EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law

from the don't-get-distracted dept

Tue, Apr 16th 2013 8:03am — Mike Masnick

As Gary Fung is seeking a rehearing of the IsoHunt case in the 9th Circuit, two amicus briefs were filed yesterday. The first from the EFF and the second from Google. Neither brief suggests that Fung should get off as innocent, or that he did nothing wrong. Rather, both are worried about how the broad ruling by the court for the specific situation regarding Fung and IsoHunt will lead to further abuse by copyright holders and massive chilling effects on service providers. The EFF notes that while Fung/IsoHunt may have been bad actors, it appears that the court used this to go way overboard in creating new and dangerous standards for copyright.

This Panel Opinion is a classic case of bad facts making bad law. Amicus Electronic Frontier Foundation does not file this brief to dispute the Court's factual conclusions regarding the conduct at issue in this case. However, the Panel Opinion went far beyond what was necessary to address that conduct. As a result, it has created new legal uncertainty for online service providers and their customers, undermining over a decade of legislation and jurisprudence designed to help reduce that uncertainty. A predictable legal environment has proven to be crucial not only the growth of the Internet generally, but the growth of innovative platforms for free expression, in particular. This case should not provide a vehicle to impede that development.

In particular, they're quite (reasonably) worried at the court's broad interpretation of causation here, in which the court suggests that the most minor example of inducement can lead to liability for all infringement, even if the site had nothing to do with it.

Most important, the Panel Opinion adopts a "loose causation theory" that disconnects the scope of inducement liability from the defendants' acts—raising the troubling possibility that a single inducing act (such as a message to one customer) could open the floodgates to liability for third-party infringement entirely unrelated to that act. The Opinion's loose causation theory conflicts with fundamental common law principles of proximate cause essential to both predictability and fairness. The Panel's decision to depart from those principles was apparently based on the unfounded assumption that the Supreme Court's decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) requires it. Not so. First, Grokster expressly recognized that secondary liability under copyright derives from common law principles. Second, given that Grokster's specific inducement standard was imported from patent law, it is more likely that the Court also intended to import the analytical framework patent law applies where, as here, a service is capable of both infringing and non-infringing uses.

Meanwhile, Google's focus is on the question of "financial benefit directly attributable" from infringing activities. The DMCA, of course, includes that as one of the prongs for testing whether or not a site gets safe harbor protections. Most courts have found that indirect profits don't make you lose safe harbors: i.e., if you're just making money on ads from a page that has infringing content, that's not "directly attributable". Most people recognize that for it to be "directly attributable" then it needs to be something like actually selling the infringing content, and the direct profits from that action need to be shown. Instead, copyright maximalists have tried to argue that if you have infringement on a site and some money is made (i.e., there are ads or affiliate links) then, that violates that prong of the test and you lose your safe harbors. Most courts have realized that's crazy. But the Fung ruling went very close to the maximalist view, and that (quite reasonably) has Google concerned. Specifically, it's concerned that the ruling could be read to mean that any "influence" a site has over content means it's liable for all of the content on the site:

There is a danger that this passage could be misconstrued to stand for a broader proposition that we do not believe the panel intended: that any time an online service provider is found to have exercised "substantial influence" over any user-submitted content on its service—no matter what that finding was based on—it thereby loses its DMCA safe harbor protections for all user-submitted content on the entire service. This is how some copyright plaintiffs have already tried to read the panel's ruling. In a recent submission to the Southern District of New York in the Viacom v. YouTube case, for example, the plaintiffs have asserted, citing the panel opinion, that this Court “made clear that where DMCA eligibility is unavailable due to the right and ability to control prong of the safe harbor, the DMCA defense is broadly lost as to all clips in suit.” Ltr. from Paul M. Smith to Hon. Louis L. Stanton at 2 (March 22, 2013) (attached as Ex. 1).

As Google right notes, this would lead to "absurd results."

Imagine, for example, a video-hosting service that was otherwise eligible for the section 512(c) safe harbor, but that on one occasion commissioned a particular user to upload a video that, unbeknownst to the service, turned out to be infringing. A court might conclude that the service exerted a “substantial influence” over that instance of infringement and, if the service earned a direct financial benefit from it, there would be grounds for denying the safe harbor for a claim based on that video. But it would make no sense to thereby disqualify the service provider from DMCA protection across the board—even for countless other videos whose posting it did not control or from which it earned no benefit.

Likewise, consider a search engine eligible for protection under the section 512(d) safe harbor for linking to infringing material online. If one of the millions of links provided by the search engine pointed users to infringing material that had been authored by the search engine itself and that users were charged to view, a finding of control plus financial benefit might be warranted for that particular link. But, again, there would be no plausible basis for categorically depriving the service of the safe harbor for the millions of unrelated links it delivers to material that it does not control or financially benefit from.

But, of course, that's crazy (even if it's exactly what many maximalists actually do seem to want). Hopefully, the court is willing to revisit these issues and recognize that its original ruling went overboard because of the situations in this case, and that could unfairly mess up other legitimate offerings.

EFF Amicus Brief in Isohunt (PDF)EFF Amicus Brief in Isohunt (Text)

Google Amicus Brief in Isohunt (PDF)Google Amicus Brief in Isohunt (Text)

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: causation, copyright, dmca, financial benefit, gary fung, inducement, liability, red flags, safe harbors, secondary liability
Companies: eff, google, isohunt

147 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 7:15am

I find it ok. As long as it's applied retroactively to the MAFIAA as well.

All smaller stances of non-compliance with the DMCA should make them automagically lose all others and be forced to pay the maximum damages possible, no? But the MAFIAA has nothing to fear, no? They never ever screwed up any artist, right? They never incurred in copyright infringement, right?

Hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:14am

Most people recognize that for it to be "directly attributable" then it needs to be something like actually selling the infringing content, and the direct profits from that action need to be shown. Instead, copyright maximalists have tried to argue that if you have infringement on a site and some money is made (i.e., there are ads or affiliate links) then, that violates that prong of the test and you lose your safe harbors.

