Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 7:50am
Re:
Not quite the same thing.
Right. It's completely impossible to imagine that a news magazine just might find a law expressly designed to trample the First Amendment as a bad thing. It's not like news organizations depend on a freedom contained in it, right?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 12:54am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
I see tons of small independent bands on MySpace and YouTube and they're not being shut down by bogus DMCA notices.
So what happens when Youtube is held liable for everything their users upload? They'll stop letting their users upload anything, unless it's been approved by the major studios.
But this isn't just about Youtube. It's also about the next competitor to Youtube. What about the 3 guys in a garage building the next big thing? Are they gonna get venture capital once a law passes to make them liable for uploads?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 12:38am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
And when you put a gangster in jail for ordering a killing, you're censoring the gangster.
Yes, you are censoring the gangster for something he said.
It's censorship, and yes, the First Amendment does come into play. But let's look at the other facts:
1) This speech caused real harm - to another person's life, their family and friends were impacted, and there is the impact and resource cost to society. There is even the cost to the other gang members who carried out the orders, as they are presumably in jail.
2) Prior to the gangster being arrested, an investigation was conducted and evidence was gathered. This evidence must be of sufficient quality. Usually a district attorney would need to sign off on the police holding the gangster when he is arrested (depending on the case, sometimes before or shortly after the arrest).
3) Shortly after the gangster was arrested, he was put before a judge and the evidence was reviewed. The judge then decides whether to hold him, pending a trial, or to release him on bail. Bail is an interesting concept in and of itself - even if the judge thinks the evidence is sufficient for the gangster to probably be found guilty, the gangster still has a chance at freedom until the trial is actually completed - all bail is is a type of insurance that the gangster will be at the trial.
4) At trial, the gangster is allowed to refute any evidence gathered against him, and supply any of his own evidence. He can hire an expert lawyer to defend him, and even if he can't afford one, he is given a lawyer to defend him. A judge oversees the trial, and a jury of he gangster's peers (normal member of society) decides on his guilt or innocence.
5) After trial, even if he is found guilty, there are still possibilities of appeal.
We have decided as a society that all of these steps are absolutely necessary when the government wishes to deprive someone of the various freedoms they enjoy. This is necessary for even someone who has ordered the violent killing of another human being.
Yet you wish to deprive someone of their freedom of expression via SOPA for creating a website that cannot be positively shown to even cause the slightest monetary damage to a corporation, where no evidence is required, where no presumption of innocence exists, where no prior hearing is granted, in which private entities have all the power and decision making ability, and in which appeals seem unlikely.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:52am
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure there's no part of the Constitution or any law that prevents the Secretary of State (4th in the line of succession BTW) from expressing an opinion on pending legislation.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 11:14am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but looking at the balance between all players.
So let's have a real discussion on balance, then.
Many of us freetards have stated what we think is balanced, and despite despite your claims that we all blindly follow Mike, there's some noticeable differences among many of our ideas.
So, please list out specifics on your ideas of what a reasonable balance between corporations in control of copyrights, artists (both independent and those employed by the corporations), non-copyright based industries with an obvious stake (such as Google/Youtube and other tech), and the public.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 7:07am
Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
It's not censorship to shut down a site that's either infringing or leading others to infringers.
Wrong. If you are shutting down a website, you are censoring the owner of that website from expressing their views.
Whether censoring the website is justified is an open question.
I'm even willing to admit that it is within the realm of possibility that censoring a website for copyright infringement could be a general societal good, although I want to see evidence or at least clearly logical reasons how and why.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:48pm
Re: Re: Re:
First, this is true of most disputes that go to litigation. There is some dispute regarding what the evidence shows, and it's going to be expensive no matter who is right. That doesn't mean everything's hunky dory, but that doesn't make it a "shakedown" either.
It's a shakedown not necessarily just because the cost to prove one's innocence is so high, but also because the potential of failing to prove one's innocence is so outrageous, and that the offense is so incredibly minor.
For nearly every infringement case we refer to, the retail price of whatever was allegedly infringed upon is under $20 (the price of a movie on DVD), and in some cases, under $1 (a song purchased through iTunes).
The cost to settle? $2000-$3000.
Yet costs to defend oneself with a lawyer can easily go to ten thousand dollars even on a simple case. That's a 500-10,000 times difference to the offense.
And the cost if you defend yourself and can't convince the judge or jury that you're innocent, even if the evidence is so flimsy the average internet commenter (not a high bar) can poke dozens of holes in it? Well, that can go up to $150,000 - or 7500-150,000 times the offense.
