Considering how disastrous and dangerously ignorant the verdict on this trial was, would a new one (at a new venue, hopefully) really be such a bad thing?
Another potential issue: the bill would let individuals go after not just actual infringers, but also service providers if they fail to follow through on a DMCA takedown notice. Basically, it exports the DMCA safe harbors to this small claims process as well, but that may mean that internet platforms are going to get dragged through this process that was meant to focus on small claims that could be easily adjudicated.
...so in other words, it applies the DMCA takedown system exactly as intended?
Because let's not pretend that's not what's happening. The DMCA takedown system was never meant to keep anyone safe; from the very beginning, it's been a tool of extortion: "Extralegally delete this content that we don't like, with no due process whatsoever, or we will sue you."
We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been. -- George W. Merck, founder of the Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company
I will state upfront that there's actually plenty in this book that I end up disagreeing with, in that Perelman seems to reflexively dislike corporations and assume that corporations and the public are almost always at odds
What's wrong with that? Given that past experience shows that corporations--particularly of the multi-billion-dollar megacorp variety--almost always are at odds with the interest of the public, it's a very reasonable baseline assumption to start from.
Look at this case. 19 out of 19 times, the response was preparedness to use force, and when thinking determined that it was not necessary, not a single cop in any of the 19 SWAT teams involved actually killed anyone.
Given the lethal mixture of adrenaline, fear, and heavy weaponry involved in a SWAT team raid, how does what he did not automatically carry a charge of 19 counts of attempted murder?
Furthermore, I'm uncomfortable with an argument that is basically the same argument as "if we tell you not to access this open web server, then it's like trespassing." Because it's not like that at all. An open web server is designed to accept traffic. Someone merely telling you that you can't access their website -- even though it's easy to do so technologically -- doesn't seem like it should then be seen as "unauthorized access" in a manner that makes you liable to computer hacking laws. That's a recipe for dangerous results.
Wait, why is this problematic?
An open web server is designed to accept traffic from the general public. An open store is designed to accept walk-in business from the general public.
My first job out of high school was at a Wendy's. There was this one young lady who kept coming in and being disruptive, and after a couple months she did something--I don't remember what, exactly--that really crossed a line. The store manager was in that day, and he came out and personally told her to leave, and that if she ever came back he would call the police and have her arrested for trespassing.
Did he or did he not have the right to do this, even though it's a business that's open to the general public?
If not, why not? And if so, why is the Facebook situation any different? Isn't it a basic tenet on Techdirt that you don't get something fundamentally different (and certainly not in a way that should be regarded differently by the law) by taking something common and well-understood from the real world and slapping "on the Internet" on the end of it?
It's important to keep in mind that this is the presidency that never met a copyright abuse it didn't like. The Obama administration--and the VP in particular--have been major cheerleaders for bad laws and bad policies for the last 7.5 years now.
Google is big and successful. Some legacy entertainment companies have been struggling. For whatever reason, many of those companies have decided that Google's success must be the reason for their downfall, and they've been blaming Google ever since.
"For whatever reason"? How about "because Google has been out-competing them and thereby actively contributing to their downfall," AKA exactly how capitalism is supposed to work? When you suck at competing or adapting to the times, or simply stop trying, someone else is going to come along and eat your lunch. The MAFIAA understands exactly what's going on; they just don't want to put forth the effort required to fix it.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention so far in this context is invasive species. Most governments (including the US federal government) exercise some control over seeds to prevent well-understood and tragic problems such as those posed by rabbits in Australia and kudzu in the American South.
Sure there's a choice: sue the insurance company and insist on a jury trial. Even the worst of lawyers should have no trouble convincing 12 Americans that something incredibly sleazy is going on there!
Re: "the utilitarian model is not the most moral [among models of morality]"
I wasn't talking about "models of morality" in general, but of models for this specific issue.
The most moral thing for an autonomous vehicle manufacturer to do in this situation is to design the car to always make protecting the inhabitants of the car its highest priority. Creating a way for the car to do otherwise is creating a way for a malicious actor to activate that code and kill people with it, and as numerous IoT security issues have shown us, that's a hacking and computer security is a very real concern.
The "trolley problem", by contrast... well, there's a reason it's known as a thought experiment, rather than a case study.
On the post: Sen. McCain Unhappy Apple Turned Down His Invitation To Be Encryption Hearing Punching Bag
In today's episode of Techdirt Advertising Theatre...
On the post: Oracle v. Google Not Over Yet: Oracle Seeks Another New Trial While Google Seeks Sanctions On Oracle's Lawyers
On the post: Bill Introduced To Create Copyright Small Claims Court... Which Copyright Trolls Are Going To Love
...so in other words, it applies the DMCA takedown system exactly as intended?
