Both. After the phone company has been notified that it is not to place a call to me from you, it can easily prevent you from doing so. Since the phone company is probably richer than you are, my lawyer would probably agree.
Which phone company would be contacted, yours or mine? What about services like Google Voice? What about VOIP? What about text messages?
Under U.S. legal doctrine, the other parties you mention would be deemed too indirectly involved in my theoretical act of libel to be held accountable.
So, let me get this straight: You agree that US Legal Doctrine is correct in saying that the above mentioned parties should not be liable, but when the US Legal Doctrine says that neither should Google (or Techdirt) you disagree? Further, how about if I put an ad in the paper that is libelous? Is the Newspaper to blame?
Libel is only determined to be libel after a trial. Before that it's just words that may be true or may not be true. Are Newspapers/Google/ISPs supposed to magically know which words are libelous and which are facts? Do you have some solution, a computer program perhaps, that you can pass a string of words to and it will export whether or not it's libel or truth?
I've never heard of you, to be honest, but I am beginning to think you're the wittiest, most subtle comedian in the world and you're playing us all for fools with your (genius, really) satire.
But if you pull back from the reality of the Internet as we currently know it and imagine how it might have developed differently...
Yes, because that's what the law is focused on-- alternate realities.
...you might see that this is a way for Google and other companies to shirk off responsibility--the definition of a corporation--for the content that gets posted
So, you're actually claiming that if you, Ted, posted libel on this web page in the comments that Techdirt should get in trouble for giving you the means? What about the keyboard manufacturer? The computer manufacturer? The cable company? The electric company? The school system that taught you English? Maybe we should toss your mom in jail too, for without her direct action you never would have been born and thus could not have posted the libel.
Or, and stay with me now, Ted, what if we just blame *the person responsible* for their actions? Hmm? Doesn't that make sense?
...which ignores the reality that most people who read the bad free speech will never hear the good free speech. Either way, you're essentially telling victims of libel that their pain and suffering is necessary for "Internet freedom."
Even in the century you still live in, if the town crier yelled slanderous things about you, the people that heard it wouldn't necessarily hear him say it was all made up. Furthermore, libel and slander aren't "bad free speech." We have laws specifically against them so it is clear that they do not fall under "free speech". Or, ya know, we wouldn't have laws against them.
Not just the Italian court, but a lot of American lawyers, agree
When the American judges agree, let me know.
They post ads next to content--much of which they steal from newspapers and book publishers, but anyway--which makes them publishers.
So the video in question was "stolen" from a newspaper? I don't think you've ever even *been* to youtube.
If Google wants to get into the service provider business, they should stop exploiting content for money.
Says who? You? On what grounds? Why do you call it "exploiting" content? More specifically, what do you call it when newspapers do it? Is it any different to report on a house fire that the newspaper had no part it, but still made money from advertising around the story? Why?
Contrary to some commentators here, I can easily imagine a Google that employed tens of thousands of editors to vet material before it appeared online.
I can easily imagine flying cars, teleporters, women with three boobs and cartoonists that stick to making cartoons instead of stupid, poorly thought out comments. That doesn't make it so, unfortunately.
Looks to me like it's *not* a viable method. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, even in theory, it wasn't a viable method and therefore should have never been implemented in the first place.
Does this same functionality exist with the Xbox 360? I own the XBox version and never had a problem playing, but my connection is pretty solid. Maybe I'll go home and see if it will let me play it with the wifi off.
Keep in mind that this is just a guess, but I imagine that DRM was thought up at a higher (read: Executive) level than the game design team.
Every gamer in the world knows that DRM doesn't even slow down piracy; Most gamers even know that DRM usually makes pirated copies more valuable!
When you're told "It needs connect to the server at all times to stop piracy or it doesn't get made," well, what would *you* do? Quit? No, you suck it up and do as they say.
So, if I donate $20 to Haiti and pirate the album I'm a bad person?
I think, perhaps, you forgot that this album (which I never even heard about, they must not have promoted it very well) isn't the *only* way to donate.
On the post: Since Three Strikes Went Into Effect, Unauthorized File Trading Has Increased In France
Re: Re: Re:
Old system: You share files and hope you don't get sued.
New system: You share files and know when you'll get sued because they'll send you 2 warning letters first.
Imagine if schools went from "zero tolerance" on drugs to
"three strikes". Of course drug use would go up, because everyone got 2 freebies.
Foolish, really, to think it would have any effect at all except this one.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
Re: silver bullet
Sorry Dennis. :)
On the post: Overwhelming Majority Of EU Parliament Votes Against ACTA
Hope
Color me surprised.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
silver bullet
The problem is that CwF requires work and RtB requires talent, so most big acts today need not apply.
In my opinion, of course.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Re: Google Italy Verdict
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
Which phone company would be contacted, yours or mine? What about services like Google Voice? What about VOIP? What about text messages?
Under U.S. legal doctrine, the other parties you mention would be deemed too indirectly involved in my theoretical act of libel to be held accountable.
So, let me get this straight: You agree that US Legal Doctrine is correct in saying that the above mentioned parties should not be liable, but when the US Legal Doctrine says that neither should Google (or Techdirt) you disagree? Further, how about if I put an ad in the paper that is libelous? Is the Newspaper to blame?
