yes. to the Police, not the company, if the police actually consider the accusation worth investigating and come back with a warrant. (or equivalent process)
that's the entire point in the exercise here, really.
basically, the ISP is under no obligation to do anything (and if it's anything like NZ, plenty of legal obligation NOT to comply with this sort of request in the way the companies want) without a court order. to get that court order the company has to go to court with an actual case. the sort of random, non-specific, and often downright Wrong filings they tend to make make this very unlikely to work, especially as they don't even know who they're trying to sue.
i'm probably not explaining this well, but it's a fun little loop. it's not technically impossible to bring a case, but if everyone acts as they're Supposed to, rather than rolling over in the face of threats and bribery (for a miracle, this is happening so far) suing (or, FAR more likely, threatening to do so then taking 'settlement' money instead) random individuals is probably not going to get them far at all.
or there might be that whole criminal/civil law thing. not sure if that applies in australia.
or it might be that, unlike various lawyers and companies in the USA, the police don't really have spare resources for prosecuting on unwinable or frivolous cases.
or it could be because iiNet has no responsibility and refused to roll over and pretend they did, therefore making any attempt to pressure Them into action an exercise in futility.
or the poster is using the term 'pound sand' to mean the equivilant to 'sod off'.
and even if it IS that they think the police fail at their job, this is not necessarily a call for vigilante justice. more commonly it'd be for reform of the system.
i'm probably feeding a troll here, but it amuses me to point out the fail :)
ya know, i seem to remember boardgames being patentable.
i may be misremembering, the law may have changed, or the labels may have been erroneous, but I'm sure at least some such games do have patent labels on them (monopoly, for example)
seriously, when coffee cups need a warning that their contents may be hot, (just off the top of my head... there are far more absurd warning labels out there) and fanfiction needs lables saying that the author does not own the copyright on the characters there in (despite being hosted on a site containing nothing but fanfiction), and one can sue and Win based on the lack of such things, of Course such disclaimers are going to become necessary...
and that's before even taking into account that most of the people who respond to techdirt posts and disagree with them fail at reading comprehension and just love to latch onto exactly that sort of idea.
(admitting there is a problem, admitting that the current attempts at solution don't work, and proposing a way of turning the problem into an advantage/a different way to solve it is not the same thing as supporting the problem... or it's cause.)
i find both of the above two posts disturbing for entirely different reasons... though the one I'm replying to somehow doesn't surprise me. (I'm remembering the story of the guy who got pepper sprayed for daring to pick up his daughter from the park...)
you realise the point of the analogy is such that comparing to another infinite, intangible good fails because the point in it is to explain what the concept of infinite intangible goods ARE right?
problem is, once again, the whole 'corporations count as people' issue.
for an individual to be able to file and maintain a patent, it can't cost too much... but if it doesn't cost enough then the corporations grab 'em up and keep happily paying the fees to do nothing with them, because it benifits their bottom line to do so (or at least so they think.)
the same problem shows itself time and again in fines in the court system of many nations as well. a fine big enough to wreck an indivudal, bankrupt a small business, punish a fairly new company... it's small enough that that plus legal fees is barely a blip on a large multi-national's financial radar, and they generally make so much more money from Breaking the law than they pay in fines for doing so that it just becomes a 'cost of doing business'.
... and some people wonder why i dislike corporations.
and the fact that this is even legally possible makes me wonder why more corporations don't find people setting their assets on fire or the like in response rather than bothering with the law suit.
leaving aside the nonsense that is the general reaction to the 'cyber' element of that, i give you the following response:
sure, if done Properly. which the US government kinda fails at on a regular basis. (actually, the US is just the most obvious offender in this regard.)
i somehow doubt the issue would be as extream, as you can actually have the check automated, which flags 'problems' and the actual person only has to check the flagged instances. how big a deal that is depends on the game, i suspect.
burden of proof... you make a claim, you gotta back it up if someone questions it.
and turning around and saying that they have to back up their objection to your claim doesn't negate that. (though is fair enough to do anyway, i suppose.)
