That all sounds very interesting. And it might be, if there were any truth to it at all. Unfortunately, there's not. We've yet to see a single piece of evidence supporting the idea that terrorists are involved in infringement.
Maybe the Attorney General is privy to evidence that you are not? I mean, he is the Attorney General after all, and you're just a tech blogger. I dunno, Mike. You haven't shown that there is no such evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
Sure, but the standard is subjective bad faith, which means that they have to actually know it's a misrepresentation. For example, they have to know that they don't actually own the copyright or are not authorized to act on the copyright holder's behalf. I don't think the "it's obviously fair use" argument has much traction since it's extremely hard to show that someone knew for a fact it was fair use yet sent the notice anyway. Regardless, it's amusing to me that you guys focus on the outlier notices where maybe there's bad faith, but you ignore the mainstream notices which are proper and are in reaction to the bad faith of some purposeful infringer.
Mike already determined that it will have no effect whatsoever on even one single person. Because, when it's copyright, incentives don't actually incentivize anyone and disincentives don't actually disincentivize anyone. With copyright, miraculously, the rules are completely different.
I thought Techdirt was all about supporting privacy and anonymous posting. But now these things suggest "unclean hands"? Weird. It's almost like you, "DannyB," whoever you are, are applying a double standard. I recall you even authored an article for Techdirt, yet never identified yourself: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/14211514730/dannybs-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml Weird. It's almost like when you do it, it's OK, but when I do it, it's evil. Weird.
If they forgot to pay to renew, they will pay the penalty just like anybody else. If someone infringes a copyright, they should pay the penalty just like anyone else. I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. They believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. That applies to them as well.
I support it because I think it will be effective against casual infringers. I think it will educate people. I know that the hardcore pirates, i.e., Mike's Faithful, will never be deterred. But they're not the target audience.
Yep. I have eight different computers, each with different user profiles and multiple browsers. Whether I log in depends on which computer, which user profile, and which browser I use. Although sometimes I log in or out just because I feel like it.
Saying that their contracts are "legally void" without having any idea of even what contracts they have, where they were executed, or what law applies to them, is total faith-based FUD. It's a silly and desperate attempt to discredit the CCI based on nothing more than them forgetting to renew some paperwork--something that happens all the time with lots of corporations, but which, of course, only is a "big deal" here because it's the big, bad, evil CCI.
For example, the Memorandum of Understanding and its amendments are not affected: http://www.copyrightinformation.org/resources-faq/ Those went into effect before the CCI was even created. In fact, part of the MOU was that the parties would thereafter create the CCI for the following purposes:
o assist in the effort to combat Online Infringement by , among other things, (i) taking an active role in educating the public about the laws governing the online distribution of works protected by copyright, including educating the public regarding civil and criminal penalties for Online Infringement; (ii) interfacing with third party stakeholders on issues and questions of common interest to the Content Owner Representative s and the Participating ISPs pertaining to Online Infringement and related matters; (iii) assisting in the design and implementation of a process that provides for consumer and Subscriber education through the forwarding of Copy rig ht Alerts to, and application of Mitigation Measures (as defined in Section 4 (G)(iii) below) on, Subscribers engaged in persistent P2P Online Infringement, including reviewing the accuracy and efficacy of Content Owner Representative processes for identify ing instances of P2P Online Infringement and ISP processes for identifying the Subscriber accounts associated with such P2P Online Infringement; (iv) periodically reviewing the effectiveness and impact of such processes as further described in Section 9 below; (v) collecting and disseminating to interested parties and the public data regarding Online Infringement and the lawful means available to obtain non - infringing copy righted works; and (vi) facilitating the involvement of non - participating ISPs in the work of CCI and in the Copyright Alert program (as defined in Section 4(G) below).
No thing about the CCI, once created, entering into contracts that would have become voided. So again, I'll ask, which contracts have been voided? No one has that answer, hence it's total faith-based FUD (Mike's bread & butter). This is so dumb, it hurts. If you guys (Mike especially) spent even 1/100th of the time and effort actually discussing things that mattered rather than pumping out brainless FUD, you would actually be participating in the debate in a productive manner. Too bad that will never happen. Seriously. It's too bad Mike can't have a nice discussion about anything that matters on the merits. What a joke.
You and AJ kept saying that "the law is the law". If that is the case, then this company's contracts should be legally void and they should get nothing...under the law.
Yes, they should (and will) have to pay the extra fees for forgetting to renew with the Secretary of State (or whatever the equivalent is in DC). Just like every other business that does this. You guys sure are desperate with this stuff. I'd love to hear how you think this voids all of their contracts. Which contracts of theirs does it affect? What precedent or statute are you relying on in making this claim? I'm sure you've got these answers and aren't just spouting faith-based FUD. Oh wait, of course you are. This is Techdirt.
