considerable upfront money and risk a loss. Their business model is based on the old Chess proverb that "a threat is more powerful than its execution".
For more info and a support group (UK based) see :
http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/
and
http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/Th e-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf
5) If you receive multiple letters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calm down now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fighting back can work
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34690659-post287.html
It seems that you may even be able to sting these scamsters for some money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calm down now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disrepect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is no one suing the ISPs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mobilize the press?
I'm just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue 'Em All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
instructions on how to never have issues
make virus whatever
download movie burn onto other media HIDE IT.
then when they come go OOOH NOOOS i was haxored
then give middle finger to attorneys and countersue for slander and defamation of character
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
from Wikipediea"Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[13] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use?
Joel Tenenbaum sorta kinda tried a fair use defense (though, it was poorly thought out, and procedurally screwed up) and it got tossed out quickly.
Perhaps a super well argued fair use claim could work, but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
where did you get your law degree mike?
I don't see it post in any of your cyber-bios.
must be an oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
How about you try a warm glass of STFU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
Me , i like a good cyber-fight. i will not back down , and will beat you with facts and logic,,though like Karl, you will never admit, even if you see it.
Can i get you more rope to hang your self ?
As far as, my qualifications, on law , and public policy, click on my profile ,, my resume is a few clicks away in my blogger profile.
all you AC's and folks with empty profiles , have empty heads.
the "real posters" here, are not afraid to provide links to who they are ,, or simply use their real name , so we can google them.
Yes there are a few ACs who add to the debate. they probably are techdirt admin staffers, who know Mike would fire them , if they post under their real name!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
I've never seen you do that before. In fact, I usually see the opposite, which is you being hypocritical. I really thought it was hilarious when you insisted that illegal file-sharing was horrible but were found to have been using illegal file-sharing as part of your own lame business model. So it's okay to give away the Beatles' music, but not yours... Very logical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
I get good grades still in "secular studies" or "religious law studies" ,, mostly "A"s.
Sorry if you do not understand it,
Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens, they could not understand his logic either .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember The Anti-Mike
But please please PLEASE guys don't have kids together, thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember The Anti-Mike
name?
Me : No. If Mike is right on something ,, i say so ( electronic voting , paywall,, even "patents" to a small certain degree, as long as the Constitution is untouched).
I am me. I post only by me , from my thought and knowledge,
chips fall where they may
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
- By whom?
(I) "will beat you with facts and logic"
- like the ones missing from your post?
"all you AC's and folks with empty profiles , have empty heads."
- And this statement does what for your credibility?
"the "real posters" here, are not afraid to provide links to who they are ,, or simply use their real name , so we can google them."
- What is a real poster? And why does lack of personal info make one unreal? This is quite silly.
"Yes there are a few ACs who add to the debate. they probably are techdirt admin staffers, who know Mike would fire them , if they post under their real name!!"
- conjecture ... your sad attempts do you an injustice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
the "real posters" here, are not afraid to provide links to who they are ,, or simply use their real name , so we can google them."
Ah the last refuge of those who are losing the argument: attack the person, not the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.
No degree is ever necessary to discuss a thing, even law. If you truly believe that one is, then you are still the idiot everyone says you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will send shivers down the spine of any law firm. Trust me on this. They will GLADLY drop one 'bad' client in order to keep their 'regular' revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel the ne
The lawsuit "situation" can be fixed w/o touching Copyright law.
BUT we have "lawyers lobbying" against "other lawyers", on court procedure , AND congress , being mostly lawyers often makes it all worse.
--------------------
The Constitution protects us from a crazy Congress too !!
---------------
But Copy-Rights is cool . Everyone in Government agrees.
---------------------
( but patent is sick , most agree, me too.)
Why can you not understand that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel th
Why can you not understand that ?"
Maybe becase you have the writting style of a dyslexic baboon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still fee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still
There is no comment moderation , and w/o it , you got to cut through too much crap , to have a meaningful exchange.
Want to help , public policy ? fix Patent? . Adjust copyright lawsuit procedures?
Post intelligently and respectfully.
And maybe you Mike ,
if you ever agree with me ,, post such.
It would help your creditability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom s
People disagree with you, and have explained why. You disagree with them, but haven't explained why. Please do so, or I call bullshit. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom s
It would help your creditability."
Are having difficulty obtaining credit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
Amusingly, Techdirt posts are regularly found on various college websites as reading for assignments.
So, TP, you are wrong again. Will you admit it?
There is no comment moderation , and w/o it , you got to cut through too much crap , to have a meaningful exchange.
TP, there was tons of meaningful exchange. To date, your mode of commenting has been to insult many of our commenters, not respond to direct questions, never admit when you are wrong, and to ignore factual proof of your errors.
