As Colin said, GR8FL has the numbers mixed up. I believe that LuLu also has a publishing station with a similar split where most of the money goes to the author.
Let me ask one simple question: Where is the market going? If piracy is untapped market potential that is underserved customers, where do you think people who don't rely so heavily on physical goods are going to go?
Let's just ignore copyright enforcement for the time being. The question I think that hasn't been answered is one that is the easiest to solve: "Where do people spend their time?"
Once that's figured out, people can learn the rest and learn how to profit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
Dammit, Hephaestus, stop talking cents to these people!
Not one of the MPAA will pony up the cash for such a smart endeavor!
You know there's no money in piracy, so locking up the world and controlling the internet is the only option! Cough up the cash, son! We know you're made of money!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
Not propaganda at all. Gamers are affected because if Youtube is taken down, then their way to gain an audience is affected.
Human rights groups are similarly affected because there are currently no clauses in how their personal websites might be affected if they use any infringing content.
There have already been studies into the DNS server issue and having Sandia Labs look into the issue and explain how this destroys their 10 years of hard work is rather telling. Further, this doesn't stop piracy. At all. People will just move from .com and .net extensions. So you're effectively trying to stop illegal downloading with an ineffective technique that does nothing for the problem.
Windmill > Quixote
The censorship of the net is already occurring. Less due process claims have occurred in these take downs along with a stretching of USC 17 and USC 18 respectively. People can't fight back for at least a year and a half after a claim and the process is taxing to them financially. The very same things can be said for the problems of civil asset forfeiture. It doesn't stop demand for drugs and innocent people are more abused as police go after the dime baggers for their departments instead of tackling real crimes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
The DMCA provides for take down notices. No one is going to shut down YouTube.
Yes, because Google has money. But the next batch of service providers are going to be harried by the SOPA issues. Places like Justin.tv have to change because ONE video is infringing before a court of law finds otherwise.
Or if they did it would be a request from someone who was against SOPA trying to be an asshat to prove a point.
Like artists don't abuse the DMCA? That's happening right now! Here's a girls sketches. Here is Bryan Ballinger's blog. How ANYONE can confuse their drawings, I've no idea. But somehow Ballinger seems to think that having copyright on the art makes it his. Now can I look at Lynastia's stuff and figure out if it's his or not? Maybe if he just wrote about it on his blog or focused on his own work he could do better. So tell me how this process doesn't lend itself to abuse when it gives all the incentive in the world to take down content before the full story comes out.
The public backlash in bringing a false accusation would be enormous, but I do think there should be financial consequences built into the legislation that would further dissuade false accusations
There are no penalties for false copyright claims. So why should I believe that won't occur after other claims of enforcement such as the PROIP Act, the Net Act, and the DMCA have all been about strengthening the plaintiffs against citizens?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
*sigh*
Piracy is not protected free speach.
Neither is piracy theft but taking down a website with little or no due process proceedings is prior restraint (ie censorship) on the domain owner.
DNS registries are updated continuously 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Changing a DNS entry will not "break the internet".
Is this the new talking point? You don't recognize how changing a ton of DNS entries at random moments makes the entire system less secure? It's akin to having to purposely fragment a drive, making a system more chaotic for no reason.
Sites that rely on user submitted content are almost always user-policed anyway. YouTube will take down content that is reported as offensive, they can add a report button to the page to alert staff of a copyright violation as well. They could make reporting infringing content part of the user agreement.
Try that with a community like 4chan or Reddit. Try that with having Disqus police all of the comments on all of the sites that use their technology. You seem to believe that the implications of policing aren't a daunting task. Maybe you should read a little more why people don't like SOPA/PIPA.
There are things that are wrong wtih SOPA/PIPA but the fear mongering needs to stop. Complain about the legitimate concerns (like the fact that there is protection from damage claims for companies that falsely accuse) and stop the exagerations
And people are raising concerns. Just because you don't want to see them and pedantically believe others exaggerate the fears is no one's fault. Reality suggests the problems of draconian copyright enforcement will take away free speech rights of American as well as foreign citizens around the world. These concerns have yet to be addressed by SOPA supporters, showing the deceitful way they hope that "reducing piracy" will lead to more sales.