This is just what piracy apologists would love to see and the court rightly has recognized the problem. This direct attribution theory would enable a website dedicated to infringing activity to immunize itself by offering a single non-infringing work. No rational court will ever accept this happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:19am

DMCA
Yet another reason to ditch this law. It is not fair for any party, nor is it applicable to reality.

The shoot first, ask questions later mentality of the DMCA flies in the face of common sense. Good job Clinton....

Furthermore, just how many levels deep can you go with secondary liability. Why not just sue the entire world, I mean there's only a few degrees of separation between this guy and all of us, we must all be liable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:23am

Technically, if the court were to misinterpret the DMCA safe-harbor provisions to make first-parties liable for whatever breach of copyright was caused by a second-party, the copyright industries could, theoretically, incriminate ANY first-party simply by using their server to infringe upon their own copyrights.

Think about that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:26am

Once again pirate mike supporting theft, a site dedicated to off loading stolen films/tv/music. It has no other use. this costs the economy billions of dollars yet somehow its free speach. typicalt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:27am

Re:
"This direct attribution theory would enable a website dedicated to infringing activity to immunize itself by offering a single non-infringing work."

Whereas people like you would prefer a completely law abiding site to be shut down because of a single infringing work that they had no knowledge of, because they might have made some revenue in a tangential, indirect way.

See, I can exaggerate too. Sadly, you'll probably just call me names because I don't see why sites that don't offer the content should be shut down for infringement. But then, I'm also someone who pays for content, not the "piracy apologist" figment of your imagination that you're obsessed with attacking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:36am

Re:
You missed out Google in your comment. But it would seem that you don't have a problem with them profiteering from ads when they have millions of links to pirate content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:36am

considering the way that judges in almost all copyright cases rule so as to favour the copyright and entertainment industries, i think the court ruled this way intentionally. all the entertainment industries have tried to do, the courts have helped them to achieve. Google has been the 'bad boy' over so many things, their bringing of this to the attention of the courts will be seen as whining. the EFF part will be seen as being bias against the industries. both want to ensure there is fair play for both sides. it is the courts that are consistently viaing for the industries that are bias. those industries always report what wasn't true, what didn't happen and what the court said. they know full welkl that they are well over the mark, but still use the language similar to that used by Viacom against Youtube in the article. something i find strange is why the courts never correct what is being reported as what was said. to me that seems to indicate that the courts are content to be reported as saying something different and are happy that lies are said about them. if the truth were to be told instead of the extremes, things would surely be far easier to sort out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:42am

One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
And somehow they both made it here.

I love how Big Search likes to mix together accidental infringement with an ongoing business where the guys makes money day in and day out. Somehow there's no difference between a kid who infringes once on a school project and a massive assembly line for infringement like IsoHunt. We must let IsoHunt do whatever they want because, lord knows, we might somehow hurt a kid's chance to work on a school assignment.

The law deals with intent all of the time and the law is not interested in de minimus. But IsoHunt is not de minimus. It was a big factory for large scale, industrial-grade infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am

Re:
Hmm? Sorry you say something? I wasn't paying attention. I was too busy playing my brand new copy of Red Dead Redemption on PS3, after shelling out for a Turtle Beach Ear Force PX21 and DSS2. I'm also in the middle of buying components for a home server and another high end gaming PC (highly considering switching to Linux or Ubuntu now that I've noticed Nvidia have released drivers for those OS's).

I'm not a piracy apologist. I'm a fuckin' realist. I take a good long hard look at the world and come to a conclusion based on what I see. I don't live in a fantasy world where you constantly hear things we don't say. I am willing to pay money if I, the potential customer, deem the potential product or service to be of good value. I don't see anything wrong with infringing copyright because I have yet to see any argument that convinces me that only one person or corporation should have a legal monopoly over certain works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:50am

Re:
"The sign of a democracy is a society in which it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be gaoled."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:51am

Re:
*Whacks blue with a rolled up newspaper*

Gee, blue is just a glutton for punishment isn't he? I wish I could be like Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and be told there's a mad dog in the street, whereupon he calmly takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:52am

Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
"We must let IsoHunt do whatever they want because, lord knows, we might somehow hurt a kid's chance to work on a school assignment."

You and your ilk lost all claim to a moral superiority when a young girl's Winnie The Pooh laptop was confiscated and the father was extorted for a few hundred quid to get it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:53am

Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
...Yeeee-eeessss Because the MAFIAA are so unbiased.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:00am

Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
So why are you not screaming for the shutdown of Google. They are profiteering from the ads on their site and they have links to millions of infringing content (as per numbers of DMCA's they receive). Does it not say in your book that a website who receives a DMCA notice is knowledge that the website knows that infringement exists on the site and that as they are aware that infringement exists it is not subject to the safe harbour of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:05am

Re: Re:
That's why I liked the "dedicated to infringing activity" judicial standard in SOPA. It clearly targeted operations like IsoHunt and prevented others engaged in minor or accidental infringement from being swept up.

Just paying for content (assuming actually you do) doesn't mean you're not a piracy apologist. You and others here have a long history of excuse-making and defending the looters and criminals who illegally monetize the copyrighted creative output of others for their own personal gain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:07am

Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
The problem with the copyright maximalist position is that it only allows free speech for those that can get someone else to publish their works. The only Internet they will tolerate is one that is no more than ca cable system to deliver content to customers.
If they ever get their way people would not have to listen to your ravings because their would be no web sites that allow anonymous postings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Again the scale of the operation is what is relevant. Google is not dedicated to infringing activity. As a portion of their base, infringement is a small percentage and they cannot be expected to perform at a 100% level. IsoHunt was dedicated to infringing with virtually every transaction implicating; but a flyspeck compared to Google's size. They clearly have the ability to exercise a greater measure of control.

It's not too hard to see if you pull your head out of your ass and look.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:11am

Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Actually it is clearly spelled out that neither brief is suggesting that isohunt be let off the hook, and it seems that both are worried that school projects may get confused with "pirate assembly lines" or whatever you're on about.

