Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
from the let-them-know-it-was-correct dept
We've been covering the various lawsuits by broadcasters against Aereo for some time now. So far, Aereo has won three times to a big fat zero by the broadcasters. The broadcasters appealed to the Supreme Court. Ordinarily, in a situation like this, it's pretty standard for the other side to argue to the Supreme Court why it should not hear the case, because they don't want to mess with the lower court rulings that went in their favor. But... in a somewhat bold move that suggests a fair bit of confidence in their position, Aereo has actually said it agrees that the Supreme Court should hear the case now -- risking the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning the good appeals court ruling in the 2nd circuit.While it's an unusual move, there are a few good reasons for it. The first, as Aereo notes in its brief, is the broadcasters have made it abundantly clear that they're going to try to sue Aereo in any jurisdiction it launches service in, hoping to both bleed the company dry of funds and, the broadcasters hope, to find some court somewhere that will rule against Aereo. Getting the case to the Supreme Court now could effectively kill that strategy for the broadcasters. Second, and somewhat more troubling, is that the broadcasters have also been suing wacky billionaire Alki David who claims to have built a similar system as Aereo, though there are significant doubts about that in reality. In the cases against Alki David's company -- whose name has changed from FilmOn (originally) to AereoKiller (subtle) to BarryDriller (aimed at Aereo investor Barry Diller) and then back to FilmOn again -- the broadcasters have been winning. Aereo built its business carefully, with an aim towards following the law very specifically, and has a legal team that understands the issues. David? His response to yet another legal loss was to tell the court to kiss his ass.
Even if it were true that they were doing the same thing, the fact that David doesn't seem to know how to actually present a decent case is simply bad for everyone, because, even if they try not to, judges can't help but be influenced by such activities. Getting the Supreme Court to take on this case now rather than waiting until there's some sort of circuit split between an Aereo case and a FilmOn case hopefully leaves David's ridiculous antics out of the fight, and lets everyone focus on the core copyright issues at hand.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the Supreme Court grants cert to hear the case. But having both parties asking for the same thing is somewhat unusual, and given the issues at play, it makes it somewhat more likely that they'll be willing to check it out.
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: supreme court
Companies: aereo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The conspiracy kid inside of me wouldn't be surprised if that guy is actually doing it on behalf of the broadcasters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox Broadcasting and their studios won a temporary restraining order against David's FilmOn in November 2010 to prevent unlicensed use of their broadcast signals. David sued CBS, dropped the suit, and sued CBS Interactive in November 2011, alleging copyright infringement due to the CNET website having editorially covered infringing uses of peer-to-peer file-sharing software. In June 2013, David filed a countersuit against the four networks seeking a ruling that providing Internet technology for receiving over-the-air broadcast signals at no charge does not violate broadcasters' copyrights.
This dude is very likely connected to broadcasters...look at his Filmography section on WikiPedia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/13/bring_it_on_aereo_tells_broadcasters_we_want_a_ supreme_court_hearing/
But leaving all the technical bits aside: Aereo has ZERO content except what it takes from the producers and then gets income from that value. So it's not entitled to even operate: it's NOT like persons putting up their own antenna and other equipment, it's a centralized corporation and directly engages in unfair competition because puts zero money into paying for the product it sells. Supreme Court in my opinion just about has to hear this case and to toss Aereo's grifting "business model".
By the way, Aereo isn't brave in doing this: other write-up says it's just saving money and time in not delaying the inevitable.
Mike's notions are all get-rich-quick schemes by using products someone else made. His continued defense of Megaupload shows his ideal "business model": neither pay to produce nor royalties on any of the files hosted so costs are just above bandwidth, and able to avoid legal liability so long as pretend ignorance of infringed content.
05:25:26[g-626-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
I'd note that this same principle is why people are so upset over the government's position about access to e-mail on servers: we think of it in terms of us having the provider run our mailbox for us, and the government wouldn't be entitled to come in and riffle through our mailbox without a warrant if it were us operating it directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
You just hate it when decisions force operators to work in this way, and then they actually DO work within the way the law prescribes, don't you?
_____________________________________________________________
You're still a useless douchebag that loves their lines!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
Actually it IS exactly like that, at least according to three different courts of law.
And why aren't you bitching about the corporations who sell the antennas to people? Wouldn't you classify them as grifters too, then?
In your eagerness to condemn that which you personally dislike, you don't even stay consistent within your own argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
...then wonders why nobody listens to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
Let's keep having this same conversation until someone cries, "Uncle!!" Mike would jump at the chance to prove me wrong on even the slightest of issues. I'm calling Mike out on the very core of issues, namely, his reputation and his value as man who values the truth.
Yet, he's silent. Hmm...
Say your part again so I can say my part again! This is fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
Yet, he's silent. Hmm...
Say your part again so I can say my part again! This is fun!"
LMAO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not entitled to even operate
What does that have to do with anything?
When I buy a shirt from Amazon, UPS delivers it.
UPS has ZERO content except what it takes from the producers and then gets income from that value.
Right? So UPS should't be entitled to operate and offer the useful service...of delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not entitled to even operate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not entitled to even operate
And on the day that Mike EVER has a substantive discussion with me about some issue that actually matters and destroys me on the merits, you will have a link that you can employ against me in all such future discussions. Yet, as it stands, I've challenged every bit of him that makes him a man worthy of being of value, yet there exists no such link that disproves me. Hmmm.....
One thread where he decimates me on the merits, and all of you would win the greatest victory ever against those that stand in your way, yet your "prophet" has no such link. He will never have any such link because your "prophet" is a fake. Sorry to tell you this, although I suspect you know this already.
Wanna prove me wrong? Then prove me wrong on the merits. I challenge your "prophet" to a substantive discussion about ANYTHING that actually matters. He chooses the topic. He gets all of his "disciples" to back him up. I welcome the challenge. Yet, he runs from it. Every time. Hmmm...
This isn't hard. I challenge Mike to discuss honestly and openly any of the issues that he thinks important. Nothing makes Mike run faster than such a challenge with an opponent who has an IQ substantially above that of a snail. Nothing.
Your "prophet" is a fake. I shit on him, and I challenge him on his own boards. Will he respond? Never. Of course not. He's scared shitless since he's a fake. This isn't remotely hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not entitled to even operate
One thread where he decimates me on the merits, and all of you would win the greatest victory ever against those that stand in your way, yet your "prophet" has no such link. He will never have any such link because your "prophet" is a fake. Sorry to tell you this, although I suspect you know this already.
Wanna prove me wrong? Then prove me wrong on the merits. I challenge your "prophet" to a substantive discussion about ANYTHING that actually matters. He chooses the topic. He gets all of his "disciples" to back him up. I welcome the challenge. Yet, he runs from it. Every time. Hmmm...
This isn't hard. I challenge Mike to discuss honestly and openly any of the issues that he thinks important. Nothing makes Mike run faster than such a challenge with an opponent who has an IQ substantially above that of a snail. Nothing.
Your "prophet" is a fake. I shit on him, and I challenge him on his own boards. Will he respond? Never. Of course not. He's scared shitless since he's a fake. This isn't remotely hard."
LMAO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
So you're a technical expert now? You seem to imagine new knowledge and skill bases for yourself every day, and then straight away prove your ignorance to us.
"SO at some point it's BROADCASTING."
How is it broadcasting if one only computer is receiving. You know what the word 'broad' means right?
"Also, in a better write-up of this than found here at Techdirt, I was reminded that this system also time-shifts with a DVR effect, so it's BROADCASTING."
How is timeshifting in any way related to broadcasting? That makes as much sense as pointing at a car and calling it a watermelon.
"But leaving all the technical bits aside..."
Yeah, you really should...
"Aereo has ZERO content except what it takes from the producers and then gets income from that value."
It takes signals freely available to anyone and provides a useful service to it's customers. The customers can get the content for free if they want it. They're paying for the service, not the content.
"...it's a centralized corporation..."
Utterly meaningless statement.
"...and directly engages in unfair competition because puts zero money into paying for the product it sells."
First, that's not the definition of "unfair competition", and second, how is it unfair competition when there's nothing stopping the broadcasters providing exactly the same service themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've been asked several times to explain exactly what these doubts are. Surely you can provide the reader with at least one single legally significant difference between Aereo and FilmOn, right? I seriously doubt it.
Even if it were true that they were doing the same thing, the fact that David doesn't seem to know how to actually present a decent case is simply bad for everyone, because, even if they try not to, judges can't help but be influenced by such activities.
And then you immediately hedge with the possibility that they are legally synonymous. I take it you can't provide one single example of how they're legally distinguishable. Kudos for at least now admitting as much, albeit indirectly and without ever admitting the possibility of mistake, but shame on you for continuing with your completely unsupported FUD about how they're legally different.
Prove me wrong? Oh wait, that would mean having a discussion about something that actually matters. Best just to spread the FUD while a sentence later leaving yourself some undefined weasel room. That's the TD way!
