What a bunch of morons. While I'm not a defender of government surveillance, International Service providers are nothing but idiots and morons. Suing GCHQ because of "what might happen" in regards to their spying? You cannot sue someone for something that hasn't happened yet.
The courts need to dismiss this lawsuit as nothing more than frivolous.
Actually, the justice did agree that Aereo was breaking the law. The only thing some of them were worried about is how it would affect other services like The Hopper, Netflix and so on.
I don't expect the court to overturn the Aereo decision but I think that they may revise the ruling so that it only impacts the type of service like Aereo that tries to base its business by capturing broadcast signals and re-transmitting those signals without licensing that content from the broadcasters.
The ruling was too broad and I suspect that the court will limit the ruling where a business like Aereo doesn't license the content they are attempting to re-broadcast without compensating the broadcasters.
What Aereo did is worse than what bit torrent websites are doing. Aereo is actually capturing those signals, storing them, and then re-transmitting them to subscribers whenever they wanted to watch them.
You guys keep spouting the same BS excuses that piracy sites like Demonoid, Pirate Bay and KickAss keep spouting.
Did Aereo get permission from the copyright owners or the broadcasters to re-transmit those signals?
NO, THEY DID NOT.
Did they acquire a license or compensate copyright owners or broadcasters for the content they re-broadcasted?
NO THEY DID NOT.
Aereo violated copyright laws and the Supreme Court saw right through it. While I think that the Supreme Court decision should have been limited to the type of business models that Aereo used, the Supreme Court did come to the right decision.
The Supreme Court ruling on Aereo was the correct one. This was a company who was stealing media content from the licensed authorized broadcaster and tried to profit off content created by others.
Aereo was violating copyright laws by selling access to watch TV shows online without licensing that content from the broadcasters.
It doesn't matter what argument anyone comes up with, violating copyright is simply not permitted in this country. Otherwise, torrent sites would have a legitimate argument to push back against the MPAA and RIAA and be able to profit from sharing torrents.
You guys sound like the college frat guys who routinely sexually harass the female students. If you think you can;t get charged for rape when you have sex with an intoxicated female student, think again. 9 times out of 10, you will get charged with rape. Not only that, but most sex assault counselors will press female students to press charges against the male student.
I still don't believe the ignorance here and the frat boy mentality going on. You guys act like you endorse getting a girl drunk and having sex with her. If you're dumb enough to get a girl drunk and have sex with her, then you will most likely be arrested, charged and found guilty of rape.
Not only that but 99% of the rapes that occur are the result of a guy raping the woman. 99% of rapes that occur on campus happen when a guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her because she's more susceptible to suggestion.
Only an idiot would think that getting a girl drunk and then having sex is okay. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, and you will be the one spending time in prison for a rape conviction and you will be registering as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
You guys will do well in prison when your cellmates turn you into their little girlfriends.
This is nowhere near a fight between society and mother nature. It's a fight between horny fraternity students who love to get campus girls drunk and have sex with them. I would say that if nobody believes they will get charged with date rape, I encourage you to get a girl drunk and have sex with her and then find out what happens to you. Chances are, you'll get arrested, charged with rape, and find yourself doing 2-10 years in prison, with a cellmate named Big Bubba.
I cannot believe the stupidity and ignorance of your guys when it comes to date rape. I just did some research for you guys so here goes:
Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex and you could be charged with rape. It does not matter whether you knew she was intoxicated, it doesn’t matter if you were intoxicated too, all that matters is that she was not in a state of mind to consent and therefore it is rape. If you get a girl drunk or high and then “get together” with her you have committed a sexual assault. Again, it doesn’t matter if you are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities. A good rule to follow; if you are under the influence do not have sex. Now say you really had no idea a girl was intoxicated and that she truly appeared to be a willing partner, what then? The reality is that you could still be charged with rape if she is able to prove she was drunk or high. Your knowledge of her state may only be a mitigating factor; it does not guarantee you won’t be charged.
The arguments being displayed in the comments above are so full of bullshit that everyone's reasoning is just that, bullshit. There's a 99% chance that if you go out and have sex with a woman who is drunk, you stand a very good chance of being charged with date rape. IN a court of law, if it's proven that the woman was drunk when you had sex, you will most likely be charged with rape.
Don't be stupid and have sex with a woman who's drunk.
In a court of law, the woman isn't likely to be charged with rape. Since rape is predominantly a crime perpetrated by men, it's been established in every district in this country that you are guilty of rape if you have sex with any woman who is intoxicated. Even if the woman is intoxicated when she gave her consent, you, as the male, are guilty, and courts routinely hand down guilty verdicts if a man has had sex with a woman and the woman was intoxicated at the time that both had sex.
Even if the woman you're having sex with consents, if she was drunk at the time she gave her consent, it's still considered rape.
Any moronic male campus student knows that if the female you're having sex with is intoxicated, drunk, under the influence of anything drug or alcohol related, it's date rape, because the female isn't sober enough to make an informed decision.
It doesn't matter if she consented when she was drunk, it's still considered rape.
This country has turned into a fascist state. We're no longer a country that respects each others freedoms and everytime someone talks about restricting law enforcement, those agencies find ways to either get around laws or just ignore them completely.