Both briefs state that they are concerned that the ruling could be too broadly interpreted, and should be dialed back to make sure only these "bad guys" get targeted. But, hey, congratulations on ranting about the exact fucking opposite of what the article/ briefs say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re:
It didn't "clearly" do anything as "dedicated to infringing activity" is rubberbanding for the judges to flesh out...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re:
But who gets to decide what's "dedicated to infringement"and what isn't? In sopa it was whatever company wanted to cut off a websites funding sans any kind of hearing. Now if it was a judge and/ or jury deciding in an adversarial hearing... Well that's something I don't think too many people would mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:19am

Re: Re:
I'm not a piracy apologist. I'm a fuckin' realist. I take a good long hard look at the world and come to a conclusion based on what I see. I don't live in a fantasy world where you constantly hear things we don't say. I am willing to pay money if I, the potential customer, deem the potential product or service to be of good value. I don't see anything wrong with infringing copyright because I have yet to see any argument that convinces me that only one person or corporation should have a legal monopoly over certain works.

You are a piracy apologist; a thief and greedy, self-serving douchebag. You don't get decide what is worth paying for and what you can simply take for your personal enjoyment. These experiences which are offered in exchange for compensation are not yours to decide whether to pay for. No one makes you buy anything; if you don't want to pay, do without. But instead you unjustly enrich yourself because you have an issue with copyright. That's not how law and society works. I don't believe you anyway. You strike me as a cheap, greedy freeloader who takes things of value because you can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:20am

Re: Re: Re:
> That's why I liked the "dedicated to infringing activity" judicial standard in SOPA.

That is still not a precise enough definition.

The deeper problem is that nobody believes you anymore. You are generally believed to be acting in bad faith because too often before you have used a nuclear weapon to kill a spider without concern for the vast collateral damage to the innocent people upstairs or many city blocks away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:23am

Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
And yet, it's Google that receives the vast majority of DMCA notices. They're at what, 4 million a month now?
In fact, according to this article
http://torrentfreak.com/obsessed-with-google-copyright-holders-130415/

Google received nearly 1.5 million DMCA notices for links to KickAssTorrents while KickAssTorrents itself received "only" just near 300,000.
If infringing links are only such a small percentage, why is it Google being handed DMCA notices in record numbers when the actual websites they're being told not to link to are relatively unscathed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:25am

Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
to a handful of NOT infringing. Google wants to portray the ratio as the other way. Its cause for alarm is obvious. -- So ACTIVELY eliminate links. You are NOT required to let them build up until reach numbers large enough to bring a lawsuit.

The "could be read" worry does not mean will be. You guys always go the extremes of fear while calling everyone else "maximalists".

MONEY is the ONLY point: Google wishes its gravy train of drawing eyes to ads by ripping content from everyone else to continue.

A "predictable legal environment" there means LACK of law, not a consensus worked out in cases.

^^^ My clone army rises! Thanks for the help: I was busy. But you need training: put up a BIG subject line with some caps, and DON'T mis-spell or leave it unpunctuated.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Every "new business model" here requires first getting valuable products -- especially money and labor -- for free.
05:24:41[g-577-5]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
But who gets to decide what's "dedicated to infringement"and what isn't? In sopa it was whatever company wanted to cut off a websites funding sans any kind of hearing. Now if it was a judge and/ or jury deciding in an adversarial hearing... Well that's something I don't think too many people would mind.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. SOPA required a judicial decision that a site met the standard of "dedicated to infringing activity". The hearing was pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the defendant website had all of the rights as any other civil litigant- including the right to defend themselves at an adversarial hearing.

And remarkably, people did mind. Because, like you; they were blinded in the FUD storm and duped in to believing what you currently believe.

Glad to have made a convert. Welcome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's kind of the purpose of the hearing. Does the evidence prove a website was dedicated to infringing activity or not? How is that unreasonable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Re:
ou strike me as a cheap, greedy freeloader who takes things of value because you can.

Just the way Pirate Mike likes 'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
And yet, it's Google that receives the vast majority of DMCA notices. They're at what, 4 million a month now?
In fact, according to this article
http://torrentfreak.com/obsessed-with-google-copyright-holders-130415/

Thanks for making my point. Google's search volume is 100 BILLION per month. Do the math.

http://searchengineland.com/google-search-press-129925http://searchengineland.com/google-se arch-press-129925
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that unreasonable?

If there's any liability for piracy, then that ipso facto is unreasonable to the Techdirtbaggers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am

Re: Re: Re:
I thought you didnt read his posts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:41am

Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Dont mispeel but fuk up da grammar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: Re:
What is you don't believe? That I have games consoles and love to play games?
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/img1893u.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/ 42/img1895br.jpg/

The first link is my gaming computer. I built it myself, after ordering and paying for all the parts. I was happy with paying because I deemed the prices being asked to be good value. I spent over 2000 euro on that one. I'm also planning on a home server with 20TB worth of hard drives, that also will set me back over 2,000 euro, plus a new gaming rig, this time all top of the line parts with full liquid cooling, rough estimate being 3-4 thousand euro.
The second link is just a random sampling of my PS3 and DS/3DS games. Yes, I do have a PX21 headset and DSS2. Liking them both so far. I used to have real 5.1 headsets but the simulated surround sound I get with this setup is far superior, since there isn't eight speakers jammed next to my ears.

o...how am I cheap and greedy? I've previously linked to my Steam account, and I have no problem with buying new games - I just love the option of being able to buy used (in fact, just yesterday I bought the Uncharted trilogy used for 60 euro. Would have been much higher if they were new).
So go on. Tell me again. How is it that I, a hard-working, tax-paying member of society doesn't get to determine what is good value for my money? I deem digital data to have a price of 0 because its well, digital. Freely copyable data, infinite in number. Once infinite in number, the price for a copy is zero. However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I DO NOT PAY. Steam offers freely copyable digital games for a price and I GLADLY pay, when the price is just right and I feel I am getting enough bang for my back.

So...have I shut you up for good? I've just countered EVERYTHING you say about us here at Techdirt. Want to continue calling me a thief?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: Re:
I do do without. Stop insisting that I don't and demanding for laws that act like I don't do without because some artist can't afford another solid gold Humvee. You're not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed there were some improvements towards the end. But why see the plethora of absurdities and broad wording in SOPA when we can focus on some smaller, pseudo-fixed point?

