This is what I was wondering too. Netflix is the content delivery system, but they are not the content providers. Wouldn't the rightsowners be the ones that are responsible for providing Netflix with content that is in compliance with the ADA?
The DOJ was invited into a sovereign country to assist with an arrest warrant and evidence gathering. New Zealand confiscated certain items of the accused (a citizen of New Zealand). The US then took this evidence out of the country without permission. I'm no expert in New Zealand law, but we have something similar in the United States... When you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission it's called theft, and it is illegal. Assuming that New Zealand has a similar prohibition against taking that which is not yours without permission of the owner, then I would say it's pretty clear which "rule of law" has been violated. In fact, since New Zealand wouldn't want non-experts in their law to have to figure this out on their own, they were kind enough to affirm that the United States did in fact steal this evidence and were even nice enough to simply ask for them to return it.
I'm not too big on energy drinks, but aside from the occasional 5 hour energy, Monster was the one drink that I kinda liked. It's quite sad that they would resort to such obvious bullying just so their lawyers can get some additional billable hours. I won't be purchasing their product again until they drop these actions and apologize. Petition signed.
Of the 236 lockers that were tracked in 2011, 75% of all unpaid material that was accessed could be attributed to a top ten list. On that list, Megaupload (the largest cyberlocker in the world at the time by leaps and bounds) came in 7th with around 3% of that 75%...
So that means Mega can be accused of facilitating roughly 2.25% of the downloads from all cyberlockers that facilitated only 4% of all music consumed. That would mean that Mega would be responsible for .0009% of the total music consumed, or .0014% of all unpaid music...
Let's contrast this with Fileserve, a much smaller locker service that was not targeted yet comprised roughly 46% of the 75% attributed to the top 10 locker services. This would equate to 34.5% of all unpaid music attributed to coming from cyberlockers, or 1.4% of all music consumed, or 2.1% of all unpaid music consumed depending on how you'd like to look at it. Fileshare, a much smaller locker service, could be said to have facilitated these downloads at a rate over 1500 times that of Mega...
So what were we talking about again? All that math made my brain hurt, so please feel free to double check it... If I'm not doinitwrong then it would seem like there's been a lot of demonizing and crying about something that seems statistically irrelevant and that there should have been much more lucrative targets to pursue...
Consider though that once it is legalized, in addition to all of the saving from not needing to spend on what you've already mentioned, that it will also generate considerable tax income on it's own. It may not be enough to replace income tax by itself, but it's net effect will much much higher than simply what would be saved from no longer having to enforce the restrictions.
I agree completely. I was trying to point out the irony of needing to pass a law to stop laws from being passed... Now if you ever get around to organizing that violent coup, let me know and I'll be first in line. :D
We need to draft a bill that will stop them from passing any new legislation until they have gone back and re-examined all of the old legislation for effectiveness and actual need. It's truly a shame that they wouldn't just do this on their own and would actually have to pass a regulation that would force them to do it. Even if we had something as simple as requiring new regulation to simply be backed by independent study to show the need it would be a step in the right direction and help to curb some of the ridiculous legislation that is getting passed.
Dotcom's lawyers agreed to the delay because the US will be appealing the NZ court order that they return the copies of his hard drives and the other evidence against him. You know, so he can see the evidence against him and mount a proper defense against the extradition... Your level of acceptance towards willful ignorance simply to throw an ad-hom is astounding.
I would also strongly disagree with both of your points...
a) There are plenty of people who do not understand copyright and who would never believe something as natural as sharing music with your friends could possibly be illegal and punishable by fines in the millions of dollars. There is nothing intuitive about knowing that, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the practice is not only acceptable but should also be encouraged. The concept that sharing is wrong is something that was to be taught, and it has to be taught against the principles that most everyone was raised on.
b) While the numbers are "there in the law", you know as well as I know that non-commercial filesharing done by an individual for personal use was never intended to be punished by anything even resembling the level of damages awarded against her. If any damages should have been awarded in this case, it should have been the statutory minimum of 750.00 per instance of infringement. $18000.00 in penalties for downloading less than $24.00 of music is still excessive, but from your standpoint of "there in the law" it would have to be acceptable.
