Is it a broadcast really? He isn't retransmitting it.
Would it be different if he let someone borrow a portable radio and tune it as they desired?
Why does a publisher have rights to a broadcast even if I buy that argument?
I am confused as to how this is relevant, he tried to comply and because it makes little sense he made a mistake. I am sure if he had all the facts neatly presented up front he may have made a different decision, but we will never know because a cryptic system made difficult through chicanery and legal speak hid that he needed two licenses. He made a decision based on what knowledge he had. This mistake cost him an arm and a leg and he was trying to comply.
Are you able to never make a mistake? If so can I hire you? It just seems excessive for someone trying to be legal.
So 200 downloads can stop an international release? Maybe we should all start pirating Ewe Boll movies so he will not get distributed? {/sarcasm}
Please site a case that stands to scientific standards and reason (not one the GAO has said uses no solid science) that shows even a causal effect of this magnitude for any movie. I am unaware of any at all and I'd love to see them.
What if TAM is on our side and "helping" refine our arguments and positions so that they survive being brought to a more open forum? Even if this is not TAM's intent it is the end result. I encourage TAM to help us make our points more unassailable so that we are more successful in changing the minds of the public.
Thanks TAM for helping me defeat the powers of oppression and commercialism gone wrong.
Theft involves the loss of property, infringement is only the diluting of IP. It is odd to me that an idea is even being treated like a physical object.
Can you break into my mind and steal an idea? {/sarcasm}
It was a foreign court case that is under appeal and has many potential issues revolving around the judge and his pro-copyright leanings and memberships that would cause a US judge to recuse themselves.
As ever, it's not about going after the culprits (and, no, TPB still don't directly host the infringing content) but an easy target.
This is just way to make it easy for the rights holder to hold someone to the flame even if it is the wrong person. They'd rather "nuke the site from orbit" (it is the only way to be sure) rather than do what would be required of me were I to go after people for infringing my copyrights. They want to have their way and for it to be easy for them as well. They do not regard any part of the equation except profit.
How dare they remove non-infringing content? How dare they abuse the legal system?
It is much more complicated than a simple yes or no.
Copyright has outstripped it's mandate and no longer keeps abreast with modern technology. I am not saying copyright isn't a good idea, I love it. I just dislike when a good thing goes bad due to corruption and lawyering up rather than being reasonable.
Was it not a recent SCOTUS decision that said that a business was a legal entity? Are these not the same people who said accusations are enough? So if three of us complain about real or imagined infringement would they not have to remove the business from the internet as it is an individual?
Seriously though, If they can generate "specific knowledge" of infringement by a general notice that "XYZ website" has infringing content on it, how can that be treated seriously without any substantive information added? It is not enough to genuinely deal with the takedown notice. Also if Google is not the Service Provider how can they be at fault for what others post to their sites? It seems to me this is a serious stretch of the intent and letter of the law.
Did the IFPI list the links on their site even indirectly?
If so this idea of a removal works by their own logic.
How dare they link to infringing content.
Also what about the non-infringing content on the Pirate Bay?
Is the IFPI making a false claim of copyright ownership on that via the take down notice?
Well I sent my questions off asking several questions.
points asked about:
- how does ACTA help the average citizen?
- why if this trade agreement can't change law does it add requirements to laws that have nothing to do with counterfeit?
- why are the only 2 letters in support of it from the very groups that helped draft it?
- why has this agreement been conducted out of the public eye, and at times been listed as a state secret?
- why is congress not being allowed to debate what seems to be a major change to international trade agreements?
What do you all feel about a purchased CD being copied into iTunes via their built-in tools? Should Apple be sued for making a tool that allow infringement?
What do are you supposed to do if that CD gets lost, stolen, or damaged? Should you then destroy the digital tracks as you no longer have the token of ownership (CD) that it came from? I have actually had this happen. I lost several hundred CDs to being stolen. Should I delete all those files?
I think this makes for an interesting point because what part of the purchase holds my license to use the RIAA's music? Is it the token of ownership? If it isn't should the RIAA provide me copies of the music I lost but did not have backed up? Or is it a good that I lost and must re-buy? If that is true then right of first sale applies and changes what restrictions the RIAA can put on my future use of the object.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
Would it be different if he let someone borrow a portable radio and tune it as they desired?
