Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Aug 2011 @ 10:52am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, if Mike Masnick wants to make sure his content is distributed the way he wants it to be- which is for free, he will have to use **copyright law** to make it happen.
With this article, I believe Mike is using public pressure, not copyright law, to accomplish his goals.
When Mike starts suing using legal threats and copyright law, then you can call him a hypocrite. Not until.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Aug 2011 @ 8:25am
Re: Dear artists, how does it feel?
a piece of legislation now gives law enforcement this right.
Laws do not give the government or its agencies "rights" - it only grants them powers.
Rights are held either by individuals or states. Neither the federal government, nor states, no matter what powers they are granted, can violate those rights. Powers can be taken away by other laws, or by the courts if they are impeding the rights of the states or individuals.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Aug 2011 @ 8:06am
Re:
The customer with the Wi-FI left it open, and just like long distance charges on their phone line, they should be liable.
Over and over again, you bring this complete bullshit out. I'll just start cut and pasting my comments from the last time.
"Long distance calls made on your phone is a billing issue between you and your phone company. And its a near certainty that you signed or agreed to be held responsible for the billing costs of those calls when you got the service.
A copyright infringement claim is a legal issue between you and a third party copyright holder. I would consider it highly unlikely that you signed an agreement with the copyright holder to be held legally responsible for copyright infringement that occurred on an IP address that happened to be leased to you at the time of infringement.
If someone breaks into a house and calls in a bomb threat from the phone, I have no problems with the police using the subscribers information as a starting point for an investigation into the identity of who called it in.
Under the law, I don't have a legal argument against a copyright holder filing an individual infringement suit for discovery of additional evidence against an individual unknown holder if they have more than just "this IP address was detected sharing content" - and then using the subscriber info from the ISP for further evidence collection that they have the correct person who was sharing the content."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:24am
Re: punkbuster
I was just playing Battlefield:BC2 the other night, and if punkbuster actually worked, it might be worth it. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and there's plenty of players using cheats.
I'm really looking forward to Battlefield 3. I didn't care about having to install Origin until I read that article. I don't care if I need Steam + a bunch of other online distribution systems installed (you can easily stop them from running when you don't want them on). But the deliberately unspecific and overly broad language really bugs me. This could stop me from buying BF3 - just like I won't buy Ubisoft games and didn't bother with Spore.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Aug 2011 @ 3:31pm
Re: Re: Re:
In a very narrow way, they are correct. Netflix is not directly paying for the transit they use.
So, in a very narrow way, I'm not paying for farmers to grow my food. Since I'm only directly paying for my fresh veggies at the supermarket, I'm freeloading on the backs of farmers!
(/sarc off)
That statement is wrong in every way possible, and not correct even in a very narrow way.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Aug 2011 @ 5:32pm
Re: Re: Re:
As soon as I started reading, I thought this would definitely be one to cite against any extra-judicial internet disconnection cases.
But I don't think you even need to be using a VOIP service for it to apply. The internet is a communication service, just like the telephone, and voice is just one type of data that travels over it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Aug 2011 @ 5:22pm
Re:
Google was not exercising due diligence in accepting ads before February 2010.
I think the point is, why should they have to exercise any due diligence?
Can I sue NewsChannel4 because I get scammed by a car dealer advertising there - or is the fault with the car dealer? Did hundreds of magazines and newspapers get sued because they ran ads from the tobacco companies before all those warnings had to be placed - or was the fault with the tobacco companies who knew their product was killing people?
Apply proper liability to the truly guilty parties, not the company that provides tools.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Aug 2011 @ 12:17pm
Re: Fight lobby with lobby?
So instead of fixing the problem (corruption), you want to continue and even to contribute to it remaining a problem?
No. Hell no. Let's fix the problem. It's the only rational response. I don't care about upsetting the apple cart. I don't care about unemployed politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists.
Political corruption - 100% transparency, and vote them all out, over and over again, until they stop being corrupt. Broadband competition - force the telco and cable monopolies to compete in a real free market. Patents - get rid of them entirely. Copyright - get rid of it, or at least scale it back to something sane for a world where content can be transmitted to every corner or the world in seconds at near zero marginal cost. Companies with broken and obsolete business models - no legislation for you, tough cookies, adapt or die.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Aug 2011 @ 10:17am
Re: Re: Re:
that people get patents not to make money to think that patent holders aren't generally interested in getting either a product to market or licensing their patent technology to others to bring to market.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Nowhere in that do I see the right to make money. I also don't see a right to stop others from making use of their own inventions. Patents are about promoting the progress, not making money. The two are not necessarily connected. You also continue to use misleading language confusing innovation and patents. Again, the two are not necessarily connected.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Aug 2011 @ 2:09pm
Re:
And they'll make it all back and more in tax revenues. Recorded music sales have gone up ever since Limewire was shut down almost a year ago.
