Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 1:03pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
because a law that on its face didn't regulate protected expression ended up singling out protected expression nonetheless.
Is this some Jedi mind trick where you think you can convince people that any case that weakens your argument doesn't apply to this case?
Aren't you saying that copyright infringement is not protected expression, and therefore the law used to sieze the domain isn't regulating protected expression?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 12:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having a license is not a defense - it means the charges and/or accusations are completely wrong and shows a significant error in procedure and the judgement of those who brought the accusation.
Kind of like being accused of murder when the person you supposedly murdered is alive and talking to the judge in the courtroom. If this were a murder case, the prosecutor would be conveintly ignoring the not-dead person and still banging on the table about the heinous crime and the traumatized children.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 4:50pm
Re: Technology difference
It may actually help here in the US to make them a viable third party, particularly in the House or the Senate as need be.
The hurdle to overcome with any PP member being elected in the US is our winner-take-all elections. That is, the candidate with the most votes (usually*) gets elected, everyone else gets nothing. So the Pirate Party could get 20% of the vote in every race and they'd end up with 0 members holding seats.
*There are some situations of run-offs if no one gets 50%+1, but those are mostly limited to primary elections.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 2:37pm
Mechanisms
Something I've never quite got is this talking point:
However, we don't currently have a mechanism for allowing the government to share intelligence about cyber threats with the private sector, nor do we have the ability for private sector companies to share information with others in the private sector, and with the government on a voluntary basis, so that the private sector can better protect itself.
Don't have a mechanism to share data? Seriously?
How about the Internet? How about email?
I am personally a member of certain mailing lists and listservs that do exactly what is being asked for. All the ones I'm a part of are public, but there are private/invite-only ones, too, if the data being shared is of more sensitive matters. Maybe the lobbyists are just feeling left out of the cool kids (professional security experts) groups?
I regularly read certain websites that do exactly what is asked for. Some are non-profits, some are run by companies, and there are ones run by the government.
Wait, the government, you say? Yeahsureyoubetcha! Take a look over at http://nvd.nist.gov/ - it is governmenmt run, on a .gov domain, site about software vulnerabilities. Let me quote... "comprehensive cyber security vulnerability database that integrates all publicly available U.S. Government vulnerability resources and provides references to industry resources" ... my, doesn't that sound familiar?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 1:09pm
Re: Broken system
We are asking these elected people to be experts in advanced economics, pharmaceuticals, biology, and technology.
I don't think we are, nor do they need to be. They could very well be writing quite simple and definitive laws, with clear explanations what those laws are designed to do.
The problem is that in order to get/keep their jobs, they end up having to get money from businesses/interest groups/etc. And those groups influence the laws, either overtly or not, so they have loopholes, special circumstances, or are written so they can be taken advantage of or directly benefit one group instead of another.
So instead of simple laws, you end up with laws that no single person can be expected to understand. Then add those to a court system that interprets and rules on those laws, and frequently the precedents arrived at come from extraordinary cases.
So I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, a saying comes to mind:
Democracy is the worst form of government created, except for all the others.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 7:44am
Re:
walk through any flea market and you'll find people standing in line to buy ripped dvd's for $5 or 4 for $15. now this IS a lost sale to the movie com.
Is it really a lost sale?
Was the studio currently offering that movie for legal sale?
Was the price of the legal sale the same as the guy at the flea market?
Was the studio offering the same convenience (example, lack of 5 minutes of unskippable trailers and scary warnings)?
If all those answers are yes, then I have no problems calling it a lost sale. If any are no, then it is not a lost sale, but a failure to meet the demand.
every one loses when respect for others property
Culture is not property. Ideas are not property. Infinitely copyable bits are not scarce and there should be no enforced monopolies on them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 5:40pm
Re:
They were covering hip-hop related news, so the qualification stands.
Just because the recording studios used to get to arbitrarily decide what became music doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily decide what is and is not news.
but it is my experience that no matter how easy you make it for someone to give you money if they don't want to they just won't.
