MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing

from the what-happens-when-you-have-no-one-technological-on-staff dept

Thu, Apr 12th 2012 11:15am — Mike Masnick

It appears that the MPAA has jumped into a legal dispute that hits on a few different points, all of which are interesting, but the really crazy point is the fact that the crux of their argument is that merely embedding or linking (technically, the same thing) to infringing videos is infringement itself -- and someone setting up a site that lets people embed or link should also be guilty of infringement. This is, to put it mildly, crazy talk from an organization that still seems to have an institutional cluelessness about how the internet works. To be sure, there are a few different issues related to this case, which was really about porn company Flava Works suing the site MyVidster and its owner, Marques Gunter. MyVidster lets people link or embed videos from other sites. It did not host any of the content itself. In accordance with the DMCA's notice and takedown provisions, Gunter would take down any embeds or links when he received a notice. However, the judge said that the site lost its DMCA safe harbor provisions because he did not take any further action: specifically because he did not cut off repeat infringers:

“It is true that service providers are not required to police their sites for infringement, but they are required to investigate and respond to notices of infringement—with respect to content and repeat infringers,”

Now, it is absolutely true the DMCA requires that a site have a policy for terminating repeat infringers. But it does not go so far as to say that they then need to proactively "investigate" content related to repeat infringers as the court stated. EFF and Public Knowledge filed amicus briefs pointing out how this is not clear at all, and is quite problematic, since sites don't quite know what is and what is not infringing. This is a big issue, because the sheer vagueness of the law leaves plenty of sites exposed -- and as we recently noted, the way the DMCA (stupidly) works, is that if you fail to meet each and every complex condition of the safe harbors, you can lose them all entirely. That's ridiculous, but that's how the law is set up.

Google and Facebook also weighed in on the case, bringing up some of the same points, but raising the bigger issue of the pure insanity that Flava Works (and the judge!) appear to think that an embed/link is the same thing as hosting the content yourself. This case is in the 7th Circuit, but over in the 9th Circuit, there is a perfectly reasonable and logical decision in one of the many Perfect 10 cases, which establishes the totally common sense "server test." Basically, it's this: is the content distributed from your server? No? Then you're not the one guilty of direct infringement. This makes sense because it's correct. Anyone with even an ounce of technological knowledge understands that embedding a video is not the same as hosting a video. So, that's what Google and Facebook explained to the appeals court.

So what did the MPAA in its luddite-soaked haze have to say about all of this? Yeah, it sarcastically dismisses common sense and launches itself headlong into crazy land by insisting that it's the folks who think the server test is reasonable who are out to lunch:

"Even assuming that Amazon.com’s novel 'server test' applied to the display right (and it should not), the statutory language clearly precludes application of that test to the separate performance right. myVidster users who posted embedded links to video streams directly infringed the performance right even though they did not necessarily possess a copy of the infringed work."

I realize that the MPAA isn't known for having any technological capability whatsoever, but it has to be said: this is just flat out wrong. Embedding does not directly infringe the performance right. They're linking to someone else's server entirely. That host may directly infringe the performance right, but the person who embeds/links to it cannot. Because they have no control over the work at all. They literally are writing an insanely short line of text (or, more likely, copying that tiny line of text) that literally just points your browser to some other server. That's it. When merely pointing someone to another server is seen as direct infringement of a performance right, we've got serious problems.

And it doesn't end there (of course). The MPAA also tries, again, to pretend that the DMCA requires proactive filtering. They complain that MyVidster:

... willfully blinded itself to infringements by failing to take steps, like filtering, to identify re-postings of the same infringing links that Flava had already identified.

Yes, the MPAA is trying to lie and back its way into a proactive requirement for sites to monitor by saying that failing to filter is "willfully blinding." That's wrong. It's obnoxiously wrong. It's the MPAA trying to rewrite the DMCA and add in SOPA filtering requirements on the fly, even though its lawyers already know this argument has failed over and over again. The MPAA just seems to believe if it keeps saying it, maybe it'll find a clueless court to agree.

This is what's so pitiful about the MPAA. When they lose, they don't realize they were wrong, they just keep arguing the same damn thing in court over and over again, and act shocked that anyone might argue otherwise, even though they've lost this argument in court over and over again.

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: dmca, embedding, linking
Companies: facebook, flava works, google, mpaa, myvidster

192 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

S, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:17am

The free speech angle
A link is simply a description of the location of a thing; all the technical objections to their argument aside, isn't the core of their argument that simply describing a crime is equivalent to committing it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:24am

Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
You keep repeating that links are just speech. Okay. But speech itself is not fully protected. There are many types of speech that can land you in jail and it won't matter how many times that you try to tell the judge the magic words "first amendment." You can't incite a riot, you can't conspire to commit a crime, and you can't assist in a crime. It doesn't matter if your only contributions are words. You still go to jail.

So if you really want to believe that links are speech then you need to admit that sometimes posting a link or a series of links can be a part of a crime. If it's true for regular words, then it's true for your sainted links.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:25am

Re: The free speech angle
Everything that points to crime is also crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rottweiler, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:26am

Re: The free speech angle
I think they will argue that embedding or linking to infringing material is the same thing as telling someone where to buy illegal drugs and I wouldn't be surprised if they use that analogy in the future, I mean, if my memory serves me correctly, they argued in the past that it is like facilitating infringement.

MAFIAA "arguments" are always the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:32am

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Hey boB, how the hell are ya? From the videos below, please tell us which ones are infringing and which ones are not:

https://www.google.com/search?q=beavis&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&c lient=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=vid&source=og&sa=N&tab =wv

If I decide to embed videos from that list, and one is infringing:
1) How would I know?
2) Explain why in the world should I be charged with direct copyright infringment.

Ill wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:34am

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
C'mon boB, tick tock tick tock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:35am

I realize that the MPAA isn't known for having any technological capability whatsoever, but it has to be said: this is just flat out wrong. Embedding does not directly infringe the performance right.

Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 1st, 2011 @ 11:16am:

Are you claiming that embedding a video would not be considered a public performance? It certainly looks like it would be based on my reading of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:35am

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
The thing with links is that they are like telling someone that they sell crack over there. Is that a crime? Even though dealing in crack is a crime, telling people that crack dealers exist over there is not a crime, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:37am

Re:
Wow one is an opinion based quote, the other a fact based quote.

L2Correlate data
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:39am

Re:
Oh. You are referring to a comment Mike made in which he was describing the language of a bill that has not been signed into law.

