I would have to think that law could never withstand constitutional challenge on the grounds of a first amendment violation. Laws get passed by ultra conservative or fundamentalist led counties all the time, and then someone reminds them that this is America and your misplaced moral outrage doesn't trump the rest of our rights to free speech.
This principle doesn't fly in many EU nations due to their insistence on trying to bring morals into legal matters, but I am hopeful that at some point reason will be seen and people will start to understand that laws and ethics do not go hand in hand and that people simply do not have a right to not be offended.
Of course they disagree with the small claims court. Small claims status in the US is determined on a state level but can rarely exceed a few thousand dollars. By setting this court up they would effectively render their extortion scheme of using 1.5M judgements to force settlements useless. The settlements they are asking for are typically more than they could get in a small claims setting. They have a lot to lose if this goes through.
I agree 100%. $150,000.00 for downloading a single track is outside of my comprehension and therefore I find no deterrence in the statutory rate. A single download with the maximum penalty would force me into bankruptcy... period. The situation is so absurd that I see the rate, laugh about it, and click the next torrent link to try something new.
If the penalty was more realistic, then people might actually find some deterrent in it and rethink a potential infringement. What should this rate be? I have no idea... $500.00 is an amount that would hit my wallet enough that I'd feel it and I could actually pay it, but even that is more money that many people could reasonably pay especially in the event of judgments for multiple infringements. Rasset was accused of sharing 24 songs, so that would be $12,000.00. I couldn't pay that any easier than $150,000.00...
The MAFIAA wants these sensational judgments that they can throw out there to pressure people into settling, but I really think they have the opposite effect. When I see a judgment of 1.5M against a housewife for maybe sharing 24 songs, I have even less respect for the rightsholders. Even beyond that, due to my nature, I feel the only way to "help make this right" is by making sure they get none of my money or the money of anyone I know.
I think you are missing the point... Copyright is absolutely a monopoly over the individual work. Just because there are more alternatives to the copyrighted work do not make them a direct replacement like moving to a competitor that offers the same product or service. In other words, while Justin Bieber is an alternative to David Bowie, he is by no means a replacement.
Your initial post indicated that there were no alternatives to dealing with the local electrical monopoly, and my response was aimed at helping you understand this was false. While the alternatives are not as numerous, they do exist. In a way, copyright is even more of a monopoly than electricity because in many markets there is an alternative utility provider or reseller. With a copyrighted work there is only the one work which is under the absolute control of a single entity.
While the alternatives to a copyrighted work are more numerous, it is still accurate to call it a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as a single company or entity controlling (almost) the entire market for a single commodity. In addition, it creates barriers to entry that allow the entity to operate without competition. This is exactly what happens when a copyright is granted.
To address your example of electricity, while there are not as many alternatives, there are some... they just tend not to be as convenient, scalable, or practical. One could take themselves off the grid with solar, wind, water, gas, or even steam and still have electricity in the home.
Re: Your buttons were pushed to paralyze you with fear, Timmy.
"It's now irrelevant who staged 9/11, but it's obvious that "the terrorists have won" by achieving nearly all goals, completely wrecked American freedom. $3.1T is just the start: wars and surveillance have no visible end."
Holy Shit! You managed to say something intelligent and made it through a whole post with only a mild attack (by your normal standards) on the author. I have to agree 100% with your quoted statement. The state that our country is currently in and the path it continues to move down each day validates the terrorists victory in almost every conceivable way. $3.1T spent and what do we have to show for it? Invasion of privacy and loss of civil liberties without a single instance of thwarted terrorism.
The case isn't officially lost until it's dismissed or actually lost in court. The government can't dismiss at this point because they would lose what very little credibility they already have. Either a judge has to dismiss it based on Mega's defense team's motions, or it will go to trial. What is being pointed out time and time again is that every shred of "evidence" that has been shown by the DOJ has been debunked, taken out of context, been extremely weak, or all of the above.
