i don't routinely use check-in features either, but I think it's a little disingenuous to ask "what is the point" of them. People go places, they meet up, they invite friends, they take photos, they talk about what shows they saw and what restaurants they ate at and what clubs they went to -- it's just a slightly different way of doing all that...
The feature definitely wasn't developed for the sake of developing it -- it sprung very organically from the way a lot of people were already using Facebook. Before checkins, plenty of people posted "Hey I'm at [Wherever] with [whoever] come join us!" statuses and the like. Now, for those who want it to be, that process is more automated and linked up with actual location data, which doesn't seem all that scary.
Plus I assume anyone even vaguely tech-savvy who wants to have an affair is going to check in as Working late, fml — At The Office with Platonic Coworkers before switching off location and heading to the hotel
Frankly Joe I think you are overcomplicating things.
The loudest anti-piracy crusaders can't even keep piracy out of their own back yard. I for one find that amusing, and somewhat telling. It's indicative of what I see as an often-contradictory and hypocritical stance taken by organizations like this — even if there are no specific, strong implications to this one element of the pattern.
If you want to label that "hate-fueled, mindless FUD" then that's your prerogative. Most people seem to have no trouble understanding the subtle implications of this.
OK, if that's how you feel, then I guess it shows something else: the MPAA is incompetent and ineffectual, and incredibly arrogant for such a useless organization -- unable to even police a network that they have full control over, while deigning to tell people how to police a massive global network that no one entity has control over.
Yes, it does matter. By its own mandate, a huge part of the MPAA's purpose is public education and spreading the message that piracy is wrong.
This kinda hurts that message, doesn't it?
Do you think people will be more or less likely to believe the MPAA's harsh condemnation of filesharing -- painting it as "theft" and a "crime" -- with the knowledge that it goes on inside their own organization?
The MPAA paints piracy as an egregious crime, and frequently compares it to wholesale theft of property. Indeed, it has repeatedly stated that fighting piracy is the organization's "top priority" or a "critical priority".
If stopping piracy is their top priority, and if all pirates are criminals equivalent to car thieves, it reflects rather badly on them that it is happening within their own organization. Apparently you don't agree, but since you are desperate to defend every action of the copyright industries, I'm not too surprised.
There can be no doubt that there is more legal free music available today than ever before, with LOTS of authorized free sources coming straight from labels and artists.
So yes, your point is quite valid: more artists choosing to give stuff a way for free would validate the idea that free is good. And that's exactly what's happening.
In any case, I take it from your statement that you support switching copyright to an opt-in system, right? Or at least a simple, official way to opt out, right? You say this is all about choice -- why is copyright automatic and very difficult to surrender?
Yes, it's possible (even likely) that some of the tracks were distributed without consent. In no way am I claiming that this automatically proves that no infringement happened.
However, it sure paints a different picture than the one EMI tried to paint, doesn't it? For one thing, they explicitly told the court that they had never authorized any MP3s for free download, and even withheld documents during discovery to make that point.
That was a lie.
Moreover, it has been shown that at least some of the 47 songs at issue here were part of such consensual promotional programs. But EMI sued over them anyway, apparently making no effort to check if they had authorized the use. That's copyfraud, and good reason to put extra scrutiny on their other claims.
Moreover still, since EMI hid this information from the court, there is plenty of reason to believe that even more of these songs may have been authorized -- after all, this is just what Robertson was able to find, and we have proof that EMI was not being honest, which is reason to believe that they may still not be.
Finally, this has significant implications beyond just this case: copyright holders, groups like RIAA & MPAA, and supporters of SOPA, have all repeatedly stated that identifying infringing content is easy and that filtering it presents zero danger to free speech. And yet we now have a long list of examples, this just being the latest, of copyright holders being unable to correctly identify infringements of their own material, and bringing lawsuits that would shut down fully authorized, legal speech. I would say that counts as unequivocal proof that copyright enforcement is a danger to freedom of expression.
Even if we assume that this is evidence of an employee violating the law, it doesn't affect the MPAA's desire for intermediaries to shoulder more of the burden of enforcement.
I don't see how it would effect its "desire", but it certainly effects people's perception of that desire and of the rhetoric and policy positions connected to it. That is, of course, why you are so desperate to ignore it.
"we might find out that it was an open wireless connection that a visitor used"
(an argument that copyright holders frequently reject as a valid defence against liability)
You're trying to find something here
Not trying to find anything -- already found a clear example of what virtually anyone would call "hypocrisy". You are convinced that's unimportant or meaningless -- fine. Go read an article that interests you.
AJ, however, is a transparent troll who accuses everyone of being pirates in a feeble attempt to get angry responses. I don't think he believes a large portion of what he says.