Libel is only determined to be libel after a trial. Before that it's just words that may be true or may not be true. Are Newspapers/Google/ISPs supposed to magically know which words are libelous and which are facts? Do you have some solution, a computer program perhaps, that you can pass a string of words to and it will export whether or not it's libel or truth?
I've never heard of you, to be honest, but I am beginning to think you're the wittiest, most subtle comedian in the world and you're playing us all for fools with your (genius, really) satire.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
Yes, because that's what the law is focused on-- alternate realities.
...you might see that this is a way for Google and other companies to shirk off responsibility--the definition of a corporation--for the content that gets posted
So, you're actually claiming that if you, Ted, posted libel on this web page in the comments that Techdirt should get in trouble for giving you the means? What about the keyboard manufacturer? The computer manufacturer? The cable company? The electric company? The school system that taught you English? Maybe we should toss your mom in jail too, for without her direct action you never would have been born and thus could not have posted the libel.
Or, and stay with me now, Ted, what if we just blame *the person responsible* for their actions? Hmm? Doesn't that make sense?
...which ignores the reality that most people who read the bad free speech will never hear the good free speech. Either way, you're essentially telling victims of libel that their pain and suffering is necessary for "Internet freedom."
Even in the century you still live in, if the town crier yelled slanderous things about you, the people that heard it wouldn't necessarily hear him say it was all made up. Furthermore, libel and slander aren't "bad free speech." We have laws specifically against them so it is clear that they do not fall under "free speech". Or, ya know, we wouldn't have laws against them.
Not just the Italian court, but a lot of American lawyers, agree
When the American judges agree, let me know.
They post ads next to content--much of which they steal from newspapers and book publishers, but anyway--which makes them publishers.
So the video in question was "stolen" from a newspaper? I don't think you've ever even *been* to youtube.
If Google wants to get into the service provider business, they should stop exploiting content for money.
Says who? You? On what grounds? Why do you call it "exploiting" content? More specifically, what do you call it when newspapers do it? Is it any different to report on a house fire that the newspaper had no part it, but still made money from advertising around the story? Why?
Contrary to some commentators here, I can easily imagine a Google that employed tens of thousands of editors to vet material before it appeared online.
I can easily imagine flying cars, teleporters, women with three boobs and cartoonists that stick to making cartoons instead of stupid, poorly thought out comments. That doesn't make it so, unfortunately.
On the post: Ubisoft's 'You Must Be Connected To This Server' Annoying DRM Servers Go Down
Re: Re: I KNEW this day would come..
What if this is a push to move PC gamers to consoles by making the console version more consumer friendly?
Okay, tin foil hat off.
On the post: Ubisoft's 'You Must Be Connected To This Server' Annoying DRM Servers Go Down
Re: I KNEW this day would come..
Looks to me like it's *not* a viable method. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, even in theory, it wasn't a viable method and therefore should have never been implemented in the first place.
Does this same functionality exist with the Xbox 360? I own the XBox version and never had a problem playing, but my connection is pretty solid. Maybe I'll go home and see if it will let me play it with the wifi off.
On the post: Ubisoft's 'You Must Be Connected To This Server' Annoying DRM Servers Go Down
Re:
Every gamer in the world knows that DRM doesn't even slow down piracy; Most gamers even know that DRM usually makes pirated copies more valuable!
When you're told "It needs connect to the server at all times to stop piracy or it doesn't get made," well, what would *you* do? Quit? No, you suck it up and do as they say.
On the post: RIAA Claims File Sharers Are 'Undermining Humanitarian Efforts In Haiti', But Leaves Out The Facts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Brains...
I lean towards a spelling error, but I've heard it both ways. (There's a pun there.)
On the post: RIAA Claims File Sharers Are 'Undermining Humanitarian Efforts In Haiti', But Leaves Out The Facts
Re:
I think, perhaps, you forgot that this album (which I never even heard about, they must not have promoted it very well) isn't the *only* way to donate.
Just a thought.
On the post: RIAA Claims File Sharers Are 'Undermining Humanitarian Efforts In Haiti', But Leaves Out The Facts
Re: Preposterous PR
This gives me hope.
On the post: RIAA Claims File Sharers Are 'Undermining Humanitarian Efforts In Haiti', But Leaves Out The Facts
Re: Re: Your Brains...
PS- Your, not you're. :)
On the post: Judge Orders Satirical Site To Remove Joke Story About Fictional Giraffe Attack
Uh.
On the post: Open WiFi To Become A Liability In The UK Under Digital Economy Bill
Re: Re: and SO it BEGINS
There is a reason they won't let the public look at it.
On the post: Free Is Not An Aberration; It's Basic Economics
Re: Scarce
Try shopping for a popular electronic device on December 24th at 1300.
On the post: RIAA CEO Tries To Connect China Google Hack With Google's Attitude Towards Copyright
Re: Re: Worry, worry, worry.
You get the idea.
On the post: Guy Who Makes Simple Caller ID App For Android Forced To Shut Down Due To Patent Threat
Re: Balls
No one can do anything to you, let them sue you what can they really do? Take your money? Only if you let them!
No, not only if you let them.
Friendly reminder: Just because 'they' have lost all sense of reason does not mean you should.
On the post: RIAA CEO Tries To Connect China Google Hack With Google's Attitude Towards Copyright
Worry, worry, worry.
Next >>