They irony is that if Debian ends up requiring systemd, I will have to change again.
Thanks for bringing that up.
systemd wasn't on my radar at all because I really haven't been keeping up on all dev talk surrounding Linux lately. I will also have to keep an eye how that all pans out.
However, there was an enormous fuss made over the move by Ubuntu, and lots of people stopped using it as a result.
I cut my Linux teeth with Ubuntu (well actually, it was Damn Small Linux first because I had a crappy laptop then) and I switched over to Debian around this time because of this fiasco and also because of Canonical wanting make their software app store an integral part of the OS and the push to make Unity the default desktop.
I don't feel like I have lost out on very much since Canonical pushes their updates back downstream to Debian anyways.
This is the statute he won't acknowledge, and it's the one that has been pointed out to him many times. I doubt the omission was unintentional.
I have no clue if it was intentional or not, but it is kind of irrelevant.
Do you have any cites where 18 U.S.C. § 2 was used successfully in a copyright case? In Rojadirecta the USG handed the domain names back and dropped the case, basically because their whole case was weak to begin with.
If 18 U.S.C. § 2 hasn't been successfully tied to criminal copyright infringement then Mike is correct in saying that aiding and abetting doesn't apply to criminal copyright infringement, especially with the fact that Congress deliberately removed it from the copyright statutes in 1976.
There is. And it's codified at 18 USC 2. Mike cut out the mention of 18 USC 2 when he quoted Dotcom's brief. I doubt that's an accident.
Do you mean the part in Dotcom's brief where it's argued that 18 USC § 2 doesn't apply in copyright cases because Congress specifically eliminated that in the Copyright Act of 1976:
From the brief:
Seeking another back door through which to prosecute the Megaupload defendants for alleged crimes they did not directly commit, the Government tries to combine the criminal copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 506, with the general aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Sup. Ind. Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. But that is no conceivable basis for criminal prosecution, much less resulting forfeiture. Congress specifically removed from the Copyright Act language about aiding and abetting criminal infringement. See Irina D. Manta, The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement, 24 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 469, 481 (2011) (“Several years later, countering what had been a trend of expansion in the area pf criminal sanctions, the Copyright Act of 1976 eliminated the provisions for aiding and abetting...”) Judicial reinsertion of the deleted language, particularly in the criminal context, would chill innovation, creating the prospect of criminal sanctions despite, for instance, compliance with express DMCA safe harbors.
For example, the thing with Dotcom. Mike keeps saying that there's no such thing as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. But that's not true. The statute, 18 USC 2, has been pointed out to him many times.
Mike has laid out his argument why he believes aiding and abetting doesn't apply in file-sharer/host scenarios. I happen to think has as a valid point - the prosecution can't just keep conflating each different party's involvements in order to come up with an aiding and abetting charge.
This prime example of you disagreeing with Mike's opinion, but instead of simply just disagreeing with it, you have to go to whine that Mike is lying or being purposely misleading or a "Dotcom shill" or whatever your latest ad hominem happens to be.
I find it kind of funny that you take the allegations of the DOJ as gospel truth, but disregard any defense from Dotcom out of hand. Perhaps YOUR bias is showing.
Personal question here - do you not think the the DOJ's actions have been a bit over the top on this case. Freezing assets to prevent mounting a defense, objecting to the defense's choice of lawyer, swat style raids, etc., etc...
Would you feel it's appropriate if the MPAA was charged for perjury and conspiracy when filing DMCA notices for material that they have no rights or claim to?
And if they were charged with such crimes should all of their assets be frozen? Should swat teams rain down upon the CEO's house? Should their business be taken from them without recourse? Should the evidence against them be cherry-picked and all the rest of the evidence destroyed?
It is without dispute that the content was provided by another person, namely the son. The son, therefore, is the liable party – not the parents – and under the CDA, any claim to the contrary appears to be barred.
I don't think this argument means much really. Georgia Code § 51-2-3 states that the parents or legal guardians are liable up to $10,000 for willful or malicious acts of minors anyways.
These performances are private because I have a legitimate interest in the content that I uploaded.
Wouldn't one legally have an "existing legitimate interest" in free over-the-air television broadcast signals from the moment they leave the broadcast tower?
That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
The Anonymous Coward below did the work and posted this per 111 - where exactly does it explicitly NOT say "internet retransmissions?"
The WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. ruling in 2011 established that a company broadcasting TV transmissions on the internet was not a "cable system" and therefore copyright infringement.
Its customers don't have a legitimate interest in the copies on the remote DVR--even for the delayed transmissions.
I know legally that may be true, but out in the real world that seems completely crazy to me since Aereo is using OTA, free broadcast signals that anyone with an antenna can already receive and to which the rights holders were ALREADY compensated for.