Every time the DOJ is shown to have made another mistake, it is in fact news worthy. They are supposed to represent our laws and justice system, and evidence of their hypocrisy and incompetence is something the public needs to be aware of.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
If you click on your username you'll see an option to submit a story, and if the powers that be find it fits they'll publish it or write something based on the suggestion. Posting links to unrelated stories will only get your posts flagged as spam when they don't contribute to the discussion.
When the trolls come out on this level of offensive you know you've struck a nerve. This report could be at best a game changer, and at the very least a springboard to start an open conversation about a subject that sorely needs it. This conversation scares the living shit out of the content industry. When you consider the amount of time and money they've poured into purchasing prior legislation and trade agreements, nothing could be a worse return on their investment than an open debate. IP law is so ridiculously one-sided that any level of real debate could only result in reducing the current terms.
Not being on the side of rights holders =/= being on the sides of pirates. In the case of the EFF it means being on the side of the public and civil liberties against the overreach of maximilist corporations and their step by step legislative efforts to chip away at our rights.
Far be it from me to get in the middle of your lover's quarrel, but I don't think your analogy makes sense.
How did you get: "If I make available a file in a peer-to-peer share folder, I haven't made any copies but I am distributing them to the public. In your crazy world, only the downloaders on the peer-to-peer network would have liability."
From: I don't see how that's a bad thing. Go after the actual copier. The sales shouldn't be infringing.?
In my read of both assertions, Go after the actual copier. and Why not put liability on the party that makes the file available to be downloaded in the first place? are saying the exact same thing...
If you are the original uploader, you are by definition making the original copy that you are then distributing. The peer that receives the download is the same thing as the person that purchases the bootleg. He's not the one to go after. I believe you and Mike are saying the same thing on this point.
Ok... um... wow... that's a lot of words... pretty solid post though. I'm just a little confused... nowhere in your post does it include any discussion of the validity of distribution rights that the article was actually about. Excellent summary of the basic understandings of copyright though...
I just picked this one up after seeing the email with the added bonus books. I'd been considering it, but XKCD pushed me over the edge. Now I just need to get an ereader to enjoy them... Suggestions welcome!
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
And fortunately after the first year of that decade, technology will already have something to replace the VPNs. Legislation will never outpace innovation. They will either have to shut down the internet, adapt, or die.
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Still Wants To Put Google Execs In Jail Because Of A Video Uploaded By Some Kids
Re: Re:
This principle doesn't fly in many EU nations due to their insistence on trying to bring morals into legal matters, but I am hopeful that at some point reason will be seen and people will start to understand that laws and ethics do not go hand in hand and that people simply do not have a right to not be offended.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Reading it versus comprehending it.
If the penalty was more realistic, then people might actually find some deterrent in it and rethink a potential infringement. What should this rate be? I have no idea... $500.00 is an amount that would hit my wallet enough that I'd feel it and I could actually pay it, but even that is more money that many people could reasonably pay especially in the event of judgments for multiple infringements. Rasset was accused of sharing 24 songs, so that would be $12,000.00. I couldn't pay that any easier than $150,000.00...
The MAFIAA wants these sensational judgments that they can throw out there to pressure people into settling, but I really think they have the opposite effect. When I see a judgment of 1.5M against a housewife for maybe sharing 24 songs, I have even less respect for the rightsholders. Even beyond that, due to my nature, I feel the only way to "help make this right" is by making sure they get none of my money or the money of anyone I know.
On the post: Rep. Marsha Blackburn's Staffer Lashes Out At Derek Khanna And RSC Report
Re: Re: Re:
Your initial post indicated that there were no alternatives to dealing with the local electrical monopoly, and my response was aimed at helping you understand this was false. While the alternatives are not as numerous, they do exist. In a way, copyright is even more of a monopoly than electricity because in many markets there is an alternative utility provider or reseller. With a copyrighted work there is only the one work which is under the absolute control of a single entity.