I would suggest that perhaps you rethink your position.
Post intelligently and respectfully.
This from the guy who calls any reasonable proof that he is wrong "pirate logic,"? This from the guy who falsely cites authorities that say the opposite of what he thinks they say? This from the guy who mocks those who don't have a law degree -- even though you have no law degree? This from a guy who abuses copyright law himself while screaming about how everyone who points this out to him is a "pirate"?
You have no credibility, TP. For your own sake, please, rethink your posting strategy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
Do you dispute that FACT?
Welcome to reality Mike.
--------------------------------------------
And Grade school teachers , and even High School teachers , could get fired if they recommended a site with foul language for a homework assignment.
------------------------------------
Enjoy being in the trash bin of history, Mike , as time will prove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're really cuckoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
I would say most of Congress doesn't think about copyright law very much. Those who do are split. There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said, including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Rick Boucher.
So, no, not 100% of Congress agree with you.
But, really, that doesn't mean anything either way. There are lots of things I disagree with Congress about, but it doesn't make me any less right. I do not understand your false appeal to authority.
Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:
Let's say 100% of Congress agreed that slavery was good for society. But some people felt otherwise. And they worked hard to explain their reasons. Would you argue that their reasons made no sense because 100% of Congress disagreed with them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
ME : Not a very factual sentence , but the Commerce committee thinks , holds hearings often,
It is their job to form the legislation,,
AND on copyright -- and most issues ---,, the congress as a majority whole --usually follows any. committees lead.
When they do not ,, that's when CNN does special reports, and c-span a hot watch.
---------------------------------------
MIKE : Those who do are split. There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said,
ME ; "many" , "seem" ," basics ",, pretty weak terms for a pro-writer.
MIKE : including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Rick Boucher.
So, no, not 100% of Congress agree with you.
ME : ok 3 out of 435 in the house plus 100 in the senate.
Truly a major political force [sic]. And I hear Texas wants to succeed form the union, t'ain't gonna happen,,neither will Mikes vision of Copyright.
( again Patents you got a chance , within the Constitutional framework , of the Copyright clause,)
MIKE :But, really, that doesn't mean anything either way.
ME : True from m your "crazy kill copyright prospective",, but not the "pro-copyright side",
Having congress on out side is what will make the ASCAP BORs ,,law !!!
MIKE :
There are lots of things I disagree with Congress about,
ME : ME TOO !!! ( Drug policy , I like a flat tax, . and I think Pelosci , is a nice women & great speaker , but a lousy dresser, not real style)
MIKE : but it doesn't make me any less right.
Me : Democracy is about majority rule. If your are holding a "3" ( weaken copyright) vs. "530" ( modernize and Better copyright) in congress , good chance you are not swimming in the mainstream, where policy is made,
MIKE :I do not understand your false appeal to authority.
Me : because you are an ANARCHIST MIKE !
MIKE : Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question,
ME : the newspaper ad , stuff ,, sure did ,, and i hold by it .
If not that one ,, restate,, i never dodge a question
MIKE : so let me ask another:
ME : shoot .
MIKE :Let's say 100% of Congress agreed that slavery was good for society. But some people felt otherwise. And they worked hard to explain their reasons. Would you argue that their reasons made no sense because 100% of Congress disagreed with them?
ME: As my political science proff always said , when some floated a premise like that :: " Let's say my Aunt Mary had balls, she would be my uncle Peter."
In other words your example is too far fetched from the real world to have meaning,
Surely you could make your point better, Maybe not.
( Slavery was ALWAYS a controversial subject , with the north free , and the south slave,, before the war , the States themselves decided, with Congressional oversight on slavery. )
==========
Yawn, too easy Mike,, no challenge in answering. High School stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins:
- - - - - - - - - -
The Very Angry Tea Party
By J.M. BERNSTEIN
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion
"Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins: when, that is, the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and what owes its existence to an other. "
"Americans struck with the state institutions supporting modern life is that they would be politically acceptable only to the degree to which they remained invisible, and that for all intents and purposes each citizen could continue to believe that she was sovereign over her life; she would, of course, pay taxes, use the roads and schools, receive Medicare and Social Security, but only so long as these could be perceived not as radical dependencies, but simply as the conditions for leading an autonomous and self-sufficient life. Recent events have left that bargain in tatters."
"Tea Party anger is, at bottom, metaphysical, not political: what has been undone by the economic crisis is the belief that each individual is metaphysically self-sufficient, that one’s very standing and being as a rational agent owes nothing to other individuals or institutions. The opposing metaphysical claim, the one I take to be true, is that the very idea of the autonomous subject is an institution, an artifact created by the practices of modern life: the intimate family, the market economy, the liberal state. Each of these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not have without them."