That is just absurd. Bring the costs in line with the offense, where even at the worst a guilty verdict ends up being a $200 for downloading a movie, and we'll talk. Until then, those costs are completely unreasonable.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 12:37pm
Re: Re: Re:
DH, my only point is that Mike would not have access to the politicians in Washington without CEA opening the doors and dragging him in with them. For all intents and purposes, he was part of a dog and pony show put on by a lobbying group. Yet, asked earlier in the week to disclose any relationship, he denied any.
Basically, Mike was working with (but not necessarily for) a lobbying firm. His Washington "access" depended on it. Why deny it?
So you're admitting that the only way to be recognized by Washington politicians is to be part of a lobbying group, trade organization, or some group with deep pockets full of money?
Thank you for confirming how screwed up this country is.
My position is that Mike didn't do his homework, just went off on an ad hom attack on firefighters.
So you go off on an ad hominem attack on me for pointing out an anonymous poster didn't do his homework?
You accuse me of not reading the bill when you haven't?
Here, I'll do it for you: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
Start at page 60:
SEC. 202. TRAFFICKING IN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS GOODS OR SERVICES.
Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as follows:
blahblah
That would seem to support your position...
However, go compare it to what Section 2320 already is:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
"(a) Offense.—
(1) In general.— Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels,"
You'll see that in the case we're talking about, whoever imported these fire detectors already broke the law, and SOPA would not have the slightest impact. It's already illegal to traffic in goods with a counterfeit mark.
So do your homework. Support your position with facts, and cite your sources.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:51pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Repeat: Preventing counterfeiting supposedly IN SOPA.
Since you said "supposedly" I'm guessing you're the one that hasn't read the bill.
Please point out to me the text from the bill that supports your position. And explain how it would stop a US based company from importing cheap fire detectors from China, putting a counterfeit UL seal on them, then bidding on a government contract to supply them to a fire department.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
I'm saying two things:
Your "shining example" of why firefighters are in support of this travesty of a bill is complete bullshit.
We learned from Viacom vs. Youtube, where Viacom had no idea of which uploads were legitimately authorized by their own employees, that not even a copyright holder can be sure if something on the internet is authorized or not. And now you actually pointed to a situation where a government agency that should have known better and had the resources to be able to tell a fake physical product took 5 years to realize a mistake was made and they had counterfeits. Yet these are the people you want in charge of preemptively blocking entire websites with no adversarial hearing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
About 18,500 counterfeit photoelectric smoke alarms were distributed for free in the Atlanta area between 2006 through May 2011 as part of the Atlanta Smoke Alarm Program.
And this has exactly what to do with censoring internet websites?
http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2011/05/atlanta-recalls-counterfeit-smoke-alarm s.html
"The problem dates back five years to when the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department bought the alarms from a vendor in Calabasas, California."
"While the Atlanta firemen work to replace the alarms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the vendor, Silver Sails Corp. The City of Atlanta is “currently examining all available legal options” to recover the $100,000 spent on the counterfeit alarms, according to the fire department."
http://www.atlantaga.gov/media/nr_afrdrecall_051211.aspx
"Purchase History:
Bids were submitted to AFRD, according to City of Atlanta Department of Procurement policies and procedures, with specifications for the detector purchase to include: new ionization type; Federal and State of Georgia Occupational Safety and Health Act compliancy; UL compliancy; continuous alarm duration; alarm sound level of 85 dB@ 10 feet; low battery indicator; hush button; test button; twist off mounting bracket; and long life 10 year lithium battery
Three bids were submitted from the following vendors: Englewood Electrical Supply (June 7, 2005), Silver Sails Inc. (June 7, 2005), and Cintas (July 8, 2005)
July 29, 2005- Silver Sails Inc. was awarded the procurement bid (8337-BA)"
You can't even play the "sold on a rogue site" card on this one. A government program got duped into buying them and distributed to people.
Just FYI, it helps to follow up on web links and find out key details when you're grasping as straws to try to support a completely untenable position. Just Googling "counterfeit + smoke detector + firefighter" and cut and pasting the first thing you see ends up making you look like an idiot.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm
Re:
there is little chance that the one sided "notification and take down" DMCA system would be left to stand alone. Clearly it is not working well,
I agree with this part.
It is entirely too one-sided, where any random person can send a notification and have perfectly legitimate speech taken down. We should move to a notice/notice system where the accused person can respond before a service provider is legally required to remove the speech.
Oh, you mean make it even more one-sided and favorable to obsolete corporations who are exploiting artists and real content creators while lying about trying to protect them?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agree. The word libertarians gets thrown out a lot more lately than it used to, and everyone has their own interpretation of it (just in this thread there are already 4). I think you're closest to the traditional meaning, however.
I don't consider myself a full-on libertarian, but I certainly share many viewpoints with them.
Yet, despite all the differing views, anyone who can say with a straight face that a government handout disguised as a law specifically designed to protect a few legacy corporations against innovative start-ups is libertarian is clearly delusional.