PaulT has a point and your denial is rather telling. Google makes a pretty valid and sensible point along with EFF. Both of them recognize IsoHunt is at fault in some aspects and none of them are asking for the court to ignore it. They are, however asking the court not to ignore a long line of precedents and legislative stability and deliver a sensible, narrow ruling. The fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's not right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re:
unjustly enrich yourself

I'm tempted to 'Funny' this one. Is that the term the old media industry would suggest putting in a hypothetical
expanded copyright law? I mean "unjustly enriching" does sound a lot more offensive than "looking".

Looking must be just what you meant as Rikuo, while mentioning "copyright infringement" didn't mention anything other than viewing and previewing.

Then again, Wonder bread may have been an injustice for diabetics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Thanks for missing the point entirely.

Copyright holders are screaming that KickAssTorrents is an evil evil piracy site. So instead of KAT receiving the vast overwhelming majority of DMCA notices, they instead dump a truckload of them at Google, merely for pointing people to where the torrents are. Oh yeah, and this is actually assuming the DMCA notices are correct in every way, which as we've seen here on Techdirt is not the case. Speech is taken down on the whim of those who can't get their own house in order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:54am

Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
"So ACTIVELY eliminate links"

And that right there is the scariest thing that's ever come out of your mouth. You want Google to pro-actively delete links to speech, when they have no way of knowing what the speech is, whether it is in fact infringing (pretty easy to name a jpeg Infringing_Movie_1080p.mkv), all because your bosses don't want to try a business solution to a business model problem.
Even if all the links are infringing copyright, SO. FUCKING. WHAT? Movies keep on breaking records every year. Music, books, comics, etc. The stated goal of copyright, the creation of new content, HAS BEEN FULFILLED. At this point, its superfluous and downright destructive to society to keep copyright on the law books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Re:
You don't get decide what is worth paying for and what you can simply take for your personal enjoyment.

Oh yes I do. You are the one that doesn't decide how much you want to charge or what you want locked up for your own benefit. Arrogant prick.

These experiences which are offered in exchange for compensation are not yours to decide whether to pay for.

Fair enough. I've learned to go without. Arrogant as it be. Still YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOCK UP AND PREVENT FURTHER CREATION OF CULTURE. So I will breach your right as long as you breach mine. And I haven't even started to talk about the successive copyright reforms you lobbied for without ever asking me for input to reach a balanced and fair agreement.

That's not how law and society works.

Indeed. And that's why nobody respect your bought laws. Because that's not how society works.

You strike me as a cheap, greedy freeloader who takes things of value because you can.

That's called projection in psychiatry. I advise you to look for a specialist because what you said actually applies to yourself. Your damned public domain freeloader. Stop using the musical note and writing system and chords, it's public domain and belongs to the public. What a preposterous thing to make works that rely heavily on the public domain and then locking it up behind your bought laws. Disgusting piece of rotten garbage.

Ahem. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:01am

Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
We must let IsoHunt do whatever they want because, lord knows, we might somehow hurt a kid's chance to work on a school assignment.

"The sign of a democracy is a society in which it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be gaoled."

The law deals with intent all of the time and the law is not interested in de minimus.

I wish I could kill you every time you use your keyboard to express your twisted and disgusting beliefs. I wonder if I'll be punished for this intent. Not. Because your Martian version of the law isn't applied here.

But IsoHunt is not de minimus. It was a big factory for large scale, industrial-grade infringement.

Neither EFF nor Google disagree that IsoHunt is at fault at some point. But you fail at reading comprehension so I'll leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't believe that my reply to his accusation is being held in moderation. I linked to a couple photos I took of what I've bought. It encapsulates everything wrong with copyright maximilists - even when we play by the rules and pay money for the fuckin' things, we still get called thieves. In my case, I have proof.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Even if all the links are infringing copyright

But, of course, links can never infringe copyright. They can only point to things that infringe copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
But, of course, this little fact is purposefully blocked from their small minds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Unjust enrichment" is an equitable concept that dates back many centuries and is still a very powerful legal maxim today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes I do.

Thanks for proving that you are worthless human being who puts himself above others. Just like Pirate Mike likes 'em. You fit in quite well here, Ninja. You and the other worthless pieces of shit that Mike draws in by the droves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such a dramatic douchebag. It's held in moderation by an automatic filter that is likely designed to prevent spamming. But yeah, blame Mike's filter on the maximalists. You idiots are priceless. Where does Mike find you guys? Public restrooms and prisons, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Should anyone reasonable wander in here, WATCH OUT for these kids. They're getting frustrated at inability to argue their pirate case and making actual physical threats:

Gee, blue is just a glutton for punishment isn't he? I wish I could be like Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and be told there's a mad dog in the street, whereupon he calmly takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger.

Mike: it IS now nearly time for you to take responsibility and draw the line at outright threats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:10am

Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content, to a handful of NOT infringing. Google wants to portray the ratio as the other way.

And yet you can't provide evidence. It takes an insanely ignorant person to believe this. Just look at the sheer amount of SKU's (products in Amazon etc), help pages, forums, blogs, social media etc etc etc links and compare to 3 or 4 million torrents (and corresponding links) in The Pirate Bay. How many BILLIONS of pictures are uploaded daily in Instagram, Tumblr, Blogger, how many millions of tweets, blog posts are linked every damned second? Even private trackers would find most of its links not infringing because the forums often overshadow the torrent posts themselves.

You are full of shit ootb =)

You are NOT required to let them build up until reach numbers large enough to bring a lawsuit.

I'd love to see you pro-actively filter 70+ hours of videos uploaded to youtube alone. Millions of photos uploaded to several services (and I'm only barely scratching the surface of the web). Please, entertain me trying. And don't throw the automated bullshit at me, it's been proven enough times that it DOES NOT work.

