This issue got to the Supreme Court because very few of the members of the Bar understand the technology inherent in the internet or television. They are thus easily confused by it, as you seem to be.
Now you are being silly. Ever heard of expert witness testimony?
In order for video to be recorded or transmitted over the internet, it must first be received and decoded by some means. Each customer is said to have his own antenna, to which is attached a DVR. It is necessary for the DVR to contain a complete television tuner and receiver, capable of remote channel switching, in addition to video recording means. Data from the receiver is stored in the "cloud" - meaning a humungous disk drive - as streaming video for later retrieval by the customer. In what way, exactly, does this differ from that provided by the average cable company, or by any of several streaming video sources? I submit to you that it doesn't.
You have just described a Roku box setup. Those are legal because it's sending a single stream across the internet to a single end user. In other words, a private performance. Cable companies broadcast one signal to many customers or a public performance. Big difference. It's not just about the technology, it's about the legal aspects too, which you are ignoring.
Let me add one more point: the idea that each subscriber has his own antenna, and that the antenna is the sole source of the signal he receives is pure smoke and mirrors.
You really think that in a case which has made it all the way up to the Supreme Court that someone hasn't vetted that little fact? Seriously?
The whole premise of this suit is bogus. Aereo is NOT doing what it says. In order to record the various channel signals, those signals must first be received, detected, and turned into composite video for the recorder to store.
Which is exactly what a VCR/DVR (possibly even rented from your local Rent-To-Own shop) has done for years and they are legal. The premise is the same, only the length of the cord is different.
This is NOT the same as having an antenna in New York, and a 20 mile long cable to your home TV receiver, but is, in fact, nearly identical to what the average cable provider does. The difference being that the cable provider uses his own copper or fiber cable to carry the signals, whereas Aereo uses the public internet to carry them. The end result is the same.
No. The difference is the insane lengths that Aereo went to keep the antenna you are using seperate from other people so that it is legally considered a private performance instead of public performance. That's what this whole issue is about.
This is basically placing a TV receiver for each channel in New York and running a 20 mile long VGA cable to your house onto which you attach a monitor. A switch is provided in New York to select the desired channel with the resulting video transmitted over the internet as a stream. There is no fundamental difference between Aereo and Netflix or your local cable provider.
Wrong again. Lots of differences. In fact, so many differences that this discussion has now reached the highest court in the land. So, yeah, not really as black & white as you are portraying there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, there are some...
The Beatles.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's your entire rebuttal to Karl's post??
That's really, really lame, dude.
Not only do you use one of the very, very few acts to actually win the "record contract lottery" where a label actually aggressively promoted them early on, you use an act that eventually went on to form their own exclusive label (Apple) because they recognized that's where the "real" money was actually at.
I even used to get paid for it in the past. Now I code just for fun and to keep my skills reasonably sharp since I no longer work in that field anymore. It's a creative outlet for me.
Lately I've been trying to code using the GTK+ libs with the intention of porting to Windows, but I'm not real thrilled with the aesthetics so far.
Apparently some here believe this mainstay of tort law simply has no place online because, well, it is online and that makes it special.
No, it is you who is wanting to make special provisions because it is online. Automobile manufactures don't get blamed for illegal uses of their vehicles, so why should ISP's be blamed for how their customers use the tools they provide?
Most assuredly it does not because tort law reflects the actions of people and their relationships, and these actions and relationships hold true even in the digital world.
And so does copyright law, online and offline. It's also dependent upon the actions of people and their relationships to determine if infringement occurred. It cannot be determined by the existence of the content alone.
What you are asking for would be tantamount to asking Ford Motor Company to vet each and every car buyer prior to purchase so that Ford could be held liable if someone speeds with one of their cars. That is not what we do in the offline world - we hold the individual responsible for their own actions. It's you who seems to think the internet requires a different set of rules where you get blame the entity with the largest pocketbook, instead if those who are actually responsible.
I never ceased to be struck by your clear unwillingness to consider even the mere possibility that perhaps the allocation of burdens should be reconsidered in light of historical data.
But you are asking for reallocation of burdens that are unachievable.
That service providers should remove or disable instances of infringement when pointed out to them has already been established. They already do this right now.
You are now asking for the service providers to determine whether infringement occurred without giving them enough information to make such decision.