On the post: Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship
Re:
Right. It's completely impossible to imagine that a news magazine just might find a law expressly designed to trample the First Amendment as a bad thing. It's not like news organizations depend on a freedom contained in it, right?
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
So what happens when Youtube is held liable for everything their users upload? They'll stop letting their users upload anything, unless it's been approved by the major studios.
But this isn't just about Youtube. It's also about the next competitor to Youtube. What about the 3 guys in a garage building the next big thing? Are they gonna get venture capital once a law passes to make them liable for uploads?
And seriously, people still use MySpace?
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
Yes, you are censoring the gangster for something he said.
It's censorship, and yes, the First Amendment does come into play. But let's look at the other facts:
1) This speech caused real harm - to another person's life, their family and friends were impacted, and there is the impact and resource cost to society. There is even the cost to the other gang members who carried out the orders, as they are presumably in jail.
2) Prior to the gangster being arrested, an investigation was conducted and evidence was gathered. This evidence must be of sufficient quality. Usually a district attorney would need to sign off on the police holding the gangster when he is arrested (depending on the case, sometimes before or shortly after the arrest).
3) Shortly after the gangster was arrested, he was put before a judge and the evidence was reviewed. The judge then decides whether to hold him, pending a trial, or to release him on bail. Bail is an interesting concept in and of itself - even if the judge thinks the evidence is sufficient for the gangster to probably be found guilty, the gangster still has a chance at freedom until the trial is actually completed - all bail is is a type of insurance that the gangster will be at the trial.
4) At trial, the gangster is allowed to refute any evidence gathered against him, and supply any of his own evidence. He can hire an expert lawyer to defend him, and even if he can't afford one, he is given a lawyer to defend him. A judge oversees the trial, and a jury of he gangster's peers (normal member of society) decides on his guilt or innocence.
5) After trial, even if he is found guilty, there are still possibilities of appeal.
We have decided as a society that all of these steps are absolutely necessary when the government wishes to deprive someone of the various freedoms they enjoy. This is necessary for even someone who has ordered the violent killing of another human being.
Yet you wish to deprive someone of their freedom of expression via SOPA for creating a website that cannot be positively shown to even cause the slightest monetary damage to a corporation, where no evidence is required, where no presumption of innocence exists, where no prior hearing is granted, in which private entities have all the power and decision making ability, and in which appeals seem unlikely.
On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says
Re: Re: Re:
If I'm mistaken, please direct me to it.
On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says
Re:
Unable does not mean the same thing as unwilling.
State may be unwilling to publicly go against White House policy, but that does not mean they're unable to.
On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So let's have a real discussion on balance, then.
Many of us freetards have stated what we think is balanced, and despite despite your claims that we all blindly follow Mike, there's some noticeable differences among many of our ideas.
So, please list out specifics on your ideas of what a reasonable balance between corporations in control of copyrights, artists (both independent and those employed by the corporations), non-copyright based industries with an obvious stake (such as Google/Youtube and other tech), and the public.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out
Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
Wrong. If you are shutting down a website, you are censoring the owner of that website from expressing their views.
Whether censoring the website is justified is an open question.
I'm even willing to admit that it is within the realm of possibility that censoring a website for copyright infringement could be a general societal good, although I want to see evidence or at least clearly logical reasons how and why.
But it is still censorship.
On the post: AJ's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Well, he can't ask you for your favorites since you don't have an account and haven't put in an email address for him to contact you at.
On the post: Court Says That Outing Closeted Gays Through Mass Infringement Lawsuits Not A Big Deal
Re: Re: Re:
It's a shakedown not necessarily just because the cost to prove one's innocence is so high, but also because the potential of failing to prove one's innocence is so outrageous, and that the offense is so incredibly minor.
For nearly every infringement case we refer to, the retail price of whatever was allegedly infringed upon is under $20 (the price of a movie on DVD), and in some cases, under $1 (a song purchased through iTunes).
The cost to settle? $2000-$3000.
Yet costs to defend oneself with a lawyer can easily go to ten thousand dollars even on a simple case. That's a 500-10,000 times difference to the offense.
And the cost if you defend yourself and can't convince the judge or jury that you're innocent, even if the evidence is so flimsy the average internet commenter (not a high bar) can poke dozens of holes in it? Well, that can go up to $150,000 - or 7500-150,000 times the offense.
That is just absurd. Bring the costs in line with the offense, where even at the worst a guilty verdict ends up being a $200 for downloading a movie, and we'll talk. Until then, those costs are completely unreasonable.
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re:
Basically, Mike was working with (but not necessarily for) a lobbying firm. His Washington "access" depended on it. Why deny it?
