Yes, you are. You're questioning the existing claim without evidence to support an alternate view. Lern2scientificmethod, n00b. You can't present an different hypothesis without evidence to back it up. And all the evidence indicates that the delta, the change in prostitution, is a non-negative number.
I am being scientific. Mike claimed that shutting down Craigslist did "little to nothing to actually slow down or prevent prostitution," yet he offered no evidence to support that claim. I don't believe there is any such evidence, so I'm not surprised he didn't offer any. I think he's so desperate to say how dumb it is that he's just making stuff up, so I called him out on it. I'm not presenting "an different hypothesis." I'm pointing out the lack of basis for someone else's hypothesis. Why don't you learn how to use reason, and then get back to me.
I read the complaint twice, and then did the same with the article. The complaint appears to meet all the criteria required by the FRCP for a well pleaded complaint, and impresses me as thoughfully prepared an too predictable responce in mind under FRCP 10(b)(6), i.e., the failure to state a claim(s) for which relief can be granted.
There is not the slightest bitching in the post. The article provides little substance addressing each of the fact contained in the complaint. They are far from being based upon inuendo based upon inuendo.
What I found most surprising of all is the business model adopted by the site, and the rejoinder here that in essence states "but the site does have legitimate uses". Of course it does, but the manner by which the site is allegedly structured appears to demonstrate that those who engage in legitimate uses almost certainly are overwhelmed in number by those engaged in illegitimate uses.
Fortunately, courts tend to align themselves with what is actually going on versus musings about how it might be legitimately used.
Exactly! This is the thread-winner. What's this article lacks in substance, it makes up for in unintentional humor.
And yet, nothing in the law requires them to do so. Oops.
As Judge Posner explains:
Willful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law (where indeed it may be enough that the defendant should have known of the direct infringement, Casella v. Morris, 820 F.2d 362, 365 (11th Cir.1987); 2 Goldstein, supra, § 6.1, p. 6:6), as it is in the law generally. See, e.g., Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Lee, 875 F.2d 584, 590 (7th Cir.1989) (contributory trademark infringement). One who, knowing or strongly suspecting that he is involved in shady dealings, takes steps to make sure that he does not acquire full or exact knowledge of the nature and extent of those dealings is held to have a criminal intent, United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1228 (7th Cir.1990), because a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all that the law requires to establish a guilty state of mind. United States v. Josefik, 753 F.2d 585, 589 (7th Cir.1985); AMPAT/Midwest, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 896 F.2d 1035, 1042 (7th Cir.1990) (“to know, and to want not to know because one suspects, may be, if not the same state of mind, the same degree of fault).”
In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2003)
Once they knowledge and do nothing about it, they lose their safe harbors under section 512(c)(1)(a). Without the safe harbor, liability is practically certain.
Re: Does it really have to be strong at this point?
It seems like the lawsuit would only have to be strong enough to get a subpoena for the company's emails, which then would hopefully include evidence that their marketing was designed to specifically target people who wanted to use the service for infringement.
As weak or even frivolous as the lawsuit may seem to you, I suspect it'll turn out to be adequate for getting such a subpoena, and the ultimate strength of the suit will depend on what the subpoena turns up.
I just read through the complaint and did some surfing to check out the Hotfile search sites, and two words popped into my mind: willful blindness. I don't think the complaint is weak at all, despite our pirate-apologist host's claims otherwise, and I fully expect Hotfile will lose this case no matter their emails say. Hotfile knows damn well that their site is all about piracy. The court will know that too. I'm actually LOL at Mike's attempt to defend these people. Good grief, Mike!
The last two, where it shows that the prostitutes merely moved elsewhere...
Some prostitution may have moved elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that overall prostitution wasn't slowed down or otherwise prevented.
And for future reference, Gawker, where "today's gossip is tomorrow's news," is not generally cited as "proof" of anything. Nor is salon.com for that matter.
Stating something as a fact with no evidence to back it up is "faith-based." Misrepresenting things to garner a negative opinion of something is "FUD." If there is in fact no evidence, then Mike indeed proffered "faith-based FUD." You're only proving my point.
The law doesn't promote the progress and so it's unconstitutional. It's not only imperfect at promoting the progress, it doesn't promote the progress at all.
