Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
I'm not arguing that the verdict was wrong. I'm just arguing that the jury had the right to do it. I'm not convinced of misconduct within the jury.
The jury can do whatever it wants. The jury isn't on trial. However, what the jury does can be grounds for a mistrial or appeal, except in the case of Jury Nullification.
Your diatribe to attempt to save face is pointless. Jury nullification can only be use to acquit, not convict. It stems from the 5th Amendment clause for Double Jeopardy. See, if a jury decides to acquit for any reason there is nothing a judge can do about it because of Double Jeopardy. In all other cases the jury can do whatever it wants, but afterwards a judge can say, "No way, Jose. You guys funked up. Mistrial, redo." It is only called "Nullification" when it actually works to effectively nullify the law.
Not that I agree with the verdict. But I agree that it wasn't worth wasting much time coming up with one. You get forced to be on a jury, talked at for hours in mumbo-jumbo language, given reams of obfuscated documentation to read, then you are expected to make a decision that you know will have little impact of any significance anyway. If it was me, I'd flip a coin and go home as soon as I could.
Be careful before you use any of these services that you read the fine print of what you are getting. "Buying" doesn't mean what you think it means, nor does "renting". There are all kinds of limitations you probably are not expecting. I have been given free movies on Vudu that I have found to be basically useless. I can't imagine anyone is actually paying to use any of these services. It boggles the mind.
It seems like the content industry thinks that if everything is available for streaming nobody will purchase DVDs or go to the theater. It isn't an either-or situation. If the content industry made content available in all forms people would consume the content however they choose, just as they do now. The only difference is the content providers would get paid. The content industry seems to be the ones that think the DVD will die if they get rid of restrictions.
I respect the rights of creators. I am one. But any DRM that makes a product inferior for paying customers is evil. If I cannot copy a movie to any device of my choosing, that is inferior. If cannot upload a song to my xbox, eg., that is inferior.
DRM is a result of irrational fear that nobody will pay for your product if it is easy to copy. Make a superior product and provide superior service and people will pay you. DRM is just a waste of time and effort to make your product more inferior. Then people don't buy your product because of the DRM and you say "see, I was right to add that DRM because else nobody would buy my product". It is self perpetuating.
I apologize for the inflamatory term. It was partially laziness, partially not knowing exactly what to call them, and they are acting creepy to me... "content middlemen" I guess? (so many syllables!)
It seems DRM is more a irrational reaction of fear of what might happen rather than what actually was or is happening. ie., "If we don't put DRM, somebody might copy it." Since DRM is clearly not able to stop copying, its continued use cannot be a reaction to infringement.
As I said, the cat is out of the bag. The days of DRM, release windows, region locking, unskippable ads, ... is over. The middle ground is for the content middlemen to realize this and adapt. Give the customer the best product you can and the customer will pay instead of seeking the better product for free.
based on the unfounded belief that it would mean that people with funds to purchase would not be able to do without
Good points. But it isn't entirely unfounded. Before the internet these content creeps got away with doing anything they wanted. People are both ignorant and tolerant. They shelled out for whatever was offered. When I was young I paid for cable tv and liked it. What happened was, now there are options. People have been shown that there are other possibilities than the ones offered by the content creeps. And these creeps can't seem to realize that the cat is out of the bag and there is no way to legislate it back in.
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
W&I: "Here, we have gone to the trouble to produce this improved proposal that fixes the problems in your original."
*AA: "Now do the work to get the proposal passed for us."
On the post: Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist
Re: Re:
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re:
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re: Re: What possible reason would they have to tell the truth?
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re: Re: Media
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re: Swat
On the post: Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It
how crafty is Dodd, anyway
I don't think he is actually smart enough to think of that himself. But perhaps his masters are.
On the post: The TSA's Infamous 'Behavior Detection' In Action: Mandatory 'Chats' About Every Detail Of Your Trip
Re: Re:
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
The jury can do whatever it wants. The jury isn't on trial. However, what the jury does can be grounds for a mistrial or appeal, except in the case of Jury Nullification.
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Samsung Routed In Apple Patent Fight; Told To Pay $1.05 Billion
Smart Jury
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Example Service: Playstation Network
On the post: Apparently The Purpose Of Copyright: Keeping Our Ancestors' Promise To Noah Webster
Re: Re: Something much more valuable than dollars
On the post: Porn Copyright Troll's New Tactic: Maybe Public Humiliation Will Magically Make People Pay
Re: Re: Seriously?
On the post: The DVD Is Dying. Hollywood's Plan? Do Nothing And Cede Ground To File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: The dvd is NOT dead.
On the post: The DVD Is Dying. Hollywood's Plan? Do Nothing And Cede Ground To File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Tougher than we think
DRM is a result of irrational fear that nobody will pay for your product if it is easy to copy. Make a superior product and provide superior service and people will pay you. DRM is just a waste of time and effort to make your product more inferior. Then people don't buy your product because of the DRM and you say "see, I was right to add that DRM because else nobody would buy my product". It is self perpetuating.
On the post: The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument
Re: Re: Re:
It seems DRM is more a irrational reaction of fear of what might happen rather than what actually was or is happening. ie., "If we don't put DRM, somebody might copy it." Since DRM is clearly not able to stop copying, its continued use cannot be a reaction to infringement.
As I said, the cat is out of the bag. The days of DRM, release windows, region locking, unskippable ads, ... is over. The middle ground is for the content middlemen to realize this and adapt. Give the customer the best product you can and the customer will pay instead of seeking the better product for free.
On the post: The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument
Re:
Good points. But it isn't entirely unfounded. Before the internet these content creeps got away with doing anything they wanted. People are both ignorant and tolerant. They shelled out for whatever was offered. When I was young I paid for cable tv and liked it. What happened was, now there are options. People have been shown that there are other possibilities than the ones offered by the content creeps. And these creeps can't seem to realize that the cat is out of the bag and there is no way to legislate it back in.
Next >>