So you're admitting that the only way to be recognized by Washington politicians is to be part of a lobbying group, trade organization, or some group with deep pockets full of money?
Thank you for confirming how screwed up this country is.
On the post: Warner Bros., Right After Announcing Record Profits, Pleads Poverty In Asking People To Support 'Grassroots' Campaign For E-PARASITE Act
Re:
Warner Bros. doesn't have the first idea of what accountability is.
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
So you go off on an ad hominem attack on me for pointing out an anonymous poster didn't do his homework?
You accuse me of not reading the bill when you haven't?
Here, I'll do it for you:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
Start at page 60:
SEC. 202. TRAFFICKING IN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS GOODS OR SERVICES.
Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as follows:
blahblah
That would seem to support your position...
However, go compare it to what Section 2320 already is:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
"(a) Offense.—
(1) In general.— Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels,"
You'll see that in the case we're talking about, whoever imported these fire detectors already broke the law, and SOPA would not have the slightest impact. It's already illegal to traffic in goods with a counterfeit mark.
So do your homework. Support your position with facts, and cite your sources.
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
I have read it.
You have ignored a key word: preemptively. Two questions:
1) Yes or No: this bill requires an ISP to block a site within 5 days of receiving a notice?
2) Yes or No: the adversarial hearing must occur before the site is blocked?
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Since you said "supposedly" I'm guessing you're the one that hasn't read the bill.
Please point out to me the text from the bill that supports your position. And explain how it would stop a US based company from importing cheap fire detectors from China, putting a counterfeit UL seal on them, then bidding on a government contract to supply them to a fire department.
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Your "shining example" of why firefighters are in support of this travesty of a bill is complete bullshit.
We learned from Viacom vs. Youtube, where Viacom had no idea of which uploads were legitimately authorized by their own employees, that not even a copyright holder can be sure if something on the internet is authorized or not. And now you actually pointed to a situation where a government agency that should have known better and had the resources to be able to tell a fake physical product took 5 years to realize a mistake was made and they had counterfeits. Yet these are the people you want in charge of preemptively blocking entire websites with no adversarial hearing.
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
And this has exactly what to do with censoring internet websites?
http://www.huliq.com/10473/fbi-investigating-detectors-distributed-atlanta-smoke-alarm- program
"More than 18,000 of the apparently uncertified units were purchased in 2005 and 2006 from a company in California."
http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2011/05/atlanta-recalls-counterfeit-smoke-alarm s.html
"The problem dates back five years to when the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department bought the alarms from a vendor in Calabasas, California."
"While the Atlanta firemen work to replace the alarms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the vendor, Silver Sails Corp. The City of Atlanta is “currently examining all available legal options” to recover the $100,000 spent on the counterfeit alarms, according to the fire department."
http://www.made-in-china.com/traderoom/silversails
"We are an industrial supplier to local, state and federal agencies..."
http://www.atlantaga.gov/media/nr_afrdrecall_051211.aspx
"Purchase History:
Bids were submitted to AFRD, according to City of Atlanta Department of Procurement policies and procedures, with specifications for the detector purchase to include: new ionization type; Federal and State of Georgia Occupational Safety and Health Act compliancy; UL compliancy; continuous alarm duration; alarm sound level of 85 dB@ 10 feet; low battery indicator; hush button; test button; twist off mounting bracket; and long life 10 year lithium battery
Three bids were submitted from the following vendors: Englewood Electrical Supply (June 7, 2005), Silver Sails Inc. (June 7, 2005), and Cintas (July 8, 2005)
July 29, 2005- Silver Sails Inc. was awarded the procurement bid (8337-BA)"
You can't even play the "sold on a rogue site" card on this one. A government program got duped into buying them and distributed to people.
Just FYI, it helps to follow up on web links and find out key details when you're grasping as straws to try to support a completely untenable position. Just Googling "counterfeit + smoke detector + firefighter" and cut and pasting the first thing you see ends up making you look like an idiot.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re:
I agree with this part.
It is entirely too one-sided, where any random person can send a notification and have perfectly legitimate speech taken down. We should move to a notice/notice system where the accused person can respond before a service provider is legally required to remove the speech.
Oh, you mean make it even more one-sided and favorable to obsolete corporations who are exploiting artists and real content creators while lying about trying to protect them?
Screw that. Go pound sand.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
Criticizing an elected official by pointing out that their policies and voting records are hypocritical is not a personal attack.
You're the one trying to do spin, but anyone with a few brain cells can easily see through it. You seriously suck at your job.
See, that last line was a personal attack.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't consider myself a full-on libertarian, but I certainly share many viewpoints with them.
Yet, despite all the differing views, anyone who can say with a straight face that a government handout disguised as a law specifically designed to protect a few legacy corporations against innovative start-ups is libertarian is clearly delusional.
Next >>