So what does a doctor in the US do if someone in Russsia threatens to ruin their reputation if they don't pay blackmail? Sue the original poster even if they can't find them?
How would the blackmailer go about this? Someone tried posting lies about me on the internet to ruin my reputation. They failed because I posted a rebuttal everywhere they left those comments and warned the websites hosting them that they'd been spammed. Result: all but one of the false accusations have been removed.
*Search engines cause 99 percent of the damage in most cases of online defamation. The "polluter pays" concept would leave them liable, as would distributor liability. The Supreme Court has NOT weighed in on this issue, btw.**
Search engines are not the cause, the person posting defamatory content is. Start there. Defamatory content doesn't cause harm unless people believe it. Nobody believed the lies about me because I don't usually behave in the way described and the defamer had no evidence of my alleged misconduct.
*In the case of revenge porn, women were told that 230 made it impossible for them to sue the websites which hosted the defamation (or privacy invasion), nor the search engines which linked to it.
That's because the websites and search engines aren't responsible for the content, the uploader is. Woman here, that emotive crap won't work on me.
You can support 230 all you want but in doing so you're accepting the collateral damage it causes certain individuals. These individuals will always file lawsuits which attempt to take out 230, which is why we see them at rather steady intervals.
And they will fail every time unless they sue the person responsible for the content, i.e. the uploader.
The simple fact is that the baby years of the ~internet~ copyright maximalist regime are well past over and it's time you children grew up.
There are hundreds of piracy "blogs", where the blogger ~uploads copyrighted material~ posts utter bullcrap about copyright serving as a life insurance, life assurance, trust fund, and ever-flowing fountain of money... or would if it wasn't for those pesky kids. Ruh-roh! ~to third party services (fileshares).~ For the perusal of their fellow echo chamber members. Under current laws this is completely legal and you cannot even get the webhost to take the site down, all you can do is ~request that the fileshares take down the copyrighted material~ take the everlasting mickey out of maximalists on those websites that permit it.
NOTE: You can't even do that now... thanks to childish tantrum throwing only actual Copyright HOLDERS can go after copyrighted material and report it *and the buggers insist on making me prove I am the actual copyright owner, not a nefarious toerag trying to suppress comments that paint me in a negative light. Victory for the Pirates (Ahem, the buisness model of hosting largely stolen content in a bag marked "SWAG" and putting ads in it where they can't be seen.)
In real life, this is akin to starting up a Business called "Stolen Cars R Us", claiming that only the original car owners can request their car be returned and saying "absolutely nothing illegal is going on here because everything illegal is happening somewhere else" Which is the neatest wheeze I ever heard of. Where can I get free cars by announcing that they're mine without having to prove it?
Only an absolute retard (meaning 99.9% of all netizens) would actually argue this FUD claiming that writing laws so that other preexisting laws can actually be enforced is a bad thing. Assuming there are laws floating about in which people who don't own stuff can claim ownership over them.
All the players are bad faith players, Google, Jimbo, DotCom, they KNOW they're in violation and that is why they're fighting hard with absurd FUD. (Fluttering under doors? Flippin' unbelieveable dorks? Frying ulcerated doody? That's about as absurd as I get, people.).*
First thing YouTube would have to do is bring back the ability to report copyrighted content as a normal user since nobody would every report someone else's video out of malice or for lulz. OBVIOUSLY, they can easily crowd source rabid penguins and have a video be held in Guantanamo Bay until verified by the crowd that totally wouldn't emanate from 4Chan or one of the darker corners of the internet it isn't copyrighted, punishing those who elect to vote "yet this is valid" to the third and fourth generation or 170 years, whichever is longer when it isn't and reward those who vote correctly (A few dollars here, a few dollars there, a few dollars more, dinner with Clint Eastwood with harsher monetary penalties than rewards but one find day in the middle of the night you'll find plenty of people who will farm money on youtube since it actually does grow on trees.).
The whole point of this is to stop bad faith actors by enabling the hell out of them (and Google is definitely a bad faith actor because it's the only search engine this AC knows of) who do everything in their power to do absolutely nothing working the whole day through, trying to find lots of things not to do and ignore the problem until they get legal action being pushed against them in the creepiest way possible by a leering pervert.
It's time to grow up and take your spanking terms and conditions apply. Yogurt*
The outright deification of copyright in the mind of those governments is entirely non-partisan. Socialists are every bit as bad (something something hand or brain) as the right wing element (but it's properteeeeee!). And liberals... something something free market. Except that there's not one.
It's not so much the sucking up to the lobbyists that's the problem, it's the constraints of their ideological positions on actually thinking this though... in the public interest.
