Re: Not the first time stupid strategy has cost Sony.
Dear Sehlat,
As you no doubt know, boycotts interfere with Sony's business model. Every product you don't buy from us reduces our profit, and I think it's easy to see that reduced profit is nothing more than stealing by another name. Accordingly, we are sending you this cease-and-desist letter to stop your illegal actions against Sony. To avoid the threat of further legal action, you must immediately:
(1) Cease your boycott of Sony products.
(2) Cease discussing boycotts of Sony products.
(3) Buy three (3) Playstation 3 consoles.
In addition to our ability to prosecute you for theft, your state senator has also been presented with a proposal to make interference with a business model a felony absent reasonable cause ("reasonable cause" to be determined by Sony Corporation) punishable by up to 30 years in prison and fines of no less than $150,000 per interference. Given that your state senator has worked for Sony in the past, and will no doubt work for us again in the future, his vote on this legislation seems obvious.
We hope that, given the above, you will come around to see our side of things and we can resolve this situation amicably. Our research on you indicates that you seem to have built a nice life for yourself. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
Re: DNS has an IP - IP's can be shut down. Nice try through
So they will not kill it at the DNS level, ofcourse they will just kill that IP address.
I can never tell when it's really you and when someone is just spoofing you. Can you clarify for me whether (A) you really just said something so ridiculous or (B) you're pretending to be darryl to make him look crazier than we already think he is?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I meant "right" in the sense of "moral rights". The constitution does not enshrine or recognize the moral rights of a content creator; merely a limited time monopoly to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
You are, of course, correct that the word "right" appears.
I would like to say it is absolutely amazing how you can allegedly read but not comprehend.
Seriously. I don't know how he managed to get through the whole post and not realize that Mike was soliciting opinions about ways the system could be better.
You can call it FUD if you want, I guess, in the sense that I am afraid, uncertain, and doubtful of where we're headed as a country. I would, however, prefer to call it by a more common name: the slippery slope.
You can just scream "FUUUDDD!!!" every time a slippery slope argument pops up, but dismissing arguments out of hand isn't constructive. It just gives you a huge blind spot. :)
By your logic, the only way real theft could occur would be if you stole the master tape of an album or master print of a movie so that no copies could ever be made again.
If you mean "theft of content", then perhaps. Otherwise, It's quite easy to see that stealing a CD deprives the rightful owner of his physical property (the CD), even if he can burn more afterwards.
As the only thing the movie/music industries need to "adapt" to is people taking their product without paying, they are adapting to the situation perfectly: they are insisting law enforcement enforce the law.
That's not adapting, that trying to enforce the unenforcable status quo, and it won't work.
You love piracy, so you don't like what they're doing
Even if you don't like illegal copying, there are reasons to be worried about the means being used to combat i. Much like "terrorism" has become the go-to phrase that magically allows the government broad leeway in any unconstitutional scheme they can dream up, the phrase "intellectual property" is rapidly becoming similar. And just like powers granted to the government to "fight terrorism" can be used in an insidious manner for other purposes once that door is opened, so to will the powers we grant them to "fight infringement".
Our legal systems have no other way to describe it.
You mean like "copyright infringement"?
If you went into your local bestbuy, and started ripping DVDs onto your laptop, and then left with those ripped movies on your machine, do you not think you have stolen something?
I may have committed vandalism, if I damage their physical property while doing it (for example, by removing the shrink wrap or scratching the disk).
I am perhaps guilty of trespassing, if they had previously told me to leave.
I might even be guilty of breach of contract, if I agreed beforehand not to rip content while I was in the store.
But guilty of theft? No.
Did you not obtain "something for nothing"?
Sophistry will get you nowhere. Getting "something for nothing" is not the definition of stealing. Removing something owned by someone else is. Copying is not removing, and it is therefore not stealing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
This assumes you have the "physical right" to do whatever the hell you want with your piece of paper.
Correct, as long as I don't violate someone else's physical property rights.
For example, you have no "right" to stuff your piece of paper down another's throat. You have no right to set fire to your piece of paper in a manner causing another's building to catch fire. Etc., etc.
All physical property rights.
The only way you can get around this inherent conflict between the rules of intellectual property law and physical property rights is if you:
1. Establish "intellectual property" as an actual right (it is not a right recognized by the US constitution).
2. Place this newly-found imaginary "right" above physical property rights, so that it therefore trumps them in a conflict.
I don't much care how industry shills and apologists stammer and complain about their imaginary rights. My hard drive, my very real rights, hands off.
People die all the time in wind power and solar power production (falling off roofs or out of the towers, for example). For the amount of power they generate, Nuclear is much safer than any other option out there.
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
I Love These Threads
On the post: Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy
Re: Not the first time stupid strategy has cost Sony.