I would still be interested in hearing your response to the issue of intent of the damages and how they would be awarded against commercial entities versus private individuals that was raised earlier...
Even if your assertion is correct, the point is still moot. The law says that retransmission rates only apply to distant signals. Distant signals would mean retransmitting Seattle television in New York. Aereo is retransmitting local broadcasts that their subscribers could receive themselves with a roof mounted antennae. They are charging for the convenience of setting up an offsite antennae so their clients don't have to worry about falling of their roof or trying to install one so that isn't blocked by buildings or signal interference. That is why they are not subject to fees.
Ok, so even if part 2 or parts 2 and 3 are new, he clearly states he is not a doctor, dietician, nor nutritionist...
I think that makes it pretty clear that he is providing an opinion, not medical advice.
Also, the disclaimer has been pretty much the same, although it used to be a little shorter. Here it is from 8/21/10
1) I am not a doctor, dietitian nor nutritionist. I have ZERO medical training and NO formal nutritional training.
2) Personal advice will not be given on this site. This site is ONLY intended for educational purposes ONLY.
3) Please consult your physician regarding any health guidelines seen in this site. IF YOUR doctor does NOT support information provided on this site, I urge you to find a “low carb friendly” doctor as soon as possible.
I don't think people should be impersonating doctors or other licensed individuals, and in most cases I think such activities should be illegal. In this case I don't think that's what's happening, and it seems like the guy has been pretty upfront with admitting he has no training, but this is what he's come up with from his own research and anecdotal evidence. In my opinion, curtailing this man's freedom of speech is wrong, and I don't think you've made the case that he should be held to some sort of regulatory standard. What am I missing that makes you feel that he is attempting to defraud people into thinking he has credentials that he does not possess?
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Re:
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Re: Re:
Guess I'll just go back to making tinfoil hats :(
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re:
The DOJ was invited into a sovereign country to assist with an arrest warrant and evidence gathering. New Zealand confiscated certain items of the accused (a citizen of New Zealand). The US then took this evidence out of the country without permission. I'm no expert in New Zealand law, but we have something similar in the United States... When you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission it's called theft, and it is illegal. Assuming that New Zealand has a similar prohibition against taking that which is not yours without permission of the owner, then I would say it's pretty clear which "rule of law" has been violated. In fact, since New Zealand wouldn't want non-experts in their law to have to figure this out on their own, they were kind enough to affirm that the United States did in fact steal this evidence and were even nice enough to simply ask for them to return it.
Does that help clear things up for you?
On the post: Monster Fight: Can You Tell An Energy Drink From An Aquarium?
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re:
On the post: RIAA's Backdoor Plan For Using 'Six Strikes' Plan To Cut Off Internet Access For People
Re: Re: Re: Re:
EXTERMINATE!!!
On the post: Swizz Beatz Defends Megaupload: Says It Was Taken Down Because It Was Too Powerful For RIAA To Control
Re: Re:
4% of all music consumed is unpaid and come from cyberlockers...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/20131119853/riaa-knows-tried-to-hide-th at-most-unpaid-music-acquisition-comes-offline-swapping.shtml
Of the 236 lockers that were tracked in 2011, 75% of all unpaid material that was accessed could be attributed to a top ten list. On that list, Megaupload (the largest cyberlocker in the world at the time by leaps and bounds) came in 7th with around 3% of that 75%...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/dotcom-tells-ars-industry-stats-vindicate-megas -takedown-policy/
So that means Mega can be accused of facilitating roughly 2.25% of the downloads from all cyberlockers that facilitated only 4% of all music consumed. That would mean that Mega would be responsible for .0009% of the total music consumed, or .0014% of all unpaid music...