Wow, the TorrentFreak article is all sorts of wrong.
TF: According to the Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), the company leading the six-strikes program has had its status revoked. This pretty much means that the company is unable to conduct any official business anywhere in the United States.
Um, CCI is NOT incorporated in DC, as the very image TorrentFreak posts shows. It's incorporated in Delaware. I went to see if it's in good standing there, but it cost $10 to find out and I don't care that much. All this means is that their status in DC has been revoked, not that they are unable to operate "anywhere in the United States."
TF: The revocation means that CCI’s articles of organization are void, most likely because the company forgot to file the proper paperwork or pay its fees. “If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.
Wow. Since CCI is a foreign corporation (being incorporated in Delaware), the first half of that sentence ("shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative") doesn't apply. That part only applies to corporations that are incorporated in DC. The second half of that sentence ("the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative") is what applies. DC can't void the articles of incorporation of a foreign corporation--only the foreign jurisdiction where the corporation is incorporated can. DC can only revoke CCI's ability to operate in DC.
TF: It appears that company status was revoked last year which means that other businesses now have the option to take over the name. That would be quite an embarrassment, to say the least, and also presents an opportunity to scammers. "When a Washington DC corporation is revoked by the DCRA, its name is reserved and protected until December 31st of the year the corporation is revoked. After December 31st, other business entities may use the corporations name,” the DCRA explains on its website.
The issue isn't whether the name is available in DC. It's whether it's available in Delaware. I just checked, and "Center for Copyright Information, Inc." is available in Delaware. Only $75. Not sure why it would let me register it if they're in good standing there. Maybe they aren't. If someone else registers it, they can just use something else like "Center for Copyright Information Corp." It's not difficult to change the corporate name with the Secretary of State. All it takes is a simple amendment.
MM: It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.
I've forgotten to pay the Secretary of State before, and all that happened was the renewal that should have cost me $25 ended up costing $100. It's just a "paperwork screwup," as you say. Yes, it's embarrassing--which is why you and TorrentFreak think it's somehow newsworthy--but this happens all the time to lots of businesses. You only think it's hard-hitting news because it's happening to someone you despise. Wouldn't you rather write about things that matter? Wouldn't you rather discuss important issues on the merits? Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't want to have any conversations about anything that actually matters. Nothing scares you more.
I've been trying to find the case in PACER and have so far failed (so if anyone has better luck, please let me know -- also shame on the news media for failing to post the actual filing).
The issue there is whether a state can, under the Dormant Commerce Clause, tax an out-of-state retailer. The Court created a four-part test, one prong of which was "substantial nexus" which is where the "physical presence" comes in. Courts have been interpreting this requirement to be fulfilled when a company like Amazon has affiliates in the state. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of affiliates located in all the states, so they saw the writing on the wall and started supporting the Marketplace Fairness Act. If they're going to get taxed, they want other big e-retailers to be taxed too. Now that Congress is passing this law, the "physical presence" requirement goes away. The reason is simple. The test from Quill only said an out-of-state retailer couldn't be taxed by a state without the "physical presence" because that would be stepping on Congress' toes as only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Now that Congress is getting in on things and exercising its power under the Commerce Clause to permit states to tax even out-of-state retailers who have no physical presence, the Dormant Commerce Clause reason that did not permit states to do this themselves goes away. States are no longer stepping on Congress' toes since Congress is permitting it.
If you live in Florida and drive to PA and purchase a product in one of their shopping malls, then drive home with it ... is the business in PA required to pay taxes to FL for the product you purchased from PA store?
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re:
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re:
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re:
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Maybe the Attorney General is privy to evidence that you are not? I mean, he is the Attorney General after all, and you're just a tech blogger. I dunno, Mike. You haven't shown that there is no such evidence.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Yup.
Sweet! I hope so.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re:
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Yup.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
For example, the Memorandum of Understanding and its amendments are not affected: http://www.copyrightinformation.org/resources-faq/ Those went into effect before the CCI was even created. In fact, part of the MOU was that the parties would thereafter create the CCI for the following purposes:See http://www.copyrightinformation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Memorandum-of-Understanding.pdf
No thing about the CCI, once created, entering into contracts that would have become voided. So again, I'll ask, which contracts have been voided? No one has that answer, hence it's total faith-based FUD (Mike's bread & butter). This is so dumb, it hurts. If you guys (Mike especially) spent even 1/100th of the time and effort actually discussing things that mattered rather than pumping out brainless FUD, you would actually be participating in the debate in a productive manner. Too bad that will never happen. Seriously. It's too bad Mike can't have a nice discussion about anything that matters on the merits. What a joke.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Not really big deal
Yes, they should (and will) have to pay the extra fees for forgetting to renew with the Secretary of State (or whatever the equivalent is in DC). Just like every other business that does this. You guys sure are desperate with this stuff. I'd love to hear how you think this voids all of their contracts. Which contracts of theirs does it affect? What precedent or statute are you relying on in making this claim? I'm sure you've got these answers and aren't just spouting faith-based FUD. Oh wait, of course you are. This is Techdirt.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Yup.