You are getting lazy in your trolling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:40am

try telling Richard O'Dwyer that. i am sure he will be really pleased to know that, seeing as how he is being extradited to the US over criminal copyright because he linked to sites that contained some dubious files. but hey, i guess there is more than one kind of linking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:44am

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I really am surprised people still even try to argue with bob...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:46am

I look forward to many years of the MPAA trying to twist anything and everything a website does into "willful blindness" after the 2nd Circuit was kind enough to tell us in Viacom v YouTube that the standard can be used to show the requisite knowledge under the DMCA, but utterly failed to define what sort of activity would meet that threshold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:47am

Re:
O'Dwyer was exactly who I thought of. I don't see how this case is materially different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:47am

Re:
No, it's just the UK sucking up to the US as they've done (at least) since Bush's war on terror. Bummer for Richard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:47am

More whack-a-mole
Linksites are just the newest target in this copyright clown-fight:

England becomes an MPAA bitch.

and here Greece is practicing their MPAA love.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:50am

How many points do I receive?!
Behold my link to an infringing video! And since Mike was kind enough to provide a place for me to put a link to point you to a video that was uploaded by someone other than me, MIKE IS OBVIOUSLY EQUALLY TO BLAME FOR THIS ATROCIOUS THEFT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW3fE1kJ3o
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:50am

Re: Re:
That may be accurate as it applies to extradition. But the underlying criminal complaint in these cases is quite similar and is not driven by Britain's need to appease.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:52am

"...same damn thing..."
When I start cursing in my posts, it's also my indication my patience is reaching a point of flat out just not giving a damn and going off on the offenders.

Looking forward to this article from you, Mike. So, next week?

Note: not offended with this, just find it amusing. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Arguing with trolls isn't necessarily about trying to convince them. That will rarely, if ever, happen. But the comments are archived for posterity and it's important that counterpoints are offered so that insane vitriol isn't the only content that readers will find years later when they look at the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:53am

Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Well everyone needs a hobby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:56am

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Hey, bob, what did I tell you?

Get off the internet before you hurt yourself.

Let the adults talk, you go outside and play in the street, okay?

900+ failed arguments and not one good point in all of that time, bob.

Give up, go away, and maybe some day you'll return to being a human being.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:57am

Re:
Wow.

I don't know what's more shocking: the fact that Mike screwed up (apparently, unless I'm missing something), or the clearly obsession you have for him.

I mean, only some sort of nutcase would remember something like this from 10 months ago. A nutcase, or someone with an agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:05pm

Re: Re: Re:
Says you. Or why would the extradite someone who did not break UK laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re:
The context here is that an AC claimed that a bill trying to be passed (but wasn't!), would not expand the law to include embedding videos as a public performance, while Mike argued that the bill in question did in fact allow embeds to be considered public performances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:14pm

Re:
LOL! Nice catch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Hey, if you're going to be running a business, you need to make sure you're following the rules. Doesn't everyone want the small bloggers to be seen as just as serious as the big media companies?

If I were you, I would look for a reputable source of links just like a business that looks for a reputable distributor. If a store starts stocking stolen goods that "just fell off a truck", it risks going to jail and no argument about size or ignorance will make a difference to the cops. Trafficking in stolen goods is trafficking in stolen goods.

I think it's easy to find high quality links. Companies like Hulu have direct relationships with content producers. If you embed their content, you're on good ground. But if you trust some search engine that brags about how it will accept content from just anyone no questions asked, well, you take your chances.

Bloggers can't have it both ways. They can't ask the world to respect them for their intelligence and then shrug their shoulders about the source of their video links.

"If, therefore, you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth, who will trust you with true wealth?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
Great now we can have Rupert Murdoch arrested!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
Except that infringement isn't a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
So... the news is crime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
hmmmm... too bad he looks like a willful straw man :[
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
You might want to modify that HO:

"In the indictment, the US Attorney details how Ellerbe was paid by crack cocaine dealers to tell them when narcotics officers were getting close -- right down to telling the drug dealers what cars narcotics officers would be driving."

Again, just speech.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/163755/

One of the classic tricks from shows like The Wire involve putting the real drug dealer on the corner who then points to some underaged kids with the real drugs. The real dealers pretend they don't know what's going on and count on the kids to get reduced sentences. The courts have figured this out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:24pm

Re: Re:
catch what? it's two out of context quotes...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
You didn't answer his question. And again infringement is not theft. (See )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re:
to techflaws.org

the UK didn't volunteer O'Dwyer to be extradited, the request came from the US at the behest of the entertainment industries. i bet you they will use him as an example that linking must be wrong because he is being extradited. any excuse is good enough for these ass hats!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:28pm

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Speech, should only be restricted to safeguard the physical security of someone in immediate danger of harm, copycrap doesn't qualify for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
Everyone in the neighborhood knows that the house on *that* corner is a crack house.

Is telling someone this a crime?

What if they ask you? (As a web browser does.) "Where is the crack house?" "It's over there on that corner." Was a crime just committed? What if the question was for the purposes of avoidance instead of patronage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:30pm

Re:
He is being extradited to be judged he was not found guilty of anything as of yet and this case could immensely help him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Not what was asked of you boB. Can you follow simple directions? Answer 2 simple questions... boB.

If I were you - You're not.
I am not a business, boB. just a guy with a little website where I host my kids pics, embed videos of interest, and [GASP] even have a few "albums" in mp3 format for me to listen to.

"If a store starts stocking stolen goods that "just fell off a truck", it risks going to jail and no argument about size or ignorance will make a difference to the cops." Then you would arrest everyone that bought something from that store? - FAIL boB, c'mon now.

Hulu - legal today, illegal tomorrow.

"But if you trust some search engine" - So you admit there is no way to tell? Appears so.

So now we played around with this little song and dance, please show us you at least have one shred of honesty(if you do) and answer the questions:
If I decide to embed videos from that list, and one is infringing:
1) How would I know?
2) Explain why in the world should I be charged with direct copyright infringement.

Simple enough, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
Maybe the reason I'm asking someone for the crack house location is so that I can avoid it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I hope small bloggers are never ever serious as the big boys since the big boys are such a fiasco, I hope they find new ways to be better than the old guard and I don't mean the old people I mean the old ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
But the case you site involves a conspiracy to commit a crime since the guy on the corner and the kids with the drugs were working together in the first place. If I add a link to some content on someone else's server without their knowledge there is no conspiracy. Big Difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Speech that put the lifes of someone at risk, copycrap is not and should never be used to silence speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Not sure what happened to the link...
Downling vs. United States
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Following the rules is great as long as they have clear lines. So tell me, which file was infringing?

If the MPAA / RIAA members can't even tell you whether a file is infringing, and they are the most likely to know, then nobody else should have that burden.

Put the liability on who uploaded it. Not the host that hosts it. And certainly not on someone who links to it.

If you got the hosted file taken down, then all links are taken care of automatically. You should stop wasting your time going after links, and go after what is linked to. Follow up by going after who uploaded it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:38pm

Links and embeds are really infringement - depending on how they are done and the intent.

