It's like saying "I don't support theft, but the security guards outside the Mac store are fascist and should not be tolerated!"
It's more like: "I don't support shoplifters, but hiring security guards to follow around every customer that walks in the door and question them constantly about their motives is not only expensive, but likely to drive those customers to competitors in the long run."
Can you show me a case where Sony has sued any single tinkerer who did work in their own home, without public discussion or public disclosure? Nope, has never happened. The only people they sue are people who break systems and provide that hack for others to use.
So doing a particular activity is okay, and legal, as long as you don't tell anyone that you did that particular activity. Free speech never looked so good!
"But, if you don't watch the advertisements at the beginning of the DVD you purchased, that the same as stealing. You wouldn't steal a car, would you? Why are you trying to put the movie industry out of business?" - Anonymous Coward
There is also nothing in the law against appointing an agent or having an agent formulate claims or generate DMCA notices and other for you.
If I understand the argument correctly, the last two words of your statement are key: for you. Righthaven is not suing on behalf of someone. They have been given, temporarily (and possibly illegally), ownership of the copyright to sue on their own behalf.
That is, instead of being a law firm hired to protect someone's copyright from actual harm, they are a shell company designed to make a profit by abusing the copyright system.
It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions.
Yes, and I bet you sue people for injuring your fist when you punch them in the face with it. Here's an idea: If it's a waste of money to pursue legal action, don't pursue legal action.
(It seems we've literally gotten to the point in society that people have forgotten that there's any other way to exist than to shovel money at lawyers, even when it's not in their best interest. Color me surprised.)
How is this, in any way, good from a libertarian perspective? I'm pretty sure having the government step in to tell people what they can and can't watch is the antithesis of libertarianism . . .
A phone is a computer if that interpretation would benefit the state (CFAA). A phone is not a computer if that interpretation would benefit the state (Warrantless Searches).
As it is now, I refuse to own a car with OnStar or equivalent for that exact reason.
Indeed. My favorite is their ability to shut down my car remotely, you know, "in case it gets stolen". Yeah, I can't see any way that might be abused . . .
If you lock up all your fans for copying, who buys it?
I buy things all the time that I could otherwise easily copy, usually because they come with something I can't get anywhere else. If you want my money, sell me on a product that only you can provide. Threatening me with a lawyer won't get me to buy what you're selling; it just costs you a heck of a lot in legal fees.
On the post: Copyright Is An Incentive... To Create Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
Perfect! I had a good laugh at that one.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Masnick's view of piracy
It's more like: "I don't support shoplifters, but hiring security guards to follow around every customer that walks in the door and question them constantly about their motives is not only expensive, but likely to drive those customers to competitors in the long run."
And he's right.
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I'd also picket your restaurant with the rest of the modern human race until you went out of business (which wouldn't take long, I assure you).
No guns needed. Just freedom of association and contract. It's a beautiful thing.
On the post: Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate
Re:
On the post: Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate
Re:
So doing a particular activity is okay, and legal, as long as you don't tell anyone that you did that particular activity. Free speech never looked so good!
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office
Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office
Re: Re: Re:
"Theater owners raised ticket prices by an average of 39¢, but the customers made up for the increase by purchasing 5% less tickets."
On the post: Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amicus Brief Calls Into Question The Legality Of Righthaven's Entire Business Model
Re: Re:
Legally, or morally? What a bunch of sleezebag lawyers.
On the post: Amicus Brief Calls Into Question The Legality Of Righthaven's Entire Business Model
Re:
If I understand the argument correctly, the last two words of your statement are key: for you. Righthaven is not suing on behalf of someone. They have been given, temporarily (and possibly illegally), ownership of the copyright to sue on their own behalf.
That is, instead of being a law firm hired to protect someone's copyright from actual harm, they are a shell company designed to make a profit by abusing the copyright system.
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re: It's my film (mostly) I want control
Yes, and I bet you sue people for injuring your fist when you punch them in the face with it. Here's an idea: If it's a waste of money to pursue legal action, don't pursue legal action.
(It seems we've literally gotten to the point in society that people have forgotten that there's any other way to exist than to shovel money at lawyers, even when it's not in their best interest. Color me surprised.)
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re: Score one for government
How is this, in any way, good from a libertarian perspective? I'm pretty sure having the government step in to tell people what they can and can't watch is the antithesis of libertarianism . . .
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re:
Err, according to TFA, for every "edited" copy they make, they buy a legal copy first. Do you have information to the contrary?
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
They Always Want it Both Ways
On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'
Re: Re:
After: Trying to sell content.
Anonymous Troll: Brilliant!
On the post: EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
Re:
On the post: Guy Uses GPS Data On Mobile Phone To Get Out Of A Speeding Ticket
Re: Re: I can see it now
Indeed. My favorite is their ability to shut down my car remotely, you know, "in case it gets stolen". Yeah, I can't see any way that might be abused . . .
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re:
If you lock up all your fans for copying, who buys it?
I buy things all the time that I could otherwise easily copy, usually because they come with something I can't get anywhere else. If you want my money, sell me on a product that only you can provide. Threatening me with a lawyer won't get me to buy what you're selling; it just costs you a heck of a lot in legal fees.
Next >>