That makes no sense at all. Just because someone makes money in some other manner doesn't mean they automatically owe money to someone else when they were using their legal streams. Unfortunately, we keep seeing wacky rulings like this around the globe that just muddy the picture when it comes to creating sensible copyright policies.
Seems simple to me. They're using the content they didn't pay for to get eyes to their website so they can profit from the traffic. They're reaping where they have not sown. Just like your buddy Dotcom. It's strange how such basic notions of unfair competition that are fundamental are lost on you.
I don't care what they do. I'm not completely obsessed with everything they do like Mike is. I'm only pointing out that if some employee is a pirate it doesn't matter. That employee should be held accountable just like every other pirate. All businesses have employees who break the law. You're trying to make something out of nothing. Anything to discredit this group you guys so desperately hate.
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.
What rhetoric? Point me to something they said and then explain to me how this affects it. You can't.
(an argument that copyright holders frequently reject as a valid defence against liability)
Huh? You have lots of crazy ideas. You should get out and read more than just Techdirt for this stuff. You are just mindlessly regurgitating Mike's bullshit. That somebody else did it can be a defense, no matter who the defendant is. This doesn't affect that at all.
Sorry, but this is just sour grapes. 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. You just aren't connecting the two, Leigh. If a right holder had this IP evidence and wanted to file suit against the MPAA, they could. Discovery would commence, and we might find out that it was an open wireless connection that a visitor used. Or we find out an employee violated the law. It's just like with everyone else. You're trying to find something here, but all you have is a flimsy TF article. I understand how important it is for you to defend Mike and the blame the MPAA for everything wrong in the world. Don't worry.
I haven't run anywhere. You guys are just spouting a bunch of nonsense, but not one of you can make an actual argument that makes sense about this. All you have are notions of hypocrisy and FUD.
I believe the main thrust of his argument goes something like "you're so terrible at finding infringement, you can't even rein it in at your own organization." Hence the "get your own house in order" line.
Hardly FUD. There's no element of fear, uncertainty, or doubt here.
How do you know that they didn't find the infringer and fire him? You guys are really reading into this too much. It's FUD because it just lays it out there hoping that the reader will use their imagination to fill in the gaps. They can't stop an employee from deciding to break the law more than any other company. If Leigh drinks and drives, I wouldn't blame Mike.
a) Straw man. Where did the MPAA say that stopping piracy is easy? How do you know they aren't monitoring their networks and firing people? You don't.
b) So if an employee does something without his boss's permission or knowledge, that means his boss doesn't believe what he says? I don't see it.
c) If someone is using their networks to violate the law, then either that someone or the employer would be liable. Chances are they'll get away with it just like millions of others do.
I applaud you for at least trying to make an argument.
When you can't argue the facts or counter the clearly-stated position held in many articles (and explained when you asked before), claim ignorance.
What is the argument exactly? It's not ignorance. This article is pure FUD. Mike can't even make a cogent argument, so he goes with the vague "get your house in order!" argument. What does that mean? Is no company allowed to enforce its rights until every single employee at the company never breaks any law? I don't get it because there's nothing to get. It's hate-fueled FUD from the master whiner himself. His hatred and anger have clouded his judgment so much that he can't even make an argument. He just posts anything he can find from any source that can possibly be used to make them look bad. Mike doesn't want to add anything to the discussion about IP policy. He just wants to hate people and be a complete childish asshole.
You are super angry. Yes, I hound Mike about not answering questions because I think he's dishonest. Get over it.
So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights? I guess that means that every single company on earth has to shut down. You guys are just so desperate to tear them down. It's hilarious.
I don't think he has an actual argument, and he's just throwing this out there in yet another sad attempt to discredit the MPAA and the DOJ, two organizations that he clearly hates with all of his might. It's childish sour grapes, and he's clearly writing these types of articles for the dregs of society. His audience and TorrentFreak's audience are one in the same. That says all you need to know about Mike. At least TF is honest about their beliefs.
Mike doesn't use sources or do other basic things that journalists do when they want to be taken seriously. Mike wants the world to take him seriously, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't want to do the work to earn that sort of respect. He prefers citing TorrentFreak and leaving all the FUD sitting there for his minions to let their imaginations run wild over. Just look at the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots lapping it up in the comments. Mike's resigned himself to catering to the criminal masses rather than using his intellect for better purposes. It's sad, really.
You're so cute when you're angry. Rather than being so angry and hateful, why don't you be productive? Please explain to me how, because of this flimsy evidence from TF, it's "hypocritical for them to go after others BASED SOLELY ON IP ADDRESSES"? I don't see the connection. These IP addresses are evidence just like any other IP address.