PS Hi, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He has explained:
Aereo setup their system specifically (ie: engineered more by lawyers, then technicians) to fall within existing laws. OnFilm did not. Not really a hard concept that needs pages of explaining there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
Gee that sounds just like the MPAA and the RIAA, right blue??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
She's forgetting that MPAA and RIAA are collection agencies, and merely collect royalties to disburse to the artists, etc., signed up with them.
Here's the catch: unless you've avoided ending up in a work for hire agreement, you're not getting any royalties, they go to the label or studio, etc. Since the studios/labels merely FINANCE the production of films/music they deem profitable, their contribution to art, per se, is minimal at best. www.imdb.com/list/K83Ow6Bulh0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike and TD
You can't possibly think anyone comes to this site for factual or sound reasoning? All my co-workers agree; this is comedy at it's best.
So thank you Mike, you're a hoot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike and TD
So, just you, yourself and your ego think this site is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike and TD
That says a lot about who you work for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So thank you Mike, you're a hoot!
His bit about the "length of the cord" has me in stitches. I think he actually thinks that's a legal standard! That one's even funnier than the "moron in a hurry" TD theory of likelihood of confusion. Who needs a multifactored test, adopted by every single circuit? There's one factor: a moron in a hurry. QED, baby! I love this place. It's like law, but for dumb people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, having three courts of law basically agree with that assessment definitely adds credence to Mikes' argument, wouldn't ya say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But thanks for trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just to be clear. You can't provide a single link where Mike beat me on the merits of any discussion that actually matters. Of course you can't provide such a link. Your "prophet" doesn't ever so beat me. Awesome!
The fact remains that I call out Mike on the very substance of what makes him a believable and valuable human being on his own boards, and yet he remains too scared to ever challenge me on the merits. I love it. I shit all over Mike, and he's too scared to even respond.; I love this place!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact remains that I call out Mike on the very substance of what makes him a believable and valuable human being on his own boards, and yet he remains too scared to ever challenge me on the merits. I love it. I shit all over Mike, and he's too scared to even respond.; I love this place!!"
?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You look pretty stupid laughing at things you've imagined. Nobody has ever claimed this is a legal stand, only that it's common frickin' sense. One would hope the law would contain a strong element of that, but apparently not when you clowns are involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I work in law, this is more like ignorance meets Mike's!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As many people know, despite David claiming that his service (whatever name you want to call it) was no different than Aereo, it is different. Aereo carefully followed various court rulings that indicated how to set up such a service that doesn't infringe -- and so far it's won the lawsuits filed against it by the TV networks. Source
Aereo setup their system specifically (ie: engineered more by lawyers, then technicians) to fall within existing laws. OnFilm did not. Not really a hard concept that needs pages of explaining there.
Huh? He says "it is different" and that it "followed various court rulings." That's not explaining anything. Mike has not explicitly identified one single legally relevant difference between them. What you're quoting is just more of the unsubstantiated FUD that Mike has made up. That you think a conclusory statement that "it is different" without an explanation of how it's different actually constitutes Mike explicitly explaining one way it's different is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For FilmOn:
For Aereo:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While FilmOn's system probably makes more technological sense, Aereo's system strives to remain on the right side of current laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But thanks for trying.
1. Mike uses it in reference to U.S. trademark law, where it absolutely is not an actual legal standard.
2. Please cite case law applying the "moron in a hurry" standard in the UK. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitter than Mike is actively trying to block me from posting on TD because he can't stand that I'm critical of him, all the while pretending like he isn't because he can't admit publicly that he censors those that challenge him? No, it's not bitter. It's deliciously ironic. I love that he's so two-faced and insecure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What everyone is hearing: "WAAAAH!! No one will pay attention to me! WAAAAH!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've long been a member of the Escapist, a gaming pop culture oriented website, with videos, reviews, previews and a forum section for users to talk about things much like the comments section here.
Recently, I fell afoul of some of their comment guidelines and got my posts hidden, in pretty much an identical fashion as what happens here on Techdirt (comment gets hidden, you have to click one button to view it). I eventually got a comment hidden where I mentioned I used ad-block software (that was literally the rule, according to them, it's illegal and as such must not be mentioned).
I put up a farewell message, saying this was the last straw. This post then got deleted (not locked or hidden, outright deleted).
As such, I haven't been on the site. I now hate it (well, at least the forum moderators and their rules) as much as you say you hate Techdirt. However, unlike you, I do the sane, logical thing and have avoided the site. I haven't gone back again and again slinging mud in everyone's faces. Why can't you? Just why is it you refuse to use logic and reason and avoid those places you hate? Fellow Techdirtians, please don't reply and explain, this time I want AJ to explain why he feels so compelled to constantly pop up here in this bastion of evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, that gets marked as "insightful"?? No court has ever applied the "length of the cord" argument. They instead apply the actual legal standards. You know, the ones Mike doesn't understand so he uses the "length of the cord" argument instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, yes, the whole "length of the cord" thing that you bring up.
Why don't you do us all a favor?
Give us a link to the article, and your out of context quote, so we can prove you wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While the courts may not have actually used the actual words "length of the cord", how else would you describe the difference between Aereo and Cablevision's DVR systems that the courts have acknowledged are similar enough to give Aereo favorable rulings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What everyone is hearing: "WAAAAH!! No one will pay attention to me! WAAAAH!!"
Haha, what I'm saying is that Mike is spreading FUD about there being these obvious legally significantly differences between the two systems, but he never has identified what any of these differences are specifically. And if can't do so, that proves it's just FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not feed the AJ.
Feeding Applejack is fine.
Do not feed people who purposely avoid the reply button in order to make it more difficult to follow their comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hit the "reply" button every time. The VPN I'm using, which I must use since Mike is trying to censor me from disagreeing with him (gotta promote those pageviews, and having someone point out what a fool you are is bad for business!), doesn't thread things properly.
But yeah, let's talk about this again so we can distract people from the actual point being made about how Mike doesn't know what he's talking about. Deflect! Block! Deny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Secondly, people like ootb still post regularly, no matter how many ad homs they have.
Regarding pageviews, censoring you does not provide pageviews. In fact, contrarian opinions can provide more pageviews as people get more involved in the discussion. However you have repeatedly shown you have little to contribute regarding the article topic and tend to just focus on discrediting Mike himself. This is known as "ad hominem".
The "length of the cord" is a simplification used to explain some of the logic behind the arguments being made. Not everyone who reads this site are lawyers who can read all the legal jargon that would have to be included in any direct copy and paste of the filing. This is part of the mission of "informing the public", which sometimes requires cutting through the legal arguments to get to the heart of an argument.
Provide polite disagreement along with reasons for why you disagree. It doesn't have to be referenced, although that helps, and avoid personal attacks, and nobody will hit that report button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually opposing viewpoints and random ad-hominim attacks keep things interesting
Up your game or get out of the pond...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I count five lies in there. Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can have a public performance with a six foot cord and a private performance with a 6,000 mile cord. The length of the cord is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That the length of the cord is irrelevant.
However, that's basically what the TV Network Execs are saying is why Aereo should go out of business, because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. And Aero's 6,000 mile cord is considered a private performance. The "length of the cord" argument is what the broadcasters where trying to make. And they lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm very spotty when it comes to US law so please correct me if im wrong but isn't that some form of abuse of process or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have. Several times.
For FilmOn:
First, this is a charitable description of FilmOn’s arrangement; while each user may have an assigned antenna and hard-drive directory temporarily, the mini-antennas are networked together so that a single tuner server and router, video encoder, and distribution endpoint can communicate with them all. The television signal is captured by FilmOn and passes through FilmOn’s single electronic transmission process of aggregating servers and electronic equipment. This system, through which any member of the public who clicks on the link for the video feed, is hardly akin to an individual user stringing up a television antenna on the roof. Source
The judge there is not saying that FilmOn is different than Aereo, and she is certainly not saying that any differences that do exist between them are legally relevant. For even if things weren't networked together as they were, it's still a public performance under her (correct) reasoning.
For Aereo:
Second, Plaintiffs' argument fails to account for Aereo's user-specific antennas. Each user-associated copy of a program created by Aereo's system is generated from a unique antenna assigned only to the user who requested that the copy be made. The feed from that antenna is not used to generate multiple copies of each program for different Aereo users but rather only one copy: the copy that can be watched by the user to whom that antenna is assigned. Thus even if we were to disregard Aereo's copies, it would still be true that the potential audience of each of Aereo's transmissions was the single user to whom each antenna was assigned. It is beyond dispute that the transmission of a broadcast TV program received by an individual's rooftop antenna to the TV in his living room is private, because only that individual can receive the transmission from that antenna, ensuring that the potential audience of that transmission is only one person. Plaintiffs have presented no reason why the result should be any different when that rooftop antenna is rented from Aereo and its signals transmitted over the internet: it remains the case that only one person can receive that antenna's transmissions. Source
How does this explain how Aereo's setup is technologically and legally different than FilmOn's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like I said, Aereo keeps the transmissions of the individual users separate - like the private performance from your own rooftop antenna. Individual copies, individual antennas, individual tuners, etc. etc.
