Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 11:28am
Re:
They aren't ignoring these successes.
Their war on the internet is increasing because these successes are a threat to their business model - and they would rather try to shut down artists that are routing around them than to change those precious money faucets they've spent the last century perfecting.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:41am
Crazy
Carreon has apparently heard of criminal defense lawyers winning cases by using the insanity defense. He must be trying for the insanity offense. He's obviously crazier than a box of frogs in a washing machine on a merry-go-round.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jun 2012 @ 3:59am
Tropes
Hey Mike, you should setup a subdomain: tropes.techdirt.com - where you can post the various debunked arguments and fallacies, and the studies, evidence, and arguments against them. Then you (and us!) can just link back to that when they're brought up. I don't imagine people will get lost in it for days like over at tvtropes, but you never know.
(also, I expect to be paid a bazillion dollars for this idea if it works, but I'm gonna leave execution all up to you /s)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:51pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
Banks and other financial institutions have a responsibility for compliance within the financial ecosystem, You come in with bags of cash or engage in suspicious activity you have a problem with law enforcement. Why should Google and others in the internet ecosystem bear no responsibility to guard against lawless behavior.
The situations are extremely different.
Banks do bear some of those costs, yes. They also have very clear guidelines on their responsibilities on how to prevent major felony crimes, such as money laundering.
There are no clear guidelines when it comes to copyright infringement. When Viacom sued Youtube, even the content owner didn't know for sure which videos they had uploaded and were infringing. It's also just copyright infringement - a civil matter - with no provable harm from the supposed unlawful act.
When fraud is detected, there's a host of financial agencies that investigate. Those are taxpayer funded.
Again, because they are criminal charges, not civil.
SOPA attempted to shift the burden to content companies
That's a laugh. The costs are already supposed to be on the copyright holder, and except when they're subverting the DOJ, ICE, and other law enforcement agencies, they are.
unjust enrichment
You're back to this nonsense again? Instead of going back and forth, the quickest legal definition I could find was on Wikipedia:
"The North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment:
1) An enrichment
2) An impoverishment
3) A connection between enrichment and the impoverishment
4) Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment
5) An absence of a remedy provided by the law"
* Schroeder v. Buchholz, 2001 ND 36, 622 N.W.2d 202
So, lets see if it fits.
1) Ok, someone has enriched themselves with knowledge/content/entertainment
2) Fail. No one is impoverished as the result of copyright infringement. This also knocks out 3 and 4.
5) There's copyright law and all those statutory damages we talk so much about. Fail as well.
The term doesn't fit, just like theft doesn't match copyright infringement.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:25pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
Having worked in a grocery store while in college, including in the back accounting office where all the money was counted, I can tell you that those cameras are pretty useless in all but the most extreme situations, and are rarely reviewed unless management is already aware of a major issue.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:28pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
Interesting that you should bring up shoplifting. Many studies have shown that more shrink comes from inside employees as opposed to external customers. Yet some retailers insist on putting their customers through more scrutiny (receipt checkers at the door, for example) instead of their employees.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 3:44pm
Re:
Would you still stand on your perch and defend the rapers right to privacy?
Yes, I would stand on my perch and defend their right to due process, and privacy against unreasonable searches.
Why? Because that situation is so easy to turn around right back at you.
You're at a party. You leave the party early, but have dropped your phone, which remains behind. The aforementioned rape happens after you leave.
Would you expect the police to do their jobs and investigate, following due process, or should they accuse you of rape after they've pulled the phone records they got without any other evidence?
Let me be clear: I have no problems with police using phone location data, provided they are using it responsibly, following due process, and using it as one piece of evidence among many that point to the same conclusion.
Extreme case, I understand, however it only takes one to make it worth while in my book.
Exactly the way I feel. Even one case of an innocent person being convicted of a crime they did not commit is too much.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:05am
I don't understand how Cassilly's example argues against not needing warrants.
"wherein an anonymous caller who feared gang retaliation if his identity was known gave the police the identity of two gang members who committed the murder."
While I am not a lawyer, and don't know if that strictly fits the probable cause definition alone, a credible anonymous tip seems to fit a reasonable suspicion that could be spelled out in a warrant for that information. If that isn't quite enough, then add the anonymous tip to some other information about the suspects - you know, just the kind of thing the police are supposed to do when building a case - and get your warrant that way.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:12pm
Re: Re: Re: Winners and losers
Having a 401K, IRA, or pension plan does not make you an investor.
Incorrect.
If all you own is mutual funds, then I agree that you have no decision making ability. And yes, the majority of my own investments is mutual funds in my 401k. I don't get proxies for that.
But I have individual shares of specific companies in my self-directed Roth IRA. I get yearly/quarterly proxies and I do exercise my ability to vote on issues. My portfolio is not particularly impressive now, but I do have over a 20% rate of return for the 4 years I've had the account. Saying I don't have control of that portion of my investment is uninformed, at best.
Picking places to put your money that will gain value and pay dividends for 20-30 years is not hard.
It is not difficult to pick companies based on their fundamentals and market conditions that will appreciate in value. However, it is rigged.
