Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 6:09pm
Re: Re: Re:
When they can't get it for free,
This bill will do nothing to stop or slow free content, legal or otherwise.
Passing the NET Act didn't do it.
Passing the DMCA didn't do it.
Killing Napster didn't do it.
Killing MP3.com didn't do it.
Killing Morpheus/Grokster/Kazaa/Edonkey didn't do it.
Harassing torrent sites didn't do it.
Passing PRO IP Act didn't do it.
Killing Limewire didn't do it.
Passing PIPA won't do it.
Stop playing whack-a-mole, causing "collateral" damage on my rights, and adapt to the real world - or get out of the way.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 10:50am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're staying willfully stupid about the issues.
Project much? So copyright maximalists don't live in a constant state of willful stupidity about economics, scarcity/abundance/rivalrous/non-rivalrous, changing markets, customer desires, civil liberties, constitutional issues, original stated intent of copyright, and common sense?
The law is the law,
Unjust law is no law. Laws which cannot be enforced without significant harm on innocents are unethical and immoral.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 10:01am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia: Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court's jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel.
Doesn't seem like it would apply here.
Wikipedia: The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.[1]
Oh. It makes perfect sense now why they're doing it that way. Of course, that still makes it wrong.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 9:46am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the domain names are the defendant,
6 words that sum up the entire absurdity of these seizures.
How the heck can a domain name be a defendant?
The domain names are nothing more than a pointer or address. They also are not sentient, or a legal person.
If I were to try to sue a phone number or street address, every judge and lawyer would look at me like I was crazy. Yet ICE/DHS/DOJ somehow can do the same thing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:59am
Re:
I learned the hard way to NEVER encrypt the system drive.
If you don't encrypt the system drive, then any data accessed on that system is not secure. It is technologically simple to get data out of various cache and temporary files, such as the Windows pagefile. Which is stored in your unencrypted system drive.
Heck, RAM isn't even completely secure after the system is off. Data (including your encryption key) can be pulled off it for minutes even after power is removed, depending on temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_boot_attack
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:49pm
Re: Copyrighting animal pictures
You can make millions in two simple steps:
1) Get your cat to take pictures of itself that are even remotely close to the cuteness factor of the macaques
2) Profit off the resulting viral spread of those cute cat pictures across the internet
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Jul 2011 @ 7:19pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
this is like the 4th time in two days that someone mentioned a internet contract...where do you live?
Since 2000, I've lived in areas served by Cox Communications, Time Warner, and AT&T U-verse/Bellsouth DSL. With each, I've been offered one- or two-year contracts for a "locked-in" rate for cable/internet. The only way to get out of those contracts is to move completely out of their service areas. Been about 5 years since I've actually switched providers, so they may have offered non-contract rates, but I don't remember specifics.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Jul 2011 @ 12:14pm
Re:
As far as I'm concerned, most ISPs want the ability to kick so called pirates off the net.
Yes, but they want plausible deniability that it wasn't their choice to do it. So the obvious backlash against the disconnection can be laid at the feet of RIAA or some other industry front group everyone already hates.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Jul 2011 @ 9:17am
Re: Re: Copyright infringement isn't piracy . . .
Actually, I say that copyright infringement is perfectly fine. Even among Techdirt, I realize this is not the mainstream view. This is a personal view only, and should not reflect on the rest of the community unless individuals agree.
Except in exceptional circumstances, copyright infringement causes no harm, and frequently has benefits to both the infringed and the infringer alike. On the other side, enforcing these draconian laws provably causes harm to individuals, innovative new companies, and society as a whole.
I've always been of the opinion that breaking unjust laws is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged. Copyright laws as they are currently on the books seem to me a textbook case of an unjust law, and therefore the law should be scorned, and if our elected representatives will not repeal them, it is not only acceptable to break them, it is our duty to do so.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jul 2011 @ 10:59am
Re:
A CEO is responsible for things that happen at his company. There are also serious allegations that he was aware that this was happening and covered it up.
An ISP is not responsible for its user's actions. Google is not responsible for what a user uploads to Youtube. Rupert Murdoch is not responsible because a reader of one of his websites writes a defamatory comment.
Comparing those completely different organizational structures is just pitiful.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm
Re:
They are working on volume to sell popcorn and such.
They'd probably sell more popcorn and soda if they lowered their prices.
Just as cheapie tuesdays (in these parts half price for the two tuesday night shows) packs the theaters, dropping ticket prices would certainly bring more people in. However, unless you double the number of people in the seats, cutting half off your ticket price isn't really a good business move.
How can you say its not a good business move unless X happens when you just finished saying that X already has happened?
They are looking at supply and demand, and worrying that supply is going to wipe them out.
If their business model entirely depends on huge margins from a good that becomes commoditized, then they deserve to go out of business when people realize they can get it for cheaper (and in some cases, better AND cheaper). Its simple economics.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Jul 2011 @ 7:20am
Re:
If you concentrate on the negatives, they will always appear to be much larger than they are.
If you ignore the negatives and always view the world through rose tinted glasses, you'll find those negatives start to grow until its too late to stop them.
Someone already mentioned the frog analogy below. If we're not on guard against any assault on our freedoms, they will slowly stripped away, with each tiny step eventually adding up.
Any diminution of our freedoms is cause for resistance against those taking them away.
On the post: Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
Re: Re: Re:
This bill will do nothing to stop or slow free content, legal or otherwise.
Passing the NET Act didn't do it.
Passing the DMCA didn't do it.
Killing Napster didn't do it.
Killing MP3.com didn't do it.
Killing Morpheus/Grokster/Kazaa/Edonkey didn't do it.
Harassing torrent sites didn't do it.
Passing PRO IP Act didn't do it.
Killing Limewire didn't do it.