By aggregating the transmission through common equipment, FilmOn is acting as a re-broadcaster. It is broadcasting one signal to many users. Or a public performance per se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 13th, 2013 @ 12:14pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit. He's blocking me and everyone knows it. If he weren't blocking me, he'd be quick in the comments to tell everyone it's not true.
Secondly, people like ootb still post regularly, no matter how many ad homs they have.
Mike doesn't view OOTB as a threat, as he does me.
Regarding pageviews, censoring you does not provide pageviews. In fact, contrarian opinions can provide more pageviews as people get more involved in the discussion. However you have repeatedly shown you have little to contribute regarding the article topic and tend to just focus on discrediting Mike himself. This is known as "ad hominem".
Calling out Mike and proving that many of the things he argues are wrong would be bad for his credibility and bad for his wallet. He doesn't want to admit mistake, and he's desperate to block and censor me because I call him out.
The "length of the cord" is a simplification used to explain some of the logic behind the arguments being made. Not everyone who reads this site are lawyers who can read all the legal jargon that would have to be included in any direct copy and paste of the filing. This is part of the mission of "informing the public", which sometimes requires cutting through the legal arguments to get to the heart of an argument.
It's a gross oversimplification that doesn't relate well to the actual language in the Transmit Clause. My point is that I don't think Mike himself actually understands the actual arguments. He's not just dumbing it down for everyone else.
Provide polite disagreement along with reasons for why you disagree. It doesn't have to be referenced, although that helps, and avoid personal attacks, and nobody will hit that report button.
No matter how polite you are, you will never be able to get Mike to have one honest conversation about copyright law. What copyright rights does Mike support? You will never get an answer to that question, no matter what. Why is he so scared to discuss his beliefs about copyright? He's obviously quite opinionated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Working WITHIN the law...Don't like it? Then pay off some more lawmakers to change it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(To anyone else: mind explaining why AC claims he's being blocked?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Misguided stupidity?
Lack of double-digit IQ?
Napoleon complex?
I could go on and on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's Average Joe. He actually has had some legal debates with me that were (relatively) civil, but regarding Mike, he's been nothing but a liar who has no goal but to be disruptive to the site.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-tec hdirt.shtml#c1210
And that post was written before he started a one-man crusade to turn the Techdirt comments into a See 'n Say. You can see examples of this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, here, and in many more places as well.
I know that Tecdirt started filtering out comments that had the barnyard noises in them, but there was an easy way to get around that filter: don't make posts that were nothing but barnyard noises.
AJ is now claiming that Techdirt is blocking all of his IP addresses. (He even claimed once that Techdirt is blocking the IP address of his phone, if I remember correctly.)
Now, AJ consistently lies about pretty much everything, so I have no reason to believe he's telling the truth. On the other hand, I understand why Techdirt would block him. If he is blocked, it's solely for his own bad behavior, and he has nobody to blame but himself.
It's pretty telling that he won't even admit this possibility. Which is not a surprise. As I said, I've had discussions with him about the law, and he's never once been right. Courts always side against him, and when they do, he insists that it's the courts which must be wrong.
And by the way, this guy just graduated from law school, specializing in IP law. I suspect we'll have a very entertaining judicial smackdown if he ever appears before a judge. Not that he will - it's pretty obvious that, like Terry Hart, he wants to get a legal position for some copyright lobbying group, without ever entering a courtroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it's because we report him, leaving a grey line of text where [the precioussss] his comments would sit if we hadn't. He doesn't like being reported but we do it every time because we don't want to wade through his farm animal noises, insults, and ad homs against Mike and the site.
He actually believes we are obliged to pay attention to him and leave his comments unhidden, though he has never bothered to explain why he is entitled to an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because he's abusive, irrelevant, and has a history of posts that contain nothing but barnyard noises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(To anyone else: mind explaining why AC claims he's being blocked?).
It is a fact that Mike is purposefully blocking my IP addresses. He blocked my home IP one day, and then my phone IP the next. I am blocked to this day. This all started happening last summer. He went apeshit in trying to shut me down, blocking certain keywords, links, IPs, etc. trying to make so I couldn't post here. It was pretty funny. He's still blocking me to this day, and he is unwilling to discuss any of this in the comments openly and honestly. The funny part is, I'd have no reason to discuss this if he would just stop doing it. He's Streisanding this thing royally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So all the rest of us, hit the "reply to this" link and it works...except for you. And it's a conspiracy by Mike directed solely at you.
Did you ever hear of an ID 10 t computer problem?
Me thinks you have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By aggregating the transmission through common equipment, FilmOn is acting as a re-broadcaster. It is broadcasting one signal to many users. Or a public performance per se.
But whether the recordings and transmissions are truly separate has no bearing on the reason why Judge Chin and certain district courts have found the setup infringing. It's not about aggregating the actual signals. Even if the signals never touch the same piece of hardware (which is not true for either of them), it's a public performance because the separate transmissions constitute part of the same performance. This is the main argument in a nutshell: Should we treat each separate transmission as a separate performance (which would make it private), or should we look at the individual transmissions as comprising part of a performance (which would make it public).
I think the key language in the Transmit Clause is this: "To perform or display a work 'publicly' means ... to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work ... 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."
The statute discusses the transmission of a "performance," and it says members of the public can receive it at "separate places" or "different times." Where I think the Second Circuit got it wrong in Cablevision, and by extension here, is that it wrote the "separate places" and "different times" language out of the statute by replacing the word "performance" with the word "transmission." Just look at the crazy hoops the Second Circuit had to jump through, like inventing the "one copy" test, to try and salvage the actual text of the statute.
This isn't just my argument, it's the main argument being made by the broadcasters, and it's got nothing to do with the length of any cords. And this is why I think your argument (and Mike's FUD) about the technological underpinnings being legally different is wrong. If the copies are truly separate, they're still being publicly performed just the same just as if they aren't truly separate. The transmissions form part of a performance, which is public because it's transmissions of the same performance, despite the fact that it's being received individually at "separate places" and "different times," whether they're truly separate or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The thing that you are missing is that by keeping the signals separate and individual, Aereo isn't the originator of the transmission anymore than your rooftop antenna is. All they are doing is "renting" the user a hard drive, an antenna, tuner, signal converter and a cable.
If I rent my antenna and TV from Rent-A-Center, does that make my TV shows public performances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oops. That's not what I meant to say.
I meant:
If I rent my antenna and TV from Rent-A-Center, does that make Rent-A-Center the originator of the broadcast?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes. But AJ is arguing that by doing this, Aereo is somehow becoming the originator of the transmission to the user which would violate existing laws. I don't think he is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it's the Nielson ratings they are so worried about because it determines the fees for advertising, why not team up and include Aereo viewers in the mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the broadcasters can't get Aereo outlawed they'll lose a great deal of leverage against the cable operators. That's much more serious for them than the paltry ratings increase they might get from Aereo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the more I read about this after I made that comment, I remembered that part myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To wit:
(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.
The issue is, even though it says "Same/different places/times", it has to be defined as the "public" first. Following the legal options provided in the cablevision ruling, they have specifically set it up so the item is only streamed to one household per antenna, thus meaning that their technology only allows that person to view it, making it a "private" performance.
I am not majorly technical however, so I defer to those who understand exactly how Aereo is doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of double-digit IQ?
Napoleon complex?
I could go on and on...
Or for the all too simple reason that it's the truth. I'd much rather be here discussing the merits of these things. Mike is blocking me and I'm using a VPN that makes my reply button not work. Could I switch to another VPN? Of course. But I think the burden should be on the censor to stop blocking me. You know? This seems especially true given that the censor is himself quite judgmental of other censors. Regardless, if I could post like normal, this wouldn't be an issue. Am I going to say not so nice things about Mike if I get my privileges back? You bet. I'm critical of him because I think he's loud, obnoxious, and just plain wrong. But just because I'm critical of him and rude about it is no reason to censor me so. He's rude to me as well, and the fact is he'd rather spend time cranking out the next click-bait than actually defend any kind of coherent theory of copyright law. But, still, I admit I should strive to be less rude. Censoring me is a strange way to elicit my compassion, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike Masnick is a dishonest, slimy sociopath. And the more people that know that, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing that you are missing is that by keeping the signals separate and individual, Aereo isn't the originator of the transmission anymore than your rooftop antenna is. All they are doing is "renting" the user a hard drive, an antenna, tuner, signal converter and a cable.
If I rent my antenna and TV from Rent-A-Center, does that make my TV shows public performances?
Aereo is causing the transmissions of the performance to reach members of the public whether they signals cross the same hardware or not. Having a third party operate and transmit the performance to you for a fee is not the same thing as renting an antenna and doing it yourself. Rent-A-Center is not transmitting anything to you. Aereo is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I'll agree to disagree with on that because the only "real" difference is the location of the equipment. My roof or Aereo's roof, makes no difference really.