That's giving him a lot of credit. The reality is much worse: AJ is a mediocre law student who believes everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.
a & b) The MPAA has repeatedly stated that it thinks service providers like Google should proactively monitor their services for piracy, and rejects all arguments that this is prohibitively difficult or impossible. If Google is expected to monitor all the thousands of hours of video being constantly uploaded to YouTube by millions of people, why is the MPAA not monitoring its own corporate networks with much smaller user numbers? Can we expect to see an investigation and lawsuit against these recently-revealed MPAA employee pirates?
You're right, I don't know if the DOJ and the MPAA have fired people for this -- which makes me assume they didn't or they are purposely trying to hide the hypocrisy. After all, I sure as hell know every time they target other pirates thanks to their regular press releases and ongoing media push.
When the MPAA releases a statement about its zero-tolerance policy for employee piracy and its ongoing crackdowns, and sends out press releases about the employees they sue for violating this policy -- e.g. exactly what they do when they sue people who don't work for them -- I'll stop calling this "hypocrisy". Until then, it's textbook.
c) So if someone sued the MPAA for sharing on their network, we can assume they would not argue their liability, right? After all, they reject everyone else's arguments on that front, and insist that both companies and individuals are automatically responsible for what goes on on their networks. Granted this is hypothetical, but are you honestly going to tell me you don't think they would take a different view if they were the target of the lawsuit?
a) It means that simply magically stopping piracy is obviously either not as easy or not as important as these groups claim. After all, what could be easier than monitoring your own government/corporate network and firing people who use it for piracy? Either they aren't actually confident in the ability of an IP address to identify someone, or their priority isn't actually stopping piracy.
b) It means such groups obviously don't believe the rhetoric they spew about piracy. They regularly compare it to theft, even violent robbery, and talk about how it is always a "crime". Do these companies, and the DOJ itself, not care about employing thieves and criminals? Clearly they don't believe that piracy is as egregious an offence as they claim.
c) It shows that, according to such groups' own arguments, they are themselves liable -- as companies or agencies -- for this piracy happening on their networks. After all, they have repeatedly claimed that an IP address is sufficient to identify someone, and that the person operating a network is liable for the activities of their users. So by that standard, are not the DOJ and the MPAA themselves guilty of infringement here?
Actually Joe, you've admitted on more than one occasion that you lose your temper and act like a baby, and apologized for it. And now you're trying to pretend that never happened, and lecture others for getting angry with you (followed by you immediately going back to being obviously really angry with Mike)
You've made one solid point in your favour, though: the DOJ's behaviour here is no longer the MOST hypocritical thing I've seen today...
First, it shows a bunch of evidence that EMI purposefully and deliberately marketed its music to various sites asking them to give away MP3s and even to share the music widely. Second, it shows that, despite being asked for this info during discovery, EMI did not provide it. Instead, Robertson got it later from other sources. ... what the filing shows is that EMI regularly and frequently hired companies to distribute MP3s for free, and encouraged them to be put up on various websites and shared widely. And this includes some of the songs that Robertson is accused of infringing and some of the sites he's accused of downloading the songs from.
Reading pages five through nine in the motion he filed demonstrates this over and over again, including in an email from an EMI Publishing employee, who not only is planning a promotional download but says part of the plan is to "encourage as many third party online zines, podcasts, blogs, major web portals to host the MP3 for free donwnload on their site."
They hired promotional companies to do everything they can to get the MP3 up for free on as any third party online zines, podcasts, blogs and major web portals as possible. You know how promo companies operate, right? They would have sent the song out to long lists of people who operate music sites, and general influencers, and encouraged them to share the song as widely as possible, put it up on their sites, offer it for download, and do everything they can to get it exposure.
While I'm of the mind that reasonable gun control could be helpful, I completely agree with your broader point: the real problem is the mental health / prison situation in the U.S., which is so depressing and complex that you couldn't get a politician to take it on if you put a (legal or otherwise) gun to his head
Re: Re: Re: Face it-- file sharers are bad customers
I would agree with you if these ISPs were indeed selling bandwidth by the megabyte but they're not.
TekSavvy offers three plans with different bandwidth levels -- only the most expensive is Unlimited. Don't make stuff up, bob.
Again, if you don't see the people with the highest demand for your product as good customers, then there is something wrong with your business. To assert otherwise is idiotic (and I am fairly sure TekSavvy would NOT take your stance that they don't care about high-bandwidth customers)
Re: @ "But creation of the loaf is not the reason why the baker owns it."
Haha, what?
Okay, let's talk about the farmer. The milling of the grains is not why he owns the flour. The harvesting of the wheat is not why he owns the grains. The tending of the land is not why he owns the wheat.