Because let's not pretend that's not what's happening. The DMCA takedown system was never meant to keep anyone safe; from the very beginning, it's been a tool of extortion: "Extralegally delete this content that we don't like, with no due process whatsoever, or we will sue you."
On the post: Police Step Up Arrests For 'Threatening' Social Media Posts In The Wake Of The Dallas Shooting
Re: Re:
On the post: Ton Of Tech Industry Leaders Say Trump Would Be A Complete Disaster For Innovation
Re: Johnson/Weld
On the post: AstraZeneca Tries To Use 'Orphan Drug' Designation To Extend Patent Life Of Top-Selling Pill
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property And The Corporate Confiscation Of Creativity
What's wrong with that? Given that past experience shows that corporations--particularly of the multi-billion-dollar megacorp variety--almost always are at odds with the interest of the public, it's a very reasonable baseline assumption to start from.
On the post: Man Who Doxxed Dozens Of People, Engaged In Nineteen 'Swattings', Nets Only One Year In Prison
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look at this case. 19 out of 19 times, the response was preparedness to use force, and when thinking determined that it was not necessary, not a single cop in any of the 19 SWAT teams involved actually killed anyone.
On the post: Man Who Doxxed Dozens Of People, Engaged In Nineteen 'Swattings', Nets Only One Year In Prison
Given the lethal mixture of adrenaline, fear, and heavy weaponry involved in a SWAT team raid, how does what he did not automatically carry a charge of 19 counts of attempted murder?
On the post: Appeals Court: It Violates CFAA For Service To Access Facebook On Behalf Of Users, Because Facebook Sent Cease & Desist
Wait, why is this problematic?
An open web server is designed to accept traffic from the general public. An open store is designed to accept walk-in business from the general public.
My first job out of high school was at a Wendy's. There was this one young lady who kept coming in and being disruptive, and after a couple months she did something--I don't remember what, exactly--that really crossed a line. The store manager was in that day, and he came out and personally told her to leave, and that if she ever came back he would call the police and have her arrested for trespassing.
Did he or did he not have the right to do this, even though it's a business that's open to the general public?
If not, why not? And if so, why is the Facebook situation any different? Isn't it a basic tenet on Techdirt that you don't get something fundamentally different (and certainly not in a way that should be regarded differently by the law) by taking something common and well-understood from the real world and slapping "on the Internet" on the end of it?
On the post: American Medical Association Claims False Copyright Over President Obama's Journal Article
Re: ha ha ha...
It's important to keep in mind that this is the presidency that never met a copyright abuse it didn't like. The Obama administration--and the VP in particular--have been major cheerleaders for bad laws and bad policies for the last 7.5 years now.
On the post: Google Issues Its Latest 'Stop Blaming Us For Piracy' Report
"For whatever reason"? How about "because Google has been out-competing them and thereby actively contributing to their downfall," AKA exactly how capitalism is supposed to work? When you suck at competing or adapting to the times, or simply stop trying, someone else is going to come along and eat your lunch. The MAFIAA understands exactly what's going on; they just don't want to put forth the effort required to fix it.
On the post: France Might Allow NGOs To Sell Public Domain Seeds To Non-Commercial Buyers. Might?
Re: Re:
On the post: France Might Allow NGOs To Sell Public Domain Seeds To Non-Commercial Buyers. Might?
On the post: Philly PD Releases One Document About Its Fake Google Car: The Journalist's Own Open Records Request Email
On the post: Should A Court Allow A Case To Disappear Entirely Because The Person Regrets Filing It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple's IP Lawyers May Force YouTube MacBook Repair Videos Offline Over Schematic
In other news, water is wet, the Pope is Catholic, and traffic is bad in DC this morning.
On the post: Diagnostic Patents Suffer Another Setback In US As Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Sequenom Appeal
Re:
On the post: 'Most Transparent' President Signs Into Law FOIA Reform Bill That Won't Affect His Administration
FTFY. Trading government secrecy for private-party secrecy does nothing useful.
On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others -- Unless They're Riding In One
Re: "the utilitarian model is not the most moral [among models of morality]"
The most moral thing for an autonomous vehicle manufacturer to do in this situation is to design the car to always make protecting the inhabitants of the car its highest priority. Creating a way for the car to do otherwise is creating a way for a malicious actor to activate that code and kill people with it, and as numerous IoT security issues have shown us, that's a hacking and computer security is a very real concern.
The "trolley problem", by contrast... well, there's a reason it's known as a thought experiment, rather than a case study.
Next >>