If you are hung up because Aereo converts the TV signal to streaming, then why are USB TV Receivers (like this one) not illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, AJ consistently lies about pretty much everything, so I have no reason to believe he's telling the truth.
Wow. Really, Karl, after all the lengthy discussions we've had, you're now going to call me a liar? Wow. I challenge you to find one single time (other than that one time I "promised" Mike I'd leave him alone) where I lied. Prove it.
I've had discussions with him about the law, and he's never once been right.
Wow. Really? I have never said one right thing about the law? LOL! Even you get things right everyone once in a while. You're obviously lying here, and I'm happy to cite and discuss points of law I've espoused that were correct. I value my being honest and correct far above anything else. Your personal attack of me is just lame, even for you.
Courts always side against him, and when they do, he insists that it's the courts which must be wrong.
Citations needed. Court *always* side against me, every single time without any exception whatsoever? You're not even trying to make sense with this. This is so dumb, Karl. Great personal attacks, Karl. You've done Mike proud. Too bad you had to exaggerate... err, lie... to make your "points." How lame, dude. Even for you. Super lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The May 17th, 2013 @ 2:46pm comment on
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c737
You said
"I have not once asked Mike to debate me. Again, making up stuff and ignoring the evidence."
Which, from a certain point of view can actually be true...you never asked him to debate, you constantly screamed and demanded he answer loaded questions, and then complained loudly whenever he gave an answer you didn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm calling you a liar because of all the lengthy discussions we've had. You often misrepresent my arguments, and you consistently misrepresent Mike's. You also consistently misrepresent case law - which could be simple ignorance, but I somehow doubt it. And you do so with the maximum of ad hominem attacks: "weasel," "Pirate Mike," "chicken," "dishonest," "lying slimeball," calling Kim Dotcom "Mike's buddy," and so forth.
Really? I have never said one right thing about the law?
You have never been right about any part of the law that we disagree about. No court has ever accepted any of the arguments you have made here (e.g. that Arcara is controlling in copyright infringement cases). And in every single case where a court has decided the issue at hand (e.g. Righthaven), the courts have sided against you. Your response has always been "the courts got it wrong."
I will admit that I enjoy debating you, because you often bring cases to my attention that I wasn't aware of. You're usually wrong about what those cases say, of course, so I end up with more case law that supports my position. It's very helpful to me, and I'm grateful for that. But it doesn't mean you're not a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My posts are always coherent. I'm happy to explain myself, and I don't run from confrontation. I make mistakes, and I'm happy to be proved wrong. I know, hard to believe considering the example set my the "leaders" around here.
The issue is, even though it says "Same/different places/times", it has to be defined as the "public" first. Following the legal options provided in the cablevision ruling, they have specifically set it up so the item is only streamed to one household per antenna, thus meaning that their technology only allows that person to view it, making it a "private" performance.
(I think) I agree that under Cablevision, Aereo and FilmOn are not infringing. Judge Chin tried to distinguish the two systems (Cablevision and Aereo/FilmOn), but I don't think I agree with what he said (to the extent that I even understand it, which I'm not sure I do). But the point being made is that the Cablevision court made a fundamental error. This is why courts outside of the Second Circuit have been able to find that FilmOn is infringing in spite of Cablevision--Cablevision isn't binding there. Even the district court in Aereo I made clear that it would have gone the other way had its hands not been tied by Cablevision. The problem isn't Aereo or FilmOn, it's Cablevision. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it's Cablevision that will really be at issue, in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't like the loopholes required by the Cablevision ruling, but I don't have an issue with the services offered by Aereo. Any Supreme Court ruling on Aereo will defeinitely have to address the Cablevision ruling as well, so were in agreement on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good grief, the only thing I want to do less than complain about being blocked is go back over stupid minutia like that. Do you really want a response on the merits? Let's stick the the arguments advanced here: (1) Mike can't give one legally relevant way in which Aereo differs from FilmOn, despite the repeated FUD on his part that such differences exist, (2) Mike's length of the cord argument is a legal absurdity, and (3) Mike is actively blocking me because I'm critical of him and he refuses to discuss his reasons or to even acknowledge that he's blocking me in the comments. I don't know if I have the strength to debate you about whether I at one time claimed I hadn't asked Mike to debate me for some given period of time. If that's more important to you than (1) through (3), I can respond. But, really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" Wow. I challenge you to find one single time (other than that one time I "promised" Mike I'd leave him alone) where I lied. Prove it.""
That dare is open-ended. That is you saying "Go back and look through all of my comments, and find one where I lied". Especially since you bring up the part where you once lied that you'd leave Mike alone. That just brought the challenge more into focus, about the boundaries (i.e. none) that you were setting.
Anyway, I propose a dare of my own. How about you and I have a Skype chat? Set up a disposable Skype account just for this call if you want. I'll do the same. Both of us will record. We'll share each other's screens.
During this call, I will watch in real time, with you NOT logged in via VPN, you attempt to post a comment.
Also, for your information, whenever I'm logged in via VPN, my own posts get sent to the mod queue. Happens every single time. I don't mind. Just thought I'd let you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the last part is just FUD that Mike and his EFF friends have cooked up. They want to pretend like FilmOn is losing because the systems are legally distinguishable, or if that's not the case, it's because Alki David is crazy. Anything but the fact that FilmOn loses in jurisdictions where Cablevision is not the law, and even the district in Aereo I felt the need to say that Cablevision was wrong despite being binding. It's an invitation for the reader to take their eyes off the ball, i.e., the merits. It's the same invitation the silly "length of the cord" argument makes. It's drawing attention away from the actual legal issues by dumbing them down and misrepresenting them. I think the misdirection is calculated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My challenge to Karl, whom I was responding to, is still open. I challenge to Karl to find a time when I intentionally lied (with the one exception already mentioned). I'm not going to play that game with everyone. It bothers me that Karl is saying I'm a liar, given all of the lengthy, yet truthful, discussions I've had with him in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I appreciate you stating that. Kind of weird that Mr. Censorship Sucks routes so many posts from anonymizing services to the moderation queue. As you well know, it's impossible to have a discussion with that happening. I've had many posts take double-digit hours to finally show up. That's not conducive to an actual, meaningful discussion by any means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Send in the clowns...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have never been right about any part of the law that we disagree about. No court has ever accepted any of the arguments you have made here (e.g. that Arcara is controlling in copyright infringement cases). And in every single case where a court has decided the issue at hand (e.g. Righthaven), the courts have sided against you. Your response has always been "the courts got it wrong."
I will admit that I enjoy debating you, because you often bring cases to my attention that I wasn't aware of. You're usually wrong about what those cases say, of course, so I end up with more case law that supports my position. It's very helpful to me, and I'm grateful for that. But it doesn't mean you're not a liar.
All that, at not example where I actually lied. You know, disagreeing with your layman's read of the case law doesn't make me a liar. Please show me where I lied. I want evidence that I intentionally did not tell the truth. You haven't got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't think misrepresenting other peoples' arguments is lying? You don't think that misrepresenting what case law says is lying? You don't think that ad hominem attacks that deliberately attempt to make people look bad, and to make it appear they support things they don't actually support, is lying?
I'm pretty sure you do, which means you're lying right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Do you think that Mike can actually identify any differences between Aereo and FilmOn that are legally significant? He keeps bringing them up (as FUD, I argue), but he has never identified them (to the best of my knowledge). What say you?
2. Do you think that Mike's "length of the cord" argument has any legal merit? He didn't mention it here, but it's been a mainstay of his with these Aereo/FilmOn stories. He pulls out that argument rather than describe the actual legal issues (my other point). What say you?
I know you want to go off on a wild goose chase and make this about how you think I'm a liar because of some (yet unidentified) arguments I may have made elsewhere, but can you actually address the points I'm making here? Show me how I'm wrong or how I'm a liar to make these two points if you can. That would be more productive, I should think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Gwiz brought them up already. Seems perfectly consistent with Mike's assertion that Aero was specifically set up to be within the law, while FilmOn was only copying the appearance of Aero's setup as a pretense to legality.
Do you think that Mike's "length of the cord" argument has any legal merit?
That is not Mike's argument, it is the broadcasters'. They are the ones essentially arguing that the "length of the cord" makes Aero's service infringing. In this regard, Mike's argument - that the length of the cord is not significant - certainly has legal merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. We talked about how some of the signals might cross the same hardware. As I explained, this is irrelevant to why the broadcasters are saying it's a public performance. The opinion he cited where Judge Collyer mentioned that the signals are not truly separated only rejected FilmOn's argument that they were. That did not affect her reasoning as to why it's a public performance. Under the broadcasters' argument, an argument urged by Judge Chin and adopted by some courts against FilmOn, it's a public performance even if the signals are completely and truly separate. The reason is, as I mentioned above, because those individual transmissions make up a public performance under the Transmit Clause. See my point?