The rights holder MUST provide the service providers with the information needed. It can be a blacklist system, like we have now with notice and take-down or a whitelist system where the rights holders identify the authorized instances. Either way, providing the information HAS to come from the rights holders and cannot be reallocated to the service providers because they have no way of knowing what is authorized or not.
This is why just about every response to you has pointed out that what you really what is a "magic" system where the service providers do all the work and the rights holder reap all the benefits without lifting a finger. That's crazy talk.
Opt-in is not a solution since what it does do is mandate certain formalities before copyright attaches.
Why is that a problem, exactly? It's how copyright worked prior to 1976.
Assuming this was a requirement, no doubt service providers would fall back on "But how are we supposed to know if that specific file uploaded all over the place on our site is an infringing copy? No, you have to check each out and then let us know before we are willing to take any action."
The rights holders would certainly have to be proactive in maintaining and updating such a whitelist. But again, I'm not sure why that's such a burden, since the rights holders ARE the one benefiting from an exclusive right to monetize the works.
Guess that it is a bit difficult for them to use keywords as a first cut for possible problems...words like "hack", "keygen", "serial numbers", etc., etc.
Because, once again, depending on what and how the "hack", "keygen" or "serial number" is used determines infringement, not just whether it exists or not.
...on service provider sites, and that in such instances such sites are many times inclined to limit their actions to simply one infringing link at a time (even though only one who is brain dead would fail to make such an observation...what red flag knowledge was meant to address)...
That's asking for the impossible. Copyright infringement isn't recognizable by the content alone, it's an actionable offense based on the circumstances of usage.
If the rights holders want a system that comes close to "magically" removing all instances of infringement, then the rights holders need to provide a whitelist, since only they actually know what's authorized or not.
Moving copyright back to "opt-in", where registration is required, would be a fine place to start creating such a whitelist.
Nope. This is exactly what I would expect the NSA's job to be.
I'm also confused as to why releasing that information is such a problem. You can't honestly believe that those groups are unaware that they may be tracked by organizations like the NSA.
Should we shut down all counter-intelligence operations to make you feel better?
Where did I ever ask for that? I would be content with proper and impartial oversight of such organizations and a rock-solid assurance that, at the very least, my elected representatives were being told the whole truth.
Let the victims of supposed civil liberties violations step forward and make a case in court (there's no shortage of lawyers to represent them for free). Courts focus on facts. Eventually the Supreme Court will decide.
Huh. You make it sound like the deck isn't completely stacked against such a victim in these types of cases. Even if you were able to glean enough specific information in order to raise a valid case against the USG, the unsurmountable mountain of national security gag orders, withheld information and whatnot will keep you from building any kind of case.
Really? You're not concerned if China steals and sells other nations' technology? Perhaps you're independently wealthy. The rest of us want to keep our jobs.
That sounds like corporate espionage to me. Is that really within the purview of the NSA to begin with?
We're had conflicting legal opinions on supposed NSA violations, but most support the NSA. Will a definitive Supreme Court ruling satisfy you? Will *you* then abide by the rule of law?
Not really sure what your point is here. A SCOTUS ruling *would* be the law of the land. The question is - would the NSA abide by such a ruling or continue on with it's own secret interpretations of such laws?
This is not the true heritage of our country--sometimes we do make sacrifices for the common good-- and it will not survive the next terrorist attack.
Now don't get me wrong here. I believe that the US still needs it's intelligence mechanisms against foreign adversaries, I just don't think that these institutions should be allowed to do what they whatever they wish nor should they be allowed to make up their own rules as they go along.
As for not surviving the next terrorist attack, that worries me less than the damage already caused to our Constitution by people with your mindset in the wake of 9/11.
You can also do your own comparisons of Snowden's verbal and written communications.
To be honest, I'm not sure what that exactly proves. I tend to form my written thoughts about a 1000x better then I express myself verbally because of my innate fear of public speaking.
The people of Russia are very concerned about civil liberties (some of them in jail as a result). We don't help them by asking silly softball questions (with no followup) on Putin's propaganda show.
If it comes out the Putin is caught in a blatant lie, how is that considered a softball question?
Meanwhile, as we disable our intelligence agencies while leaving Russia's and China's agencies unfettered, how do you imagine your "privacy" is protected?
How exactly are we disabling our intelligence agencies by asking them to actually follow the rules and laws of the land?