On a side note I've been noticing some contradiction in some of your posts so I'm inclined to think you are trolling on purpose. That would explain why you religiously read a site that you keep disdaining...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about when the game companies get paid BECAUSE of my infringement?
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - infringed first, then later paid full price for it on Steam with DLC.
Dragon Age: Origins - Ditto. (Need I mention again that the bought copy refused to let me use paid for DLC for two weeks because of DRM?)
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky - I in fact bought this TWICE because I lost the first copy I bought.
Batman Arkham City with DLC
Deus Ex Human Revolution with DLC

Just a small sample of how these game companies are being unjustly enriched thanks to my breaking copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but that interpretation implies profitting or otherwise benefitting financially. Rikuo mentioned nothing of the kind in his post, merely viewing and previewing. In that context, 'unjustly enriching' is simply an absurd way of negatively qualifying "looking".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:14am

Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
I've been noticing some contradiction in some of your posts so I'm inclined to think you are trolling on purpose.

You're only just now figuring that out? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:14am

Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
@ "Rikuo": "And that right there is the scariest thing that's ever come out of your mouth."

Yes, it is, just about. I'm quite mild. YOU on the other hand, above mention getting a shotgun and shooting me like a "mad dog". CEASE THREATENING ME, SONNY. Quit trying to shut me, if you value free speech so much.

Now, as to your tiny stupid point: Google is already deleting links. And yet the world has not ended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did I blame Mike's filter on copyright maximilists? I know precisely why, it's because I had a couple links to a third party website and they just want to check its not spam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:19am

Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
So you're not refuting that you are a mad dog in the street, barking, yapping and biting at people's ankles?
I wrote that knowing you wouldn't refute it. I wrote it because it is what you are, a mad animal who is destructive to those around him, mindless about the damage he causes as long as he gets to do what he wants.

I've played by the rules. Everyone else here on Techdirt has, and all we get in return is you biting at our ankles and calling us thieves. Last I checked, that isn't exactly a way to encourage good behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even common shoplifters probably didn't steal everything in they have in their homes. That fact that you pay for some of your entertainment doesn't excuse the stuff you steal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
You admit that you decide whether or not to pay for copyrighted content, then resent being called the thief that you are? Bizarre.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
I'm so sorry about the "threat". As I said before, I'm busy playing Red Dead Redemption, a game about a cowboy who hunts down and kills those who threaten and damage society. I've also just finished reading the comic book series, Preacher, where a wandering priest, who has many of the same characteristics as a cowboy, ends up causing the death of God himself because God has caused massive harm merely to stroke his own ego.
Those two titles may have warped my fragile little mind. Sorry if I now feel an insane urge to
1) Find a shotgun (haven't got a clue where to find one in Ireland)
2) Find out who hasn't_got_a_clue is (impossible unless I hack Techdirt's servers, find his IP address and...how does an IP address lead to identifying individuals again?)
3)
4) Profit!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC they cannot even decide if a site is 'dedicated to infringing activity' after a 5 year trial. What makes you think they can decide it in a short hearing?

What needs to happen is the MPAA/RIAA need to compete with the 'pirates'. My downloading of films and TV has dramatically reduced since I got netflix, in fact most of my friends who used to torrent everything have netflix and torrent less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Have you ever heard of a DMCA counter notice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
You only have yourself to blame for the comments that you receive by people when you purposely go out of your way to goad and bait people with your comments. If you don't like the comments then quit making such comments yourself or leave the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh puh-lease mr shiny beacon of holy light don't be shy, share with us your virtues then.

I'll give you an example of why we the consumers decide the pricing: tomato prices skyrocketed here in Brazil recently to something around 8 times the usual prices. The response has been sounding: people stopped buying, tomatoes started decaying and resellers were forced to drop the prices down back to previous levels.

The main difference between this scenario and your precious copyright is that you have a MONOPOLY. Govt granted. No competition. And you don't care about anything but your own profits even going as far as not paying the artists and or preventing them from further creating by keeping their stuff locked up. So there are two things happening: people are giving their money to their favorite artists ROUTING around you and/or plain infringing and downloading the content.

Your fake moralism doesn't stick. I support my favorite artists. I just refuse to support a bunch of self-entitled thugs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
I resent it when, even after paying for Assassin's Creed II on PC (to name one example) I had to let their DRM constantly contact their servers, all to prove I had paid for it. Constantly. If their servers failed, I would be deemed a thief and locked out of the game.

In a sane world, what I do makes perfect sense, because then only works of quality end up enriching their authors. Instead, we have a system where you must pay for every work, or be threatened with hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros and jail-time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Steal? Please, refer me to the legal doctrine that equates copying digital data with stealing. I'd love to have a read of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Content is taken down upon receiving a DMCA notice. Sometimes it takes over 2 weeks to reinstate it. How fair is that? Would you feel comfortable if you went to jail everytime somone accused you of any crime but you could leave in 2 weeks after filling some 'counter-notice'? Oh wait, I forgot you are the holy champion of light and you'd never be in the receiving end of an unjust accusation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He will probably ask about all the shit games you downloaded and didn't buy (but were obviously worthless anyway).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow you sound like one of those douches who supports a minority of financially wealthy dinosaurs who wish to keep thing sin their favor over the majority.

Maybe that explains your distorted view of reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:34am

Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
It used to be more subtle (a year ago). But nowadays he isn't even trying to hide it lol.

Also, damned missed /i =/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Yeah...DMCA counter-notices don't do much good, especially for LittleKuriboh whose Youtube channel gets taken down on pretty much a regular basis.
A counter-notice helps deal with ONE accusation, and that's if the content is put back up at all. It does nothing to help with the second, third, fourth, ad nauseum accusations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what gets me about the people complaining on TD articles, every problem is based on piracy.

There's never a consideration of the downturn in content quality or failure to provide what the consumer is looking for, piracy is always to blame.

They sound like a bunch of politically-controlled sheep who can't see the details and choose to lash out about one problem that's been made into a major issue because of loaded language and bought politicians.

Keep it up fellas, you make the rest of us look smarter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To whit, the obvious answer is...unlike when I cheat in games, I don't have infinite money. If I was a millionaire, I'd pay for all my games, but as I'm just your average hard working member of society, I have only finite money to use. Therefore, not all the games I play are paid for.
Those developers who I don't pay? That just means I found your games worthless. As in, not worthy of my time or money. I paid for Xbox and PC copies of Mass Effect 1 and 2, but didn't even infringe for 3, because of how awful that one is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice strawman (and an ad hom). Try harder.