Link sites that feature nothing but links to DVD ripz and pirated material downloads are clearly aware of what they are doing, and they should not be exempt.

Blog style sites that include nothing but embeds of infringing material should be the in the same boat, knowing that it is illegal should be enough. Further, since many of these site owners upload the material themselves to third party "cloud hosting" and "video sharing" sites to avoid prosecution, they really are responsible for their actions.

The term "conspiracy to commit" comes to mind - intent is a very important thing, and thus you cannot blindly say "link sites are not responsible" and "embedding sites are not responsible", because their intent should go a long way to defining their guilt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Maybe I'm asking for the crack house location so I can avoid it.

"Hey, kind sir, could you please bluetooth me the GPS coordinates of the crack house so I can stay away from it?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Definitely insightful and correct.

There is also a little sadist in me that sometimes enjoys kicking the retarded kid. We all have it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
Exactly why I said we can arrest RM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fiestachickens (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
So to be clear, a "reputable" company is a company that has a direct relationship with the content gatekeeper (I contend that many of the companies that have a relationship with don't actually produce anything, they simply "own" the rights).

However, search engines that are in the fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/11207.html) apparently are not reputable.

I... don't think I'm understanding your definition of reputable.

And remember, theft does not equal infringement. If I peddle in stolen goods, someone lost the good and I benefit from it. If I link to some infringing work, no goods are stolen.

One final note. If I link to site Xs article which does not contain any infringing content, I'm good to go. However, later site X absolutely can change the article that I linked to so that the article now includes infringing works. And suddenly, through no fault of my own, I am no directly infringing. That. Is. Crazy. How do you justify that? Do I have to proactively monitor every link that I've ever used every moment of every day so I can avoid any possible liability?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re:
Or someone who knows how to use the search function
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fiestachickens (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I am no directly infringing = I am now directly infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fiestachickens (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:42pm

Re:
And we all know how easy it is to prove intent...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
And by the way did you notice that Ellerbe wasn't charged with selling drugs but rather "one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and three counts of extortion." How is me adding a link to something that is on someone else's website a conspiracy when they don't even know about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yes as I've said before it's the same reason we all enjoy watching a cat enjoys play with a roach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:47pm

"Anyone with even an ounce of technological knowledge understands that embedding a video is not the same as hosting a video."

let's take this one on too. I have way more than an ounce of technological knowledge, and I am smart enough to know that, for the end user (website visitor) there is no real difference. The point of an embedded video is to make it appear to be part of your site, and not part of someone else's site. Putting an embedded video on your site is a choice, no different from writing words or choosing an image from your own library of images. You may not directly control the content delivery, but by embedding it, you are making it part of your webpage.

Now, of course, the standard argument is "the HTML says it's another site... it's just a pointer". That would be true, but that would also be a very narrow, very "can't see the forest for the trees" way of looking at things. Most consumers don't read html, they browse the website. Your intent in embedding the video is to make it part of your site, and thus, it should be considered an infringement.

This is even more clear in the current file host / video host situation. You upload the video to them anonymously, embed it in your site, and suddenly like magic, all of your liablity disappears. POOF! It's like a magic wand.

Putting a video on a third party site to host for you should not limit your liability. Why should it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Stolen goods?

What's getting stolen, bob?

Please tell me.

Because, the last time I checked, putting a link online is nothing more than posting an address.

You're trying to tell me that posting an address is illegal?

Wow, you really are ass-backwards, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:50pm

The funny part in all of this is that, without those websites linking the industry also loses the capability to track infringement since it is not being crowdsourced by others, linking actually may decrease the cost of policing their own shit, but who cares, instead they want others to start using several others places that are untraceable oh that is just perfect.

Doubt?

Here:

Youtube: Man on a Ledge (2012) full movie it is gone now but it was posted on Youtube and advertised on an anonymous forum LoL

The great thing about new movies is that none of them have a fingerprint on Youtube so all the uploads pass, and people get to other forums that can't be traced and post the links there, now how are the idiots from the industry are going to track thousands of uploads each day?

Answer:
They will not be able to, what apparently the idiots from the industry and the government want is to create the illusion of stability, so the first step against all this BS is to show them in no uncertain terms how piracy occurs and how they are powerless to do anything about it without pissing off the entire nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:50pm

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
It maybe illegal to incite a riot, conspire to commit a crime, or assist in a crime, but it's not illegal tell some in a bar that you can watch a copyright infringing copy of the latest Disney movie on YouTube, so why the hell should that be illegal online?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I've been waiting for a scorecard update for him from you.

And here bob, here is a link mental age appropriate site for you to start with in the mean time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: How many points do I receive?!
I dunno, but this is DELICIOUS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17sEq7HX2QE

YES! YES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re:
Really?
And how do you define a blog that has nothing but infringing material?

Have you asserted the illegality of each and every link?
Nope you couldn't
Have you asserted the intentions of the guy who owns the blog?
Apparently not since you speculate that since it is supposedly full of links that you assume are all illegal he must know unfortunately for you the law doesn't work that way, you must show some proof first or get the fuck out of court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
It's not, but their entire EXISTENCE is based around the assumption it is.

I'll reiterate that: controlling "infringement" is about controlling artists and their audiences.

The RIAA is not simply a profit-oriented organisation: if it were, it would seek to maximise profits; instead, it seeks to maximise control, even when that reduces profit, short or long term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re:
Also mapping crime is illegal now?

http://www.crimemapping.com/

Those people keep constructing detailed maps of criminal activity showing where it occurs, where all the pimps are, where all the drug dealers are, where all the boosted cars happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
When someone doesn't like it, yes -- at least, according to the powers that be in America.

See: Assange, Manning, and countless others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
But you now know where it is, and thus could potentially buy crack in the future: clearly you're a criminal, and the guy who told you is a criminal too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
So literally everything is crime? I mean that's what you're suggesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:58pm

Re:
Unless I'm misreading the context of the previous article and the specific quote, that was a discussion about a PROPOSED LAW that would make it include linking and embedding IF IT HAD PASSED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re:
"Your intent in embedding the video is to make it part of your site, and thus, it should be considered an infringement."

Stopped reading right there, because you, sir, are a moron.

Embedding a video is nothing more than allowing people to watch a video on your website without having to go to OTHER websites to watch.

Does that mean that the embedded video is hosted on the website you see it on?

NO! Of course not!

Also, it's pretty hard to believe, for one second that an embedded video is part of a website when the video itself has TONS of reference points saying where it's from.

Maybe if you had any sort of knowledge about how embedding really worked, I'd believe you, but, since you don't, I can ignore you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re:
Your explanation may work in the conspiracy you've solely concocted.

Nothing to do with the article, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:01pm

tl;dr version
"The internet is not a read-only style like it should be, people use the internet and do stuff and that should be illegal!"