As the EFF post notes, this represents the latest step in a very troubling trend for consumer rights. It's a practice no longer even limited to the digital world, with physical products now including different kinds of DRM or methods to break the product if any payment issues arise.
It's already moved into the automobile lending world. Miss a loan payment by a few days and your car gets disbled:
Yes, I know that the majority opinion is law. I was pointing out (as did Justice Scalia) that the majority left this part unresolved.
Scalia's opinion was using parts of Cablevision as it's foundation. If the courts end up ruling that Aereo's record function is a public performance wouldn't that suddenly outlaw every remote DVR service out there, including those of the cable companies because it would be considered a second public performance?
The ruling said nothing [...] about the delayed transmissions. There's nothing in the opinion about these two issues to comply with.
Justice Scalia's dissent indicated that this exact issue would have to be taken up by the lower court because the majority's decision left it unclear:
On remand, one of the first questions the lower courts will face is whether Aereo’s "record" function, which allows subscribers to save a program while it is airing and watch it later, infringes the Networks’ public-performance right. The volitional conduct rule provides a clear answer to that question: Because Aereo does not select the programs viewed by its users, it does not perform. But it is impossible to say how the issue will come out under the Court’s analysis, since cable companies did not offer remote recording and play back services when Congress amended the Copyright Act in 1976.
Those numbers make me wonder how much of those loses are due to the labels wasting their money on senseless lawsuits, failed education programs and massive lobbying to further their pointless agenda of "fighting piracy"
I think Mike is obviously pro-piracy, and this post is probative of that conclusion. He just recites Dotcom's arguments, with no examination of the merits of those arguments, verbatim. Yet, he's completely skeptical of everything the government says about Dotcom. Why is he so skeptical of every single thing the government says, yet so completely fawning of whatever Dotcom's lawyers argue?
I disagree. When Megaupload was first taken down Mike had this to say:
First, it's important to acknowledge that the founder of Megaupload, who goes by Kim Dotcom, has a long history of flaunting flouting the law in a variety of ways. That makes him quite unsympathetic in a court. On top of that, there are certain claims in the indictment that, if true, mean it's quite likely that he broke the law. Whether or not the violations amount to racketeering & conspiracy is beyond any analysis that we're going to be able to do here. I would say that I would not be at all surprised if he's found guilty. Source
Mike's attitude about this case has changed since then, but not because he is "pro-piracy" or Dotcom's buddy or whatever. It's because of the outlandish behavior of the DOJ and their constant twisting of the law in this case starting from the indictment and continuing on to this day.
I also believe that Dotcom possibly broke some laws, but the DOJ's actions to this point have been far, far worse and have given me ample reason to be skeptical of anything they say concerning Mega and Dotcom.
One last point, I have no idea if Mega is guilty or not. I was interested at one time to see the outcome of a fair trial on all of this.
Now I am simply disgusted at the DOJ's repeated attempts to keep Dotcom from mounting a viable defense at every turn. That is not justice in my book, it is blatant attempt to railroad someone. If the government's case is so weak that they have to resort to these type of tactics in order to "win" by attrition they should drop the case and spend my tax dollars in a wiser fashion.
On the post: Apple May Want To Protect Your Phone Data From Snooping, But It's Snarfing Up Your Local Desktop Searches
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for bringing that up.
systemd wasn't on my radar at all because I really haven't been keeping up on all dev talk surrounding Linux lately. I will also have to keep an eye how that all pans out.
On the post: Apple May Want To Protect Your Phone Data From Snooping, But It's Snarfing Up Your Local Desktop Searches
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I cut my Linux teeth with Ubuntu (well actually, it was Damn Small Linux first because I had a crappy laptop then) and I switched over to Debian around this time because of this fiasco and also because of Canonical wanting make their software app store an integral part of the OS and the push to make Unity the default desktop.
I don't feel like I have lost out on very much since Canonical pushes their updates back downstream to Debian anyways.
On the post: 'Scorpion' Walter O'Brien Finally Tries To Respond To Inconsistencies In His Many Claims
Re:
Props to you. That actually made me chuckle out loud more than once (which caused a few strange looks from coworkers). Thanks.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no clue if it was intentional or not, but it is kind of irrelevant.
Do you have any cites where 18 U.S.C. § 2 was used successfully in a copyright case? In Rojadirecta the USG handed the domain names back and dropped the case, basically because their whole case was weak to begin with.