"Rather than participating in arranged marriages, as modern subjects we follow our hearts, choose our beloved, decide for ourselves who may or may not have access to our bodies, and freely take vows promising fidelity and loyalty until death (or divorce) do us part. There are lots of ways property can be held and distributed — as hysterical Tea Party incriminations of creeping socialism and communism remind us; we moderns have opted for a system of private ownership in which we can acquire, use and dispose of property as we see fit, and even workers are presumed to be self-owning, selling their labor time and labor power to whom they wish (when they can). And as modern citizens we presume the government is answerable to us, governs only with our consent, our dependence on it a matter of detached, reflective endorsement; and further, that we intrinsically possess a battery of moral rights that say we can be bound to no institution unless we possess the rights of “voice and exit.”
The great and inspiring metaphysical fantasy of independence and freedom is simply a fantasy of destruction.
If stated in enough detail, all these institutions and practices should be seen as together manufacturing, and even inventing, the idea of a sovereign individual who becomes, through them and by virtue of them, the ultimate source of authority. The American version of these practices has, from the earliest days of the republic, made individuality autochthonous while suppressing to the point of disappearance the manifold ways that individuality is beholden to a complex and uniquely modern form of life.
Of course, if you are a libertarian or even a certain kind of liberal, you will object that these practices do not manufacture anything; they simply give individuality its due. The issue here is a central one in modern philosophy: is individual autonomy an irreducible metaphysical given or a social creation? Descartes famously argued that self or subject, the “I think,” was metaphysically basic, while Hegel argued that we only become self-determining agents through being recognized as such by others who we recognize in turn. It is by recognizing one another as autonomous subjects through the institutions of family, civil society and the state that we become such subjects; those practices are how we recognize and so bestow on one another the title and powers of being free individuals.
All the heavy lifting in Hegel’s account turns on revealing how human subjectivity only emerges through intersubjective relations, and hence how practices of independence, of freedom and autonomy, are held in place and made possible by complementary structures of dependence. At one point in his “Philosophy of Right,” Hegel suggests love or friendship as models of freedom through recognition. In love I regard you as of such value and importance that I spontaneously set aside my egoistic desires and interests and align them with yours: your ends are my desires, I desire that you flourish, and when you flourish I do, too. In love, I experience you not as a limit or restriction on my freedom, but as what makes it possible: I can only be truly free and so truly independent in being harmoniously joined with you; we each recognize the other as endowing our life with meaning and value, with living freedom. Hegel’s phrase for this felicitous state is “to be with oneself in the other.”
Hegel’s thesis is that all social life is structurally akin to the conditions of love and friendship; we are all bound to one another as firmly as lovers are, with the terrible reminder that the ways of love are harsh, unpredictable and changeable. And here is the source of the great anger: because you are the source of my being, when our love goes bad I am suddenly, absolutely dependent on someone for whom I no longer count and who I no longer know how to count; I am exposed, vulnerable, needy, unanchored and without resource. In fury, I lash out, I deny that you are my end and my satisfaction, in rage I claim that I can manage without you, that I can be a full person, free and self-moving, without you. I am everything and you are nothing. "
--- the whole piece again @
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
Thirteen year old girls on myspace write better than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.
My hold a writing Arts minor for a top 50 university.
My resume :
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/search/label/my%20full%20resume
and my music :
http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin
-----------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.
Im sure the university would appreciate you kindly returning this misplaced item.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said, including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog --
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml
Excerpt:
"If people are pirating movies and music, they should be punished. There are laws on the books against that illegal activity."
" I am quite pleased that at the December meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States delegation outlined its support for new fair-use-like exceptions to copyright for the visually impaired that might help them have access to technologies like book readers and more.
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that ++++“The United States is committed to both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” That’s exactly my belief, +++++and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.""
From : January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml
--------------------- ---------------
Mike , even Karl , posts better than you, lately.
( I just woke , for natures call here @ 2am, -- i know ,, more than anyone needed to know -- maybe next "call" , I will find the other Reps. speeches on copyrights.
------------------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:
ME : I am not sure what "direct quest"
If you mean the Newspaper ad one :
I did here again:
MIKE :"Question, TP: do you think it's illegal or unfair for a car company to buy an ad in a newspaper next to the classified listings for car dealers?."
ME ::: Ask a lawyer who deals with it, MM.
Ask a sitting judge , also. Get back to me.
I follow the lead of my teachers, mentors , spiritual masters.
I do not invent to arguments , i post here.
They are strait out of any Political theory class and/or textbook
But, on your question-- which is irrelevant to copy law ---- my educated guess it is the newspaper's call, and the AMERICAN law is neutral on the point.