I'm sorry that you feel that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:03pm

Re:
So what you are saying is that anyone who uses a service that is found to be illegal should be charged for the same crime is that it basically?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re:
yep you read correctly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re:
Nope. Mike was talking about the language of the current law, not the language of a proposed bill.

Here's the original comment:

Are you claiming that embedding a video would not be considered a public performance? It certainly looks like it would be based on my reading of the law.

To perform or display a work �publicly� means �

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

That certainly seems to encompass linking/embedding.

That language comes from 17 USC 101.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:05pm

Re:
If any service offered by a third party can make you a criminal anybody who uses a cab where the driver is a drug dealer is now also a drug dealer right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yes, we should all follow paywall bob's lead and make sure to be fearful of breaking rules that aren't clear, uncertain of the sources for our content unless we know for absolute certain they're paid up with the right MAFIAA, and constantly doubt anyone that attempts to submit their own content and any site that accepts such content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: How many points do I receive?!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Of course I didn't play your game because it's just a distraction that has little to do with reality. There are plenty of guys in jail who've tried sophistries like that.

I gave you a perfectly good algorithm for getting good links-- go to a reputable source. I've also told you that your game is wrong and has never been trusted in the past. If you get busted for trafficking in stolen goods, you can't hold up two products to the judge and say, "I challenge you to tell me which one is from a legit source and which one isn't." The judge and jury will laugh at you.

So you can continue on with your sophistry, but I can assure you that the real world has gone through this logical game before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yes. Embedding and linking to infringing content is the same thing as taking children and having them sell fucking drugs for you.

Is there a depth of sleaze you could slink to lower than this? I mean I guess you could conflate embedding and linking with gang raping an infant but that's about it. The mind boggles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"...I can assure you that the real world has gone through this logical game before."

The real world or your 'Real (Big) World'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
It's telling that you can't (won't) answer two simple, direct questions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:16pm

Come on guys, this is the only way were going to stop all this stealing, the authors, artists, and performers dont deserve their work to be stolen, and this is why measures like these need to be made, and this seems like a perfectly acceptable way of going about it, the same way one might use a nuke in a fireworks display in order to get the biggest result, come on, whats wrong with that.

Right, sarcasm aside, yes, this would most definately work for them, give em more control, and they get a position to shape the internet to their will, problem with that, control issues aside, is that yes, there would probably be less posting of infringing content, but heres the kicker, the CONSEQUENCE, you know, the thing they they dont give a shit about, is that there will be less of EVERYTHING because of the tip toeing around, the indecisiveness this will cause.
Can i post this?
Should i post this?

Its a real possibillity that the internet would fundamentally change, that we'd end up with a crippled internet,

i can imagine a granpa grandson converstation somewhere, at somepoint, going along these lines

"i remember when the internet used to, BE something, where we paid internet providers only ONE monthly subscription and we'd have access to every internet service imagineable, like email and skype and what not.
Not like now, where you have to pay again for the services not covered by isp's, and who's bright idea was that internet tax malarky......... i dont know, in my day, things were better thats for sure"

True story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm

This is what's so pitiful about the MPAA. When they lose, they don't realize they were wrong, they just keep arguing the same damn thing in court over and over again, and act shocked that anyone might argue otherwise, even though they've lost this argument in court over and over again.

sounds like those high up in the ivory tower are not actually aware that they have been getting ruled against. i wonder if they are being fed a load when the underlings are reporting how things are going in the trenches...
...its happened before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jacob Blaustein, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:22pm

So....
We are all in agreement that the MPAA will fail as before on such matters right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:24pm

Re: The free speech angle
They aren't describing a crime. They are putting a sign up that says a crime is taking place at a certain location.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Oh boB, boB, boB. So sad of you. Now I see why you get ridiculed so badly on this site. I am going to copy silverscarcats comment to you:
Hey, bob, what did I tell you?

Get off the internet before you hurt yourself.

Let the adults talk, you go outside and play in the street, okay?

900+ failed arguments and not one good point in all of that time, bob.

Give up, go away, and maybe some day you'll return to being a human being.

"The judge and jury will laugh at you." And we will laugh at the joke you are time and time again.

So much fail:
"If you get busted for trafficking in stolen goods" He he he such a joke. Your mom must facepalm every time she lays her eyes on you.

Se ya boBBy boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re:
You got that far? I had to stop at " I am smart enough to know that, for the end user (website visitor) there is no real difference."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:28pm

Re:
You point this out as if nearly a year of case-law between one comment and the other couldn't have changed anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:29pm

Re:
for the end user (website visitor) there is no real difference

This is completely irrelevant with regards to the point of who committed infringement.

no different from writing words or choosing an image from your own library of images

Actually, it's very different. When you write words or choose an image, you are the one hosting that content. When you link to a video, you are not. What it looks like to the website viewer is irrelevant.

This is even more clear in the current file host / video host situation. You upload the video to them anonymously, embed it in your site, and suddenly like magic, all of your liablity disappears.

Not even close to true. You've committed the infringement when you uploaded the video, and are liable for that. Linking to that video is not the infringing act, though.

The introduction of anonymity only affects whether or not they can find you, not whether or not you're guilty. And it doesn't affect the equation at all, since you can just as easily run a website anonymously as upload a video anonymously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:30pm

Only those whom desire the dead of the internet need apply..
The thing that keeps coming to my mind about this is that if embedded links to infringing material is an infringement in itself then we will have effectively 'broken' then Internet, because the only way you can safely put anything on is to make it yourself.

No comment posting, because that could contain an infringing link. No linking to another site, because that could contain something that infringes on someone else�s work (or be changed to something infringing later on). Good bye, review sites, social networking, and most everything the internet is actually used for.

You will need the equivalent of a phone book to find what you want, because there would be no search engine, since that would then link to any infringing site out there.

On the plus side, I'm sure that legacy 'Content' gatekeepers will be happy; they will have their old business model back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
If rules regarding stolen goods and infringing material were the same you'd have a point but they aren't so you don't and if you tried to say they were in court the judge and jury would laugh at you.

So will the real sophist please stand up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:31pm

ehh
They want talking about movies illegal?! Logical reference, like hyper-links and talking, is something they want to get rid of?

Lets extend this.

They have to consider "advertising" right to distribute if linking is "distributing". If my local cable company runs a commercial for them, advertising their movie, this now means my cable company now has fully right to distribute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re:
The courts have already ruled on the conspiracy thing by setting the precedent in the ruling on BitTorrent swarms.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04022118323/court-says-bittorrent-users-connect ed-to-same-swarm-are-not-involved-any-conspiracy.shtml

You have to prove that there was an agreement between the parties to prove conspiracy. Adding links to a site that I have no other connection to and they are not aware of does not constitute a conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re:
I could define it as civil disobedience designed to highlight the idiocy of the law itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

Re:
What is wrong with you?