So once you figure this out, you have a few options.
1) Waste your time on something you can never change.
2) Stop wasting their time, but more importantly yours, on trying to stop them from copying your stuff. Then spend that time working with and for other people who will give you their money.
Only the second option seems rational to me.
Once you get into the mindset of "I'll download it for free" it's extremely hard to snap out of it.
I disagree. I think the problem is that most solutions are not easy or convienient enough to break the habit. Look how much Spotify and Netflix have impacted piracy and you'll see the evidence is on my side.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 12:06pm
Re: Re: two cents
Let me try to be a bit clearer:
You are arguing that it is the studios right to not create something - therefore that thing does not exist.
You are then accusing me of stealing that thing which does not exist, because I am not using a method of paying for it that also does not exist.
You are then saying that I am unethical for not using the non-existant payment method, for an action which harms no one, about a product that the studios have made a conscious decision not to create.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 10:38am
Re: two cents
We all know it's good business to listen to your customers and try to provide for them as best you can but the studios have decided not to do that and they are within they're rights. That doesn't give you the right to be unethical, and yes it is unethical to not recompense someone for something they spent money on.
How can you talk about someone's obligation ro recompense the studios when at the same time arguing that the studios are not obligated to provide a means for us to recompense them?
It is trivially easy to provide a reasonable and affordable method to download movies as they are released. If the studios choose not to do so, they are knowingly choosing not to receive my money. At the same time, they know there are ways to download those same movies that cause no harm to the studios (or anyone else).
How am I obligated to give my money to the studios when it is abundantly clear that they don't want it, nor am I harming anyone by acquiring something which they have chosen not to offer?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 8:36am
Re:
Basically, every increase in speed of connectivity has lead to an increase in all activities, INCLUDING illegal ones.
Your cognitive dissonance amuses me. I love how you complain about all the illegal things happening (also, porn isn't illegal), then at the very end you prove it was all pointless and show that even you know there has not been a huge increase in the rate of those activities.
And your timeline is off by about a decade. High speed internet became mainstream in the early 2000s. I got my first cable internet connection (~1.5 Mb down) in early 2001, and I wasn't that far ahead of the curve.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 7:25am
Re:
If these agencies were individuals, I'd have to guess that they were horribly abused as children
Of course they were. Let's look at history.
Player pianos destroyed musicians.
Silent movies destroyed musicians.
Phonographs destroyed musicians.
Tapes destroyed musicians.
Home taping really destroyed musicians.
CDs destroyed musicians.
Computers and digital audio destroyed musicians.
The internet destroyed musicians.
Every generation of musicians have been horribly abused by technology.
Oh, wait. Everything above is false. Unless you replace "musicians" with "the current money making paradigm of those who were benefitting from the products of musicians and forced them to find new ways to prey on struggling artists." Then it's all true.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 10:38am
Loose controls
However, about the only thing this really seems to show is that Google had ridiculously poor process and controls concerning putting code into live projects.
If this is a crime, than probably nearly all of the major companies around the world are guilty at one level or another.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 10:31am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there's probable cause to believe that a a website is being used for criminal acts, then I don't think they can hide behind the First Amendment and say they're unseizable.
I don't think Goldman, or any of the previous posters are saying that. They are saying that when the government is going to knowingly shutdown protected First Ammendment speech along with copyright infringement, it requires a higher burden of proof than probable cause.
Since the government is so insistent on destroying evidence, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is likely they will be unable to meet that higher burden.
Of course, I don't expect you to agree with me. I am admittedly a piracy apologist, and proud of it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2012 @ 9:13am
Re: Re: Re:
Progress, it isn't just measured in short term gain or a single way.
Yet patents are an attempt to do just that.
In some theoretical perfect world where there are no lawyers and everyone plays fair and acts rationally your simple example works. In the real world? Not so much, as we've seen time and time again how patents are preventing progress.