As you no doubt know, boycotts interfere with Sony's business model. Every product you don't buy from us reduces our profit, and I think it's easy to see that reduced profit is nothing more than stealing by another name. Accordingly, we are sending you this cease-and-desist letter to stop your illegal actions against Sony. To avoid the threat of further legal action, you must immediately:
(1) Cease your boycott of Sony products.
(2) Cease discussing boycotts of Sony products.
(3) Buy three (3) Playstation 3 consoles.
In addition to our ability to prosecute you for theft, your state senator has also been presented with a proposal to make interference with a business model a felony absent reasonable cause ("reasonable cause" to be determined by Sony Corporation) punishable by up to 30 years in prison and fines of no less than $150,000 per interference. Given that your state senator has worked for Sony in the past, and will no doubt work for us again in the future, his vote on this legislation seems obvious.
We hope that, given the above, you will come around to see our side of things and we can resolve this situation amicably. Our research on you indicates that you seem to have built a nice life for yourself. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
Sincerely,
Sony
On the post: Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy
Re:
Thanks for the lesson in personal ethics, Techdirt Troll!
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bravo
Err, how would this alleged prostitution on Craiglist make me feel "unsafe"?
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea
Re: DNS has an IP - IP's can be shut down. Nice try through
I can never tell when it's really you and when someone is just spoofing you. Can you clarify for me whether (A) you really just said something so ridiculous or (B) you're pretending to be darryl to make him look crazier than we already think he is?
Thanks in advance.
On the post: No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
You are, of course, correct that the word "right" appears.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
Hadn't considered that angle. +1 for you.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
On the post: An Open Letter From A Canadian To The New York Times, Eh?
Masterpiece
On the post: An Open Letter From A Canadian To The New York Times, Eh?
Re:
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Seriously. I don't know how he managed to get through the whole post and not realize that Mike was soliciting opinions about ways the system could be better.
We need better quality trolls around here.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re:
1. Put up a paywall.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Clearly we should be listening to your ideas and not Mike's.
On the post: 8-Track Piracy Is Killing The Music Business.... In 1976
Re:
Piracy isn't. A bad business model (i.e. one that fails to take into account illegal copying) is. Mike has been very clear about this.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Forbids Photos & Word Of Mouth Promotion With Bogus Copyright Claim
Re: B&N has to enforce copyright *somewhere*
I see what you did there.
On the post: Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim
Re: Re: Re:
You can just scream "FUUUDDD!!!" every time a slippery slope argument pops up, but dismissing arguments out of hand isn't constructive. It just gives you a huge blind spot. :)
On the post: Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim
Re: Re: Re:
If you mean "theft of content", then perhaps. Otherwise, It's quite easy to see that stealing a CD deprives the rightful owner of his physical property (the CD), even if he can burn more afterwards.
On the post: Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim
Re:
That's not adapting, that trying to enforce the unenforcable status quo, and it won't work.
You love piracy, so you don't like what they're doing
Even if you don't like illegal copying, there are reasons to be worried about the means being used to combat i. Much like "terrorism" has become the go-to phrase that magically allows the government broad leeway in any unconstitutional scheme they can dream up, the phrase "intellectual property" is rapidly becoming similar. And just like powers granted to the government to "fight terrorism" can be used in an insidious manner for other purposes once that door is opened, so to will the powers we grant them to "fight infringement".
On the post: Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim
Re:
You mean like "copyright infringement"?
If you went into your local bestbuy, and started ripping DVDs onto your laptop, and then left with those ripped movies on your machine, do you not think you have stolen something?
I may have committed vandalism, if I damage their physical property while doing it (for example, by removing the shrink wrap or scratching the disk).
I am perhaps guilty of trespassing, if they had previously told me to leave.
I might even be guilty of breach of contract, if I agreed beforehand not to rip content while I was in the store.
But guilty of theft? No.
Did you not obtain "something for nothing"?
Sophistry will get you nowhere. Getting "something for nothing" is not the definition of stealing. Removing something owned by someone else is. Copying is not removing, and it is therefore not stealing.
On the post: No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Correct, as long as I don't violate someone else's physical property rights.
For example, you have no "right" to stuff your piece of paper down another's throat. You have no right to set fire to your piece of paper in a manner causing another's building to catch fire. Etc., etc.
All physical property rights.
The only way you can get around this inherent conflict between the rules of intellectual property law and physical property rights is if you:
1. Establish "intellectual property" as an actual right (it is not a right recognized by the US constitution).
2. Place this newly-found imaginary "right" above physical property rights, so that it therefore trumps them in a conflict.
I don't much care how industry shills and apologists stammer and complain about their imaginary rights. My hard drive, my very real rights, hands off.
On the post: DailyDirt: Nuclear Power Plants 101
Re: Re: Re: Worst Case
Next >>