But I may be wrong , as I am only answering of the top of my head w/o research. If you have any sources on a good discourse on the topic , i will gladly read it carefully. Then ask some law professors and/or sitting judges, that I know personally, and get back to you.
I do not own a newspaper , so , if the AMERICAN law is neutral , i would not know , how i would view it ethically, without dealing daily with the issue. ( Fair ??)
But I fail to see what you question has to do with my right to control my Art. A right you deny exists. That is where you are wrong. and it is the root & core of or "debate".
You never answers , "MY Springsteen vs John McCain" question.
Do you mike , think Bruce had the , "legal" ? , "moral" , and/ or "natural" RIGHT to tell McCain NOT to use his songs and music?
POINT :>>>That fact is McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song. He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART. Do you Mike ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:
Published: June 13, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/theater/theaterspecial/14tony.html?hp
"The American rock ’n’ roll story “Memphis” won the Tony Award for best musical on Sunday night"
---------------------
ME : David Bryan Rashbaum (--- Memphis songwriter and Bon Jovi keyboardist and founding bandmember---) ---is my first cousin Bruce's ( our mom are sisters) ---- Bruce is first cousin of David ( their Dads are bothers), we know each other since early childhood
Congrats DAVID !!!
(((( In 1982 ,, I am sitting next to David at our common cousin Bruce's wedding, and we is talking music ,, me my first Green Village gig just started ,, and David is telling me ,,how Tom Petty , is helping "the unsigned" at the time Bon Jovi score a good record deal. I thought "yeah , right , good luck" , and drank some more wine. The next time we saw each other , at my Parents house in 1987 , Bon Jovi ruled planet earth musically. AND ,, Now that David has a Tony:
I can hear my Mom and Aunt already ,, "David has a Tony and a Grammy ,, why don't you ? huh , your just the family Rabbi. ( Mom and Dad are visiting next week to NYC for a family wedding,, uuuuugh.) )))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not easy. If you did not do it, you have no proof you did not do it. But they have some kind of "proof" (extremely weak, but more than nothing) that you did it, namely the fact that the output of some unproven and unreliable process pointed to your IP address.
You cannot prove a negative, and their weak evidence is still stronger than your complete lack of evidence.
As you see, even completely innocent people can easily lose their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.
Gone are the days when you were caught, you said "yes, it was me who did that, I did wrong and I should be punished by the full extent of the law".
Now days its all this "Im innocent" "I never had relaltions with that person", And the prisons today, everyone in there is innocent, just ask them !
It would be just great if you could put an add on google that says "Everyone who has undertaken unorthorised file sharing please report your guilt to us so we can charge you".
That would be so much easier for all concerned.
I wonder why it does not work that way?
May be that is why its not up to the person charged of an offense to rule on it, if it was im quite sure more people would get off.
It IS why they have judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to act for or against you. You dont get to decide on your own guild or innocent.
As you tend to find most people who are guilty profess their innocents, very few innocent people profess their innocense.
And very few of the guilty will up front admit their guilt, whereas most will admit their innocence regardless of guilt or innocence, thus they dont get to make that decision, they are kind of biased.
Just as you and them dont get to interpret the law how you see fit, it is what it is, like it or not, deal with it dont break it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.
These lawsuit threats are nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They are everything to do with using legal threats to extort money.
The equivalent actions in the UK have been called "legal blackmail" in the UK House of Lords.
The people threatening these actions don't care whether the people they threaten are guilty or not. They only care if they will pay up. Innocent people are just as likely (possibly more likely) to pay up than the guilty - because the guilty are more likely to realize that there is no evidence that will stand up in court.
Since US copyright group (like ACS law and Davenport Lyons) are not actually going to sue anyone - it doesn't really matter if their evidence is genuine. Given their business model all they need to do is grab some IP addresses of the net more or less at random and then accuse people. Unlike the RIAA they don't want any actual trials - since that will just lose them money - even if they win (since the odds are that many of the accused don't have enough money to even cover their legal costs). Of course if they were to lose a case it would be a big hit on their bottom line - as well as damaging their ability to bring further threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.
It IS why they have judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to act for or against you. You dont get to decide on your own guild or innocent."
Yeah this worked so good for Prohibition. You know what else this works GREAT for? Slavery. Since slavery was legal and the "offender" wasnt allowed to "rule on it", that is why we have slavery today. Oh wait....thats not right now, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.
Not sure in what country you reside, but in many places one must be proven guilty, with evidence - not accusations.
In addition, you may not be aware of the fact that there are people in prison who are found to be innocent. This happens quite often. Some DAs have become indignant and combative when faced with the fact that they imprisoned an innocent person. So, please get off your high horse and join reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]