If the big content industry folks, along with government officials in the Justice Department are using evidence like IP addresses to make their case of infringement, it would seem like they ought to clean up their own homes first.
Spell it out for me, Mike. What is your argument exactly? Are you arguing that "big content industry folks" and "government officials in the Justice Department" are not allowed to enforce copyright law until every single person in their employ does not infringe whatsoever at all? How does that make sense? This is just more sour grapes from you. It's amazing to me how viscerally you hate the MPAA/DOJ.
I think of myself as pushing him to be a better person. I do realize how futile that goal is, though. Mike's never going to be an open, human, and awesome person. He's just going to be a propagandist and a hater. It's a shame. I think he's really smart and could add so much positivity to the debate.
All he brings is bitterness and dishonesty. I don't hate him. But I don't respect him either. I think he's resigned himself to being the type of person I just can't respect. That's a real shame.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Seems simple to me. They're using the content they didn't pay for to get eyes to their website so they can profit from the traffic. They're reaping where they have not sown. Just like your buddy Dotcom. It's strange how such basic notions of unfair competition that are fundamental are lost on you.
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:
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:
What rhetoric? Point me to something they said and then explain to me how this affects it. You can't.
(an argument that copyright holders frequently reject as a valid defence against liability)
Huh? You have lots of crazy ideas. You should get out and read more than just Techdirt for this stuff. You are just mindlessly regurgitating Mike's bullshit. That somebody else did it can be a defense, no matter who the defendant is. This doesn't affect that at all.
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:
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:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure some people who read this blog don't pirate. Myself, for example. But obviously Mike caters the pro-piracy crowd.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
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:
No, Mike pretends like that's what they said. Can you cite to the exact statement of theirs that you're referring to? Nope.
they say it about 3 times a week
Link please to even once.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
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:
Hardly FUD. There's no element of fear, uncertainty, or doubt here.
How do you know that they didn't find the infringer and fire him? You guys are really reading into this too much. It's FUD because it just lays it out there hoping that the reader will use their imagination to fill in the gaps. They can't stop an employee from deciding to break the law more than any other company. If Leigh drinks and drives, I wouldn't blame Mike.
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:
b) So if an employee does something without his boss's permission or knowledge, that means his boss doesn't believe what he says? I don't see it.
c) If someone is using their networks to violate the law, then either that someone or the employer would be liable. Chances are they'll get away with it just like millions of others do.
I applaud you for at least trying to make an argument.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
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:
What is the argument exactly? It's not ignorance. This article is pure FUD. Mike can't even make a cogent argument, so he goes with the vague "get your house in order!" argument. What does that mean? Is no company allowed to enforce its rights until every single employee at the company never breaks any law? I don't get it because there's nothing to get. It's hate-fueled FUD from the master whiner himself. His hatred and anger have clouded his judgment so much that he can't even make an argument. He just posts anything he can find from any source that can possibly be used to make them look bad. Mike doesn't want to add anything to the discussion about IP policy. He just wants to hate people and be a complete childish asshole.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights? I guess that means that every single company on earth has to shut down. You guys are just so desperate to tear them down. It's hilarious.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re:
I don't think he has an actual argument, and he's just throwing this out there in yet another sad attempt to discredit the MPAA and the DOJ, two organizations that he clearly hates with all of his might. It's childish sour grapes, and he's clearly writing these types of articles for the dregs of society. His audience and TorrentFreak's audience are one in the same. That says all you need to know about Mike. At least TF is honest about their beliefs.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re:
Mike doesn't use sources or do other basic things that journalists do when they want to be taken seriously. Mike wants the world to take him seriously, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't want to do the work to earn that sort of respect. He prefers citing TorrentFreak and leaving all the FUD sitting there for his minions to let their imaginations run wild over. Just look at the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots lapping it up in the comments. Mike's resigned himself to catering to the criminal masses rather than using his intellect for better purposes. It's sad, really.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Spell it out for me, Mike. What is your argument exactly? Are you arguing that "big content industry folks" and "government officials in the Justice Department" are not allowed to enforce copyright law until every single person in their employ does not infringe whatsoever at all? How does that make sense? This is just more sour grapes from you. It's amazing to me how viscerally you hate the MPAA/DOJ.
On the post: Hollywood Studio IP Addresses Sharing Hollywood Movies Via BitTorrent
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All he brings is bitterness and dishonesty. I don't hate him. But I don't respect him either. I think he's resigned himself to being the type of person I just can't respect. That's a real shame.
Next >>