It won't. At least, not a lot more. All it does is further display the class warfare and enforce the belief in a high court/low court in American society.
I don't know. Why don't you tell me? You appear to have a better handle on the facts of these cases. Perhaps you can look up their statuses in PACER and find out. Better yet, tell us where the cases are and what their docket numbers are, and we can look for ourselves.
IANAL. Judging from your comments, you seem to be someone that at least follows PACER in a professional manner. But I've just noted the inaccuracies in my past posts as well as the affidavits when the domain seizures come up. You might have the advantage on knowledge, because I don't look at PACER in that regard.
And how do you know that these parties are not getting a chance to be heard? Just because a party did not participate in a hearing does not mean that it was not given the opportunity to do so. Where's your proof that these entities are not being given opportunities to be heard?
For the domain seizures specifically, none of the domains had a chance to be heard specifically. The DoJ was stalling in regards to information, with the Rojadirecta case forcing them to take a stance (as I explain in a link above).
Where is ICE attempting to put people in jail?
Ninjavideo (4 out of 5 so far), Bryan McCarthy, and Mohamed Ali (19) for streaming content.
What are the rules that you claim the DOJ is not following?
The Asset Forfeiture Procedures are the main ones being stretched. In a nutshell, ICE is treating copyright infringement as a drug trafficking crime.
And what does any of this have to do with seizing domain names?
This has to do with the rules that ICE "follows" in taking on criminal copyright infringement cases. However, copyright infringement is supposed to be a civil offense, not a criminal and their arguments for criminal copyright infringement have yet to make any sense on closer inspection.
Really? Show me.
The best place is Media piracy in Emerging Economies, which effectively details the problem of trying to stop copying as a fruitless endeavor in Russia, Brazil, Bolivia (which has no copyright law), the US, and India among a few other nations.
There are a number of studies in movies, music, and games benefit from file sharing. Even publishers profit from filesharing. Further, if you want to go into government studies, I can do that, where more and more studies have found a positive to filesharing, not a negative.
Show me how these warrants are not following constitutional or ethical guidelines.
First of all, I haven't taken a position as to any particular plaintiff's claims are meritorious, particularly because I don't know who the friggin' plaintiffs are.
In the domain seizures, it's not hard to figure out who can go to the ICE and order a domain seized without a hearing. The NFL, MPAA, and the UFC are the most aggressive in taking down domains through this process at the current time. The ICE has also come out and admitted they are the police force of Disney (who had the Ninjavideo site seized from the outset) who held the press conference after the initial raid on July 29th of last year. And with the recent domain seizures, it's not hard to pin those sites on the MPAA since a few were places such as 007disk.net.
Second, you clearly know more about these cases than I do, so perhaps you should give us an example that we can examine.
Odd, I thought you were following the domain seizures as they occurred...
No. I'm telling you that the ones where a Request for a Temporary Restraining Order was filed, it was deemed an emergency by the plaintiff. Those seizures could also have been the result of a preliminary injunction or a default judgment. You'd have to sort through them to decide which is which.
Then why have there been no hearings from the government for the ones happening a year and a half ago? If they're temporary, *surely* a year and a half of waiting to have an adversarial hearing is a little long in the tooth.
Yes, unless the defendant decides to push the issue. You'll likely find that few defendants do, however, because they likely believe that they will lose. Chitika is an exception.
So first you're admitting that the TRO is supposed to be temporary, but now, if they push the issue, they get their due process? Also, who's saying they'll lose if they don't even get a chance to be heard in the first place?
By the way, why does it matter that "no one can review them"? Is it your business to do the judge's job for him?