On the post: Rep. Marsha Blackburn's Staffer Lashes Out At Derek Khanna And RSC Report
Re:
To address your example of electricity, while there are not as many alternatives, there are some... they just tend not to be as convenient, scalable, or practical. One could take themselves off the grid with solar, wind, water, gas, or even steam and still have electricity in the home.
On the post: Megaupload Helped DOJ In NinjaVideo Prosecution; And DOJ Uses That Against Megaupload
Re:
I think your last line should say "Bank A used The Police to steal their assets back!"
So Bank A is MAFIAA...
Person A is individual Mega users...
And Bank B is Mega?
Either that or I just made a wrong turn at Albuquerque...
On the post: TSA/Airport Security: Killing Us On Christmas
Re: Your buttons were pushed to paralyze you with fear, Timmy.
Holy Shit! You managed to say something intelligent and made it through a whole post with only a mild attack (by your normal standards) on the author. I have to agree 100% with your quoted statement. The state that our country is currently in and the path it continues to move down each day validates the terrorists victory in almost every conceivable way. $3.1T spent and what do we have to show for it? Invasion of privacy and loss of civil liberties without a single instance of thwarted terrorism.
On the post: Megaupload Helped DOJ In NinjaVideo Prosecution; And DOJ Uses That Against Megaupload
Re:
The case isn't officially lost until it's dismissed or actually lost in court. The government can't dismiss at this point because they would lose what very little credibility they already have. Either a judge has to dismiss it based on Mega's defense team's motions, or it will go to trial. What is being pointed out time and time again is that every shred of "evidence" that has been shown by the DOJ has been debunked, taken out of context, been extremely weak, or all of the above.
Every time the DOJ is shown to have made another mistake, it is in fact news worthy. They are supposed to represent our laws and justice system, and evidence of their hypocrisy and incompetence is something the public needs to be aware of.
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re:
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Here's the direct link in case you can't find it: https://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
On the post: Don't Let Retraction Distract From The Simple Fact: GOP Copyright Policy Brief Was Brilliant
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the trolls come out on this level of offensive you know you've struck a nerve. This report could be at best a game changer, and at the very least a springboard to start an open conversation about a subject that sorely needs it. This conversation scares the living shit out of the content industry. When you consider the amount of time and money they've poured into purchasing prior legislation and trade agreements, nothing could be a worse return on their investment than an open debate. IP law is so ridiculously one-sided that any level of real debate could only result in reducing the current terms.
On the post: Don't Let Retraction Distract From The Simple Fact: GOP Copyright Policy Brief Was Brilliant
Re: Re: Re: Really PublicKnowledge?
On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How did you get: "If I make available a file in a peer-to-peer share folder, I haven't made any copies but I am distributing them to the public. In your crazy world, only the downloaders on the peer-to-peer network would have liability."
From: I don't see how that's a bad thing. Go after the actual copier. The sales shouldn't be infringing.?
In my read of both assertions, Go after the actual copier. and Why not put liability on the party that makes the file available to be downloaded in the first place? are saying the exact same thing...
If you are the original uploader, you are by definition making the original copy that you are then distributing. The peer that receives the download is the same thing as the person that purchases the bootleg. He's not the one to go after. I believe you and Mike are saying the same thing on this point.
On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?
Re: Fundamentals of Rational Copyright
On the post: Google To French Media: We May Have To Cut You Off
Re: Re:
DH: Your mother is hamster, and your father smells of elderberries. Now be gone before I taunt you a second time!
And just to show the surrender monkeys that we care: Votre mére, elle est une hamster, et votre pére, son odeur est des baies de sureau.
:P
On the post: Jared Polis Tells FTC To Back Off Google Antitrust Investigation
Re:
On the post: Humble eBook Bundle Passes $600k, Adds Five Awesome Webcomic Books
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Moral reasoning can be a tricky thing
On the post: Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Next >>