Xiaomi makes some pretty incredible products and stunning prices, and they have been quickly snapping up market share in Asia with their products. They are a serious competitor that is giving Samsung some serious concerns and may replace Apple as the desired product in the market (especially with the new Apple phones being, well, not all that anymore).
They look like they are ready for a patent war, and with the backing of the Chinese governement, they may yet win. Apple can attack them in the US, but the Chinese government can easily pull the plug on Apple's distribution in China overnight without notice. Apple would be bringing a lawyer to a gunfight, and lawyers tend to get knocked off first!
It seems more like an attempt to reveal methods to make it easier for those who want to hide their activities to hide better in the future. It doesn't seem to be anything that is particularly needed or required, nor would it influence the case.
Trying to pry out the methods can only have one real goal, and the court shouldn't allow criminals to benefit from the crimes of others to better protect their illegal activities.
The EU courts are, if nothing else, ballsy in their willingness to stand up against technology that has benefits and incredible harm.
I think the courts get it right by starting not in the middle of technology (workings of a hyperlink), but rather with the much more basic concepts of artist rights. No technology required to explain those rights, they are basic and fundamental.
After that, the court also does something that US courts have been loath to do, accepting the basic concept that a website is a complete publication regardless of where the content is located. So if you have a site called "download free hollywood movies" and you provide links to 1000 files of pirated material on someone else's servers, you should still be liable because your website as a whole functions as pirate site. Making the product available (by linking to it and making it possible for poeple to obtain it via your website) should be considered piracy in and of itself, the intent is there.
Swept up in this of course will be the search engines. To comply with this ruling, Google (and others) will have no choice but to work from red flag knowledge. No longer will they be able to keep a site with 100,000 or more valid DMCA notices against it in their results. They will clearly have to avoid that sort of situation.
My feeling is that this will lead to a sort of net-split. The real world will be cleaner and more legal, but it will drive many to hide in the (ominous music please) dark web. But that will have accomplished what copyright holders have always pushed for, driving piracy out of the mainstream and into the dark corners of the world.
Research would help you. Mom had a DUI dismissed in 2004. Son is on the second time around (first time charges withdrawn likely because witness (officer) not available for a deposition).
Neither of them are at their first time through the system.
No matter how hard you try, you can't overcome the facts with stupid made up stories... Sorry!
Karl, you need to get over it and understand a simple rule:
Net Neutrality does not apply to content delivered internal to a given ISPs network, only to the interconnections.
When you understand where the line is drawn and where stuff is measured, you will understand why the FCC isn't napping, they are just staying in their jurisdiction.
"However the mom didn't know her son was driving drunk, she didn't loan out the car for him to drive drunk, "
You don't know that. Does he have a history? Was he going to meet his friends at a bar? Was he headed to a "beach party" or "frat party"? That information isn't in the story and you can't draw any conclusions.
" Or, do you actually support parents being held responsible for the actions of their 30 year old children?"
If they are loaning them cars, then well... it sort of answers itself.
"Given that the US is filled with people who are living paycheck to paycheck and need a car to get to work to make that money, this would seem to be a big problem."
Actually, given that the US is filled with people who want to live the American Dream on a Walmart salary. Those are the people who drive cars they can't maintain, can;t insure, and generally ruin it for the rest of us.
"You don't see the problem with successfully claiming that you were not involved in a crime, yet being left with the same penalty as if you were?"
Someone still has to pay for the towing and storage, and so on. It's logical that someone stopped for DUI has the car impounded, and fees would apply. I don't agree with the idea of a manditory X or Y amount flat fee, but even a tow, imound, and a few weeks of storage could run well more than $1000 without trying. So successfully claiming you were not in a crime doesn't make the rest of the reality disappear.
Sort of hard to get much sympathy for drunk drivers, or the parents of young drunk drivers. Generally drunk driving suspects are given a Breathalyzer test, and the findings are considered sufficient for prosecution.
Now, let's look a the "outrageous" numbers in the story.
"The city made $8.3m from civil asset forfeiture of vehicles alone between 2010 and 2015, according to the Albuquerque Journal, seizing more than 1,000 cars every year."
Well, let's do the math, shall we? 6 years, more than 6000 cars. That is $1300 or so dollars per car seized. That's a far cry from the $4000 figure, which suggests that the paper has lumped in all sorts of different cases to try to build a mountain out of a series of much smaller cases and unrelated cases. As an example, you can easily get to $1300 dollars pretty quickly at $10 a day, money for towing, etc - for a car left in a tow zone and never claimed (it happens all the time).