Passing PIPA won't do it.
Stop playing whack-a-mole, causing "collateral" damage on my rights, and adapt to the real world - or get out of the way.
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Typical bully response.
"It doesn't matter if you're right or not. We have more money and lawyers than you, so unless you do what we say, we'll bankrupt you."
On the post: Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
Re:
That's like saying a bank decides to "voluntarily" allow currency distributions to armed robbers.
And while content companies will certainly benefit, many aspects of the economy will benefit from the Protect IP Act as well.
Laugh test: FAIL
Funniest thing I've read all day.
So, when it passes, and the economy does not benefit, will you admit you were wrong and start advocating for it to be repealed?
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Project much? So copyright maximalists don't live in a constant state of willful stupidity about economics, scarcity/abundance/rivalrous/non-rivalrous, changing markets, customer desires, civil liberties, constitutional issues, original stated intent of copyright, and common sense?
The law is the law,
Unjust law is no law. Laws which cannot be enforced without significant harm on innocents are unethical and immoral.
the party is over,
The party will never be over.
and there is no free lunch.
Where have any of us freetards said there was?
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court's jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel.
Doesn't seem like it would apply here.
Wikipedia:
The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.[1]
Oh. It makes perfect sense now why they're doing it that way. Of course, that still makes it wrong.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
6 words that sum up the entire absurdity of these seizures.
How the heck can a domain name be a defendant?
The domain names are nothing more than a pointer or address. They also are not sentient, or a legal person.
If I were to try to sue a phone number or street address, every judge and lawyer would look at me like I was crazy. Yet ICE/DHS/DOJ somehow can do the same thing.
On the post: Justice Department Says It Should Be Able To Require People To Decrypt Their Computers
Re: oops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
Like that.
On the post: Justice Department Says It Should Be Able To Require People To Decrypt Their Computers
Re:
If you don't encrypt the system drive, then any data accessed on that system is not secure. It is technologically simple to get data out of various cache and temporary files, such as the Windows pagefile. Which is stored in your unencrypted system drive.
Heck, RAM isn't even completely secure after the system is off. Data (including your encryption key) can be pulled off it for minutes even after power is removed, depending on temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_boot_attack
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: No offense to Mike...
So many good thoughts wrapped up into one easily understandable post.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Copyrighting animal pictures
1) Get your cat to take pictures of itself that are even remotely close to the cuteness factor of the macaques
2) Profit off the resulting viral spread of those cute cat pictures across the internet
On the post: Company Trademarks Name Of Town, Sues Firm For Selling Souvenirs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the way it should be
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Will Fail: Cultural Acceptance, Not Fear Of Punishment, Makes People Abide By Laws
Re: Trolling Association of America
On the post: Judge Drops Key Claim In MPAA's Case Against Hotfile: Cyberlocker Didn't Directly Infringe
Re: Not to worry
This comment will self destruct in 5...
On the post: Did The Entertainment Industry Backdoor In Forcing ISPs To Kick People Offline, While Claiming It Did Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since 2000, I've lived in areas served by Cox Communications, Time Warner, and AT&T U-verse/Bellsouth DSL. With each, I've been offered one- or two-year contracts for a "locked-in" rate for cable/internet. The only way to get out of those contracts is to move completely out of their service areas. Been about 5 years since I've actually switched providers, so they may have offered non-contract rates, but I don't remember specifics.
On the post: Did The Entertainment Industry Backdoor In Forcing ISPs To Kick People Offline, While Claiming It Did Not?
Re:
Yes, but they want plausible deniability that it wasn't their choice to do it. So the obvious backlash against the disconnection can be laid at the feet of RIAA or some other industry front group everyone already hates.
On the post: American-Statesman: Suspect Position, Bad Example, Another Bad Example, Debunked Statistics, Contradiction
Re: Re: Copyright infringement isn't piracy . . .
Except in exceptional circumstances, copyright infringement causes no harm, and frequently has benefits to both the infringed and the infringer alike. On the other side, enforcing these draconian laws provably causes harm to individuals, innovative new companies, and society as a whole.
I've always been of the opinion that breaking unjust laws is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged. Copyright laws as they are currently on the books seem to me a textbook case of an unjust law, and therefore the law should be scorned, and if our elected representatives will not repeal them, it is not only acceptable to break them, it is our duty to do so.
On the post: Murdoch Phone Hacking Story Just Gets Worse And Worse
Re:
An ISP is not responsible for its user's actions. Google is not responsible for what a user uploads to Youtube. Rupert Murdoch is not responsible because a reader of one of his websites writes a defamatory comment.
Comparing those completely different organizational structures is just pitiful.
On the post: Theater Owners Still Oblivious To The Fact That They Can Compete With Home Viewing
Re:
They'd probably sell more popcorn and soda if they lowered their prices.
Just as cheapie tuesdays (in these parts half price for the two tuesday night shows) packs the theaters, dropping ticket prices would certainly bring more people in. However, unless you double the number of people in the seats, cutting half off your ticket price isn't really a good business move.
How can you say its not a good business move unless X happens when you just finished saying that X already has happened?
They are looking at supply and demand, and worrying that supply is going to wipe them out.
If their business model entirely depends on huge margins from a good that becomes commoditized, then they deserve to go out of business when people realize they can get it for cheaper (and in some cases, better AND cheaper). Its simple economics.
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re:
If you ignore the negatives and always view the world through rose tinted glasses, you'll find those negatives start to grow until its too late to stop them.
Someone already mentioned the frog analogy below. If we're not on guard against any assault on our freedoms, they will slowly stripped away, with each tiny step eventually adding up.
Any diminution of our freedoms is cause for resistance against those taking them away.
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re:
Even when in haiku form
Endangered species
Next >>