That's all just speculation and doesn't actually answer the question. Do you know exactly which IP Righthaven has and/or is supposed to hand over? That's what I'm wondering about. Thanks for calling me "slow" and then not shedding any light whatsoever on the issue.
Yes, I understand that IP is more than copyrights. Does Righthaven own any patents or trademarks? I dunno. I can't imagine they patented anything, but I don't really know. Again though, none of this answers the question about exactly which IP Righthaven is supposed to turn over.
OK, that's an answer. Thanks. But can you confirm or deny that the very copyrights that the courts said Righthaven doesn't own are also the copyrights being seized? That's all I'm asking about.
The order probably doesn't specify IP, is specifies assets. That would include IP if there is any.
The other day it was impugned that you are a student of the law. If you are doing well in your classes with such tortured logic, I fear for the quality of both your school, and the future of the legal profession.
There's no need to an asshole. I was under the impression that the very copyrights that the courts have said don't belong to Righthaven are the ones being seized because they belong to Righthaven.
What other copyrights does Righthaven own (or purportedly own)? Answer me that, smarty pants. Sheesh, you guys are dicks.
I'd have to read through it all again, but I think I remember Randazza citing authority saying that you COULDN'T satisfy a judgment with a domain name. Wouldn't that be ironic?
I don't even know what you're talking about. What question would you like me to answer, Spock? I'm happy to address your question, and sorry if I missed it before. I don't read every post or comment.
But other than that it's apparently Steve Gibson's wife's nickname. Now, I can't say for sure, but I suspect she's a sharp dresser with a Bluetooth earpiece.
The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right? How can a copyright they don't own be part of "any and all assets" that are to be turned over? I'm sure there's an explanation, but I'm just not seeing it.
How can Randazza on the one hand argue that Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and therefore doesn't have standing, but then on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns the copyrights and must turn them over? Seems like the latter argument is estopped by the first.
Paid? Nope. I'm just a lowly student. Mike can't attack my position on the merits, so he resorts to insulting the school I go to. The insinuation being that anyone who goes to my school is an idiot, and anyone that went to his school is a genius. Obviously, that's not how the real world works, and there are idiots and geniuses at both schools I would bet. Mike knows this, but he lies and manipulates instead. That's what Mike does because that's what Mike is. It's apparently all he knows.
No. My posts do not tell a different story. For those who can comprehend even moderately complex subjects.
Most people here seem to understand just fine without jumping to multiple false conclusions. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the issue is with you, since nearly everyone else here can understand what I am saying.
Mike, I know you're a smart guy. And honestly, I don't think you're evil or anything like that. But I do think that practically everything you say is an intentionally misleading lie. I think it's a shame that this is what you've resorted to.
Just look at this article. One guy says one sentence, off the cuff. You take that and cook up a whole backstory about how terrible that person is. And not only that, you take one person's statement and then credit it to all of ICE. Your headline says that "ICE admits." That's just blatantly false, and OBVIOUSLY you are doing what you always do: lying and manipulating.
And you do this sort of intellectually dishonest thing day after day. Hell, you're so intellectually dishonest that you insulted the school I go to (again) and then pretended like you didn't when I called you out on it. WTF? Are you incapable of just telling the truth? Seems that way.
Whatever, Mike. I know you're a liar and a manipulator, and for whatever reason, you probably always will be. Perhaps after all the years of writing this blog it's just become second nature. It's a shame though, because I do think you're smart and have something to add to the conversation. You, unfortunately, have chosen a path that I just will never understand.
But yeah, Mike, keep telling everyone how you don't lie and manipulate. Obviously some of them are believing it. But just know this: You aren't fooling me, and you never will.
The RIAA did not care when they brought suit against someone for infringement, and the accused said "it wasn't me."
And the RIAA couldn't necessarily get out being sued here by saying they didn't do it either. And why should the RIAA have cared if someone said it wasn't them? Could they prove it? Were they lying? I'm thinking of Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset. Both lied under oath and said it wasn't them either. And look what that got them.
The hypocrisy is not that the RIAA is using the same defense as other people, it's that the RIAA insists that nobody is allowed to use the defense, and then uses it themselves.
Pay more attention.
OK, show me where "the RIAA insists that nobody is allowed to use the defense." It doesn't even make sense that they would say that since obviously everyone can use that defense. You guys aren't making much sense.
Well, the RIAA (or member label) is effectively saying they *believe* the person associated with the IP address did the downloading, so at the very least their "nuh-uh" in this case makes it less reasonable for them to rely solely on an IP address in stating that belief, and makes it much more difficult for them to effectively counter an "I didn't do it" defense.
They're not saying they believe the person associated with the IP address actually did the downloading, they're saying that there's enough evidence, if left unrebutted, to permit the inference that that person did it (or would otherwise be responsible for it). Either way, a defendant or the RIAA (or anyone else) can claim that somebody else is actually to blame. The same exact rules are applying here as would apply to any other IP address subscriber. The fact that the RIAA's IP address was apparently used to infringe doesn't change anything. That makes no sense. If your car drives through one of those photo red lights, they're going to send you the ticket even if it was your friend borrowing the car that day. It's reasonable to assume it was you, and if it wasn't, the burden shifts to you to prove it.