I will have to disagree

That pointing is bad

Just because I Link

Makes me not a criminal

Merely a human
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:35pm

Re:
ya know... when that was rolling around in my head, it seemed like a perfectly reasonable statement. now that i actually read it.... not so much....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but...

If you get busted for trafficking in stolen goods, you can't hold up two products to the judge and say, "I challenge you to tell me which one is from a legit source and which one isn't." The judge and jury will laugh at you.

In your world, where infringement equals theft, hosting an infringing video would be trafficking in stolen goods. Linking to somebody else's video would be, at best, trafficking in grey-market goods -- beacuse, as has been demonstrated over and over, it's not immediately apparent whether a video was posted with the consent of the copyright holder, or even who that copyright holder is. So, in your world, a linker/embedder would be like someone who stands up in court to testify that they bought a bicycle from a pawn shop; even if it turns out that the bicycle was originally stolen, the person who bought it from the trafficker is unlikely to be charged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yes.

Oh sure there's nothing wrong with posting a restaurant's address with your review. No one would hold you responsible for stomach poisoning.

But if you put up a website called "stolengoodsBay.com" and you let thieves list addresses where stolen goods can be purchased cheaply, I find it hard to believe that any jury would let you go free.

If you put up a web site called "hotgirls.com" and you posted the addresses of hot girls without their permission, I can guarantee you that you would not stay in business long. Look how long it took for "Girls Around Me" to get shut down and they were using 100% public information that girls made a conscious decision to share.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17582975

Posting an address is not guaranteed to be an innocent act. It might be or it might not be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
My big question today is - How does boB avoid getting the living shit slapped out of him every day? I mean, if a normal person were to have a conversation with him, I'd bet that it would be no more than two minutes before his nose would be bleeding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Unlikely?

Where have you been? I went into a bike shop to buy a cheap, used bike and the owner told me point-blank that he stopped selling used bikes because of the impossibility of telling whether they were stolen. Too many were stolen and he didn't want to encourage it.

Here's a guy who was found with 30 stolen bikes. He claimed he found them in a ravine and couldn't tell that they were stolen. Did the police believe him?

http://blog.stolenbicycleregistry.com/2010/12/thieves-getting-nailed-left-and-right.html

So go on believing that the trafficker is unlikely to be charged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I never said they were the same thing. But they can be close enough that the principles overlap -- ask MP3.com and Napster etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James T (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:50pm

Pure crazy is right
The main reason why embedding isn't direct infringement is because the site MyVidster can't alter the content directly. If they did that might technicially make them liable. Just giving a link to another site, or offering an applet that loads the file from another site which has no office relation to MyVidster is not infringment from MyVidster. If the laws are changed then we could make this a form of infringement.

Simply put the file is located elsewhere, that server could change the video file at anytime. MyVidster is just pointing the customers PC to that channel. It's like a specialized remote control to point out content that is just plain available.

Now it gets more complicated with Akamai but then in those cases there is a contract. If a content distributor like Akamai served up a file I suspect they could be directly liable as well as the contracting company who is pushing the file out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
No. It's not a big difference. There are plenty of companies running web sites full of pointers to infringing content. They sell access to these pointers. That's what the argument is about. It's not about some clueless grandmother linking to the wrong file.

I think this kind of wink-wink linking is very much a conspiracy to commit a crime. So I have no problem with the analogy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
Geez, I stopped reading at "I have way more than an ounce of technological knowledge..."

If you think you need to prop yourself up and declare your intelligence level, you likely fall below the average IQ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
There were never any criminal charges filed against Napster. Only commercial infringement (ie. unauthorized selling of copies) was a criminal matter prior to the DMCA which Napster predated. As Napster never sold anything, there was nothing commercial about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yup.

Posting addresses can certainly get you in trouble. Oh, there's nothing wrong with posting an address next to a restaurant review. No one would blame you for any stomach poisoning.

But I'm sure there would be trouble if you posted the addresses of girls. Look what happened to the creepizoids who created that app "Girls Around Me". Apple shut that one down ASAP. No one cared that the information was 100% public and the girls decided to share their location. It was just too creepy.

So yes, posting an address can get you in trouble. I tell you what. You start up a web site called StolenGoods and let thieves post addresses for where the public goods can get stolen goods for cheap prices. Then you tell the judge your wonderful argument. If you get free, I'll buy you a beer and admit that you're right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
They don't arrest the pawn shop owner if the police find he's in possession of a stolen bicycle. They simply take it from him and he loses the money he paid for it. The guy you are talking about is tired of taking the risk of losing his money not that he's worried about being arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yet Napster as it was is no more. Now it's just a rebranded Rhapsody. I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:12pm

Re:
A public performance from the source, not from the embed itself. If I embed a Youtube video, Youtube is still doing the "performance" by streaming the video to the viewer.

The infringer is the individual uploading the content, not the person watching the content, or the website hosting the content. It's the uploader putting the original copy online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Where do you get your legal theories? I just typed "pawn shop owner arrested" into Google and discovered plenty of stories with headlines like:

"JP pawn shop owner arrested for buying stolen jewelry"

"Pawn shop owner arrested in undercover stolen property sting"

"Naples pawn shop owner arrested during precious metals sting"

I feel like I'm doing you a favor and perhaps keeping you out of jail one day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
My guess is that he doesn't act this way in real life (for just this reason).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Also, he does get get the (proverbial) living shit slapped out of him every day that he posts here.

;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
And while we're on the subject. Since the possibility that the items that are in a pawn shop could be stolen exists, and it is common for items that are sold by pawn shops to end up being stolen, by MPAA logic we need to close all the pawn shops because they are in the business of selling stolen goods. And since you shop at pawn shops to buy products cheap prices instead of going to the authorized dealer to purchase a new one at the full price, that would then make you just as much of a pirate as everyone else now wouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I agree. You guys are just trolls that suck me into your vortex. I don't think I will able to shake the spell you're under. You've chugged too much of Big Search's koolaid. I just want you to understand that there are others out there who don't agree. I want you to understand that Astroturfing Mike isn't the only opinion in the world.

Here's one suggestion: stop thinking of people who don't agree with you as trolls. The first time you get in an argument with your spouse, you shouldn't call him/her a troll. It will just make things worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:18pm

Re:
Hey, I agree with you even if the other folks don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
They only arrest pawn shop owners when they have reason to believe AND HAVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE that the pawn shop was INTENTIONALLY BUYING AND SELLING merchandise he KNEW WAS STOLEN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"Apple shut that one down ASAP."

Not the law. Creepy isn't against the law.

Try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"I think this kind of wink-wink linking is very much a conspiracy to commit a crime."