Are the taxes from recorded music somehow higher than the taxes people spend to buy physical goods? Does the average consumer somehow get more in their paycheck when this law goes into effect? If neither of those are true (and they're not), then you're living in fantasy land.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Aug 2011 @ 9:38am
Re:
^Agree.
And while I'm more than happy to engage in a real debate about religion, when I do I hope that my words will not "convert" someone, but open their mind so that they figure things out for themselves.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:41am
Re:
No, see, you only have a license for certain situations*. If you want a license for other situations* you have to get it elsewhere. And don't even think about playing it in another situation* cause that's totally a different license you need.
*each situation detailed in the license agreement**, which runs in at 58 to 192 pages of dense legalese that would take a highly qualified team of lawyers weeks to decipher, and they'd still probably not fully agree with another team of lawyers paid for by the copyright holder.
**each license agreement may be revoked and/or changed unilaterally by the copyright holder any time they feel like it, including during litigation***
***assuming litigation is even allowed under the license agreement, which it probably isn't
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 8:03am
Re: Oh, they WANT them, it just isn't cheap enough.
In general, libertarians don't want "government run like a business" - they want as little government as possible.
Please don't confuse the current Tea Party neo-conservative political movement with all libertarians just because they happen to agree with a few libertarian ideals.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:20am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which means that Mike is making the assumption that every sale of IP leads to patent trolling, which is just not right.
Please quote specifically what made you think that Mike is making that assumption.
Even I wouldn't say that all patent sales definitely lead to patent trolling, and I'm as anti-patent as they come. I will say however, that ever penny spent on patents and lawyers, whether filing your own patents, acquiring someone else's, or defending yourself from trolls, is money that could be better spent to make your products better, lower costs to your customers, or share profits with your investors.
It's misleading as heck to hold this company up as some sort of example of "feeding the trolls", isn't it?
It's not misleading at all. Not when the guy comes out and says both that he's likely one of the largest sellers of IP and that patent wars have started. I'll quote: "We sell tons of IP, and as you know, the IP wars have started" - he's admitting that he's feeding trolls himself.
On the post: Kevin Smith Explains Why He Had To Waste $9,316 On Movie Ads That He Didn't Want Or Need
Re: Oscar
Think about those words for a few seconds.
On the post: Pakistan Officially Bans All Encryption Online
Re: Evil Bit
If someone can implement IP-over-carrier-pigeon, this must be trivial.
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With this article, I believe Mike is using public pressure, not copyright law, to accomplish his goals.
When Mike starts suing using legal threats and copyright law, then you can call him a hypocrite. Not until.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re:
So because it's moderately difficult to correctly identify the actual guilty parties, we'll just seize the whole thing?
And you only call that "weird"?
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Doublething
So that's why they hire so many former RIAA/MPAA people.
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away
Re: Dear artists, how does it feel?
Laws do not give the government or its agencies "rights" - it only grants them powers.
Rights are held either by individuals or states. Neither the federal government, nor states, no matter what powers they are granted, can violate those rights. Powers can be taken away by other laws, or by the courts if they are impeding the rights of the states or individuals.
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
Re:
Over and over again, you bring this complete bullshit out. I'll just start cut and pasting my comments from the last time.
"Long distance calls made on your phone is a billing issue between you and your phone company. And its a near certainty that you signed or agreed to be held responsible for the billing costs of those calls when you got the service.
A copyright infringement claim is a legal issue between you and a third party copyright holder. I would consider it highly unlikely that you signed an agreement with the copyright holder to be held legally responsible for copyright infringement that occurred on an IP address that happened to be leased to you at the time of infringement.
If someone breaks into a house and calls in a bomb threat from the phone, I have no problems with the police using the subscribers information as a starting point for an investigation into the identity of who called it in.
Under the law, I don't have a legal argument against a copyright holder filing an individual infringement suit for discovery of additional evidence against an individual unknown holder if they have more than just "this IP address was detected sharing content" - and then using the subscriber info from the ISP for further evidence collection that they have the correct person who was sharing the content."