That is not Mike's argument, it is the broadcasters'. They are the ones essentially arguing that the "length of the cord" makes Aero's service infringing. In this regard, Mike's argument - that the length of the cord is not significant - certainly has legal merit.
His argument is that the length of the cord doesn't matter because people are just transmitting it to themselves, just as they could do with a long cord and antenna. That's irrelevant to the actual issue, which is whether Aereo/FilmOn are engaging in public performances under the Transmit Clause. Mike is drawing attention to the length of the cord to show that it's just like doing it oneself. The point though is that the customers are not doing it themselves. Aereo/FilmOn are very much apart of the transmitting--that's what their businesses provide. See my point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure you do, which means you're lying right now.
I attempt to portray my honest view of other people's arguments, so, no, it's not lying. I am deliberately trying to make Mike look bad because I think he deserves it (i.e., is bad), but I don't misrepresent things intentionally to do so. I don't need to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet you still misrepresent their arguments, even when they explicitly tell you they're not their arguments. The whole "ISP's are state actors" bullshit, for example.
That is lying. And, frankly, you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is lying. And, frankly, you know it.
I don't know it's a lie because it's not a lie. I can disagree with you about the state actor doctrine without being a liar. You have a really weird idea that if someone disagrees with your newly-found, hardly-researched, total-layman's view of some complicated doctrine of law, then they are a liar. You really should be less binary in your thinking. But, really, is this the best you got in the AJ's a liar category? Pretty weak sauce, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disagreeing with me about the state actor doctrine doesn't make you a liar. Deliberately misrepresenting others' arguments makes you a liar.
Which is exactly what I said, so right at this very moment, you're misrepresenting me. Making you a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick, send in the clowns...
Don't bother, they're here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is exactly what I said, so right at this very moment, you're misrepresenting me. Making you a liar.
I didn't deliberately misrepresent anyone's arguments when we talked about the state action doctrine, so I don't see your point. I disagreed with you there, a lot, but I didn't misrepresent anything. You still haven't provided one scintilla of evidence of me lying. You claimed I'm a liar. Show me the link and text you're referring to where you think I lied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You certainly did. You claimed that Mike's argument was that "DMCA takedown notice recipients are state actors." Not only was this not his argument, nobody with a basic grasp of English would think that it was. Furthermore, you continued to claim that was his argument - and in fact, have never stopped claiming that - even after Mike himself explicitly stated it wasn't his argument.
But, of course, it's easier to tear down a straw man than to actually debate Mike's actual point. That was, quite transparently, why you continued to argue against it.
This wasn't the first time, either, nor did you only do this with Mike. You did the same thing with me - on many occasions, including that very discussion.
So, yeah. You're a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MASNICK DOES CENSOR - easier than telling the truth.
yes, he does censor, yes he is insecure, no he cannot handle criticisms, yes he is a coward for using CENSORSHIP and METADATA (for CENSORSHIP).
Does it look bad for Mansick ?? hell yes, is he embarrassed about it? he should be.
Does he try to hide the fact the he uses CENSORSHIP because he is not good enough to present an argument? YES.
Is "Techdirt" (GovHateAlways.com) an industry JOKE.. I sure think it is.
After 15 years Masnick has forgotten how to be balanced and unbiased, wow 15 years and 15 fans !!! NICE GOING Mick the nick..
If I was still doing the same thing after 15 years, flogging T-shirts and crystal balls and getting no where I would consider another line of work, especially if after all that time I only had 10 or so die hard 'fans' hanging off your every word (how many of them are sockpuppets Mickie??)
For someone who has taken 15 years to achieve as little as you have must take some effort!!!
But I guess your happy in your little rut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He doesn't strike me as happy at all. More like totally bitter and resentful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no, he does not lie, he simply fails to present any facts, opinion is not a lie, it is false, biased and worthless, but it is a lie!
and I guess he does lie about being against CENSORSHIP, he is very willing to CENSOR when he feels his authority is being questioned. After all he does not want to upset his 10 fans! They buy his T-Shirts! (or are simply sock puppets).
But at least TD (IhaveeverythingGOV.com.gov) is good for a joke.
Particularly from his extremist cultists he employs as his guard dogs, we know Masnick is very sensitive to critics.
He has to CENSOR them, he has nothing else.
Logic, facts and reasoning are beyond his abilities, but CENSORSHIP is not (mostly)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, though, even if Aereo keeps everything completely separate, it is still publicly performing the works under the logic of the actual argument for why Aereo and FilmOn are infringing. What matters is whether those transmissions are of the same performance, not whether those transmissions are truly separate or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 13th, 2013 @ 6:09pm
FlimOn relies on a single server connected to many users at once...and runs the data to their customers...which is illegal because the source is from one antenna for many customers...which makes it a legally PUBLIC share. It's sort of like patching into your neighbor's cable line...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 13th, 2013 @ 6:09pm
The issue to your argument on that is that Aero RENTS its antennae and wifi repeaters individually to each customer...for the customer's (note I used the non-plural possessive there) PRIVATE use...so Aero is basically making money off of renting and setting up each uniquely identifiable device for their customers...it's not a repeat performance when you run a rental service on equipment...
FilmOn may be infringing because it has many users using ONE line...and the DATA IS SHARED amongst the users as opposed to coming into each individual user...
All the appeals courts recognize that difference...
Think on this...Alki David has written, produced, a movie for Sony Pictures Entertainment Corporation which is owned by CBS Broadcasting Corporation....his first acting gig was on Fox Entertainment's (the very Fox Entertainment suing Aero) on the TNT show...The Grid...
Legally...public performance means you are charging people in a public venue to see a movie.... Note a movie...not broadcast transmission...and the reason the public performance argument doesn't work against Aero is due to the fact that they service private individuals...broadcast signals can't even be affected by the public performance because of public pubs and bars showing sports on broadcasted networks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike was making the argument that DMCA takedowns are prior restraints. Mike cited the journal article by Seltzer, which I quoted as well, which shows her making the argument that it's a prior restraint because those involved are state actors. When/where did Mike explicitly state this is not his argument? All you've found is a disagreement, Karl. It's not evidence of me lying.
But, of course, it's easier to tear down a straw man than to actually debate Mike's actual point. That was, quite transparently, why you continued to argue against it.
The truth is that Mike can't actually explain what his argument actually is as far as DMCA takedowns being prior restraints. He just copied Seltzer because he liked her conclusions--conclusions that she hedged on in her article, as I indicated and quoted. Still, you haven't shown how I lied.
This wasn't the first time, either, nor did you only do this with Mike. You did the same thing with me - on many occasions, including that very discussion.
So, yeah. You're a liar.
Mike in that link was saying something self-contradictory. I pointed out his error. Mike said there's no such thing as contributory criminal infringement, and I pointed out that sure there is, it's called aiding and abetting criminal infringement. Mike's point was that O'Dwyer couldn't have committed a crime because his liability was not direct, and I pointed out that indirect infringement can be criminal under 18 U.S.C. 2. Not a lie. The second link is you showing that we had a long and lengthy discussion about the state actor doctrine. Not a lie.
You're starting to sound just as desperate as Mike, Karl. Is this really the best evidence of AJ is a liar you can find? That's just sad. You still haven't finished our discussion of the two points I'm making about Mike in this thread. I know you love to jump around, but can we at least finish those two points?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those two arguments is not remotely equivalent to the argument was that the DMCA "transforms ISP's into state actors." That is obvious to anyone with basic English skills. Yet that's what you claimed Mike's argument was, and you continued (and, it seems, still continue) to claim it even after he made it clear that it was Congress that he considered to be the state actor.
And the reason is clearly because that's the easiest argument to refute. (It is harder to argue that rights holders do not send DMCA notices under color of law; and impossible to do with Congress.) So, you refute this (unraised, weaker) argument, then claim you refute the (stronger) argument that was actually raised.
This is the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, like all straw man arguments, it requires misrepresenting the original argument. That you do so even after everyone said it wasn't the argument makes you a liar.
Mike in that link was saying something self-contradictory.
No, he wasn't. If you ask most lawyers what the "contributory infringement" standard is, they will say it's the civil liability standard created by Napster and so forth. Nobody that I'm aware of has ever used "criminal contributory infringement" when they meant "aiding and abetting criminal infringement." And Mike was right: the civil liability standard created through Napster et. al. cannot give rise to criminal liability.
So Mike's statement was clear, and it was you who claimed it wasn't. In fact, you claimed that he was "pretending" that aiding and abetting didn't exist.
That could mean that you're simply confused... except that Mike explicitly said what he meant (and linked to entire Techdirt articles that talked about the difference).
Do you admit your mistake? No. You still claimed that Mike said there is no such thing as aiding and abetting, and that pointing out your confusion was "wiggling out" of the argument.
You continued to misrepresent what he said after you knew it was a misrepresentation. That means you were lying.