For what it's worth, the police could just claim the vehicle is evidence, and allow the owner to make a court claim as to their non-involvement. That would likely cost about the same and give a similar result.
Yup, and that is the assumption that Techdirt (and others) try to push. Since it's not "theft" in their reading of the law, clearly it's legal! Basically, it's a trick of making you choose "theft or not theft" and be choosing by inference if it's legal or not. It sort of short circuits the discussion of the greater implications by both the legal and moral issues of piracy.
"And the FBI certainly has an interest in clearing the air of any hints of politically-motivated favoritism."
OMG, you are kidding, right? The FBI is one of the biggest political power players around, and the timing of this release can only contribute to the Republican frenzy about "crooked hillary". Coming a very short time before the Presidential vote, it's a red hot bombshell that could shape the future of the country.
It should be pointed out that the FBI likely considers that a future with Trump around would be a happy free for all for law enforcement, not quite Philippines level but certainly the various agencies would have much more Presidential support to push the boundries to deal with drugs, immigrants, and terrorism. Hillary is much more "steady hand" and that isn't as good for the FBI or the other three letter agencies.
No they didn't. Ireland broke their own laws by giving them a super low tax rate. Normal corporate tax rate is about 15%. Apple? About one half of one percent. Ireland doesn't want their money because they don't want Apple to leave Ireland.
It's pretty simple: If Apple had to pay normal corporate taxes in Ireland, it wouldn't be worth playing games to get income out of the other EU countries and into Ireland. So suddenly, Apple's income in Ireland would drop by about 90%. The tax income would be reduced further than the current sweet heart deal.
Apple is avoiding taxes in other countries to take the income in Ireland and pay almost no tax. That's against the EU charter, and thus they are being forced to pay the tax.
If this stands, you can expect Apple's Irish companies to pretty much disappear.
Apple applies for many trademarks and patents, sometimes with a point and sometimes just to be defensive. They file enough that one could bootstrap almost any possible scenario and be "right".
No, they did not. They negotiated a deal with Ireland well beyond the law, giving them an effective tax rate much lower than Irish law. That is the issue. The EU has ordered them to pay Ireland at the appropriate tax rate as per Irish law.
No meds required - the endless desire to self-medicate and be medicated is an American concept... that's not something I need or desire.
Just pointing out the obvious - talking about moral panics generally sets you guys up to be more accepting of it's application to modern situations. It's a great tool for dismissing points of view people don't otherwise want to talk about.
Honestly, I applaud Mike and the crew for working so diligently to slowly but surely draw mental boundaries for the followers to think in. It's an impressive amount of work to pretty much control and contain the discussion.
"Apple Inc. was ordered to pay as much as 13 billion euros ($14.5 billion) plus interest after the European Commission said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone maker’s tax bill, in a record crackdown on fiscal loopholes that also risks inflaming tensions with the U.S."
The first paragraph spells it out completely... Ireland illegal cut their taxes, and the EU is forcing them to pay Ireland the taxes owed PLUS interest.
It's not a fine - it's forcing them to comply with Irish law and not permitting what is effectively selective tax dumping.
Mike, with all respect, this is not a FINE. This is Ireland being ordered to take back the insane tax advantages they have given Apple. Their effective tax rate has been much lower than the standard corporate tax rates in Ireland, with some years their tax rate being less than half of one percent.
It's the EU telling Ireland they can't cut special deals on taxes to steal business from other EU countries.
I always get a giggle when I read one of these articles. Not because of the content (which is often funny enough) but rather at the somewhat unsubtle attempts to create a sort of mind space for Techdirt's ideas to exist.
The concept tag teams very well with the sloganism found on t-shirts and in other Techdirt memes. It's a rather obvious way of defining the universe and attempting to lend credence to stands that are often controversial, and sometimes just plain wrong.
It gives Mike and the other writers here a sort of magic bag of tools for dealing with people who don't agree with them. They can write contrary opinions off as moral panics, and say that history has a long list of these panics - so clearly, any objection is just a moral panic.