At no point is a new property right formed by the act of transformation. It's always building on standard, existing property rights -- the land he bought, the seeds he bought -- just as it is with the baker and the flour he bought.
If the farmer hires someone to tend his wheat and turn it into flour, he doesn't forfeit ownership of it. If someone raids his crops and turns the wheat into flour themselves, they don't gain ownership by act of creation. Creation has nothing to do with it. Physical creation is just the rearrangement of existing physical property rights into forms that make them more valuable (or at least that's usually the goal).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it up to teksavvy to protect us?
Hmm... yeah that thread has been going on for a while, but I still think the central point isn't coming up.
Marc is saying that he doesn't think there are any grounds on which to oppose the motion -- he even cites the test from the BMG case that I discuss above. But as the CIPPIC letter and other commenters assert, there is serious question as to whether this passes the bona fide criteria. CIPPIC also brings up the hearsay issue, which was central to BMG -- though I'm less clear on the legal details there.
I'm not sure why TS is taking it as granted that neither of those things applies here...
On the post: UK Police Department Twitter Accounts Offer FREE iPads... With A Catch
Re:
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
Re:
The feature definitely wasn't developed for the sake of developing it -- it sprung very organically from the way a lot of people were already using Facebook. Before checkins, plenty of people posted "Hey I'm at [Wherever] with [whoever] come join us!" statuses and the like. Now, for those who want it to be, that process is more automated and linked up with actual location data, which doesn't seem all that scary.
Plus I assume anyone even vaguely tech-savvy who wants to have an affair is going to check in as Working late, fml — At The Office with Platonic Coworkers before switching off location and heading to the hotel
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The loudest anti-piracy crusaders can't even keep piracy out of their own back yard. I for one find that amusing, and somewhat telling. It's indicative of what I see as an often-contradictory and hypocritical stance taken by organizations like this — even if there are no specific, strong implications to this one element of the pattern.
If you want to label that "hate-fueled, mindless FUD" then that's your prerogative. Most people seem to have no trouble understanding the subtle implications of this.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This kinda hurts that message, doesn't it?
Do you think people will be more or less likely to believe the MPAA's harsh condemnation of filesharing -- painting it as "theft" and a "crime" -- with the knowledge that it goes on inside their own organization?
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The MPAA paints piracy as an egregious crime, and frequently compares it to wholesale theft of property. Indeed, it has repeatedly stated that fighting piracy is the organization's "top priority" or a "critical priority".
If stopping piracy is their top priority, and if all pirates are criminals equivalent to car thieves, it reflects rather badly on them that it is happening within their own organization. Apparently you don't agree, but since you are desperate to defend every action of the copyright industries, I'm not too surprised.
On the post: EMI Was Actively Giving Away MP3s It Accused Michael Roberston Of Downloading Illegally
Re:
So yes, your point is quite valid: more artists choosing to give stuff a way for free would validate the idea that free is good. And that's exactly what's happening.
In any case, I take it from your statement that you support switching copyright to an opt-in system, right? Or at least a simple, official way to opt out, right? You say this is all about choice -- why is copyright automatic and very difficult to surrender?
On the post: EMI Was Actively Giving Away MP3s It Accused Michael Roberston Of Downloading Illegally
Re: Re: Re:
However, it sure paints a different picture than the one EMI tried to paint, doesn't it? For one thing, they explicitly told the court that they had never authorized any MP3s for free download, and even withheld documents during discovery to make that point.
That was a lie.
Moreover, it has been shown that at least some of the 47 songs at issue here were part of such consensual promotional programs. But EMI sued over them anyway, apparently making no effort to check if they had authorized the use. That's copyfraud, and good reason to put extra scrutiny on their other claims.
Moreover still, since EMI hid this information from the court, there is plenty of reason to believe that even more of these songs may have been authorized -- after all, this is just what Robertson was able to find, and we have proof that EMI was not being honest, which is reason to believe that they may still not be.
Finally, this has significant implications beyond just this case: copyright holders, groups like RIAA & MPAA, and supporters of SOPA, have all repeatedly stated that identifying infringing content is easy and that filtering it presents zero danger to free speech. And yet we now have a long list of examples, this just being the latest, of copyright holders being unable to correctly identify infringements of their own material, and bringing lawsuits that would shut down fully authorized, legal speech. I would say that counts as unequivocal proof that copyright enforcement is a danger to freedom of expression.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see how it would effect its "desire", but it certainly effects people's perception of that desire and of the rhetoric and policy positions connected to it. That is, of course, why you are so desperate to ignore it.