Is this really the best evidence of AJ is a liar you can find?
Only if by "best," you mean your least distruthful. These aren't the worst lies you've told here. They are merely the most typical. You've done exactly the same thing, to varying degrees, every single time you've had a debate here.
And this is when you're not deliberately shitting all over comments with barnyard noises. Or whining about why a guy whose arguments you always misrepresent, and who you call a "weasel," a "douchebag," a "slimeball," "Pirate Mike," and a dozen other names, will (surprise!) not find it worth his time to engage in "debate" with you.
No, that's not you at your worst. That's you at your best. Even at your best, you're a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Um, edit error. "Those two arguments" = "that argument." Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, the courts that applied Cablevision found that Aereo was not infringing. The courts that found FilmOn to be infringing did so while reasoning that Cablevision was wrongly decided since the Second Circuit there had conflated the term "performance" with "transmission" in the Transmit Clause of Section 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue to your argument on that is that Aero RENTS its antennae and wifi repeaters individually to each customer...for the customer's (note I used the non-plural possessive there) PRIVATE use...so Aero is basically making money off of renting and setting up each uniquely identifiable device for their customers...it's not a repeat performance when you run a rental service on equipment...
FilmOn may be infringing because it has many users using ONE line...and the DATA IS SHARED amongst the users as opposed to coming into each individual user...
All the appeals courts recognize that difference...
You can stream it to yourself. But hiring a third party to stream it to you is not the same thing. There is no question that Aereo is sending the streams to its customers. The question is whether those individual transmissions should be aggregated together so as to be one performance. Cablevision said the answer is "no." The broadcasters disagree. I agree with the broadcasters because I think the Cablevision court focused on each transmission when it should have focused on the performance, as Section 101 says.
Legally...public performance means you are charging people in a public venue to see a movie.... Note a movie...not broadcast transmission...and the reason the public performance argument doesn't work against Aero is due to the fact that they service private individuals...broadcast signals can't even be affected by the public performance because of public pubs and bars showing sports on broadcasted networks...
The Transmit Clause covers transmissions of performances, which is a different part of the law than what covers performances in a public venue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you rent the equipment from Aero...it is YOUR equipment...you rent the antenna, and the routers set up as repeaters...but they set it up so that the devices you are renting from them are only accessible by YOUR equipment..that's private...not public. The retransmitted signal is only streamed to you through YOUR antenna...through your routers' signal hops...and cannot be accessed by other Aero users (separate residencies)
If you rent from FilmOn, they use one antenna on the roof to collect the transmission...and rebroadcast the signal globally for anyone to pick up which is a violation of FCC licensing rules ...It is a single source...to multiple users...
This is a painfully obvious difference between the two companies.
Thing is...Aero is using the same methods cable companies do to retransmit signals...by an individual basis through a private (meaning one household at a time) connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That the antennas are rented doesn't change the fact that Aereo provides a service where it retransmits broadcasts to its customers. The customers aren't transmitting it to themselves. I understand that each transmission can only be received by one person. That's not the issue either, as I've explained. That was true, for example, for Zediva, yet that didn't change the fact that the performances there were public. The argument that it's infringing takes for granted that the transmissions are only available to one person. It's infringement because those individual transmissions comprise one performance, in violation of the Transmit Clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, you keep repeating this like it's true. It's not.
With the Aereo system the customer does in fact choose which channel to record and when, the customer chooses which device to stream it to, the customer chooses when to watch it and the customer can even pause and restart the stream. The customer has complete and total control, not Aereo.
If your argument had any weight whatsoever then you'd also be saying that the ISP and the internet backbone provider are also retransmitting the broadcast too because it flows through their equipment and they charge for their services. That makes zero sense and it doesn't follow the current legal precedents that govern the internet and technology these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, that argument has also been raised before (though pre-Internet, it was usually with things like phone lines). Those arguments have always failed, at least all that I'm aware of. Nonetheless, it was enough of a concern for Congress to include blanket liability for such providers in the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A performance by legal definition is a TV show, movie, or stage production...being seen on your TV or in the theater...watching a DVD privately is a performance of those that created the movie on it....Aero retransmits the signal to YOUR equipment and nobody else in your PRIVATE residence to you as you PRIVATELY chooses what you want to record and watch...you would be infringing if you put out fliers to complete strangers and charged admission to view your screen of what you recorded....so you are right that it does in fact retransmit the signal to you...but the way it is done is not at all infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not surprised AJ. I dared you to have a Skype call with me, to record your screen and provide undeniable proof that you are actually being IP blocked by Mike. Instead, you ran away. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but since you are not willing at all to prove your accusations, I must conclude with what evidence I have before me that Mike does not censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not surprised AJ. I dared you to have a Skype call with me, to record your screen and provide undeniable proof that you are actually being IP blocked by Mike. Instead, you ran away. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but since you are not willing at all to prove your accusations, I must conclude with what evidence I have before me that Mike does not censor.
Ask Mike if he's blocking me. Have him answer in the comments so everyone can see what he says. Don't you think he would have denied it here in these comments if I were lying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
average_joe just can't stand it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not surprised AJ. I dared you to have a Skype call with me, to record your screen and provide undeniable proof that you are actually being IP blocked by Mike. Instead, you ran away. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but since you are not willing at all to prove your accusations, I must conclude with what evidence I have before me that Mike does not censor.
I have no interest in Skyping with you. Why would I make it up? Why would I claim it's true for months and months? Why wouldn't Mike come in to the comments to defend himself if it weren't true? Occam's razor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is often the correct one, says that with you unwilling to provide evidence for your accusations, you are then lying. Even though I am a big fan of Mike's, I am giving you the opportunity to potentially show that he is in the wrong. I am giving you the opportunity to salvage what little is left of your reputation here. However, I can't do it on my own. I need you to do the rest. I need you to actually act like a man for the first time in your life, stand up and (metaphorically) look the rest of us in the eye and say "I am indeed being blocked, here is my proof"
Without it, the only possible result is that Mike the Evil One gets off scot free. Are you willing to let that happen? Mike the Son of Satan, the Dark One, your nemesis not be punished for his heinous crimes?
The ball is in your court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Occam's Razor would suggest he's lying anyway, since he has proven over and over again that he is willing to go to any lengths - ad hom attacks, straw man arguments, cherry-picking, and poisoning the well - in order to do anything that he thinks will discredit Techdirt, and Mike personally.
On the other hand, I'm unaware of any time Techdirt has done anything similar with any other commenter. Nobody else - even the others who consistently smear Mike - has even claimed that they've been blocked.
I'll still admit it's possible, since AJ has been such a disruptive douchebag that blocking him is absolutely warranted. But that's not enough to overcome Occam's razor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is often the correct one, says that with you unwilling to provide evidence for your accusations, you are then lying. Even though I am a big fan of Mike's, I am giving you the opportunity to potentially show that he is in the wrong. I am giving you the opportunity to salvage what little is left of your reputation here. However, I can't do it on my own. I need you to do the rest. I need you to actually act like a man for the first time in your life, stand up and (metaphorically) look the rest of us in the eye and say "I am indeed being blocked, here is my proof"
Without it, the only possible result is that Mike the Evil One gets off scot free. Are you willing to let that happen? Mike the Son of Satan, the Dark One, your nemesis not be punished for his heinous crimes?
The ball is in your court.
Or, instead of playing silly games, Mike could come into the comments and have an honest discussion about whether he's blocking me. He could explain how I'm wrong to claim what I'm claiming. He can look at the all evidence I have and then comment on that. Of course, he really is blocking me, so I doubt he'll actually have any sort of honest chat about it. Why wouldn't he come into the comments to say I'm lying about something so simple if I'm in fact lying? I wonder.. He obviously would jump on the chance to prove me wrong if he could. I appreciate the need to spread FUD (wink! Hi!), but I think everyone can see that I have no reason to lie about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm really not sure whether it's denial or just flat out dishonesty that causes you to constantly claim that it's Mike's fault he doesn't want to have anything to do with you, rather than your own actions, and I suppose it doesn't really matter, as the cause and result is the same, namely that you have proven having a discussion with you is pointless, so therefor he doesn't do so.
For any newer readers unfamiliar with AJ's 'debate methods' and history, this particular comment sums it up nicely:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-t echdirt.shtml#c1210
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only way that people can believe your accusations is if you provide proof. If you again refuse to provide it, then no-one can believe you and all you are doing is wasting your metaphorical breath. Why constantly shout and accuse Mike of doing horrible things, of insisting that what you say is true, then consistently refuse to back it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, wow. He's blocking my IP address, so I'm getting around his block so I can post here. This isn't complicated. Thanks for playing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he were blocking your IP address then you wouldn't be able to post on here. The fact that you are able to post and still continue to post clearly shows that you are NOT blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way that people can believe your accusations is if you provide proof. If you again refuse to provide it, then no-one can believe you and all you are doing is wasting your metaphorical breath. Why constantly shout and accuse Mike of doing horrible things, of insisting that what you say is true, then consistently refuse to back it up?