It's a good thing your 'thought' doesn't make it illegal.

Analogy fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
If you are caught with a bicycle that was stolen. They are going to ask you where you got it. If you can show that you bought it in good faith from some place, you won't be charged. I know common sense isn't your strong suit bob but Jesus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:32pm

Re: Only those whom desire the dead of the internet need apply..
"You will need the equivalent of a phone book to find what you want, because there would be no search engine, since that would then link to any infringing site out there."

Ah, the old days with my notebook of web addresses and Lynx. Glad we're making progress here...

/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
We were talking about criminal charges bob. Napster doesn't have anything to do with criminal charges as there wasn't any basis for a criminal case against Napster much less a criminal case. Furthermore, Napster lost the war of attrition, not on the basis of any court decision. They disappeared because they ran out of the funding necessary to continue to operate. Basically they were bullied to death by the RIAA abusing the legal system with a perverse twisting of the existing copyright laws at the time. Copyright infringement at the time was a civil matter where a holder could only sue in civil court for damages caused by the infringer. Napster didn't infringe on anything. Users of the service did. Based on the laws at the time, their case HAD NO BASIS IN THE ACTUAL LAW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
And he apparently enjoys it because he keeps coming back for more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Really, posting addresses gets me into trouble?

Well, gee, bob, I better remember that the next time I order a pizza or fill out a job application or deliver news papers.

Posting links (addresses) is NOT illegal, bob.

If it was, then every search engine would be guilty of something by putting those same links (again, addresses) up on the net.

But, they aren't, despite what the MPAA and RIAA say.

So, try again.

Oh, and by the way, I count 10 failed arguments, so, that's over 910 failed arguments from you.

You know, I think if I looked hard enough, the amount of failure that you've provided over the years would be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
There's a big difference between Apple deciding they don't want to distribute an app through their store and a court ordering them to remove an app from their store because it is illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
surfer (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I shared about 300gb of infringing content today bob, no links involved. I hope that chaps your hide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Your comment needs fixing, bob, lemme help you. :)

"I agree. I'm just a troll that sticks around here because I've got nothing better to do. I don't think I will able to stop trolling around here. I've chugged too much of Big Media's koolaid. I just don't understand why there are others out there who don't agree with me. I want you to understand that the only opinion that matters is my corporate masters' and Mike isn't the only opinion in the world, and even if he was, he doesn't count."

See? Isn't that more accurate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Took you that long to bring out the "Big Search" eh?? You must be falling down on your game...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
bob,

I for one have never called you a troll simply because you are not one. A misguided fool? Yes. But a troll? No. A troll simply comes in and spouts insults and nonsense with no attempt support their position. They don't make arguments. You on the other hand at least ATTEMPT to make an argument and support your position. You fail miserably at it over and over again, but at least you try and for that we are appreciative. However it would be nice if you could maybe find some new angle every once and awhile to present or maybe that's too much to ask of you. Then again, "if at first you don't succeed..." Keep on trying bob. Some day you may find a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
and I don't think he's mentioned a paywall yet either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re:
Wow, really? You think he needed you to tell him that if he read your other posts? Interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Speaking of sophistries you're doing a fine job of them yourself, you know.

Directing someone to Hulu as a trusted embedding source isn't an algorithm by any stretch of the imagination. Algorithms are math not verbal direction.

And, one more time, infringement isn't theft no matter how many times you say it is. The real world says so in the courts.

Nor, oh ignorant one, does Google or any other search engine "accept" links from anyone (or reject them if it comes to that) they send out little bots that help them index the Web so that when you search you'll actually get something in return. Search engines make no moral or legal judgement on anything they find out there nor should they.

Nor has anything fallen off a potato truck in front of his blog. He's asking a simple question for which you refuse to give a legitimate answer. Though you do use a fancy word in doing it.

Nor is there physical property here to be displayed in front of anyone just a link or an embedded video. Neither of which constitutes stolen anything as you can't "steal" a copyright.

It's not like I expected you to answer rather than attack. Attack you're hood at. Answers not so good. In fact awful at.

It's people like you that give IP extremists the well deserved bad rap they currently have. And you're less and less amusing as each day passes;.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
maybe he's masochistic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Napster was sued out of existence, even though the cases against them didn't hold any water... so the fact that Napster is gone is a testament to the abuse of law by copyright maximalists more than anything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shawn, 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:18pm

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
So, if i said, theres a bank on this street and if you go inside of it, you can go and take all of the money out of it if you might be holding a gun.

IN a way I MYSELF, AM A LINK, so just by mementioning something you COULD do, makes ME GUILTY? just for mentioning it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
You know, after thinking about it, I guess I can be kinda grateful to boB for taking so much of his time arguing with us... Practice makes perfect after all, and with out someone to argue against we'd never get any better at it. So thanks boB, for being our very own devil's advocate, sort of, even if you are a little misguided
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Perhaps, but pawn shop owners also are required to log the driver's license of the seller of every item they purchase. Would you be OK with something like that in the internet world
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
Well then, I guess I will have to disagree with Mike on this one. I do not consider Embeds to be "public performances" more of a "here let me tell you where this public performance is being held."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
and who knows? it's been a year since that article, maybe present Mike disagree's with Past Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary, 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: The free speech angle
my my my the trolls are out today I see!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:35pm

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
Yup. That's what the MPAA is suggesting.

Which means that they just made their entire organisation "dedicated to infringement" and "criminal organisation" all rolled up into one.

Great job, sport!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:45pm

Heres my real world physical address

123 Fake Street
Down Town
Funky Town

Please write this down on a real world physical paper and then post it to me so i can sue your ass, for having the ordacity to use my address without my permission.......... you HackTerrorThief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 3:45pm

Re:
I dont give you my permission
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"And he apparently enjoys it because he keeps coming back for more."