On the post: Congress Begins To Wonder Why ICE & DOJ Censored A Popular Hip Hop Blog For A Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this some Jedi mind trick where you think you can convince people that any case that weakens your argument doesn't apply to this case?
Aren't you saying that copyright infringement is not protected expression, and therefore the law used to sieze the domain isn't regulating protected expression?
And wasn't protected expression restricted?
On the post: Congress Begins To Wonder Why ICE & DOJ Censored A Popular Hip Hop Blog For A Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congress Begins To Wonder Why ICE & DOJ Censored A Popular Hip Hop Blog For A Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kind of like being accused of murder when the person you supposedly murdered is alive and talking to the judge in the courtroom. If this were a murder case, the prosecutor would be conveintly ignoring the not-dead person and still banging on the table about the heinous crime and the traumatized children.
On the post: Pirate Party Wins Again In Germany
Re: Technology difference
The hurdle to overcome with any PP member being elected in the US is our winner-take-all elections. That is, the candidate with the most votes (usually*) gets elected, everyone else gets nothing. So the Pirate Party could get 20% of the vote in every race and they'd end up with 0 members holding seats.
*There are some situations of run-offs if no one gets 50%+1, but those are mostly limited to primary elections.
On the post: Pirate Party Wins Again In Germany
Re: Re: If only...
Yeah, those are crimes that the rich do. We just execute people for being poor.
On the post: CISPA Sponsor Warns Bill Is Needed Because China's Chinese Hackers From China Are Stealing All-American Secrets (China!)
Mechanisms
However, we don't currently have a mechanism for allowing the government to share intelligence about cyber threats with the private sector, nor do we have the ability for private sector companies to share information with others in the private sector, and with the government on a voluntary basis, so that the private sector can better protect itself.
Don't have a mechanism to share data? Seriously?
How about the Internet? How about email?
I am personally a member of certain mailing lists and listservs that do exactly what is being asked for. All the ones I'm a part of are public, but there are private/invite-only ones, too, if the data being shared is of more sensitive matters. Maybe the lobbyists are just feeling left out of the cool kids (professional security experts) groups?
I regularly read certain websites that do exactly what is asked for. Some are non-profits, some are run by companies, and there are ones run by the government.
Wait, the government, you say? Yeahsureyoubetcha! Take a look over at http://nvd.nist.gov/ - it is governmenmt run, on a .gov domain, site about software vulnerabilities. Let me quote... "comprehensive cyber security vulnerability database that integrates all publicly available U.S. Government vulnerability resources and provides references to industry resources" ... my, doesn't that sound familiar?
On the post: Confused Jury Says Google Infringed On Oracle's Copyright, Sorta, But Maybe Not
Re: Broken system
I don't think we are, nor do they need to be. They could very well be writing quite simple and definitive laws, with clear explanations what those laws are designed to do.
The problem is that in order to get/keep their jobs, they end up having to get money from businesses/interest groups/etc. And those groups influence the laws, either overtly or not, so they have loopholes, special circumstances, or are written so they can be taken advantage of or directly benefit one group instead of another.
So instead of simple laws, you end up with laws that no single person can be expected to understand. Then add those to a court system that interprets and rules on those laws, and frequently the precedents arrived at come from extraordinary cases.
So I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, a saying comes to mind:
Democracy is the worst form of government created, except for all the others.
On the post: Can You Copyright The Most Basic Concepts Of Reality TV?
Re: What is the meaning of ...
It sounds completely crazy to me, too. I still have trouble beleiving it actually made it this far over the last 60+ years.
On the post: Nobody Cares About The Fixed Costs Of Your Book, Movie, Whatever
Re:
Is it really a lost sale?
Was the studio currently offering that movie for legal sale?
Was the price of the legal sale the same as the guy at the flea market?
Was the studio offering the same convenience (example, lack of 5 minutes of unskippable trailers and scary warnings)?
If all those answers are yes, then I have no problems calling it a lost sale. If any are no, then it is not a lost sale, but a failure to meet the demand.
every one loses when respect for others property
Culture is not property. Ideas are not property. Infinitely copyable bits are not scarce and there should be no enforced monopolies on them.