What was the other one?
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
TF: According to the Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), the company leading the six-strikes program has had its status revoked. This pretty much means that the company is unable to conduct any official business anywhere in the United States.
Um, CCI is NOT incorporated in DC, as the very image TorrentFreak posts shows. It's incorporated in Delaware. I went to see if it's in good standing there, but it cost $10 to find out and I don't care that much. All this means is that their status in DC has been revoked, not that they are unable to operate "anywhere in the United States."
TF: The revocation means that CCI’s articles of organization are void, most likely because the company forgot to file the proper paperwork or pay its fees. “If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.
Wow. Since CCI is a foreign corporation (being incorporated in Delaware), the first half of that sentence ("shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative") doesn't apply. That part only applies to corporations that are incorporated in DC. The second half of that sentence ("the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative") is what applies. DC can't void the articles of incorporation of a foreign corporation--only the foreign jurisdiction where the corporation is incorporated can. DC can only revoke CCI's ability to operate in DC.
TF: It appears that company status was revoked last year which means that other businesses now have the option to take over the name. That would be quite an embarrassment, to say the least, and also presents an opportunity to scammers. "When a Washington DC corporation is revoked by the DCRA, its name is reserved and protected until December 31st of the year the corporation is revoked. After December 31st, other business entities may use the corporations name,” the DCRA explains on its website.
The issue isn't whether the name is available in DC. It's whether it's available in Delaware. I just checked, and "Center for Copyright Information, Inc." is available in Delaware. Only $75. Not sure why it would let me register it if they're in good standing there. Maybe they aren't. If someone else registers it, they can just use something else like "Center for Copyright Information Corp." It's not difficult to change the corporate name with the Secretary of State. All it takes is a simple amendment.
MM: It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.
I've forgotten to pay the Secretary of State before, and all that happened was the renewal that should have cost me $25 ended up costing $100. It's just a "paperwork screwup," as you say. Yes, it's embarrassing--which is why you and TorrentFreak think it's somehow newsworthy--but this happens all the time to lots of businesses. You only think it's hard-hitting news because it's happening to someone you despise. Wouldn't you rather write about things that matter? Wouldn't you rather discuss important issues on the merits? Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't want to have any conversations about anything that actually matters. Nothing scares you more.
On the post: Author Of To Kill A Mockingbird Sues Agent For Swiping Her Copyright
Let me Google that for ya: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harper+pinkus+complaint+filetype%3Apdf
First result: http://media.publishersmarketplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/harperleecomplaint.pdf
It's in federal court because of diversity. It's not a federal question. The causes of action are all state law claims.
On the post: Senate Approves Online Shopping Sales Tax Bill
Re: Re: Re: One good thing...
You are correct and the AC is wrong. The case on point is Quill v. North Dakota: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=504+U.S.+298&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=34341044726 75031870&scilh=0
The issue there is whether a state can, under the Dormant Commerce Clause, tax an out-of-state retailer. The Court created a four-part test, one prong of which was "substantial nexus" which is where the "physical presence" comes in. Courts have been interpreting this requirement to be fulfilled when a company like Amazon has affiliates in the state. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of affiliates located in all the states, so they saw the writing on the wall and started supporting the Marketplace Fairness Act. If they're going to get taxed, they want other big e-retailers to be taxed too. Now that Congress is passing this law, the "physical presence" requirement goes away. The reason is simple. The test from Quill only said an out-of-state retailer couldn't be taxed by a state without the "physical presence" because that would be stepping on Congress' toes as only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Now that Congress is getting in on things and exercising its power under the Commerce Clause to permit states to tax even out-of-state retailers who have no physical presence, the Dormant Commerce Clause reason that did not permit states to do this themselves goes away. States are no longer stepping on Congress' toes since Congress is permitting it.
If you live in Florida and drive to PA and purchase a product in one of their shopping malls, then drive home with it ... is the business in PA required to pay taxes to FL for the product you purchased from PA store?
No, the PA business would pay sales tax to PA. You may have the duty to pay a use tax in FL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You won't discuss things in detail with me because you're a coward and a fake. You care more about perception than truth.
Next >>