Why don't we see what Mike says. If he admits it, which I hope he will, then issue solved. Funny how you're hoping that Mike won't show up. Hmm... Wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please show me exactly where you think Mike made it clear that Congress is the state actor in that scenario. I disagree that Mike made that clear. Disagreeing with your assessment is not a lie.
And the reason is clearly because that's the easiest argument to refute. (It is harder to argue that rights holders do not send DMCA notices under color of law; and impossible to do with Congress.) So, you refute this (unraised, weaker) argument, then claim you refute the (stronger) argument that was actually raised.
I think the only way that it can be a prior restraint is if at least one of the actors directly involved in the takedown is a state actor, that is, the rightholder who sends the notice or the service provider who responds. I know you disagree, but that doesn't make me a liar. The fact is that no one in 15 years of the DMCA has ever argued this prior restraint argument in court. It's so dumb that no lawyer would actually raise it. But, again, not a lie.
This is the very definition of a straw-man argument. And, like all straw man arguments, it requires misrepresenting the original argument. That you do so even after everyone said it wasn't the argument makes you a liar.
I just don't see it. Again, where did Mike make clear that the state actor is Congress? He cited Seltzer's article, and, as already explained in detail in that thread, she argues that the state actor is not Congress. Again, not a lie. You're really desperate with this stuff.
No, he wasn't. If you ask most lawyers what the "contributory infringement" standard is, they will say it's the civil liability standard created by Napster and so forth. Nobody that I'm aware of has ever used "criminal contributory infringement" when they meant "aiding and abetting criminal infringement." And Mike was right: the civil liability standard created through Napster et. al. cannot give rise to criminal liability.
I disagree with your assessment. I think Mike's argument was that O'Dwyer couldn't be criminally liable for his indirect involvement. Mike later changed his story and then ran away after I pointed out that he could. I know you disagree with my assessment, but that doesn't make me a liar. I stand by that assessment now, and subjectively I believe it to be true. Not A Lie. So desperate, Karl.
Do you admit your mistake? No. You still claimed that Mike said there is no such thing as aiding and abetting, and that pointing out your confusion was "wiggling out" of the argument.
If I thought there was a mistake on my part, I would gladly admit it. The fact is, all you can find is where I assessed something differently than you in good faith. Given your complete lack of legal training, it's not surprising that you and I disagree about complicated legal doctrines, no? Sorry, Karl, but this is desperate and dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. I'll quote and link one example, but that's it. Anything more is wasting time.
Please show me exactly where you think Mike made it clear that Congress is the state actor in that scenario.
First of all, let's establish what Mike's argument really is. Here's the relevant quote from that story: "it seems (to me, at least) to only further the argument that the DMCA takedown process is a clear violation of the First Amendment, because it now clearly allows for blatant censorship, with no remedy even if the process is abused to remove non-infringing speech, such as fair use." No mention of ISP's as state actors.
He links to another story, where he says this: "The basic nature of the notice-and-takedown -- even if done by private firms -- appears to be in direct violation of the First Amendment. The fact that the DMCA effectively requires companies to take this step in order to protect themselves from liability via the DMCA's safe harbors, means that even though it's a private company doing this, they are compelled to do so by the government."
And in that story, he re-iterated this argument in the comments: "As previous rulings have shown, if the gov't forces a corporation to take away free expression it can be ruled unconstitutional." (Source.) "It is illegal for the gov't to force companies to remove speech. It is not illegal for private actors to decide to remove speech themselves. So those sites still can remove whatever they want. Where the problem happens is when the gov't tells them they have to do so." (Source.)
Back in the original story he specifically replied to you to reiterate that point: "The state is a player in that it created a law that leads to censorship without living up to the high bar required under the First Amendment." (Source.)
So, yes, he specifically said that Congress (the ones who "created a law") were the state actors. He never claimed ISP's were state actors, and in fact stated the exact opposite: that they were "private firms" who were compelled to act by state actors. And Mike was not the only one who pointed this out to you. Yet you continued to claim it was his argument: "Are they, or are they not, arguing that the ISPs that remove complained-of content are state actors?" (Source.)
This is not "disagreeing with my assessment." It is a deliberate misrepresentation of Mike's argument. It is a lie.
And, oh, look, in another comment, you're doing the same thing all over again:
In that discussion we had prior restraints, the state action doctrine, and DMCA takedown notices, you insisted that a service provider has no choice but to take down the material.
Big surprise, but that's (at best) a misstatement of what I said (that the statutes are coercive enough such that DMCA takedowns can be fairly attributed to the state). We've already had this discussion, at great length, and I'm not going to rehash it. (Source, for those few who are curious.)
I could do the same thing with Stelzer's paper. Or the "contributory infringement" argument. Or the many other times you've lied about things Mike has said. Or the many, many other times you've misrepresented my own arguments. But it's obviously pointless. You'll simply lie some more, then deny it's a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was using the wifi somewhere other than at home. Since I always use the "reply" button, it showed up as a regular reply since I wasn't using my VPN. This isn't hard. You guys are so desperate to "get me" on the little stuff. I guess you can't actually discuss anything that actually matters. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's test out your claim that I am ALWAYS wrong when we disagree about a legal point. In that discussion we had prior restraints, the state action doctrine, and DMCA takedown notices, you insisted that a service provider has no choice but to take down the material. Care to hash that one out? It's so easy to disprove. And then that'll show you're the liar in saying that I'm always wrong. Game on? I can pull up your exact post where you said that if you need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it is true. You just don't understand it.
If your argument had any weight whatsoever then you'd also be saying that the ISP and the internet backbone provider are also retransmitting the broadcast too because it flows through their equipment and they charge for their services. That makes zero sense and it doesn't follow the current legal precedents that govern the internet and technology these days.
Truly passive conduits are different than services that exist for the very purpose of transmitting those specific works. The case law distinguishes the two, usually under some version of the volitional conduct test which considers the proximate causality of the service provider at issue. ISPs and other passive conduits are deemed legally not to have caused the streaming, while services like YouTube or Cablevision itself for that matter are not. There is no question that Aereo is engaging in transmission of performances. The issue is whether those performances are private or public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL! He's blocking my IP address. I'm using a VPN which makes my IP address appear differently to his servers, so that way it doesn't block me. You must be new to TD. Most everyone here understands such basic concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By admitting that you a use a VPN clearly shows that you are NOT blocked. So you are wrong to say that you are being blocked being as you clearly are not blocked for your posts to appear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm saying that Mike is blocking my IP address at home. By this I mean that he is intentionally preventing posts from immediately appearing here that originate from my home IP address. You're just playing stupid semantic games. Got anything that actually matters to talk about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then post the evidence on here that your IP address at home is indeed block so everyone on here can see the proof that Mike is indeed blocking you if not then what you say about being blocked is not true. Either post the evidence or shut up about it. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll gladly have this conversation, but let's first see if Mike confirms or denies that I am being blocked. I'm his Number One Critic, so it's not like he's unaware of whether I'm being blocked or not. The fact that he won't jump in the comments and say that I'm lying should show you something. Where's Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For Mike not jumping in the comments and say that you are lying does not show anything and nor does it prove anything.
If you really wanted to show Mike up, to put Mike in his place, to attack Mike, to make a fool of Mike and to discredit Mike to everyone on here then post the evidence on here that shows and proves that Mike is indeed blocking you. You have the opportunity to do all that with showing and providing this evidence in here to everyone on here. Either show and provide the evidence on here or you will show to everyone that what you say about Mike blocking you is not true.
Until you provide the evidence I and everyone else on here is not going to believe that it is true about Mike blocking you. If you want to show Mike up in front of everyone on here then show and provide the evidence that shows Mike is blocking you, if you don't then you are only showing yourself to everyone that what you say isn't true because you are not in anyway making a fool of Mike being as you are not providing the evidence. The choice is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you really wanted to show Mike up, to put Mike in his place, to attack Mike, to make a fool of Mike and to discredit Mike to everyone on here then post the evidence on here that shows and proves that Mike is indeed blocking you. You have the opportunity to do all that with showing and providing this evidence in here to everyone on here. Either show and provide the evidence on here or you will show to everyone that what you say about Mike blocking you is not true.
Until you provide the evidence I and everyone else on here is not going to believe that it is true about Mike blocking you. If you want to show Mike up in front of everyone on here then show and provide the evidence that shows Mike is blocking you, if you don't then you are only showing yourself to everyone that what you say isn't true because you are not in anyway making a fool of Mike being as you are not providing the evidence. The choice is yours.