Liability and even piracy are edge conditions over a fundamental disagreement over what government granted monopolies should cover, and how best to promote the progress of science, learning, culture, and innovation.

My personal feelings are that there should be zero government granted monopolies over any type of culture, idea, or information. While it may have worked well before the advent of general purpose computers and global networks, it no longer works in today's world where information can be infinitely copied, transmitted, distrubted, to nearly everyone, for little or no cost.

The issue is far more complex and nuanced than you will ever admit to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Josh are you suggesting that a world should exist where the rich can't keep getting richer at the expense of the rest of us?

Apox on thee, pesant!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
A counter-notice helps deal with ONE accusation, and that's if the content is put back up at all. It does nothing to help with the second, third, fourth, ad nauseum accusations.

As does a DMCA takedown notice,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
counter-notice

Yes, yes I have. And the system is grade-A Bullshit. The dispute should always be between the uploader and the "copyright" holder. At best, the service provider should be an intermediary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, unjust enrichment. Does that make you feel better about unlawfully taking things that don't belong to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The main difference between this scenario and your precious copyright is that you have a MONOPOLY. Govt granted. No competition. And you don't care about anything but your own profits even going as far as not paying the artists and or preventing them from further creating by keeping their stuff locked up. So there are two things happening: people are giving their money to their favorite artists ROUTING around you and/or plain infringing and downloading the content.

Bullshit. There are plenty of substitutes as in your tomato example. Don't want to pay $10 for "Django Unchained"? Fine. Watch something else. Read a book, go to a play. There are tons of alternatives for your entertainment, just like there are alternatives to eating tomatoes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? The hard drives? I paid for them?

Oh...you mean the games. Silly me, but last I checked, they were an arrangement of 1's and 0's on MY hard drives.
What is being taken? If I "take" a work from you and copy it on my computer, are you somehow harmed? Possibly, if I hogged up bandwidth if I copied it from your own computer, but not if I used bandwidth from someone else's, like a cyberlocker or a torrent. You still have your files. You still have every opportunity to try and convince me to buy.
Then again, I wouldn't pay for any of your works on principle alone. Knowing how you think, I'd have to agree to a licence where you can kick me in the nuts every time I played/turned a page/whaever. (Strange isn't it, how I've never been shown a licence agreement BEFORE I pay for content in a store?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's being stolen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but unlike the tomato example, you still call him a thief when he's not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. According to copyright, You and You alone have the legal right to distribute your work (unless you sell the rights). Telling someone not to read your work is pretty much the death knell for any author worth his or her salt - it proves you don't value your own work on its own merits, merely as a pay check.
If I don't like what Bob is offering for his tomatoes, I can go to Alice or Charlie and see what they're offering. It's tomatoes.
Not when I want to consume a specific work. Bioshock Infinite, for example, is being touted as being a great story, a modern critique on racism told in a pre-modern setting of sorts. I suppose I could go read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but its NOT THE SAME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
I'm so sorry about the "threat". As I said before, I'm busy playing Red Dead Redemption, a game about a cowboy who hunts down and kills those who threaten and damage society. I've also just finished reading the comic book series, Preacher, where a wandering priest, who has many of the same characteristics as a cowboy, ends up causing the death of God himself because God has caused massive harm merely to stroke his own ego.

And you wonder why you are still a virgin??????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
What does playing video-games and reading comic books have to do with my virginity? I'm actually getting a strange, creepy vibe off of you. You'r more worried about my virginity than I am!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm horrible. I'll probably get called a communist for saying that. Well, when they're not calling me a teabagger or an anarchist, that is. The copyright apologists are so inept around here that they can't even keep their insults consistent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if he did "read a book" or "go to a play" you think the big execs running the entertainment industry are going to stop ranting and exaggerating the effects of piracy?

Then again, you seem to be believing their bullshit, so why even ask.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
What's your excuse?

Oh right...trolling Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:43am

Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Don't you have anything better to do?

Does your boss know you spend all day trolling on this blog?

Do you even have a job?

Are you even a real person?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really believe the BS your paymasters feed you? Sickening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Unjust enrichment"
You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you. Same about pretty much anything from cell phones to vacuum cleaners. And if you plant your tomato or build your own vacuum cleaner you won't get sued (I guess... with the patent madness I might be wrong and with the gene thing I might be wrong in the tomato realm too)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:49am

Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Go start your own blog and get the heck outta this one. We know you don't like it here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By his standards I'm most likely a thief because I do experiment a lot of stuff without buying either because it's not worth or I haven't got the funds at the moment If it's not worth I'm never buying anyway, if it's worth I'll give it a shot trying to avoid the MAFIAA. If I haven't seen I'm not buying. But I see your point ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does playing video-games and reading comic books have to do with my virginity?

Really, you have to ask?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was actually Justice Bryer who made that statement first regarding infringement. I believe it was "garden-variety thief".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah but they're all movies, just like they're all tomatoes. Maybe the Beefsteak variety is pricey. OK, go buy a Roma. You'll live.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't even link your reply to the right comment?

I actually do ask, because I can't see how reading comic books or playing video games automatically disqualifies me from having sex. Unless somehow you think you're still in the 1980'sand the only people playing computer games and reading comics are virgins living in their mother's basement (FYI, I don't, I live in a pretty sweet 2 bed apartment)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Oh shut up, you douchebag. You zeros are worthless thieves and EVERYONE knows it.

All this blog does is make the case for more copyright enforcement. Nice job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Precisely.

I'm not making any money when I infringe.
If by enrichment, he means I'm being mentally and emotionally stimulated by works...my god, the horror, the sheer nerve that I would better my experiences through consuming works. Quick, black out my eyes. Censor the works...wait, isn't that PRECISELY THE PROBLEM WITH COPYRIGHT?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Again the scale of the operation is what is relevant. Google is not dedicated to infringing activity. As a portion of their base, infringement is a small percentage and they cannot be expected to perform at a 100% level. IsoHunt was dedicated to infringing with virtually every transaction implicating; but a flyspeck compared to Google's size. They clearly have the ability to exercise a greater measure of control.