The sloganism is often an attempt to either over simplify or generalize in a fashion that creates an out for many objections. "Copying is not theft" is a perfect example. The truth is far from that simple statement, which leads the faithful to paraphase as "copying / pirating isn't illegal!" - when it fact it is. Copying may or may not be theft (it was until 2006 in the UK, when the fraud act was refined), but there are plenty of circumstances where it's not legal or violated the legal rights of others. The zippy slogan creates a sort of invisibility cloak for all sorts of illegal things, because, well... copying.
Perhaps my post will be dismissed as a moral panic. The Techdirt audience is well prepared for that vapid dismissal.
On the post: Chinese State Patent Troll Absorbed By Smartphone Maker Xiaomi, Adding To Its Patent Hoard
They look like they are ready for a patent war, and with the backing of the Chinese governement, they may yet win. Apple can attack them in the US, but the Chinese government can easily pull the plug on Apple's distribution in China overnight without notice. Apple would be bringing a lawyer to a gunfight, and lawyers tend to get knocked off first!
On the post: ACLU Seeks To Unseal Docket In FBI's Tor-Exploiting Takedown Of Freedom Hosting
Trying to pry out the methods can only have one real goal, and the court shouldn't allow criminals to benefit from the crimes of others to better protect their illegal activities.
On the post: Terrible Ruling: EU Decides That Mere Links Can Be Direct Infringement
You can hear the arm waving from here...
I think the courts get it right by starting not in the middle of technology (workings of a hyperlink), but rather with the much more basic concepts of artist rights. No technology required to explain those rights, they are basic and fundamental.
After that, the court also does something that US courts have been loath to do, accepting the basic concept that a website is a complete publication regardless of where the content is located. So if you have a site called "download free hollywood movies" and you provide links to 1000 files of pirated material on someone else's servers, you should still be liable because your website as a whole functions as pirate site. Making the product available (by linking to it and making it possible for poeple to obtain it via your website) should be considered piracy in and of itself, the intent is there.
Swept up in this of course will be the search engines. To comply with this ruling, Google (and others) will have no choice but to work from red flag knowledge. No longer will they be able to keep a site with 100,000 or more valid DMCA notices against it in their results. They will clearly have to avoid that sort of situation.
My feeling is that this will lead to a sort of net-split. The real world will be cleaner and more legal, but it will drive many to hide in the (ominous music please) dark web. But that will have accomplished what copyright holders have always pushed for, driving piracy out of the mainstream and into the dark corners of the world.
Oh, yeah, Youtube is fucked. :)
On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta giggle at this...
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
Re: "You don't know that."
Research would help you. Mom had a DUI dismissed in 2004. Son is on the second time around (first time charges withdrawn likely because witness (officer) not available for a deposition).
Neither of them are at their first time through the system.
No matter how hard you try, you can't overcome the facts with stupid made up stories... Sorry!
On the post: What Net Neutrality? While The FCC Naps, AT&T Now Exempting DirecTV Content From Wireless Usage Caps
Net Neutrality does not apply to content delivered internal to a given ISPs network, only to the interconnections.
When you understand where the line is drawn and where stuff is measured, you will understand why the FCC isn't napping, they are just staying in their jurisdiction.
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=dl&page=DwiResults&serv ice=direct&session=T&sp=ST-4-DW-2016000796
It's his SECOND DWI offense, his last one went "Nolle Prosequi " a couple of years ago, potentially lack of witness availability.
(and for information, it appears that Mom had an arrest and a dismissal in 2004 for similar.
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't know that. Does he have a history? Was he going to meet his friends at a bar? Was he headed to a "beach party" or "frat party"? That information isn't in the story and you can't draw any conclusions.
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
Re: Re:
If they are loaning them cars, then well... it sort of answers itself.
"Given that the US is filled with people who are living paycheck to paycheck and need a car to get to work to make that money, this would seem to be a big problem."
Actually, given that the US is filled with people who want to live the American Dream on a Walmart salary. Those are the people who drive cars they can't maintain, can;t insure, and generally ruin it for the rest of us.
"You don't see the problem with successfully claiming that you were not involved in a crime, yet being left with the same penalty as if you were?"
Someone still has to pay for the towing and storage, and so on. It's logical that someone stopped for DUI has the car impounded, and fees would apply. I don't agree with the idea of a manditory X or Y amount flat fee, but even a tow, imound, and a few weeks of storage could run well more than $1000 without trying. So successfully claiming you were not in a crime doesn't make the rest of the reality disappear.
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
Now, let's look a the "outrageous" numbers in the story.
"The city made $8.3m from civil asset forfeiture of vehicles alone between 2010 and 2015, according to the Albuquerque Journal, seizing more than 1,000 cars every year."