I disagree. Mike jumps at the chance to prove me wrong on even the slightest mistake I make. If I'm lying about something that involves him, he would jump at the chance to prove me wrong. I appreciate that you disagree, but I think this is obvious stuff. Kind of like how it's obvious that I'm saying he's blocking me even though you try to spin it as though he's not blocking me because I have found some way to circumvent the block. If I'm blocking your driveway to prevent you from pulling your car in, it's not reasonable to say I'm not blocking you because you can hire a helicopter to lift and drop your car in your driveway. Yet, you have argued that I'm not being blocked by Mike because I can get around his block. That shows, I think, that you're not the most reasonable person. But, regardless, Mike would JUMP at the chance to prove me wrong. Yet, he's totally a ghost on this issue where I'm directly calling him out. He's a ghost, I think, because he doesn't want to admit the truth that he's blocking me because he's ashamed of himself. I think this is basic, easy stuff. If I'm lying, Mike would relish the opportunity to prove it. Few things are more important to Mike than attacking my credibility (wink! Hi!), yet he remains silent here. Hmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If its the truth that Mike is blocking you then show and provide the evidence to everyone on here that Mike is indeed blocking you. Until you show and provide the evidence to prove what you say then you are just like the boy that cried wolf. If you really wanted to call Mike out on him blocking you then you would have provided the evidence by now to call him out and to embarress him and judging by your previous comments you would have most certainly called him out and embarressed him by now but you haven't. It isn't for Mike to prove that he isn't blocking you, it is for you to prove that he is blocking you and you haven't done so but keep going on and on like the boy that cried wolf with nothing at the end to show for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If its the truth that Mike is blocking you then show and provide the evidence to everyone on here that Mike is indeed blocking you. Until you show and provide the evidence to prove what you say then you are just like the boy that cried wolf. If you really wanted to call Mike out on him blocking you then you would have provided the evidence by now to call him out and to embarress him and judging by your previous comments you would have most certainly called him out and embarressed him by now but you haven't. It isn't for Mike to prove that he isn't blocking you, it is for you to prove that he is blocking you and you haven't done so but keep going on and on like the boy that cried wolf with nothing at the end to show for it.
Again, and for the last time, Mike would jump at the chance to prove me a liar. Few things are more important in his life, sadly, than attacking my credibility. He is silent here. It's obvious that he DOESN'T want to have this conversation. I don't think you make much sense (nor do I think you're being sincere, truth be told), but, hey, you're the guy that doesn't think someone is being blocked so long as they can find a way to circumvent the blockage, right? The epitome of logic, you are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is for you to prove that Mike is blocking you and being as you have not provided any evidence to proof that you are being blocked does not show and nor does it prove that you are being blocked. I do not believe you when you say that you are being blocked so provide the evidence so that i can see that you are being blocked. Your word means nothing without evidence to prove what you are saying is true.
You were asked to provide the evidence but you go on and on like the boy who cried wolf without anything to show what you are saying is true. No one is going to believe what you say about being blocked until you provide the evidence to show what you are saying is true. It's for you to prove your argument about being blocked and without evidence you clearly have shown that your argument does not hold water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is for you to prove that Mike is blocking you and being as you have not provided any evidence to proof that you are being blocked does not show and nor does it prove that you are being blocked. I do not believe you when you say that you are being blocked so provide the evidence so that i can see that you are being blocked. Your word means nothing without evidence to prove what you are saying is true.
You were asked to provide the evidence but you go on and on like the boy who cried wolf without anything to show what you are saying is true. No one is going to believe what you say about being blocked until you provide the evidence to show what you are saying is true. It's for you to prove your argument about being blocked and without evidence you clearly have shown that your argument does not hold water.
Yep. I completely understand your position, and I disagree, for all of the reasons already given. Anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then for all the reasons already given you will never convice anyone that you are being blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, ROFLMAO! Seriously. I love it. All fluff and FUD, but never--NEVER EVER--Mike having an honest discussion about something that actually matters. I am challenging Mike, explicitly calling out his reputation on a matter that he necessarily holds the better evidence to, yet he won't bother to chime in. I'm shitting on his reputation on his own boards, yet he's too scared to say a word. Sure. It's because he's being totally honest. Sure it is. Sigh... Mike would disprove me in a SECOND if it weren't true. The fact is, though, that I will continue to call him a liar and a weasel on his own boards, and he will remain too scared to ever address my points, because they're true. I am spitting and shitting on your reputation, Mike. Why are you too scared to respond? Hmmm... This stuff is so easy.
You are blocking me, Mike, and you fucking know it. Everyone fucking knows it. Why are so scared to say I'm lying????? Hmmm... LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are blocking me, Mike, and you fucking know it. Everyone fucking knows it. Why are so scared to say I'm lying????? Hmmm... LOL!"
And yet you still fail to convice that Mike is blocking you, obviously if you really wanted to shit on Mikes reputation on his own boards then show and provide the evidence that shows Mike blocking you. Here is your oppoutunity to provide the evidence to everyone to shit on him and yet you do not do so and continue to fail to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, they are related. Mike won't admit he's blocking me just like he won't ever have a substantive debate with me about something that actually matters. Why? Because it scares him shitless that someone might actually make him look bad (which he should be especially sensitive about, since it's so easy to make such an extremist look bad). This stuff isn't hard. Mike isn't avoiding me because I'm a dick, as he purports, but rather he's avoiding me because he's scared of me. Wanna see proof? Have Mike actually debate me on the merits of any issue that actually matters. He will never do that. Never. He can't risk it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great argument! The day you have proof that Mike beat me on the merits of any discussion that actually matters, you post the link. Can't wait. LMAO back at ya!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LMAO. The day that you actually have proof that Mike is blocking you will be the day that you actually shit on Mike. You post the link. LMAO back at you. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see AJ still refuses to provide evidence for his accusations, but not only that: he is calling out Mike for a discussion and accusing him of running away.
AJ...look up the word hypocrisy. Your photo will be there in the definition. You are the one who is running away. It's not just me, now it's an AC who is calling you out (thanks for continuing on from where I left off!).
For someone who professed to be a law student, you have shown not the slightest understanding of how accusations work. If this were a court-room, you would be the prosecution and it would be your job to prove Mike wrong. Instead, you're screaming that the defendant doesn't say anything and doesn't defend himself, which is only proper. Mike doesn't have to do or say a damn thing. It is you making the accusations, it is your job to provide proof that they are true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop wasting time people
Look, it's simple, AJ is a troll. His entire purpose on the site is to feed his little ego by getting people to respond to him, whether it's a well typed out rebuttal to his 'arguments' or just people telling him he's an idiot. He wins as soon as you start treating him like an adult and showing him why he's wrong, instead of doing the reasonable thing and ignoring him.
At most post a comment showing why he's incorrect on something, but the second he starts the usual 'same question with different wording' schtick he depends on, drop the matter, as it's him demonstrating once again that he's not looking for a debate or discussion, but fishing for a specific response, and will ignore anything that isn't that specific response.
Whether it's denial, or dishonesty, he's proven again and again that he is incapable of admitting to being wrong on something, so trying to get him to admit to such is a bigger waste of time than trying to drain the ocean with an eyedropper, so stop doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He links to another story, where he says this: "The basic nature of the notice-and-takedown -- even if done by private firms -- appears to be in direct violation of the First Amendment. The fact that the DMCA effectively requires companies to take this step in order to protect themselves from liability via the DMCA's safe harbors, means that even though it's a private company doing this, they are compelled to do so by the government."
And in that story, he re-iterated this argument in the comments: "As previous rulings have shown, if the gov't forces a corporation to take away free expression it can be ruled unconstitutional." (Source.) "It is illegal for the gov't to force companies to remove speech. It is not illegal for private actors to decide to remove speech themselves. So those sites still can remove whatever they want. Where the problem happens is when the gov't tells them they have to do so." (Source.)
Back in the original story he specifically replied to you to reiterate that point: "The state is a player in that it created a law that leads to censorship without living up to the high bar required under the First Amendment." (Source.)
So, yes, he specifically said that Congress (the ones who "created a law") were the state actors. He never claimed ISP's were state actors, and in fact stated the exact opposite: that they were "private firms" who were compelled to act by state actors. And Mike was not the only one who pointed this out to you. Yet you continued to claim it was his argument: "Are they, or are they not, arguing that the ISPs that remove complained-of content are state actors?" (Source.)
This is not "disagreeing with my assessment." It is a deliberate misrepresentation of Mike's argument. It is a lie.
Sorry, Karl, but even based on your own evidence, I disagree with your assessment. Seltzer and Mike need for the party that imposes the restraint to be compelled, because that compulsion is what turns them from being an otherwise private actor into a state actor. Without that compulsion, and without that conversion into a state actor, it can't be a prior restraint. Seltzer knows this, and that's why she brings up compulsion. Mike just copied her. I know you disagree, but that doesn't make me a liar. Again, the fact remains that no lawyer ever has made the argument that the prior restraint doctrine applies to DMCA takedown notices because it's an embarrassingly terrible argument. Yet, you think it makes total sense. This is not surprising, given your complete lack of legal training. Still, all you've shown is that I in good faith reach a different conclusion than you on some complicated legal issue. That's not a lie, and the fact that you won't admit that is pretty sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]