Gee, thanks pal, now all i keep imagining is techdirt trolls sitting infront of their computers in some sort of gimp rubber suit, rubbing one off (possibly using Chatroulette), fullfilling some sort of sick fantasy, experiencing a false sense of fullfillment, when they post their arrogance for the world to see

Thanks pal.........was it worth it

Nahhhhhhh, just kidding pal, im sure their all a bunch of patron saints
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Cobra, 12 Apr 2012 @ 4:03pm

Willfull Liers
It's clear that the MPAA (or more accurately it's lawyers) is not technically clueless at all. They understand how the Internet works and know perfectly well that their arguments are spurious and their assertions are lies. They are hoping that the judge will not understand how the Internet works and thus fail to understand how to correctly apply the law. All too often they succeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Mook, 12 Apr 2012 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Bob: Is something on your mind?
TD: Just want to let you know you're boggin' up my blog.
Bob: Is that a fact?
TD: Yeah, it's a fact.
Bob: Well, for a man who don't go heeled you run your mouth kind of reckless, don't you?
TD: No need to go heeled to get the bulge on a turd like you.
Bob: Is that a fact?
Wyatt Earp: Mm-hmm. That's a fact.
[Bob types in all caps.]
Bob: Well, I'm real scared.
TD: Damn right, you're scared. I can see that in your posts.
[TD tears apart any argument Bob tries even as Bob tries to reach for his keyboard.]
Bob: All right now.
TD: Go ahead. Go ahead, skin it. Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.
Bob: Listen, mister, I-I'm gettin' awful tired of your--
[TD slaps Bob hard in the bruised ego.]
TD: I'm gettin' awful tired of your gas. Now jerk that mouse and go to work.
[Bob doesn't do anything so TD slaps him in the lack of sound arguments again.]
TD: I said throw down, boy.
[TD slaps Bob harder and when Bob turns to look at TD his posts are the endless subject of ridicule and scorn.]
TD: You gonna do somethin' or just stand there and bleed useless nonsense?
[Bob still doesn't do anything.]
TD: No? I didn't think so.

Obligatory Tombstone reference to the utter sissy, Bob.

Hail Xenu (and Seth)!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re:
If you are helping the taxi driver sell the drugs, then yes.

God, you guys are such freetards at times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Mook, 12 Apr 2012 @ 4:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Dagnabbit, left one of the Wyatt Earp's in there. Got to remember to use find and replace next time.

Oh, well, still better than any of Bobby Sue's posts, by a country mile.

Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow, thanks for all the fish, and so on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re: Re:
So where, AC 145, does it end? Where is the cutoff point of liability in your distorted view? Without a clear demarcation, what you're asking for is quintillionth-person liability, which would criminalize the earth's entire population.

You don't really realize how interconnected the internet is, boyo. What you're asking for is to make illegal the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link to the link...

...and so on, and and so on, to the content you don't like. Just how far do you expect liability to go? Or you could admit you're wrong and realize the absolute absurdity of holding people responsible for content not under their control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"I agree. You guys are just trolls that suck me into your vortex. I don't think I will able to shake the spell you're under. You've chugged too much of Big Search's koolaid. I just want you to understand that there are others out there who don't agree. I want you to understand that Astroturfing Mike isn't the only opinion in the world.

Here's one suggestion: stop thinking of people who don't agree with you as trolls. The first time you get in an argument with your spouse, you shouldn't call him/her a troll. It will just make things worse."

And picking and choosing words or phrases, clearly, if you've been here a while, used by others, and mashing them up together to make it seem as if you alone came up with them, seems too be your fortei bob, and funnilly enough, politicians aswell.......infact, could'nt that be construed as some sort of infringement, or will that one be allowed because you say so

You want to convert us you say, let me ask you this, are YOU willing to convert?
No
Then dont be a fucking hypocrite, and stop justifying the means because the end suits your needs, it might suit YOUR needs, but dont be fucking arrogant to think that your needs should be the only NEED worth thinking about

Understand, that even if you think that you have something worth saying, all i see is some arrogant prick trying to dictate their 'ideals' on to me, i see this by your tone, the choice of words you use and the way you phrase them, not to mention the trolls resorting to shame, slander and outright insults to anyone who has the AUDACITY to disagree with them

Out of the two sides, specifically, techdirts commenters, seems to me, your side are more then willing to slander the other side, almost trigger happy infact, im sure some of you think you have the hand of god behind you....... to you no one can have a difference of opinion regardless, whether those opinions have merit, its your way or the highway

You want us to listen, send someone, whose NOT, that guy

Now go on, read, disect, and pick and choose your next line of attack, because you always seem to be two steps ahead.........Note that last bit was sarcasm, directed at your, what i suspect, over inflated ego
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"I think this kind of wink-wink linking is very much a conspiracy to commit a crime."

Three are two problems with this statement.
(1) Absent the active participation of those at the other end of the link to create these links and increase their traffic there isn't a conspiracy. You need at least two participants to have a conspiracy.
(2) Try as you might, infringement is NOT a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
For sake of discussion let's assume that Big Search is Google, not Yahoo or Bing.

And let's further assume that there is evidence of active collusion between Big Search and sites hosting infringing material or links to said material.

Just where is the evidence?

(Ad Sense doesn't count.)

Nice new nickname for Mike, by the way. And if we're sucking you into some sort of vortex why come here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
There are laws which explicitly prohibit conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs. There are no such laws for conspiracy to infringe copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:17pm

Re: Willfull Liers
Yep, as much as i hate to think there are people out there more then willing to do that, i gotta agree with your assessment, i've had those same thoughts

They cant be that clueless, and i dont think they'd spend all that money on lawyers if they didnt have a plan with an end game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re:
Actually a nutcase with an agenda.

None of us are too sure about the source of the obsession unless it's been that bob has been shown to be wrong so often he keeps coming back just because one of these times he'll have to be right given the law of averages and that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 5:30pm

Re:
>for the end user (website visitor) there is no real difference

So if that's the case, let's apply that to everything and everyone. Since most profit or income has its roots in money and money has been used for various nefarious purposes (bribery, cheating, laundering, illegal deals, whatever) we should all be punished to the maximum extent of what the law allows.

After all there's no real difference, right? We're still profiting off whatever crime that MAY have occurred, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
velox (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 6:11pm

Re: Willfull Liers
"...know perfectly well that their arguments are spurious and their assertions are lies..."

Legal ethics be damned.
It is obviously a profitable endeavor to disgorge lies and spurious arguments so long as someone is willing to pay you for that activity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 7:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I know you just want to lob bombs into the discussion and add little, but you do understand that most cities have "hot lists" for pawn shops, and they do tend to come down hard on pawn shops dealing in stolen merchandise.

Pawnshops who deal in stolen merchandise generally find themselves out of business pretty quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 7:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gah! You people are really dense.

If I link to a file locker with a download for "avatar dvd rip" as the link, the intent is to give people access to pirated material. I should not get a legal walk because I am one step away from it - the intent is clear as day.

Think of it like pimping - you don't have to actually be the hooker to be guilty. Call it "living off the avails of piracy".

" you could admit you're wrong and realize the absolute absurdity of holding people responsible for content not under their control."

If you embed a file in your site, or include a link to it, you have some responsibility. These things do not happen by themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 8:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So how about this. I link to a site that has legal content. Someone later adds less legitimate content to that site, without my knowledge of it happening. I'm therefore guilty?

What a crock of shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 9:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because you are linking to the site in general, and not specific content.

WAKE UP! It's about linking content, not a site in general.

Now, if that site in general is called "DVD RIPZ ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS" and you link it with that text, honestly, you are an idiot and deserve to be arrested for being stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 9:50pm

Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
You keep repeating that links are just speech.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say they're not speech.