As for me, I don't worry about Russia or China spying on me whatsoever - why should they care about a lowly citizen of different country when they have their own citizens to spy on? I do, however, worry about my own government invading my privacy.
Terrorists who may have been deterred won't be. U.K. intelligence has stated that known terrorist methods of operation and communication have changed (improved).
You can color me unconvinced of this since James Clapper himself doesn't even believe that's true.
There's also the issue of Snowden leaks about U.S. intelligence efforts to determine the nature and extent of Chinese hacking into both civilian and military targets. Was Snowden leaking this information in order to protect the "privacy" of Chinese military hackers?
You have a citation for any of this postulation? This sounds a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to me. Almost like someone who is trying really, really hard to villainize Snowden for some unknown reason.
If you disarm one side in this new cold war, are you protecting your privacy--or making it more vulnerable to people who observe no rule of law? China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and others are loving every minute of our long, protracted slide into national suicide.
So basically, your stance is that violating the Constitution is necessary to protect the Constitution. That kind of shit scares me more than terrorists.
Doesn't it occur to the Snowden zealots (who have yet to get over their Justin Bieber stage)...
Starting off with an ad hom usually indicates a weak argument forthcoming...
...that this is another Glenn Greenwald post hoc justification? Greenwald scripts Snowden, as anyone who reads the language carefully understands.
You have any proof of this accusation, other than a vague feeling that you might have? You seen to be unable to believe that Snowden is intelligent enough to form his own beliefs and prose.
The idea that Snowden's question would prompt some sort of inquiry in Russia is laughable.
Why? Aren't Russian citizens also people who might be concerned with an invasive and overreaching government?
The full story will finally be unearthed after the next terrorist attack, but it will be too late for the victims.
I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that the "next terrorist attack" will happen because of the information that Snowden disseminated.
From the information we have up to this point, the NSA spying programs have been found to have stopped very few, if any, terrorists attacks, so why would the next be any different?
It's about time that our lawmakers started doing something about this.
Can you explain why a "new" law is needed here when everything is already covered under existing laws such as those covering assault, aggravated assault, battery and so forth?
The only reason I can come up is to provide politicians the illusion of "doing something" to their constituents.
On the post: Supreme Court Discussion In Aereo: At Least The Justices Recognize The Harm They Might Do
Re: Re: Re: Questionable Arguments
Now you are being silly. Ever heard of expert witness testimony?
In order for video to be recorded or transmitted over the internet, it must first be received and decoded by some means. Each customer is said to have his own antenna, to which is attached a DVR. It is necessary for the DVR to contain a complete television tuner and receiver, capable of remote channel switching, in addition to video recording means. Data from the receiver is stored in the "cloud" - meaning a humungous disk drive - as streaming video for later retrieval by the customer. In what way, exactly, does this differ from that provided by the average cable company, or by any of several streaming video sources? I submit to you that it doesn't.
You have just described a Roku box setup. Those are legal because it's sending a single stream across the internet to a single end user. In other words, a private performance. Cable companies broadcast one signal to many customers or a public performance. Big difference. It's not just about the technology, it's about the legal aspects too, which you are ignoring.
On the post: Supreme Court Discussion In Aereo: At Least The Justices Recognize The Harm They Might Do
Re: Re: Questionable Arguments
You really think that in a case which has made it all the way up to the Supreme Court that someone hasn't vetted that little fact? Seriously?
On the post: Supreme Court Discussion In Aereo: At Least The Justices Recognize The Harm They Might Do
Re: Questionable Arguments
Which is exactly what a VCR/DVR (possibly even rented from your local Rent-To-Own shop) has done for years and they are legal. The premise is the same, only the length of the cord is different.
This is NOT the same as having an antenna in New York, and a 20 mile long cable to your home TV receiver, but is, in fact, nearly identical to what the average cable provider does. The difference being that the cable provider uses his own copper or fiber cable to carry the signals, whereas Aereo uses the public internet to carry them. The end result is the same.
No. The difference is the insane lengths that Aereo went to keep the antenna you are using seperate from other people so that it is legally considered a private performance instead of public performance. That's what this whole issue is about.
This is basically placing a TV receiver for each channel in New York and running a 20 mile long VGA cable to your house onto which you attach a monitor. A switch is provided in New York to select the desired channel with the resulting video transmitted over the internet as a stream. There is no fundamental difference between Aereo and Netflix or your local cable provider.