On the post: Crowdfunded Album Leaps Onto The Charts, Sells More Than Rihanna And Coldplay
Re:
Their war on the internet is increasing because these successes are a threat to their business model - and they would rather try to shut down artists that are routing around them than to change those precious money faucets they've spent the last century perfecting.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Buy, Part 15,332: Cisco Forces Questionable New Firmware On Routers
Re:
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging & Digging: Inman And IndieGoGo Hit Back
Crazy
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re:
/scrambled Ghandi
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, if you commit a fallacy, you lose a square - I suspect I'm guilty of an occasional strawman - to make us all better debaters.
On the post: If Newspapers Had Never Offered Free News Online... They Would Still Be Failing
Tropes
(also, I expect to be paid a bazillion dollars for this idea if it works, but I'm gonna leave execution all up to you /s)
On the post: Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
The situations are extremely different.
Banks do bear some of those costs, yes. They also have very clear guidelines on their responsibilities on how to prevent major felony crimes, such as money laundering.
There are no clear guidelines when it comes to copyright infringement. When Viacom sued Youtube, even the content owner didn't know for sure which videos they had uploaded and were infringing. It's also just copyright infringement - a civil matter - with no provable harm from the supposed unlawful act.
When fraud is detected, there's a host of financial agencies that investigate. Those are taxpayer funded.
Again, because they are criminal charges, not civil.
SOPA attempted to shift the burden to content companies
That's a laugh. The costs are already supposed to be on the copyright holder, and except when they're subverting the DOJ, ICE, and other law enforcement agencies, they are.
unjust enrichment
You're back to this nonsense again? Instead of going back and forth, the quickest legal definition I could find was on Wikipedia:
"The North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment:
1) An enrichment
2) An impoverishment
3) A connection between enrichment and the impoverishment
4) Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment
5) An absence of a remedy provided by the law"
* Schroeder v. Buchholz, 2001 ND 36, 622 N.W.2d 202
So, lets see if it fits.
1) Ok, someone has enriched themselves with knowledge/content/entertainment
2) Fail. No one is impoverished as the result of copyright infringement. This also knocks out 3 and 4.
5) There's copyright law and all those statutory damages we talk so much about. Fail as well.
The term doesn't fit, just like theft doesn't match copyright infringement.
On the post: Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
On the post: $29 Billion Spent Dealing With Patent Trolls In The US Alone Last Year
Re: Re: Re: Anyone really surprised?
On the post: USTR Needs To Reread Both The Constitution & The Definition Of Transparency
Re: Put them in jail
On the post: Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
On the post: $29 Billion Spent Dealing With Patent Trolls In The US Alone Last Year
Re: Anyone really surprised?
On the post: $29 Billion Spent Dealing With Patent Trolls In The US Alone Last Year
Re: I take exception to something you said
On the post: Debate Club: Should Police Need A Warrant To Get Your Location From Your Mobile Phone Provider?
Re:
Yes, I would stand on my perch and defend their right to due process, and privacy against unreasonable searches.
Why? Because that situation is so easy to turn around right back at you.
You're at a party. You leave the party early, but have dropped your phone, which remains behind. The aforementioned rape happens after you leave.
Would you expect the police to do their jobs and investigate, following due process, or should they accuse you of rape after they've pulled the phone records they got without any other evidence?
Let me be clear: I have no problems with police using phone location data, provided they are using it responsibly, following due process, and using it as one piece of evidence among many that point to the same conclusion.
Extreme case, I understand, however it only takes one to make it worth while in my book.
Exactly the way I feel. Even one case of an innocent person being convicted of a crime they did not commit is too much.
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re: How will I know if I'm a criminal?
It doesn't matter, you're a criminal no matter what.
http://xkcd.com/488/
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re:
So all it takes is a manufacturer making and exclusive sales deal to a 3rd party* import/export company? I'm sure that will never happen.
*run by the manufacturer's CEO's golfing buddy
This is less about destroying first sale rights generally and more about preserving segmented markets
So, two birds with one stone, eh?
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re:
...in Asia.
On the post: Debate Club: Should Police Need A Warrant To Get Your Location From Your Mobile Phone Provider?
"wherein an anonymous caller who feared gang retaliation if his identity was known gave the police the identity of two gang members who committed the murder."
While I am not a lawyer, and don't know if that strictly fits the probable cause definition alone, a credible anonymous tip seems to fit a reasonable suspicion that could be spelled out in a warrant for that information. If that isn't quite enough, then add the anonymous tip to some other information about the suspects - you know, just the kind of thing the police are supposed to do when building a case - and get your warrant that way.
On the post: Louis CK Keeps Experimenting: Now Bringing The Direct-To-Fan Approach To Ticket Sales
Re:
On the post: The Short-Sightedness Of Wall Street When It Comes To Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Re: Re: Re: Winners and losers
Incorrect.
If all you own is mutual funds, then I agree that you have no decision making ability. And yes, the majority of my own investments is mutual funds in my 401k. I don't get proxies for that.
But I have individual shares of specific companies in my self-directed Roth IRA. I get yearly/quarterly proxies and I do exercise my ability to vote on issues. My portfolio is not particularly impressive now, but I do have over a 20% rate of return for the 4 years I've had the account. Saying I don't have control of that portion of my investment is uninformed, at best.
Picking places to put your money that will gain value and pay dividends for 20-30 years is not hard.
It is not difficult to pick companies based on their fundamentals and market conditions that will appreciate in value. However, it is rigged.
Next >>