In the early days, the VCR was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing. Should we have killed it?

In the early days, cable TV was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing.

Ditto for the MP3 player. And the photocopier. And radio. And the DVR.

You think we should have shut all those products down, rather than allow the markets to actually develop around them?

It's not too hard to see if you pull your head out of your ass and look.

You should try it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Yes, go on proving my point. Go on and call for me, the paying customer, the guy who wants to give money in exchange for quality goods or services, to shut up and stop thinking. Yes, my complaining that I had to constantly prove I had bought a copy of ACII is just proof that it didn't go far enough - obviously it was too tame, obviously next time Ubisoft will demand blood samples and DNA testing, just to make sure (all at my own expense of course).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Odd, I thought we were talking about websites and search engines. Has Google ever been dedicated to infringing activity? No. Are most websites engaged in piracy? No.

For someone who claims to be against piracy, you sure tie yourself up in some interesting knots defending it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
"Has Google ever been dedicated to infringing activity? No."

You...actually admit Google isn't dedicated to infringing? Holy shit...I never thought I'd see the day.
Well, if Google isn't dedicated to infringing...THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU AND YOUR ILK CONSTANTLY ATTACK IT?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Has Google ever been dedicated to infringing activity? No.

Hmm. I don't seem to remember Viacom ever making that argument when they sued Youtube (owned by Google) for 1 billion dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
In the early days, the VCR was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing.

No it wasn't.

In the early days, cable TV was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing.

No it wasn't.

Ditto for the MP3 player.

No it wasn't.

And the photocopier.

No it wasn't.

And radio.

No it wasn't.

And the DVR.

No it wasn't.

Getting sued does not constitute being dedicated to infringement.

And piracy isn't a technology. It's a behavioral defect.

Do you ever tire of being a ridiculous buffoon? I mean we all enjoy mocking and laughing at you, but I'm genuinely curious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Odd, I thought we were talking about websites and search engines. Has Google ever been dedicated to infringing activity? No. Are most websites engaged in piracy? No.

You were talking about things that YOU unilaterally declared "dedicated to infringing activity" and I was pointing out how when people like you declare such things, you often fail to recognize how many technologies really started out that way, but were allowed to grow into legitimate tools. But, rather than let that happen, you want to shut them down.

For someone who claims to be against piracy, you sure tie yourself up in some interesting knots defending it.

You consider me explaining how radio, the VCR, the DVR etc. all made the industry you represent more money is "tying myself in knots defending piracy"?

No wonder your industry is so fucked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Our good friend, Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA at the time, once equated the VCR to the Boston Strangler.

The very first MP3 player, the Diamond Rio, it's makers were sued, over copyright infringement.

This is pretty basic stuff you must know when stepping up to try and debate copyright. What you just did is like being in a gay rights debate and falling victim to what is called the "Leviticus Trap" (where those who espouse hating guys based on what is in Leviticus have not read and do not follow the other laws as written there, such as not wearing cloth of two different threads).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Lol. I've read this blog, so obviously I'm aware that the Boston strangler quote gets dragged out whenever possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me where that was in the bill, plz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Your point being?

Mike said that the VCR was viewed as being this great evil piracy machine at its time. You said no. I replied with a quote from the head of the MPAA, a guy who actively pushed against the VCR every way he could.
So what's your point? Are you going to admit you were 100% wrong, and more to the point, if you were previously aware of the quote, knew you were wrong EVEN AS YOU SAID "No, It was't"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
I was talking about the points raised in the article and ensuing discussion. You unilaterally began raising examples that better support your narrative. I certainly understand why you chose those, because the example in the current debate doesn't really work for you.

As noted, piracy is a behavior not a technology. And it's a behavior you laughably claim to oppose while desperately supporting it on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Uh, yes, the VCR and Betamax WERE seen as great piracy enablers.

Don't forget that Mr. Rodgers had to come out and say that the piracy that the MPAA feared was a GOOD thing to get Congress and the SCotUS to side with the Betamax and VCR over the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
So you're ignorant of history and the law in addition to economics and business models? Impressive.

What *do* you know about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Google may own YouTube, but YouTube is a different company than Google. Are being deliberately stupid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
I'll just note that in arguing over what we're discussing, you have refused to actually respond to the point. Because you can't.

Look, YOU raised the claim that certain sites were "dedicated to infringement" based on how much infringement used their tools. I merely pointed out how your definition was ridiculous.

I'm still waiting, though: would you ban those technologies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
What *do* you know about?

Probably knows you are the world's slimiest piracy apologist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And then he'd still get called a "thief" by jerks like you and your paymasters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
And you're one of the world's slimiest copyright apologists. Go start your own blog, troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Here's what's wrong with you. You have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are wilfully and completely ignorant of history, the law and economics. You deliberately went out of your way to say that something that did happen, did not happen.
With your credibility destroyed through your own actions, no-one believes anything you say. Mike Masnick possibly is a piracy apologist. However, since it is you saying it, I therefore choose to believe him over you. He is trustworthy and has a proven track record of credibility. You don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
No, I wouldn't ban those technologies. And I've never advocated for that. Even in the Aereo discussion, I've never said they shouldn't be allowed to use their technology- only that they should pay for the content they rebroadcast like every other rebroadcaster; rather than exploit a hole in the law for their own financial gain distributing copyrighted content they don't pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
And you are possibly the unabashed ass licker I've ever seen. But it seems to work for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
the *most*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Apr 2013 @ 3:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
This is akin to forcing Google Earth and similar map services to remove directions to specific places as a means of 'punishment.' Make any sense to you? Yeah, me either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 4:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Says the MAFIAA ass licker...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Youtube is wholly owned and controlled by Google - at best, it is a separate brand of Google.