By the warrants issued by the ICE, they were locked up to preserve evidence. Which makes no sense. The domains are given a new place to call home, and ICE has the task of trying to jail people for a civil offense. Isn't it the job of the DoJ to try to follow the rules instead of bending them?
I'm not the one making claims to losses; the plaintiffs are. If you find them so dubious, question them. Or better yet, look through the cases where such claims are made. The court documents in such cases are available to the public on PACER.
You're defending the plaintiff's claims of economic losses and damages, when there are plenty of court cases and evidence proving otherwise. If their claims don't pan out before a judicial hearing (that isn't one sided) why should those same plaintiffs have the ability to cause actual financial hardship to either a known competitor or someone relying on money from their payment processors? Your argument makes no sense because it hinges on the plaintiffs being saints, which has been proven countless times to be a false argument.
You mean nothing to your satisfaction. Something tells me that you are hardly an unbiased judge in that respect.
I've read the warrants and also noted the problems that have arisen from the civil procedures and their vague statements. I question because they are bending rules to a legal grey area where their actions do not follow constitutional nor ethical guidelines. I may have a bias against governmental interference but that hardly means I have clouded judgement in what is right and wrong with either domain seizures or SOPA.
Check the substantive documents they submit in these cases. Do your own due diligence and quit asking me to do it.
No. If you're the one supporting a plaintiff, then you should be able to do your own due diligence into why they're wrong with facts to back up your statements. I have already read the statements and noted the exceptions that copyright law is currently taking in the enforcement area. It does not represent what most people like. It doesn't represent innovation nor increased knowledge and learning. It represents a select number of people trying to profit by criminalizing behavior that most people actually think is nothing wrong.
If you have no proof otherwise, then you shouldn't be trying to state falsities.
It's why I'll use Flattr. I'm currently looking for alternatives for my websites that I take an "IANAL" view of copyright for. I would love to use Stripes, but it seems a little complicated for me. I wonder what else will pop up to wipe out that POS that is worse than the IRS in the 90s...
The UBS banking disclosure is the only one that I'm aware of and UBS got a lot of heat for it.
Further, the whistleblower in the US got a lot of persecution for what he did. So unless you have something I'm missing, I doubt one bank's disclosure really says much about the rest of the banking structure.
On the post: Facebook Fails In Its Argument That Faceporn Is Under US Jurisdiction For Using A .com
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Fixing Photos And Fooling Folks
Re: Manikins
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re:
On the post: Who Owns The Data Collected About You From Devices Inside Your Body?
Re: Re: Hood key
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re:
Let me ask one simple question: Where is the market going? If piracy is untapped market potential that is underserved customers, where do you think people who don't rely so heavily on physical goods are going to go?
Let's just ignore copyright enforcement for the time being. The question I think that hasn't been answered is one that is the easiest to solve: "Where do people spend their time?"
Once that's figured out, people can learn the rest and learn how to profit.
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
Not one of the MPAA will pony up the cash for such a smart endeavor!
You know there's no money in piracy, so locking up the world and controlling the internet is the only option! Cough up the cash, son! We know you're made of money!
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
On the post: Court Recognizes Daily Groupon Deal Hunters Aren't Likely To Be Confused By Groupion's Enterprise Software
Re:
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
Human rights groups are similarly affected because there are currently no clauses in how their personal websites might be affected if they use any infringing content.
There have already been studies into the DNS server issue and having Sandia Labs look into the issue and explain how this destroys their 10 years of hard work is rather telling. Further, this doesn't stop piracy. At all. People will just move from .com and .net extensions. So you're effectively trying to stop illegal downloading with an ineffective technique that does nothing for the problem.
Windmill > Quixote
The censorship of the net is already occurring. Less due process claims have occurred in these take downs along with a stretching of USC 17 and USC 18 respectively. People can't fight back for at least a year and a half after a claim and the process is taxing to them financially. The very same things can be said for the problems of civil asset forfeiture. It doesn't stop demand for drugs and innocent people are more abused as police go after the dime baggers for their departments instead of tackling real crimes.