Wrong again. Lots of differences. In fact, so many differences that this discussion has now reached the highest court in the land. So, yeah, not really as black & white as you are portraying there.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists' Incredible Sense Of Entitlement: If It Challenges The Biz Model We Chose, It Must Be Illegal
Re:
Sweet!
Mine's getting a bit worn because I keep having to wear it when reading the one-sided logic coming from the maximalists' camps.
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, there are some...
You're a fucking idiot.
That's your entire rebuttal to Karl's post??
That's really, really lame, dude.
Not only do you use one of the very, very few acts to actually win the "record contract lottery" where a label actually aggressively promoted them early on, you use an act that eventually went on to form their own exclusive label (Apple) because they recognized that's where the "real" money was actually at.
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
Re:
I even used to get paid for it in the past. Now I code just for fun and to keep my skills reasonably sharp since I no longer work in that field anymore. It's a creative outlet for me.
Lately I've been trying to code using the GTK+ libs with the intention of porting to Windows, but I'm not real thrilled with the aesthetics so far.
On the post: Study Shows How Notice-And-Takedown Reduces Transaction Costs In Making Works Legally Available
Re: Re: Re:
No, it is you who is wanting to make special provisions because it is online. Automobile manufactures don't get blamed for illegal uses of their vehicles, so why should ISP's be blamed for how their customers use the tools they provide?
Most assuredly it does not because tort law reflects the actions of people and their relationships, and these actions and relationships hold true even in the digital world.
And so does copyright law, online and offline. It's also dependent upon the actions of people and their relationships to determine if infringement occurred. It cannot be determined by the existence of the content alone.
What you are asking for would be tantamount to asking Ford Motor Company to vet each and every car buyer prior to purchase so that Ford could be held liable if someone speeds with one of their cars. That is not what we do in the offline world - we hold the individual responsible for their own actions. It's you who seems to think the internet requires a different set of rules where you get blame the entity with the largest pocketbook, instead if those who are actually responsible.
On the post: Canadian-Based Company Sues Canada Under NAFTA, Saying That Fracking Ban Takes Away Its Expected Profits
Re: contact
http://www.techdirt.com/contact.php
On the post: Study Shows How Notice-And-Takedown Reduces Transaction Costs In Making Works Legally Available
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you are asking for reallocation of burdens that are unachievable.
That service providers should remove or disable instances of infringement when pointed out to them has already been established. They already do this right now.
You are now asking for the service providers to determine whether infringement occurred without giving them enough information to make such decision.
The rights holder MUST provide the service providers with the information needed. It can be a blacklist system, like we have now with notice and take-down or a whitelist system where the rights holders identify the authorized instances. Either way, providing the information HAS to come from the rights holders and cannot be reallocated to the service providers because they have no way of knowing what is authorized or not.
This is why just about every response to you has pointed out that what you really what is a "magic" system where the service providers do all the work and the rights holder reap all the benefits without lifting a finger. That's crazy talk.
On the post: Study Shows How Notice-And-Takedown Reduces Transaction Costs In Making Works Legally Available
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is that a problem, exactly? It's how copyright worked prior to 1976.
Assuming this was a requirement, no doubt service providers would fall back on "But how are we supposed to know if that specific file uploaded all over the place on our site is an infringing copy? No, you have to check each out and then let us know before we are willing to take any action."
The rights holders would certainly have to be proactive in maintaining and updating such a whitelist. But again, I'm not sure why that's such a burden, since the rights holders ARE the one benefiting from an exclusive right to monetize the works.
Guess that it is a bit difficult for them to use keywords as a first cut for possible problems...words like "hack", "keygen", "serial numbers", etc., etc.
Because, once again, depending on what and how the "hack", "keygen" or "serial number" is used determines infringement, not just whether it exists or not.
On the post: Study Shows How Notice-And-Takedown Reduces Transaction Costs In Making Works Legally Available
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's asking for the impossible. Copyright infringement isn't recognizable by the content alone, it's an actionable offense based on the circumstances of usage.
If the rights holders want a system that comes close to "magically" removing all instances of infringement, then the rights holders need to provide a whitelist, since only they actually know what's authorized or not.
Moving copyright back to "opt-in", where registration is required, would be a fine place to start creating such a whitelist.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re:
Nope. This is exactly what I would expect the NSA's job to be.