Why does a publisher have rights to a broadcast even if I buy that argument?
I am confused as to how this is relevant, he tried to comply and because it makes little sense he made a mistake. I am sure if he had all the facts neatly presented up front he may have made a different decision, but we will never know because a cryptic system made difficult through chicanery and legal speak hid that he needed two licenses. He made a decision based on what knowledge he had. This mistake cost him an arm and a leg and he was trying to comply.
Are you able to never make a mistake? If so can I hire you? It just seems excessive for someone trying to be legal.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
Re: A solution
It is a significant blow, because if the *IAA stops a person file sharing that is like $150,000 profit by their math.
On the post: New Research Suggests Digital Economy Act & ACTA Will Stifle Creativity
Re: A simple example of such creativity
On the post: New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed... By 200 Downloaders?
Re:
Please site a case that stands to scientific standards and reason (not one the GAO has said uses no solid science) that shows even a causal effect of this magnitude for any movie. I am unaware of any at all and I'd love to see them.
On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Load of BS
now that is an interesting idea.......
What if TAM is on our side and "helping" refine our arguments and positions so that they survive being brought to a more open forum? Even if this is not TAM's intent it is the end result. I encourage TAM to help us make our points more unassailable so that we are more successful in changing the minds of the public.
Thanks TAM for helping me defeat the powers of oppression and commercialism gone wrong.
On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
Re: Re: Load of BS
Can you break into my mind and steal an idea? {/sarcasm}
On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re: Re:
This is just way to make it easy for the rights holder to hold someone to the flame even if it is the wrong person. They'd rather "nuke the site from orbit" (it is the only way to be sure) rather than do what would be required of me were I to go after people for infringing my copyrights. They want to have their way and for it to be easy for them as well. They do not regard any part of the equation except profit.
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re: related note ....
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re: Re: Re:
How dare they remove non-infringing content? How dare they abuse the legal system?
It is much more complicated than a simple yes or no.
Copyright has outstripped it's mandate and no longer keeps abreast with modern technology. I am not saying copyright isn't a good idea, I love it. I just dislike when a good thing goes bad due to corruption and lawyering up rather than being reasonable.
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
related note ....
Seriously though, If they can generate "specific knowledge" of infringement by a general notice that "XYZ website" has infringing content on it, how can that be treated seriously without any substantive information added? It is not enough to genuinely deal with the takedown notice. Also if Google is not the Service Provider how can they be at fault for what others post to their sites? It seems to me this is a serious stretch of the intent and letter of the law.
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re: Re:
Specifics help us to see the point you are trying to make, so that we can discuss what is going on.
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re:
If so this idea of a removal works by their own logic.
How dare they link to infringing content.
Also what about the non-infringing content on the Pirate Bay?
Is the IFPI making a false claim of copyright ownership on that via the take down notice?
On the post: NY Times Becomes A Trademark Bully Over A Logo For A Newspaper That Hasn't Existed In 40+ Years
fashion has no copyright....
On the post: USTR Wants People To Know That At Least Someone Likes ACTA
posted questions to the Trade Ambassador
points asked about:
- how does ACTA help the average citizen?
- why if this trade agreement can't change law does it add requirements to laws that have nothing to do with counterfeit?
- why are the only 2 letters in support of it from the very groups that helped draft it?
- why has this agreement been conducted out of the public eye, and at times been listed as a state secret?
- why is congress not being allowed to debate what seems to be a major change to international trade agreements?
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
A question I've always had......
What do are you supposed to do if that CD gets lost, stolen, or damaged? Should you then destroy the digital tracks as you no longer have the token of ownership (CD) that it came from? I have actually had this happen. I lost several hundred CDs to being stolen. Should I delete all those files?
I think this makes for an interesting point because what part of the purchase holds my license to use the RIAA's music? Is it the token of ownership? If it isn't should the RIAA provide me copies of the music I lost but did not have backed up? Or is it a good that I lost and must re-buy? If that is true then right of first sale applies and changes what restrictions the RIAA can put on my future use of the object.
Just more food for thought.
Next >>