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
Yes, because Google has money. But the next batch of service providers are going to be harried by the SOPA issues. Places like Justin.tv have to change because ONE video is infringing before a court of law finds otherwise.
Or if they did it would be a request from someone who was against SOPA trying to be an asshat to prove a point.
Like artists don't abuse the DMCA? That's happening right now! Here's a girls sketches. Here is Bryan Ballinger's blog. How ANYONE can confuse their drawings, I've no idea. But somehow Ballinger seems to think that having copyright on the art makes it his. Now can I look at Lynastia's stuff and figure out if it's his or not? Maybe if he just wrote about it on his blog or focused on his own work he could do better. So tell me how this process doesn't lend itself to abuse when it gives all the incentive in the world to take down content before the full story comes out.
The public backlash in bringing a false accusation would be enormous, but I do think there should be financial consequences built into the legislation that would further dissuade false accusations
There are no penalties for false copyright claims. So why should I believe that won't occur after other claims of enforcement such as the PROIP Act, the Net Act, and the DMCA have all been about strengthening the plaintiffs against citizens?
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: So how does one get famous in the first place?
On the post: Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tell me again, why are we let a dying industry ruin the internet?
Piracy is not protected free speach.
Neither is piracy theft but taking down a website with little or no due process proceedings is prior restraint (ie censorship) on the domain owner.
DNS registries are updated continuously 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Changing a DNS entry will not "break the internet".
Is this the new talking point? You don't recognize how changing a ton of DNS entries at random moments makes the entire system less secure? It's akin to having to purposely fragment a drive, making a system more chaotic for no reason.
Sites that rely on user submitted content are almost always user-policed anyway. YouTube will take down content that is reported as offensive, they can add a report button to the page to alert staff of a copyright violation as well. They could make reporting infringing content part of the user agreement.
Try that with a community like 4chan or Reddit. Try that with having Disqus police all of the comments on all of the sites that use their technology. You seem to believe that the implications of policing aren't a daunting task. Maybe you should read a little more why people don't like SOPA/PIPA.
There are things that are wrong wtih SOPA/PIPA but the fear mongering needs to stop. Complain about the legitimate concerns (like the fact that there is protection from damage claims for companies that falsely accuse) and stop the exagerations
And people are raising concerns. Just because you don't want to see them and pedantically believe others exaggerate the fears is no one's fault. Reality suggests the problems of draconian copyright enforcement will take away free speech rights of American as well as foreign citizens around the world. These concerns have yet to be addressed by SOPA supporters, showing the deceitful way they hope that "reducing piracy" will lead to more sales.
It won't. At least, not a lot more. All it does is further display the class warfare and enforce the belief in a high court/low court in American society.
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
...
IANAL. Judging from your comments, you seem to be someone that at least follows PACER in a professional manner. But I've just noted the inaccuracies in my past posts as well as the affidavits when the domain seizures come up. You might have the advantage on knowledge, because I don't look at PACER in that regard.
And how do you know that these parties are not getting a chance to be heard? Just because a party did not participate in a hearing does not mean that it was not given the opportunity to do so. Where's your proof that these entities are not being given opportunities to be heard?
For the domain seizures specifically, none of the domains had a chance to be heard specifically. The DoJ was stalling in regards to information, with the Rojadirecta case forcing them to take a stance (as I explain in a link above).
Where is ICE attempting to put people in jail?
Ninjavideo (4 out of 5 so far), Bryan McCarthy, and Mohamed Ali (19) for streaming content.
What are the rules that you claim the DOJ is not following?
The Asset Forfeiture Procedures are the main ones being stretched. In a nutshell, ICE is treating copyright infringement as a drug trafficking crime.
And what does any of this have to do with seizing domain names?
This has to do with the rules that ICE "follows" in taking on criminal copyright infringement cases. However, copyright infringement is supposed to be a civil offense, not a criminal and their arguments for criminal copyright infringement have yet to make any sense on closer inspection.
Really? Show me.