If 18 U.S.C. § 2 hasn't been successfully tied to criminal copyright infringement then Mike is correct in saying that aiding and abetting doesn't apply to criminal copyright infringement, especially with the fact that Congress deliberately removed it from the copyright statutes in 1976.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you mean the part in Dotcom's brief where it's argued that 18 USC § 2 doesn't apply in copyright cases because Congress specifically eliminated that in the Copyright Act of 1976:
From the brief:
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike has laid out his argument why he believes aiding and abetting doesn't apply in file-sharer/host scenarios. I happen to think has as a valid point - the prosecution can't just keep conflating each different party's involvements in order to come up with an aiding and abetting charge.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110720/00560515172/justice-department-practicing-mix-and- match-sleight-of-hand-law-seizure-case.shtml
This prime example of you disagreeing with Mike's opinion, but instead of simply just disagreeing with it, you have to go to whine that Mike is lying or being purposely misleading or a "Dotcom shill" or whatever your latest ad hominem happens to be.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personal question here - do you not think the the DOJ's actions have been a bit over the top on this case. Freezing assets to prevent mounting a defense, objecting to the defense's choice of lawyer, swat style raids, etc., etc...
Would you feel it's appropriate if the MPAA was charged for perjury and conspiracy when filing DMCA notices for material that they have no rights or claim to?
And if they were charged with such crimes should all of their assets be frozen? Should swat teams rain down upon the CEO's house? Should their business be taken from them without recourse? Should the evidence against them be cherry-picked and all the rest of the evidence destroyed?
If you don't, then why the double standard?
On the post: Dangerous Rulings: Georgia Court Says Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook
Re: Re:
Ok, fair enough.
Georgia also has a law that says that you are liable for torts of your children. (§ 51-2-2)
My argument is that even if Section 230 prevails and the child is found liable the parents are still liable anyways.
On the post: Dangerous Rulings: Georgia Court Says Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook
It is without dispute that the content was provided by another person, namely the son. The son, therefore, is the liable party – not the parents – and under the CDA, any claim to the contrary appears to be barred.
I don't think this argument means much really. Georgia Code § 51-2-3 states that the parents or legal guardians are liable up to $10,000 for willful or malicious acts of minors anyways.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't one legally have an "existing legitimate interest" in free over-the-air television broadcast signals from the moment they leave the broadcast tower?
That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's try it this way: Link
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. ruling in 2011 established that a company broadcasting TV transmissions on the internet was not a "cable system" and therefore copyright infringement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPIX,_Inc._v._ivi,_Inc.
That is why I say that Aereo is Schrödinger's CATV. SCOTUS says they are too much like a cable company, but ivi says they can't be a cable company.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know legally that may be true, but out in the real world that seems completely crazy to me since Aereo is using OTA, free broadcast signals that anyone with an antenna can already receive and to which the rights holders were ALREADY compensated for.
On the post: Nintendo Bricks Wii U Consoles Unless Owners Agree To New EULA
It's already moved into the automobile lending world. Miss a loan payment by a few days and your car gets disbled:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/miss-a-payment-good-luck-moving-that-car/
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scalia's opinion was using parts of Cablevision as it's foundation. If the courts end up ruling that Aereo's record function is a public performance wouldn't that suddenly outlaw every remote DVR service out there, including those of the cable companies because it would be considered a second public performance?
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re:
Justice Scalia's dissent indicated that this exact issue would have to be taken up by the lower court because the majority's decision left it unclear:
Emphasis mine.
On the post: YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
2005 $20.7 billion -3%
2006 $19.6 billion -5%
2007 $18.8 billion -4%
2008 $18.4 billion -8%
2009 $17.4 billion -5%
2010 $16.8 billion -8.4%
2011 $16.2 billion -3%
2012 $16.5 billion +0.3%
Those numbers make me wonder how much of those loses are due to the labels wasting their money on senseless lawsuits, failed education programs and massive lobbying to further their pointless agenda of "fighting piracy"
On the post: YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?
Re: Re: Re: They destroyed $10-20 billion and gave back $1b
BULLSHIT ALERT!!
Actually, prior to the internet, only a very, very tiny percentage of musicians were able to make money recording music and of those who were able to become somewhat successful only a very, very tiny percentage of them were actually able to recoup the advances given to them.
You must have pulled this "tens of thousands of artists who used to make a living" out of your ass, because it isn't based in truth.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. When Megaupload was first taken down Mike had this to say:
Mike's attitude about this case has changed since then, but not because he is "pro-piracy" or Dotcom's buddy or whatever. It's because of the outlandish behavior of the DOJ and their constant twisting of the law in this case starting from the indictment and continuing on to this day.
I also believe that Dotcom possibly broke some laws, but the DOJ's actions to this point have been far, far worse and have given me ample reason to be skeptical of anything they say concerning Mega and Dotcom.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now I am simply disgusted at the DOJ's repeated attempts to keep Dotcom from mounting a viable defense at every turn. That is not justice in my book, it is blatant attempt to railroad someone. If the government's case is so weak that they have to resort to these type of tactics in order to "win" by attrition they should drop the case and spend my tax dollars in a wiser fashion.
Next >>