I'm also confused as to why releasing that information is such a problem. You can't honestly believe that those groups are unaware that they may be tracked by organizations like the NSA.
Should we shut down all counter-intelligence operations to make you feel better?
Where did I ever ask for that? I would be content with proper and impartial oversight of such organizations and a rock-solid assurance that, at the very least, my elected representatives were being told the whole truth.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re:
I'm lost as to whom you are responding to now.
Either use "reply" so viewing in threaded mode makes sense or quote something from who you are responding to, please.
Thanks
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re:
Huh. You make it sound like the deck isn't completely stacked against such a victim in these types of cases. Even if you were able to glean enough specific information in order to raise a valid case against the USG, the unsurmountable mountain of national security gag orders, withheld information and whatnot will keep you from building any kind of case.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
That sounds like corporate espionage to me. Is that really within the purview of the NSA to begin with?
We're had conflicting legal opinions on supposed NSA violations, but most support the NSA. Will a definitive Supreme Court ruling satisfy you? Will *you* then abide by the rule of law?
Not really sure what your point is here. A SCOTUS ruling *would* be the law of the land. The question is - would the NSA abide by such a ruling or continue on with it's own secret interpretations of such laws?
This is not the true heritage of our country--sometimes we do make sacrifices for the common good-- and it will not survive the next terrorist attack.
Now don't get me wrong here. I believe that the US still needs it's intelligence mechanisms against foreign adversaries, I just don't think that these institutions should be allowed to do what they whatever they wish nor should they be allowed to make up their own rules as they go along.
As for not surviving the next terrorist attack, that worries me less than the damage already caused to our Constitution by people with your mindset in the wake of 9/11.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re: Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
To be honest, I'm not sure what that exactly proves. I tend to form my written thoughts about a 1000x better then I express myself verbally because of my innate fear of public speaking.
The people of Russia are very concerned about civil liberties (some of them in jail as a result). We don't help them by asking silly softball questions (with no followup) on Putin's propaganda show.
If it comes out the Putin is caught in a blatant lie, how is that considered a softball question?
Meanwhile, as we disable our intelligence agencies while leaving Russia's and China's agencies unfettered, how do you imagine your "privacy" is protected?
How exactly are we disabling our intelligence agencies by asking them to actually follow the rules and laws of the land?
As for me, I don't worry about Russia or China spying on me whatsoever - why should they care about a lowly citizen of different country when they have their own citizens to spy on? I do, however, worry about my own government invading my privacy.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Martyr Syndrome
You can color me unconvinced of this since James Clapper himself doesn't even believe that's true.
There's also the issue of Snowden leaks about U.S. intelligence efforts to determine the nature and extent of Chinese hacking into both civilian and military targets. Was Snowden leaking this information in order to protect the "privacy" of Chinese military hackers?
You have a citation for any of this postulation? This sounds a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to me. Almost like someone who is trying really, really hard to villainize Snowden for some unknown reason.
If you disarm one side in this new cold war, are you protecting your privacy--or making it more vulnerable to people who observe no rule of law? China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and others are loving every minute of our long, protracted slide into national suicide.
So basically, your stance is that violating the Constitution is necessary to protect the Constitution. That kind of shit scares me more than terrorists.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re the Snowden and Putin show
Starting off with an ad hom usually indicates a weak argument forthcoming...
...that this is another Glenn Greenwald post hoc justification? Greenwald scripts Snowden, as anyone who reads the language carefully understands.
You have any proof of this accusation, other than a vague feeling that you might have? You seen to be unable to believe that Snowden is intelligent enough to form his own beliefs and prose.
The idea that Snowden's question would prompt some sort of inquiry in Russia is laughable.
Why? Aren't Russian citizens also people who might be concerned with an invasive and overreaching government?
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that the "next terrorist attack" will happen because of the information that Snowden disseminated.
From the information we have up to this point, the NSA spying programs have been found to have stopped very few, if any, terrorists attacks, so why would the next be any different?
On the post: Connecticut Lawmakers Push 'Knockout Game' Bill, Citing Various 'Feelings' As Evidence Something Must Be Done
Re:
Can you explain why a "new" law is needed here when everything is already covered under existing laws such as those covering assault, aggravated assault, battery and so forth?
The only reason I can come up is to provide politicians the illusion of "doing something" to their constituents.
Next >>