The best place is Media piracy in Emerging Economies, which effectively details the problem of trying to stop copying as a fruitless endeavor in Russia, Brazil, Bolivia (which has no copyright law), the US, and India among a few other nations.
There are a number of studies in movies, music, and games benefit from file sharing. Even publishers profit from filesharing. Further, if you want to go into government studies, I can do that, where more and more studies have found a positive to filesharing, not a negative.
Show me how these warrants are not following constitutional or ethical guidelines.
The best example is Karl's post here and here.
First of all, I haven't taken a position as to any particular plaintiff's claims are meritorious, particularly because I don't know who the friggin' plaintiffs are.
In the domain seizures, it's not hard to figure out who can go to the ICE and order a domain seized without a hearing. The NFL, MPAA, and the UFC are the most aggressive in taking down domains through this process at the current time. The ICE has also come out and admitted they are the police force of Disney (who had the Ninjavideo site seized from the outset) who held the press conference after the initial raid on July 29th of last year. And with the recent domain seizures, it's not hard to pin those sites on the MPAA since a few were places such as 007disk.net.
Second, you clearly know more about these cases than I do, so perhaps you should give us an example that we can examine.
Odd, I thought you were following the domain seizures as they occurred...
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
Then why have there been no hearings from the government for the ones happening a year and a half ago? If they're temporary, *surely* a year and a half of waiting to have an adversarial hearing is a little long in the tooth.
Yes, unless the defendant decides to push the issue. You'll likely find that few defendants do, however, because they likely believe that they will lose. Chitika is an exception.
So first you're admitting that the TRO is supposed to be temporary, but now, if they push the issue, they get their due process? Also, who's saying they'll lose if they don't even get a chance to be heard in the first place?
By the way, why does it matter that "no one can review them"? Is it your business to do the judge's job for him?
By the warrants issued by the ICE, they were locked up to preserve evidence. Which makes no sense. The domains are given a new place to call home, and ICE has the task of trying to jail people for a civil offense. Isn't it the job of the DoJ to try to follow the rules instead of bending them?
I'm not the one making claims to losses; the plaintiffs are. If you find them so dubious, question them. Or better yet, look through the cases where such claims are made. The court documents in such cases are available to the public on PACER.
You're defending the plaintiff's claims of economic losses and damages, when there are plenty of court cases and evidence proving otherwise. If their claims don't pan out before a judicial hearing (that isn't one sided) why should those same plaintiffs have the ability to cause actual financial hardship to either a known competitor or someone relying on money from their payment processors? Your argument makes no sense because it hinges on the plaintiffs being saints, which has been proven countless times to be a false argument.
You mean nothing to your satisfaction. Something tells me that you are hardly an unbiased judge in that respect.
I've read the warrants and also noted the problems that have arisen from the civil procedures and their vague statements. I question because they are bending rules to a legal grey area where their actions do not follow constitutional nor ethical guidelines. I may have a bias against governmental interference but that hardly means I have clouded judgement in what is right and wrong with either domain seizures or SOPA.
Check the substantive documents they submit in these cases. Do your own due diligence and quit asking me to do it.
No. If you're the one supporting a plaintiff, then you should be able to do your own due diligence into why they're wrong with facts to back up your statements. I have already read the statements and noted the exceptions that copyright law is currently taking in the enforcement area. It does not represent what most people like. It doesn't represent innovation nor increased knowledge and learning. It represents a select number of people trying to profit by criminalizing behavior that most people actually think is nothing wrong.
If you have no proof otherwise, then you shouldn't be trying to state falsities.
On the post: Supporters Of SOPA/PIPA Make Arguments That Make No Sense
Re: And, FTFA
On the post: PayPal Acts As Grinch Over Money Raised For Charity Using 'Wrong Button'; Finally Bows To Internet Pressure
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, the whistleblower in the US got a lot of persecution for what he did. So unless you have something I'm missing, I doubt one bank's disclosure really says much about the rest of the banking structure.
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>