"we might find out that it was an open wireless connection that a visitor used"
(an argument that copyright holders frequently reject as a valid defence against liability)
You're trying to find something here
Not trying to find anything -- already found a clear example of what virtually anyone would call "hypocrisy". You are convinced that's unimportant or meaningless -- fine. Go read an article that interests you.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's giving him a lot of credit. The reality is much worse: AJ is a mediocre law student who believes everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, I don't know if the DOJ and the MPAA have fired people for this -- which makes me assume they didn't or they are purposely trying to hide the hypocrisy. After all, I sure as hell know every time they target other pirates thanks to their regular press releases and ongoing media push.
When the MPAA releases a statement about its zero-tolerance policy for employee piracy and its ongoing crackdowns, and sends out press releases about the employees they sue for violating this policy -- e.g. exactly what they do when they sue people who don't work for them -- I'll stop calling this "hypocrisy". Until then, it's textbook.
c) So if someone sued the MPAA for sharing on their network, we can assume they would not argue their liability, right? After all, they reject everyone else's arguments on that front, and insist that both companies and individuals are automatically responsible for what goes on on their networks. Granted this is hypothetical, but are you honestly going to tell me you don't think they would take a different view if they were the target of the lawsuit?
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
b) It means such groups obviously don't believe the rhetoric they spew about piracy. They regularly compare it to theft, even violent robbery, and talk about how it is always a "crime". Do these companies, and the DOJ itself, not care about employing thieves and criminals? Clearly they don't believe that piracy is as egregious an offence as they claim.
c) It shows that, according to such groups' own arguments, they are themselves liable -- as companies or agencies -- for this piracy happening on their networks. After all, they have repeatedly claimed that an IP address is sufficient to identify someone, and that the person operating a network is liable for the activities of their users. So by that standard, are not the DOJ and the MPAA themselves guilty of infringement here?
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've made one solid point in your favour, though: the DOJ's behaviour here is no longer the MOST hypocritical thing I've seen today...
On the post: EMI Was Actively Giving Away MP3s It Accused Michael Roberston Of Downloading Illegally
Re:
Reading pages five through nine in the motion he filed demonstrates this over and over again, including in an email from an EMI Publishing employee, who not only is planning a promotional download but says part of the plan is to "encourage as many third party online zines, podcasts, blogs, major web portals to host the MP3 for free donwnload on their site."
They hired promotional companies to do everything they can to get the MP3 up for free on as any third party online zines, podcasts, blogs and major web portals as possible. You know how promo companies operate, right? They would have sent the song out to long lists of people who operate music sites, and general influencers, and encouraged them to share the song as widely as possible, put it up on their sites, offer it for download, and do everything they can to get it exposure.
That doesn't count as consent?
On the post: Amazon Pulls Down Memoir Because Cover Mentions 'Star Wars'
Re: Yet another leveraging by means of cultural "icon".
"You poor motherfucker. You're gonna miss everything cool and die angry."
On the post: PRIVATE Corp's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: If TekSavvy Won't Oppose Copyright Trolls Who Want Customer Info, Who Will?
Re: Re: Re: Face it-- file sharers are bad customers
TekSavvy offers three plans with different bandwidth levels -- only the most expensive is Unlimited. Don't make stuff up, bob.
Again, if you don't see the people with the highest demand for your product as good customers, then there is something wrong with your business. To assert otherwise is idiotic (and I am fairly sure TekSavvy would NOT take your stance that they don't care about high-bandwidth customers)
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Re: @ "But creation of the loaf is not the reason why the baker owns it."
Okay, let's talk about the farmer. The milling of the grains is not why he owns the flour. The harvesting of the wheat is not why he owns the grains. The tending of the land is not why he owns the wheat.
At no point is a new property right formed by the act of transformation. It's always building on standard, existing property rights -- the land he bought, the seeds he bought -- just as it is with the baker and the flour he bought.
If the farmer hires someone to tend his wheat and turn it into flour, he doesn't forfeit ownership of it. If someone raids his crops and turns the wheat into flour themselves, they don't gain ownership by act of creation. Creation has nothing to do with it. Physical creation is just the rearrangement of existing physical property rights into forms that make them more valuable (or at least that's usually the goal).
On the post: If TekSavvy Won't Oppose Copyright Trolls Who Want Customer Info, Who Will?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it up to teksavvy to protect us?
Marc is saying that he doesn't think there are any grounds on which to oppose the motion -- he even cites the test from the BMG case that I discuss above. But as the CIPPIC letter and other commenters assert, there is serious question as to whether this passes the bona fide criteria. CIPPIC also brings up the hearsay issue, which was central to BMG -- though I'm less clear on the legal details there.
I'm not sure why TS is taking it as granted that neither of those things applies here...
Next >>