If we're going to characterise copyright infringement as theft let's go the whole hog, then:
1. Prove you have ownership of the copyright prior to making complaints, i.e. register it with some kind of registration agency. As it stands, copyright is automatically assigned the moment a work appears in a fixed medium. This reply is copyrighted whether I like it or not. I don't; it shouldn't be. 2. Prove the infringement before applying sanctions or punishment. 3. The burden of proof should be on the plaintiff alone. 4. If Ford, etc., aren't responsible for bank robbers or burglars driving away with their ill-gotten gains, platforms are not responsible for content uploaded by the public. 5. If you're liable for taxes on physical property, you're liable for taxes on copyrighted items.
Do that, then... all the problems go away, don't they?
That's rich given the amount of infringement committed by "Jhon" — and the rest of us by merely viewing this page (the computer downloads it temporarily so we can read it, thereby creating a copy). Also, quoting from other people's posts without asking first? Copyright is assigned automatically, remember.
Unless we're discussing a secret interpretation of copyright.
Copyright is assigned automatically the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium. Your last post is copyrighted. Your bills and even your spam postal mail is copyrighted. How much tax do you think it generated?
The public-spirited iteration recognises the need for state-provided resources. It's the big "L" version I end up arguing with because their philosophy is a blue-sky dead end that doesn't actually work in practice.
Re: Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
May survived so we're still in limbo. The media attack dogs are blaming Eurosceptic Socialist (actual real deal socialist) Jeremy Corbyn for not meeting up to discuss a way forward but since that seems to be "Do as I say" I'm not surprised.
I'm not a mad Corbyn fan but I get that it's pointless meeting up with an authoritarian whose idea of discussion is to browbeat others into accepting her authority.
On the post: Record Labels, Film Studios, Tech Companies And The Public Now All Agreed That Article 13 Is A Disaster
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In Which We Warn The Wisconsin Supreme Court Not To Destroy Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
So what does a doctor in the US do if someone in Russsia threatens to ruin their reputation if they don't pay blackmail? Sue the original poster even if they can't find them?
How would the blackmailer go about this? Someone tried posting lies about me on the internet to ruin my reputation. They failed because I posted a rebuttal everywhere they left those comments and warned the websites hosting them that they'd been spammed. Result: all but one of the false accusations have been removed.
*Search engines cause 99 percent of the damage in most cases of online defamation. The "polluter pays" concept would leave them liable, as would distributor liability. The Supreme Court has NOT weighed in on this issue, btw.**
Search engines are not the cause, the person posting defamatory content is. Start there. Defamatory content doesn't cause harm unless people believe it. Nobody believed the lies about me because I don't usually behave in the way described and the defamer had no evidence of my alleged misconduct.
*In the case of revenge porn, women were told that 230 made it impossible for them to sue the websites which hosted the defamation (or privacy invasion), nor the search engines which linked to it.
That's because the websites and search engines aren't responsible for the content, the uploader is. Woman here, that emotive crap won't work on me.
You can support 230 all you want but in doing so you're accepting the collateral damage it causes certain individuals. These individuals will always file lawsuits which attempt to take out 230, which is why we see them at rather steady intervals.
And they will fail every time unless they sue the person responsible for the content, i.e. the uploader.
On the post: EU Cancels 'Final' Negotiations On EU Copyright Directive As It Becomes Clear There Isn't Enough Support
Re: The facts are clear, the FUD is not
The simple fact is that the baby years of the ~internet~ copyright maximalist regime are well past over and it's time you children grew up.
There are hundreds of piracy "blogs", where the blogger ~uploads copyrighted material~ posts utter bullcrap about copyright serving as a life insurance, life assurance, trust fund, and ever-flowing fountain of money... or would if it wasn't for those pesky kids. Ruh-roh! ~to third party services (fileshares).~ For the perusal of their fellow echo chamber members. Under current laws this is completely legal and you cannot even get the webhost to take the site down, all you can do is ~request that the fileshares take down the copyrighted material~ take the everlasting mickey out of maximalists on those websites that permit it.
NOTE: You can't even do that now... thanks to childish tantrum throwing only actual Copyright HOLDERS can go after copyrighted material and report it *and the buggers insist on making me prove I am the actual copyright owner, not a nefarious toerag trying to suppress comments that paint me in a negative light. Victory for the Pirates (Ahem, the buisness model of hosting largely stolen content in a bag marked "SWAG" and putting ads in it where they can't be seen.)
In real life, this is akin to starting up a Business called "Stolen Cars R Us", claiming that only the original car owners can request their car be returned and saying "absolutely nothing illegal is going on here because everything illegal is happening somewhere else" Which is the neatest wheeze I ever heard of. Where can I get free cars by announcing that they're mine without having to prove it?