My understanding of current Supreme Court copyright doctrine under Eldred is that copyright laws are only reviewed on a rational basis standard, and the preambular "to promote the progress" from Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8, is not a substantive limit on Congress's ability to create copyright laws. In other words, it is not necessary that a copyright law "promote the progress" for it to be constitutional.
When Craigslist -- under a peer pressure campaign from grandstanding state attorneys general and some misguided activists groups -- shut down its adult services section, it wasn't difficult to predict that this would do little to nothing to actually slow down or prevent prostitution.
How do you know for a fact that shutting down the section on Craigslist did "little to nothing to actually slow down or prevent prostitution"? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
I'm going to have to say it, Mike: It's faith-based FUD.
Nor did I say otherwise, but if he's going to preface something with "technically," he should not say the exact opposite of what is technically accurate.
Unless, of course, his intent is to distort reality to advance his agenda. We all know Mike would never do that, though. :)
Your citation says nothing about Jury Nullification being illegal, only that it can get you kicked out of court.
If a juror attempting to nullify can get that juror kicked off the jury, that should be your sign that that juror is not exercising any right. If nullification was a right, that juror could not be removed for exercising that right.
Just because that juror is not arrested for the attempted nullification doesn't make it legal. To not arrest such a juror is simply a public policy position, not an indication that it's legal.
And if they had read the pamphlet just before being summoned and it had influenced them? Would the judge be within his rights to ban the subject matter entirely?
I think contacting potential jurors, i.e., the general public, is just fine. It's when you target jurors on their way into the courthouse to report for jury duty where it's different.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is the chief judge issuing an order as it pertains to the courthouse property under the judge's contempt power. This isn't an injunction being issued as part of a lawsuit. As far as I know, the judge only has this jurisdiction over the court's property.
The FIJA guy can stand on the other side of the street and hand out pamphlets all day long, and the judge couldn't stop him like this. Once the FIJA guy steps onto the court's property, it's a different matter altogether and you are playing by the judge's rules.
I'm aware of the theories, I just don't think they have much application in real life. Not for me anyway. I'm more focused on rights, duties, privileges, immunities, and remedies. The philosophical underpinnings don't really appeal to me so much. Is there a right, or isn't there? Is there a remedy, or isn't there? Etc. That's what I focus on. I leave the philosophy to the philosophizers. Once people start talking about inalienable rights, honestly, I just tune it out.
It's an interesting question. The purpose would seem to be criticism. However, if chilling effects is just publishing the letter without any additional commentary, that doesn't fit the standard "criticism" paradigm for fair use.
Ultimately, it's probably fair use, but an interesting question I think.
It really is interesting, for sure.
I'd argue that the whole Chilling Effects exists for the purpose of criticism. Chilling Effects is critical of the notices in general, and their website is full of information to that end. Also, being a clearinghouse for these notices serves an academic purpose by making the notices available for research and criticism by others. This techdirt article and our comments to it is just such an example of this third-party criticism.
This is one of those things where if it came down to it, I think a judge would be inclined to find fair use.
As I've said, thinking of it as balance is the wrong frame of reference. It assumes that there is a necessary conflict between what's good for content creators and what's good for content consumers -- that improving the situation for one necessarily hurts the situation for the other.
Why do you think that something that is good for one side must necessarily be bad for the other? I don't think it works like that. The same regulation could very easily be beneficial to both. You're right, it's not a zero-sum game. It can be about balance and also be a non-zero sum game, IMO. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re: Re: AJ is the true FUD...
Why should I do that? I made no claim either way. I simply called out the person who did make a claim, a claim that appears to be totally made up.
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re: Re: AJ is the true FUD...
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re:
There is no onus on me, as I've made no claim about prostitution either way. I only pointed out that Mike's claim was baseless as he presented it.
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am being scientific. Mike claimed that shutting down Craigslist did "little to nothing to actually slow down or prevent prostitution," yet he offered no evidence to support that claim. I don't believe there is any such evidence, so I'm not surprised he didn't offer any. I think he's so desperate to say how dumb it is that he's just making stuff up, so I called him out on it. I'm not presenting "an different hypothesis." I'm pointing out the lack of basis for someone else's hypothesis. Why don't you learn how to use reason, and then get back to me.