Let's contrast this with Fileserve, a much smaller locker service that was not targeted yet comprised roughly 46% of the 75% attributed to the top 10 locker services. This would equate to 34.5% of all unpaid music attributed to coming from cyberlockers, or 1.4% of all music consumed, or 2.1% of all unpaid music consumed depending on how you'd like to look at it. Fileshare, a much smaller locker service, could be said to have facilitated these downloads at a rate over 1500 times that of Mega...
So what were we talking about again? All that math made my brain hurt, so please feel free to double check it... If I'm not doinitwrong then it would seem like there's been a lot of demonizing and crying about something that seems statistically irrelevant and that there should have been much more lucrative targets to pursue...
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Re: Re: Re: The Match Game
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Re: Re: The Match Game
On the post: The Real Battle: Permission vs. Innovation; Lawyers vs. Innovators
Re: Re: Re: The Idiots...
On the post: The Real Battle: Permission vs. Innovation; Lawyers vs. Innovators
Re: The Idiots...
We need to draft a bill that will stop them from passing any new legislation until they have gone back and re-examined all of the old legislation for effectiveness and actual need. It's truly a shame that they wouldn't just do this on their own and would actually have to pass a regulation that would force them to do it. Even if we had something as simple as requiring new regulation to simply be backed by independent study to show the need it would be a step in the right direction and help to curb some of the ridiculous legislation that is getting passed.
On the post: Megaupload Extradition Hearing Postponed Until At Least Spring Of 2013
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom's lawyers agreed to the delay because the US will be appealing the NZ court order that they return the copies of his hard drives and the other evidence against him. You know, so he can see the evidence against him and mount a proper defense against the extradition... Your level of acceptance towards willful ignorance simply to throw an ad-hom is astounding.
On the post: Dear Judge Koh: Competition Is No Reason To Ban A Phone
Re: H8ers Need to Eat Some Apple Pi
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean...
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re:
Got it...
Steve Jobs was a liar...
Thanks for clearing that up!
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I like this game!
On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: Re:
a) There are plenty of people who do not understand copyright and who would never believe something as natural as sharing music with your friends could possibly be illegal and punishable by fines in the millions of dollars. There is nothing intuitive about knowing that, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the practice is not only acceptable but should also be encouraged. The concept that sharing is wrong is something that was to be taught, and it has to be taught against the principles that most everyone was raised on.
b) While the numbers are "there in the law", you know as well as I know that non-commercial filesharing done by an individual for personal use was never intended to be punished by anything even resembling the level of damages awarded against her. If any damages should have been awarded in this case, it should have been the statutory minimum of 750.00 per instance of infringement. $18000.00 in penalties for downloading less than $24.00 of music is still excessive, but from your standpoint of "there in the law" it would have to be acceptable.
I would still be interested in hearing your response to the issue of intent of the damages and how they would be awarded against commercial entities versus private individuals that was raised earlier...
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence
Re: Re:
Don't forget the TSA... they take your statement quite literally... lol
On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: He was caught **consulting**
I think that makes it pretty clear that he is providing an opinion, not medical advice.
Also, the disclaimer has been pretty much the same, although it used to be a little shorter. Here it is from 8/21/10
1) I am not a doctor, dietitian nor nutritionist. I have ZERO medical training and NO formal nutritional training.
2) Personal advice will not be given on this site. This site is ONLY intended for educational purposes ONLY.
3) Please consult your physician regarding any health guidelines seen in this site. IF YOUR doctor does NOT support information provided on this site, I urge you to find a “low carb friendly” doctor as soon as possible.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100821223605/http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/disclaimer/
I don't think people should be impersonating doctors or other licensed individuals, and in most cases I think such activities should be illegal. In this case I don't think that's what's happening, and it seems like the guy has been pretty upfront with admitting he has no training, but this is what he's come up with from his own research and anecdotal evidence. In my opinion, curtailing this man's freedom of speech is wrong, and I don't think you've made the case that he should be held to some sort of regulatory standard. What am I missing that makes you feel that he is attempting to defraud people into thinking he has credentials that he does not possess?
Next >>