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Re:
On the post: iiNet Wins Again: Australian Appeals Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Copyright Infringers
Re:
that's the entire point in the exercise here, really.
basically, the ISP is under no obligation to do anything (and if it's anything like NZ, plenty of legal obligation NOT to comply with this sort of request in the way the companies want) without a court order. to get that court order the company has to go to court with an actual case. the sort of random, non-specific, and often downright Wrong filings they tend to make make this very unlikely to work, especially as they don't even know who they're trying to sue.
i'm probably not explaining this well, but it's a fun little loop. it's not technically impossible to bring a case, but if everyone acts as they're Supposed to, rather than rolling over in the face of threats and bribery (for a miracle, this is happening so far) suing (or, FAR more likely, threatening to do so then taking 'settlement' money instead) random individuals is probably not going to get them far at all.
On the post: iiNet Wins Again: Australian Appeals Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Copyright Infringers
Re: Re: Reworded...incorrectly
or it might be that, unlike various lawyers and companies in the USA, the police don't really have spare resources for prosecuting on unwinable or frivolous cases.
or it could be because iiNet has no responsibility and refused to roll over and pretend they did, therefore making any attempt to pressure Them into action an exercise in futility.
or the poster is using the term 'pound sand' to mean the equivilant to 'sod off'.
and even if it IS that they think the police fail at their job, this is not necessarily a call for vigilante justice. more commonly it'd be for reform of the system.
i'm probably feeding a troll here, but it amuses me to point out the fail :)
On the post: How Lawyers For Settlers Of Catan Abuse IP Law To Take Down Perfectly Legal Competitors
i may be misremembering, the law may have changed, or the labels may have been erroneous, but I'm sure at least some such games do have patent labels on them (monopoly, for example)
On the post: Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV & In Movies
Re: Re: Re: This subject has become a minefield
seriously, when coffee cups need a warning that their contents may be hot, (just off the top of my head... there are far more absurd warning labels out there) and fanfiction needs lables saying that the author does not own the copyright on the characters there in (despite being hosted on a site containing nothing but fanfiction), and one can sue and Win based on the lack of such things, of Course such disclaimers are going to become necessary...
and that's before even taking into account that most of the people who respond to techdirt posts and disagree with them fail at reading comprehension and just love to latch onto exactly that sort of idea.
(admitting there is a problem, admitting that the current attempts at solution don't work, and proposing a way of turning the problem into an advantage/a different way to solve it is not the same thing as supporting the problem... or it's cause.)
On the post: Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV & In Movies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish Court Fines File Sharer About $300 For Sharing 44 Songs
Re:
On the post: Swedish Court Fines File Sharer About $300 For Sharing 44 Songs
Re: Forest for the trees
On the post: PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Can't have it both ways
... that'd be nice...
On the post: PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: More HBGary Federal Fallout: The Government Wants To Buy Software To Fake Online Grassroots Social Media Campaigns
Re:
On the post: Fark Points Out That Even Though It Doesn't Come Close To Infringing On Patent, It Still Has To Go To Court
Re: Re: Re: Re:
for an individual to be able to file and maintain a patent, it can't cost too much... but if it doesn't cost enough then the corporations grab 'em up and keep happily paying the fees to do nothing with them, because it benifits their bottom line to do so (or at least so they think.)
the same problem shows itself time and again in fines in the court system of many nations as well. a fine big enough to wreck an indivudal, bankrupt a small business, punish a fairly new company... it's small enough that that plus legal fees is barely a blip on a large multi-national's financial radar, and they generally make so much more money from Breaking the law than they pay in fines for doing so that it just becomes a 'cost of doing business'.
... and some people wonder why i dislike corporations.
On the post: Fark Points Out That Even Though It Doesn't Come Close To Infringing On Patent, It Still Has To Go To Court
Re: You are not a lawyer but..
On the post: Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Gun-Toting Robber
Re: insane
(well, that and show that this is not just being limited to the USA, sadly.)
On the post: David Plouffe Gives Preliminary Response Concerning Obstacles To Innovation
Re: Re: Food for thought.
On the post: Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet
Re:
sure, if done Properly. which the US government kinda fails at on a regular basis. (actually, the US is just the most obvious offender in this regard.)
On the post: Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet
Re: Cyber
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re:
and turning around and saying that they have to back up their objection to your claim doesn't negate that. (though is fair enough to do anyway, i suppose.)
Next >>