On the post: MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile
Re: Re: Re:
There is not the slightest bitching in the post. The article provides little substance addressing each of the fact contained in the complaint. They are far from being based upon inuendo based upon inuendo.
What I found most surprising of all is the business model adopted by the site, and the rejoinder here that in essence states "but the site does have legitimate uses". Of course it does, but the manner by which the site is allegedly structured appears to demonstrate that those who engage in legitimate uses almost certainly are overwhelmed in number by those engaged in illegitimate uses.
Fortunately, courts tend to align themselves with what is actually going on versus musings about how it might be legitimately used.
Exactly! This is the thread-winner. What's this article lacks in substance, it makes up for in unintentional humor.
On the post: MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As Judge Posner explains:In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2003)
Once they knowledge and do nothing about it, they lose their safe harbors under section 512(c)(1)(a). Without the safe harbor, liability is practically certain.
On the post: MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile
Re: Does it really have to be strong at this point?
As weak or even frivolous as the lawsuit may seem to you, I suspect it'll turn out to be adequate for getting such a subpoena, and the ultimate strength of the suit will depend on what the subpoena turns up.
I just read through the complaint and did some surfing to check out the Hotfile search sites, and two words popped into my mind: willful blindness. I don't think the complaint is weak at all, despite our pirate-apologist host's claims otherwise, and I fully expect Hotfile will lose this case no matter their emails say. Hotfile knows damn well that their site is all about piracy. The court will know that too. I'm actually LOL at Mike's attempt to defend these people. Good grief, Mike!
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re:
None. But keep in mind, I'm not the one making a claim either way.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The last two, where it shows that the prostitutes merely moved elsewhere...
Some prostitution may have moved elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that overall prostitution wasn't slowed down or otherwise prevented.
And for future reference, Gawker, where "today's gossip is tomorrow's news," is not generally cited as "proof" of anything. Nor is salon.com for that matter.
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: AJ is the true FUD...
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re:
On the post: Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My understanding of current Supreme Court copyright doctrine under Eldred is that copyright laws are only reviewed on a rational basis standard, and the preambular "to promote the progress" from Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8, is not a substantive limit on Congress's ability to create copyright laws. In other words, it is not necessary that a copyright law "promote the progress" for it to be constitutional.
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
How do you know for a fact that shutting down the section on Craigslist did "little to nothing to actually slow down or prevent prostitution"? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
I'm going to have to say it, Mike: It's faith-based FUD.
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Unless, of course, his intent is to distort reality to advance his agenda. We all know Mike would never do that, though. :)
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Case Law
If a juror attempting to nullify can get that juror kicked off the jury, that should be your sign that that juror is not exercising any right. If nullification was a right, that juror could not be removed for exercising that right.
Just because that juror is not arrested for the attempted nullification doesn't make it legal. To not arrest such a juror is simply a public policy position, not an indication that it's legal.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think contacting potential jurors, i.e., the general public, is just fine. It's when you target jurors on their way into the courthouse to report for jury duty where it's different.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is the chief judge issuing an order as it pertains to the courthouse property under the judge's contempt power. This isn't an injunction being issued as part of a lawsuit. As far as I know, the judge only has this jurisdiction over the court's property.
The FIJA guy can stand on the other side of the street and hand out pamphlets all day long, and the judge couldn't stop him like this. Once the FIJA guy steps onto the court's property, it's a different matter altogether and you are playing by the judge's rules.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re:
Ultimately, it's probably fair use, but an interesting question I think.
It really is interesting, for sure.
I'd argue that the whole Chilling Effects exists for the purpose of criticism. Chilling Effects is critical of the notices in general, and their website is full of information to that end. Also, being a clearinghouse for these notices serves an academic purpose by making the notices available for research and criticism by others. This techdirt article and our comments to it is just such an example of this third-party criticism.
This is one of those things where if it came down to it, I think a judge would be inclined to find fair use.
On the post: Smashing The Scales: Not Everything Needs 'Balance'
Why do you think that something that is good for one side must necessarily be bad for the other? I don't think it works like that. The same regulation could very easily be beneficial to both. You're right, it's not a zero-sum game. It can be about balance and also be a non-zero sum game, IMO. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Next >>