Only an absolute retard (meaning 99.9% of all netizens) would actually argue this FUD claiming that writing laws so that other preexisting laws can actually be enforced is a bad thing. Assuming there are laws floating about in which people who don't own stuff can claim ownership over them.
All the players are bad faith players, Google, Jimbo, DotCom, they KNOW they're in violation and that is why they're fighting hard with absurd FUD. (Fluttering under doors? Flippin' unbelieveable dorks? Frying ulcerated doody? That's about as absurd as I get, people.).*
First thing YouTube would have to do is bring back the ability to report copyrighted content as a normal user since nobody would every report someone else's video out of malice or for lulz. OBVIOUSLY, they can easily crowd source rabid penguins and have a video be held in Guantanamo Bay until verified by the crowd that totally wouldn't emanate from 4Chan or one of the darker corners of the internet it isn't copyrighted, punishing those who elect to vote "yet this is valid" to the third and fourth generation or 170 years, whichever is longer when it isn't and reward those who vote correctly (A few dollars here, a few dollars there, a few dollars more, dinner with Clint Eastwood with harsher monetary penalties than rewards but one find day in the middle of the night you'll find plenty of people who will farm money on youtube since it actually does grow on trees.).
The whole point of this is to stop bad faith actors by enabling the hell out of them (and Google is definitely a bad faith actor because it's the only search engine this AC knows of) who do everything in their power to do absolutely nothing working the whole day through, trying to find lots of things not to do and ignore the problem until they get legal action being pushed against them in the creepiest way possible by a leering pervert.
It's time to grow up and take your spanking terms and conditions apply. Yogurt*
~Strikethrough~
On the post: EU Cancels 'Final' Negotiations On EU Copyright Directive As It Becomes Clear There Isn't Enough Support
Re: UK and France...
It's not so much the sucking up to the lobbyists that's the problem, it's the constraints of their ideological positions on actually thinking this though... in the public interest.
On the post: EU Cancels 'Final' Negotiations On EU Copyright Directive As It Becomes Clear There Isn't Enough Support
Re: Re: Don't you mean Bad Guy's side?
Due process or GTFO.
If we're going to characterise copyright infringement as theft let's go the whole hog, then:
1. Prove you have ownership of the copyright prior to making complaints, i.e. register it with some kind of registration agency. As it stands, copyright is automatically assigned the moment a work appears in a fixed medium. This reply is copyrighted whether I like it or not. I don't; it shouldn't be.
2. Prove the infringement before applying sanctions or punishment.
3. The burden of proof should be on the plaintiff alone.
4. If Ford, etc., aren't responsible for bank robbers or burglars driving away with their ill-gotten gains, platforms are not responsible for content uploaded by the public.
5. If you're liable for taxes on physical property, you're liable for taxes on copyrighted items.
Do that, then... all the problems go away, don't they?
On the post: EU Cancels 'Final' Negotiations On EU Copyright Directive As It Becomes Clear There Isn't Enough Support
Re: Don't you mean Bad Guy's side?
Try making money from actual work rather than mere rent-seeking.
On the post: The Splinters Of Our Discontent: A Review Of Network Propaganda
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, David Frum is not a conservative
On the post: Record Labels, Film Studios, Tech Companies And The Public Now All Agreed That Article 13 Is A Disaster
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes indeed, per Rick Falkvinge.
On the post: Record Labels, Film Studios, Tech Companies And The Public Now All Agreed That Article 13 Is A Disaster
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless we're discussing a secret interpretation of copyright.
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Directive Still Demands Internet Companies Wave Magic Wands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Directive Still Demands Internet Companies Wave Magic Wands
Re: Re:
Enough, already.
On the post: FCC Wants Delay In Net Neutrality Trial Due To Government Shutdown, But Isn't Likely To Get It
Re: Re:
You're welcome.
On the post: Turkish Court Jails Journalist For Telling The Truth About A Politician's Offshore Tax Shelter
Re:
On the post: Turkish Court Jails Journalist For Telling The Truth About A Politician's Offshore Tax Shelter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Turkish Court Jails Journalist For Telling The Truth About A Politician's Offshore Tax Shelter
Re: Contraire
You're all over the Second Amendment on the grounds that if the government ever gets too tyrannical you'll... do what, exactly?
So... rebellion for me but not for thee? Stop it.
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
Let's all agree that extremism of any kind is very bad.
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the E
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
I'm not a mad Corbyn fan but I get that it's pointless meeting up with an authoritarian whose idea of discussion is to browbeat others into accepting her authority.
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Funny...
Next >>