Well, let's do the math, shall we? 6 years, more than 6000 cars. That is $1300 or so dollars per car seized. That's a far cry from the $4000 figure, which suggests that the paper has lumped in all sorts of different cases to try to build a mountain out of a series of much smaller cases and unrelated cases. As an example, you can easily get to $1300 dollars pretty quickly at $10 a day, money for towing, etc - for a car left in a tow zone and never claimed (it happens all the time).
For what it's worth, the police could just claim the vehicle is evidence, and allow the owner to make a court claim as to their non-involvement. That would likely cost about the same and give a similar result.
On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta giggle at this...
On the post: FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance
OMG, you are kidding, right? The FBI is one of the biggest political power players around, and the timing of this release can only contribute to the Republican frenzy about "crooked hillary". Coming a very short time before the Presidential vote, it's a red hot bombshell that could shape the future of the country.
It should be pointed out that the FBI likely considers that a future with Trump around would be a happy free for all for law enforcement, not quite Philippines level but certainly the various agencies would have much more Presidential support to push the boundries to deal with drugs, immigrants, and terrorism. Hillary is much more "steady hand" and that isn't as good for the FBI or the other three letter agencies.
On the post: Rather Than Coming Up With Brand New Taxes For Tech Companies, The EU Just Issues A Massive Fine On Apple
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt misses again!
It's pretty simple: If Apple had to pay normal corporate taxes in Ireland, it wouldn't be worth playing games to get income out of the other EU countries and into Ireland. So suddenly, Apple's income in Ireland would drop by about 90%. The tax income would be reduced further than the current sweet heart deal.
Apple is avoiding taxes in other countries to take the income in Ireland and pay almost no tax. That's against the EU charter, and thus they are being forced to pay the tax.
If this stands, you can expect Apple's Irish companies to pretty much disappear.
On the post: Do Apple Trademarks Reveal What It's About To Launch?
Hey, maybe the guy can write for Techdirt! ;)
On the post: Rather Than Coming Up With Brand New Taxes For Tech Companies, The EU Just Issues A Massive Fine On Apple
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt misses again!
On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater
Re: Re: Gotta giggle at this...
On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater
Re: Re: Gotta giggle at this...
Just pointing out the obvious - talking about moral panics generally sets you guys up to be more accepting of it's application to modern situations. It's a great tool for dismissing points of view people don't otherwise want to talk about.
Honestly, I applaud Mike and the crew for working so diligently to slowly but surely draw mental boundaries for the followers to think in. It's an impressive amount of work to pretty much control and contain the discussion.
On the post: Rather Than Coming Up With Brand New Taxes For Tech Companies, The EU Just Issues A Massive Fine On Apple
Re: Re: Techdirt misses again!
The first paragraph spells it out completely... Ireland illegal cut their taxes, and the EU is forcing them to pay Ireland the taxes owed PLUS interest.
It's not a fine - it's forcing them to comply with Irish law and not permitting what is effectively selective tax dumping.
On the post: Rather Than Coming Up With Brand New Taxes For Tech Companies, The EU Just Issues A Massive Fine On Apple
Techdirt misses again!
It's the EU telling Ireland they can't cut special deals on taxes to steal business from other EU countries.
Sorry, but you missed on this one!
On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater
Gotta giggle at this...
The concept tag teams very well with the sloganism found on t-shirts and in other Techdirt memes. It's a rather obvious way of defining the universe and attempting to lend credence to stands that are often controversial, and sometimes just plain wrong.
It gives Mike and the other writers here a sort of magic bag of tools for dealing with people who don't agree with them. They can write contrary opinions off as moral panics, and say that history has a long list of these panics - so clearly, any objection is just a moral panic.
The sloganism is often an attempt to either over simplify or generalize in a fashion that creates an out for many objections. "Copying is not theft" is a perfect example. The truth is far from that simple statement, which leads the faithful to paraphase as "copying / pirating isn't illegal!" - when it fact it is. Copying may or may not be theft (it was until 2006 in the UK, when the fraud act was refined), but there are plenty of circumstances where it's not legal or violated the legal rights of others. The zippy slogan creates a sort of invisibility cloak for all sorts of illegal things, because, well... copying.
Perhaps my post will be dismissed as a moral panic. The Techdirt audience is well prepared for that vapid dismissal.
Next >>