On the post: Nobody Cares About The Fixed Costs Of Your Book, Movie, Whatever
Re: Re:
But it worked for Waterworld!
/s
On the post: Judge Lets Feds Censor Blog For Over A Year So The RIAA Could Take Its Sweet Time
Re:
Just because the recording studios used to get to arbitrarily decide what became music doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily decide what is and is not news.
On the post: Judge Lets Feds Censor Blog For Over A Year So The RIAA Could Take Its Sweet Time
Re: DOJ?
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
So once you figure this out, you have a few options.
1) Waste your time on something you can never change.
2) Stop wasting their time, but more importantly yours, on trying to stop them from copying your stuff. Then spend that time working with and for other people who will give you their money.
Only the second option seems rational to me.
Once you get into the mindset of "I'll download it for free" it's extremely hard to snap out of it.
I disagree. I think the problem is that most solutions are not easy or convienient enough to break the habit. Look how much Spotify and Netflix have impacted piracy and you'll see the evidence is on my side.
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Re: Re: two cents
You are arguing that it is the studios right to not create something - therefore that thing does not exist.
You are then accusing me of stealing that thing which does not exist, because I am not using a method of paying for it that also does not exist.
You are then saying that I am unethical for not using the non-existant payment method, for an action which harms no one, about a product that the studios have made a conscious decision not to create.
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Re: two cents
How can you talk about someone's obligation ro recompense the studios when at the same time arguing that the studios are not obligated to provide a means for us to recompense them?
It is trivially easy to provide a reasonable and affordable method to download movies as they are released. If the studios choose not to do so, they are knowingly choosing not to receive my money. At the same time, they know there are ways to download those same movies that cause no harm to the studios (or anyone else).
How am I obligated to give my money to the studios when it is abundantly clear that they don't want it, nor am I harming anyone by acquiring something which they have chosen not to offer?
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Re:
Your cognitive dissonance amuses me. I love how you complain about all the illegal things happening (also, porn isn't illegal), then at the very end you prove it was all pointless and show that even you know there has not been a huge increase in the rate of those activities.
And your timeline is off by about a decade. High speed internet became mainstream in the early 2000s. I got my first cable internet connection (~1.5 Mb down) in early 2001, and I wasn't that far ahead of the curve.
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Re:
Of course they were. Let's look at history.
Player pianos destroyed musicians.
Silent movies destroyed musicians.
Phonographs destroyed musicians.
Tapes destroyed musicians.
Home taping really destroyed musicians.
CDs destroyed musicians.
Computers and digital audio destroyed musicians.
The internet destroyed musicians.
Every generation of musicians have been horribly abused by technology.
Oh, wait. Everything above is false. Unless you replace "musicians" with "the current money making paradigm of those who were benefitting from the products of musicians and forced them to find new ways to prey on struggling artists." Then it's all true.
On the post: Details Of Google Wi-Spy Investigation Show Disorganization And Bad Controls, Rather Than Malicious Spying
Loose controls
If this is a crime, than probably nearly all of the major companies around the world are guilty at one level or another.
On the post: Law Professor: Megaupload Prosecution A 'Depressing Display Of Abuse Of Government Authority'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think Goldman, or any of the previous posters are saying that. They are saying that when the government is going to knowingly shutdown protected First Ammendment speech along with copyright infringement, it requires a higher burden of proof than probable cause.
Since the government is so insistent on destroying evidence, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is likely they will be unable to meet that higher burden.
Of course, I don't expect you to agree with me. I am admittedly a piracy apologist, and proud of it.
On the post: Yahoo Says Facebook's Countersuit Doesn't Count Since Facebook Bought Its Patents
Re: Re: Re:
Yet patents are an attempt to do just that.
In some theoretical perfect world where there are no lawyers and everyone plays fair and acts rationally your simple example works. In the real world? Not so much, as we've seen time and time again how patents are preventing progress.
Next >>