You know what else they're not?

Copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 10:18pm

Re:
You upload the video to them

And thus become liable for direct infringement.

Nobody is arguing that someone who themselves uploads content to a third-party host, then links to it, is committing copyright infringement.

But the infringement is not in "linking," it's in uploading the video with the intent to distribute it.

If you did not upload anything, but simply linked to it, then you are not infringing:

Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved. The customer is automatically transferred to the particular genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.
- Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 10:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
"If a store starts stocking stolen goods that "just fell off a truck", it risks going to jail and no argument about size or ignorance will make a difference to the cops." Then you would arrest everyone that bought something from that store? - FAIL boB, c'mon now.

Unfortunately they could. It's called 'receiving stolen goods.' Has not a damn thing to do with infringement, of course, but you can't tell bob-a-roonie that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 10:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yes, he 'found' 30 bikes in the bottom of a ravine, and instead of reporting them to the police he kept them. You do know how that sounds, don't you? Especially considering that unclaimed property reverts to the finder after a specified amount of time. You're just trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat, and keep coming up with turds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 12:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if the content is uploaded ONTO the site? I'd be guilty then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:54am

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
What if someone asks to go to that address? If you 'know' it's a crack house, do you have to tell them? If you don't know, are you magically supposed to know?

Oh look loud parties! They *must* be doing something illegal, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
His metaphors are also getting rather threadbare - or flat-tired ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
It's really more like someone saying "That house over there, they do strange stuff" - and then assuming that they should 'know' it's a crack house. (Who knows, maybe it's full of black kids in hoodies carrying Skittles?)

Even if the person says "I think it may be a crack house" doesn't make knowing about it, believing about it or telling about it illegal. Even if it /is/ a crack house, people might have legit reasons to visit it (maybe it's a social worker, or a friend of a family member). So stop assuming that actual illegality = civil infringement = everyone in the general vicinity committing a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they need to be able to shop out (alleged) terrorists like Abu Hamza, so they need a 'strong' extradition treaty for that. O'Dwyer is obviously some poor patsy who is either being used to say "look, we do extradite other people than just terrorists", or is just collateral damage.

What I find sickening, is that O'Dwyer, innocent of anything in Britain, gets sent over without a whimper, whereas potential terrorists get to fight every step of the way complaining that their 'human rights' (and I am /very/ pro-human rights) will be affected by being in jail...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 4:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I also don't see why it would be so hard to trial alleged terrorists in Britain. Probably cause the US thinks, UK are wusses because they don't waterboard...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 4:15am

Re: Re: Re:
I never said this originated in the UK. I simply stated that the UK government are lapdogs (and not in a good way) to have signed a treaty that would allow them to extradite one of their own citizens on the behest of the US, despite him having NOT violated any UK laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 4:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
Yes, they're called forums.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 4:41am

Re: Re:
Well, I'll send it on my imaginary paper in my imaginary writing, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he was comparing himself with the legal professionals, which admittedly is a rather low bar to compare against...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:48am

Re: Re: The free speech angle
First we have to agree that there is criminal activity. The MPAA doesn't even care about individual songwriter's copyrights. They're whole purpose is to protect record labels. So this valiant crusade is less appealing when seen through the eyes of a musician who would rather not criminalize people for trading their music around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 13 Apr 2012 @ 6:24am

Re: The free speech angle
Isn't it more like pointing someone in the direction of a crime being the equivalent of committing it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James G. Witte (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:15am

security mean anything?
Personally, there is an responsibility on me to protect my own property. What do I mean? If the court case has been going on for a while, and the link still works, that shows that I don't care about protecting my own property. And even if I have removed that 1 video or renamed the 1 video and I can simply change the URL to the directory the file is in and see ALL of the directories contents, I must want people to take everything I have. This may sound like a stupid argument, but if I'm not making an effort to protect my stuff, do I really wan my stuff protected?

And if you don't agree, then what responsibility do I have to protect my clients credit card numbers?

What if I have a glass house and I choose to have sex in every room and then sue anyone who watches me have sex? See my point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: How many points do I receive?!
MMmm.... Delicious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L7YDzapuSQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 10:16am

Re: Re: Re:
Fail. Re-read Mr. Knight comment. One thousand times. Maybe you'll actually understand it and notice Mike was talking about the bill that wasn't signed into law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
honestly, you are an idiot and deserve to be arrested for being stupid.

And that right there indicates a pathologically authoritarian mindset that destroys the credibility of your opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re: Re: The free speech angle
Are you really so fucking stupid that you don't understand that the MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. It has nothing to do with the music industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I posted Mike's full comment. He was talking about existing law, not a proposed bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:24pm

Re: Re:
Yes, in the year since Mike posted his original quote there has been case law that has completely flipped the original definition of the statute.

I'm having trouble finding it though. Maybe you can point it out to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:27pm

Mike, there's some confusion here, since you claimed a few months ago that embedded video is a public performance. But now you're claiming that that is "flat out wrong."

Perhaps you can clarify why that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 2:51am

Re:
Perhaps you can clarify where he said that, if you're not minding?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:28pm

Re: Re: Re: How many points do I receive?!
What the hay was that? o_0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:31pm

Re: Re:
wouldn't any argument you endorse automatically lose some of its validity? :3

well, not really, your position has nothing to do with an arguments validity, but it is a good indicator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chill man, we just have differing opinions, nothing to get angry over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:36pm

Re: Re:
LOL! all your info are belong to me! I stole your data with my l33t haX0r skills, n00b!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:38pm

Re:
Didn't we already have this argument? If you want to add to that discussion, head up there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Povey, 16 Apr 2012 @ 3:11am

Repeating the same old tricks..
.. thing is, this is a viable strategy for these guys. They only have to get lucky once and it'll make up for all the losses.

If you're an organisation with deep pockets, doggedly pursuing the same agenda actually makes sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Fichtelberg, 6 May 2012 @ 8:31am

Flava Works
The simple fact is that if we take a very carefull look at PHillip Bleicher CEO of Flava Works it becomes clear that his only interest in the law is using it for profit. The important question in this case is why the judge did not consider that the exposure on the web-site created additioal profits for Flava Works and call it a wash.

Flava Works is sueing everyone who touches this product. If a distributor sells his product to a retailer who rents them out, the are facilitate piracy If as an example a retail store buys his dvds and rents them out they by defiinition are pirating the material. If you watch his product with a friend you are pirating his material.

There is one simple and logical conclusion regarding the Flava Works products. Prior to purchasing or viewing this product be sure you have $10,000.00 or more that you want to spend for an attorney to defend you rather than enjoy. On line viewers are particularly at risk, rumor has it that he was responsible for the down loads and sharing he is sueing some for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]