That's the best you've got? And a pitiful ad hom attack, too. Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Call me whatever you wish. I'm still not paying you a single penny. You have no morals, therefore I have none toward you. Bitch all you like, you're still not getting paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:13pm

Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
He's trolling because:
a: It's the only way he can get anyone to talk to him.
b: He's being paid to, which simply makes him some content holder's paid bitch.
c: All of the above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
God you are a dope. Do you think Comcast runs NBC/U's daily operations? Of course not. They have their own execs. You think GE ran NBC/U when they owned it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Chances are about 100% that this AC has no financial stake in the stuff you steal, yet you grasp at this flimsiest of excuses to justify your own greed and dishonesty. You are simply a pathetic, freeloading, lowlife.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:49pm

Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
So because Google has grown so large, rich and successful they're somehow absolved of responsibility because the task is too big? That's a laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
See previous reply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maximalist troll logic: If you still have enough money to eat, you must be a dirty thief and pirate because all your earnings are belong to the media companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
rather than exploit a hole in the law

Also known as "obeying the law". Incredible.

The only reason there's a "hole" in the law is because the law has been twisted by you and your friends into something that makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of understanding of technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 3:19am

Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
So because record labels/the RIAA/pornographers and Prenda Law have grown so large, rich and successful they're somehow absolved of the need to be correct because the task is too big? That's a laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes, he's "thieving" money from your coprolite paymasters by spending it on tech hardware instead of 'consuming' your pap.

Go suck on your own teat if you want it so bad...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 7:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Seriously Mike? I can't believe you'd make such a stupid argument.

If you capture on a single, large antenna and rebroadcast it to multiple customers- you pay a rebroadcast fee. But Aereo uses thousands of tiny, individual antennas to avoid paying the rebroadcast fee.

Please tell me why you think by virtue of using multiple, single antennas that Aereo shouldn't have to pay the same fee.

The intent of the law is to compensate the owner of content for its rebroadcast. And here you are if full piracy apologist mode making excuses for these grifters making money off of content they haven't paid a dime to rebroadcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
"... making excuses for these grifters making money off of content they haven't paid a dime to rebroadcast."

Where exactly did he make excuses?

I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to wade through your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Post #131 he suggests that Aereo is being perfectly honorable and not exploiting a hole in the law; avoiding paying retransmission fees by using tiny individual antennas instead of a large single one to retransmit content. They do it for the sole purpose of avoiding the fee; again lining their pockets without paying a dime to the rightful owners. According to him, they're "just obeying the law".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Then why the hell are you arguing about his viewpoint and not that the law should be fixed to account for that loophole?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Because his viewpoint is consistent with his twisted outlook that content should be free for the taking. Furthermore, changing the law won'y effect Aereo. Ever hear of ex post facto?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Oh so this is a play on egos?

Well, good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 2:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
If you capture on a single, large antenna and rebroadcast it to multiple customers- you pay a rebroadcast fee.

In fact, that's not always true. Generally speaking, it's not infringement if the rebroadcasting "is not made by a cable system."

The limitations and exemptions are in 17 USC 111.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Can you name a single company that is doing that right now? If that's the case why does Aereo go to the trouble of using thousands of tiny antennas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 1:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Can you name a single company that is doing that right now?

Well, 111(a)(1) explicitly exempts "the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment," so I imagine they're doing it. Other people are exempt as well, including certain carriers, educational instructors, government bodies, or nonprofits.

The point is that Congress set up those rules and "fees" (actually, statutory licenses) specifically for cable companies. They do not apply to everyone.

So when you say Aero should pay "the same fee," you are saying - arbitrarily - that they should follow the laws that were created for a different type of company. And you seem to be doing so for no reason other than making you and/or your friends some money.

Incidentally: it's entirely possible that certain rebroadcasters could do exactly what you suggest, completely legally, but don't. They want to also carry the non-free-over-the-air content that is being produced by the same parent companies, so they work out a deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nombre, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:04pm

EFF is a joke anyway. Joe Biden made fools of these clowns by pushing Six Strikes through. What was the EFF's role in blocking this? None. How about CISPA. I'm guess you already know the answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2013 @ 3:51am

Re: Re: Re:
Why yes, I do have a history of morons like yourself completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding my points in order to attack those who disagree with you and the dinosaurs you obsessively defend even as they destroy their own marketplace. Thanks for noticing.

Sadly, you're too stupid to understand my actual opinions, which is why you launch moronic attacks like this. My ACTUAL statements tend to be either supporting new business models, pointing out that time is better spent offering content legally rather than trying to bankrupt or alienate your own customers and defending technology from those too stupid to understand it.

If that makes me a "piracy apologist", so be it - but don't pretend for a second that anyone else uses the same bullshit definition you do. You've lied to yourself so much, you can't even recognise people who should be allies - we're actually going after the same thing you claim to (supporting artists and helping them make money). It's just that my words don't depend on pretending it's still the late 90s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2013 @ 3:54am

Re: Re: Re:
"You are a piracy apologist; a thief and greedy, self-serving douchebag. "

Please provide your evidence for this, else accept that you are simply a stupid asshole, so obsessed with attacking anyone who doesn't bow down to your masters that you'll attack the very people who are paying them in the first place. It's sad that your type of delusional fool is the only type that is willing to defend these actions, that alone should be telling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 27 Sep 2013 @ 2:02pm

Wow. THIS is why I read few Techdirt comments!
This was during the "click report on every non-fanboy" and "fake out_of_the_blue" period, SOMEWHAT lessened since, but I'm back here again because reviewing where the nasty little troll Rikuo at #12 made a thinly veiled threat of physical violence toward me.

Mike Masnick even makes a rare appearance to do some easily refuted assertions. -- And note that he doesn't admonish Rikuo for an actual threat.

Nice cesspit ya got here, Mike. You know, you sniped elsewhere accusing ME of polluting the site, but you NEVER make such remarks to any of your vile fanboys! In fact, I've complained often about the pollution from your fanboys. THEY CAN MAKE THREATS AND YOU JUST IGNORE IT. You've even got the worst troll, Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", writing for you! Phooey on you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 7:32pm

Re: Wow. THIS is why I read few Techdirt comments!
Whined the spambot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]