Now, of course, it's possible some other vendor was using them, but this seems rather ironic, coming from the RIAA, who has insisted for years that IP addresses are sufficient to accurately determine who is responsible for infringement. Apparently it works for everyone... but the RIAA.
I know you're desperate for a punchline here, but I just don't see it. The target of an infringement lawsuit and the RIAA can both use the some-other-dude-did-it defense. The IP address points to the subscriber of the address, in this case it's the RIAA. Then that subscriber has to come up with some defense, and in this case it's that some vendor did it. I'm not seeing any irony. Nice try though, I guess. You'll get 'em next time, Mike.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other day it was impugned that you are a student of the law. If you are doing well in your classes with such tortured logic, I fear for the quality of both your school, and the future of the legal profession.
There's no need to an asshole. I was under the impression that the very copyrights that the courts have said don't belong to Righthaven are the ones being seized because they belong to Righthaven.
What other copyrights does Righthaven own (or purportedly own)? Answer me that, smarty pants. Sheesh, you guys are dicks.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: The Drizzle?
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re:
I'd have to read through it all again, but I think I remember Randazza citing authority saying that you COULDN'T satisfy a judgment with a domain name. Wouldn't that be ironic?
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: The Drizzle?
But other than that it's apparently Steve Gibson's wife's nickname. Now, I can't say for sure, but I suspect she's a sharp dresser with a Bluetooth earpiece.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
And the WHOIS lists Randazza Legal Group as the administrative and technical contact: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/righthaven.com
Looks like Righthaven turned over the domain name at least. If they auction it off I might have to place a bid for shits and giggles.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people here seem to understand just fine without jumping to multiple false conclusions. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the issue is with you, since nearly everyone else here can understand what I am saying.
Mike, I know you're a smart guy. And honestly, I don't think you're evil or anything like that. But I do think that practically everything you say is an intentionally misleading lie. I think it's a shame that this is what you've resorted to.
Just look at this article. One guy says one sentence, off the cuff. You take that and cook up a whole backstory about how terrible that person is. And not only that, you take one person's statement and then credit it to all of ICE. Your headline says that "ICE admits." That's just blatantly false, and OBVIOUSLY you are doing what you always do: lying and manipulating.
And you do this sort of intellectually dishonest thing day after day. Hell, you're so intellectually dishonest that you insulted the school I go to (again) and then pretended like you didn't when I called you out on it. WTF? Are you incapable of just telling the truth? Seems that way.
Whatever, Mike. I know you're a liar and a manipulator, and for whatever reason, you probably always will be. Perhaps after all the years of writing this blog it's just become second nature. It's a shame though, because I do think you're smart and have something to add to the conversation. You, unfortunately, have chosen a path that I just will never understand.
But yeah, Mike, keep telling everyone how you don't lie and manipulate. Obviously some of them are believing it. But just know this: You aren't fooling me, and you never will.
On the post: RIAA's Response To Infringement Via Its IP Address... Is To Note Someone Else Did It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the RIAA couldn't necessarily get out being sued here by saying they didn't do it either. And why should the RIAA have cared if someone said it wasn't them? Could they prove it? Were they lying? I'm thinking of Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset. Both lied under oath and said it wasn't them either. And look what that got them.
On the post: RIAA's Response To Infringement Via Its IP Address... Is To Note Someone Else Did It
Re: Re:
Pay more attention.
OK, show me where "the RIAA insists that nobody is allowed to use the defense." It doesn't even make sense that they would say that since obviously everyone can use that defense. You guys aren't making much sense.
On the post: RIAA's Response To Infringement Via Its IP Address... Is To Note Someone Else Did It
Re: Re:
They're not saying they believe the person associated with the IP address actually did the downloading, they're saying that there's enough evidence, if left unrebutted, to permit the inference that that person did it (or would otherwise be responsible for it). Either way, a defendant or the RIAA (or anyone else) can claim that somebody else is actually to blame. The same exact rules are applying here as would apply to any other IP address subscriber. The fact that the RIAA's IP address was apparently used to infringe doesn't change anything. That makes no sense. If your car drives through one of those photo red lights, they're going to send you the ticket even if it was your friend borrowing the car that day. It's reasonable to assume it was you, and if it wasn't, the burden shifts to you to prove it.
On the post: RIAA's Response To Infringement Via Its IP Address... Is To Note Someone Else Did It
I know you're desperate for a punchline here, but I just don't see it. The target of an infringement lawsuit and the RIAA can both use the some-other-dude-did-it defense. The IP address points to the subscriber of the address, in this case it's the RIAA. Then that subscriber has to come up with some defense, and in this case it's that some vendor did it. I'm not seeing any irony. Nice try though, I guess. You'll get 'em next time, Mike.
Next >>