On the post: EA's Origin Service Wants To Exchange Games For Your Personal Data [Updated]
Re: punkbuster
I'm really looking forward to Battlefield 3. I didn't care about having to install Origin until I read that article. I don't care if I need Steam + a bunch of other online distribution systems installed (you can easily stop them from running when you don't want them on). But the deliberately unspecific and overly broad language really bugs me. This could stop me from buying BF3 - just like I won't buy Ubisoft games and didn't bother with Spore.
On the post: Ante Upped Some More: $2,500 For John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bills
Re: Re: Re:
So, in a very narrow way, I'm not paying for farmers to grow my food. Since I'm only directly paying for my fresh veggies at the supermarket, I'm freeloading on the backs of farmers!
(/sarc off)
That statement is wrong in every way possible, and not correct even in a very narrow way.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re:
But I don't think you even need to be using a VOIP service for it to apply. The internet is a communication service, just like the telephone, and voice is just one type of data that travels over it.
On the post: Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google
Re:
I think the point is, why should they have to exercise any due diligence?
Can I sue NewsChannel4 because I get scammed by a car dealer advertising there - or is the fault with the car dealer? Did hundreds of magazines and newspapers get sued because they ran ads from the tobacco companies before all those warnings had to be placed - or was the fault with the tobacco companies who knew their product was killing people?
Apply proper liability to the truly guilty parties, not the company that provides tools.
On the post: Will John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. Agree To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill Next Month?
Re: Fight lobby with lobby?
No. Hell no. Let's fix the problem. It's the only rational response. I don't care about upsetting the apple cart. I don't care about unemployed politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists.
Political corruption - 100% transparency, and vote them all out, over and over again, until they stop being corrupt. Broadband competition - force the telco and cable monopolies to compete in a real free market. Patents - get rid of them entirely. Copyright - get rid of it, or at least scale it back to something sane for a world where content can be transmitted to every corner or the world in seconds at near zero marginal cost. Companies with broken and obsolete business models - no legislation for you, tough cookies, adapt or die.
Fix the problem.
On the post: Clear & Concise Explanation Of The Problem With Patents
Re: Re: Re:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Nowhere in that do I see the right to make money. I also don't see a right to stop others from making use of their own inventions. Patents are about promoting the progress, not making money. The two are not necessarily connected. You also continue to use misleading language confusing innovation and patents. Again, the two are not necessarily connected.
On the post: CBO Says PROTECT IP Will Cost Taxpayers Over $10 Million Per Year To Censor The Internet
Re:
Are the taxes from recorded music somehow higher than the taxes people spend to buy physical goods? Does the average consumer somehow get more in their paycheck when this law goes into effect? If neither of those are true (and they're not), then you're living in fantasy land.
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re:
And while I'm more than happy to engage in a real debate about religion, when I do I hope that my words will not "convert" someone, but open their mind so that they figure things out for themselves.
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Well it's true what they say
On the post: Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs
Re:
*each situation detailed in the license agreement**, which runs in at 58 to 192 pages of dense legalese that would take a highly qualified team of lawyers weeks to decipher, and they'd still probably not fully agree with another team of lawyers paid for by the copyright holder.
**each license agreement may be revoked and/or changed unilaterally by the copyright holder any time they feel like it, including during litigation***
***assuming litigation is even allowed under the license agreement, which it probably isn't
On the post: The Myth That Software Startups Need Or Want Patents
Re: Oh, they WANT them, it just isn't cheap enough.
Please don't confuse the current Tea Party neo-conservative political movement with all libertarians just because they happen to agree with a few libertarian ideals.
On the post: How Getting A Patent Can Actually Be Detrimental To A Startup's Long Term Success
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please quote specifically what made you think that Mike is making that assumption.
Even I wouldn't say that all patent sales definitely lead to patent trolling, and I'm as anti-patent as they come. I will say however, that ever penny spent on patents and lawyers, whether filing your own patents, acquiring someone else's, or defending yourself from trolls, is money that could be better spent to make your products better, lower costs to your customers, or share profits with your investors.
It's misleading as heck to hold this company up as some sort of example of "feeding the trolls", isn't it?
It's not misleading at all. Not when the guy comes out and says both that he's likely one of the largest sellers of IP and that patent wars have started. I'll quote: "We sell tons of IP, and as you know, the IP wars have started" - he's admitting that he's feeding trolls himself.
Next >>