We even have a president who spouts national security under the guise of terrorism when its a common fact that we haven't been attacked by terrorists since September 11th, 2001. And the reason we were attacked was because Democrats struck a deal with The Taliban, who turned around and decided to attack us. Then, Obama (a Democrat) decided to strike a new bargain with The Taliban.
Democrats, instead of aligning themselves with Americans who live in the United States, continue to support rebels in other countries who work at overthrowing legitimate governments and in aligning themselves with terror groups.
We also have FBI, Police Departments and SWAT teams who spend more time killing and assassinating Americans that they try to cover up their inept behavior.
The most recent example of this inept behavior, happened just a few days ago:
Aereo violated the copyright laws. Just because those broadcasts were transmitted over free spectrums doesn't mean you can capture those signals, re-broadcast it, and make money from it. Aereo is violating copyright laws the same way that torrent sites violate the copyright laws.
EU laws do not have any type of effect in the United States. The ruling only applies to search results on European Union oriented websites. If the website is in the United States, the E.U. ruling doesn't affect Google results as they relate to searches conducted in the United States.
So, is the FBI now saying that Congress is an organized gang? The FBI is an organized gang? The CIA is an organized gang? The IRS is an organized gang?
Moving to Canada wouldn't eliminate the copyright risk and Aereo would risk becoming involved in two copyright lawsuits, one in the United States and one in Canada.
The decision was the correct one reached by the Supreme Court. Violating the copyright law is not allowed in this country. You cannot steal content from someone else and turn around and make a profit from it.
I'm happy as a clam that Aereo lost. Aereo was violating copyright. What everyone keeps forgetting is that what Aereo was doing was no different than torrent sites.
Suppose a torrent site was charging its users a subscription fee to download movies, music and whatnot. Everyone can bitch and moan all they want, but it's still copyright infringement.
The problem was that Aereo made the argument that they were capturing the free broadcasts but what everyone forgets to understand is that Aereo was turning around and charging subscribers for those programs without paying any kind of conpensation to the networks who own that content.
The Supreme Court saw through Aereo's scam and came to the conclusion that if they were allowed to continue that the networks would simply transfer all of their broadcasting to "cable and satellite" networks, ending free TV.
Simply having "dirt" in the name of your website doesn't give you immunity from websites, which was what the court was saying. The website claimed that having "dirt" in its website name protected itself from lawsuits, which is not what section 230 says.
Courts are increasingly limiting the protections that website operators have under Section 230. I find it sad that website operators are trying to create more protections for crap that isn't even covered under Section 230.
Section 230 only offers limited protections under very specific circumstances. For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt can be held liable for the messages posted by its users. Simply having "dirt" in the name of your website doesn't grant you additional protection ... it doesn't give additional protections or remove any protections just because of the "dirt" name.
I have to agree with the court on this matter. Simply adding "dirt" to your domain name does not absolve you of liability under Section 230. Mike can argue that point but if you have "dirt" in your domain name and you are posting libelous comments on your own website, you are liable for those comments.
On the post: International Service Providers Sue GCHQ For Potentially Hacking Their Networks
The courts need to dismiss this lawsuit as nothing more than frivolous.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
I don't expect the court to overturn the Aereo decision but I think that they may revise the ruling so that it only impacts the type of service like Aereo that tries to base its business by capturing broadcast signals and re-transmitting those signals without licensing that content from the broadcasters.
The ruling was too broad and I suspect that the court will limit the ruling where a business like Aereo doesn't license the content they are attempting to re-broadcast without compensating the broadcasters.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
You guys keep spouting the same BS excuses that piracy sites like Demonoid, Pirate Bay and KickAss keep spouting.
Did Aereo get permission from the copyright owners or the broadcasters to re-transmit those signals?
NO, THEY DID NOT.
Did they acquire a license or compensate copyright owners or broadcasters for the content they re-broadcasted?
NO THEY DID NOT.
Aereo violated copyright laws and the Supreme Court saw right through it. While I think that the Supreme Court decision should have been limited to the type of business models that Aereo used, the Supreme Court did come to the right decision.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Aereo was violating copyright laws by selling access to watch TV shows online without licensing that content from the broadcasters.
It doesn't matter what argument anyone comes up with, violating copyright is simply not permitted in this country. Otherwise, torrent sites would have a legitimate argument to push back against the MPAA and RIAA and be able to profit from sharing torrents.
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
I still don't believe the ignorance here and the frat boy mentality going on. You guys act like you endorse getting a girl drunk and having sex with her. If you're dumb enough to get a girl drunk and have sex with her, then you will most likely be arrested, charged and found guilty of rape.
Not only that but 99% of the rapes that occur are the result of a guy raping the woman. 99% of rapes that occur on campus happen when a guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her because she's more susceptible to suggestion.
Only an idiot would think that getting a girl drunk and then having sex is okay. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, and you will be the one spending time in prison for a rape conviction and you will be registering as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
You guys will do well in prison when your cellmates turn you into their little girlfriends.
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex and you could be charged with rape. It does not matter whether you knew she was intoxicated, it doesn’t matter if you were intoxicated too, all that matters is that she was not in a state of mind to consent and therefore it is rape. If you get a girl drunk or high and then “get together” with her you have committed a sexual assault. Again, it doesn’t matter if you are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities. A good rule to follow; if you are under the influence do not have sex. Now say you really had no idea a girl was intoxicated and that she truly appeared to be a willing partner, what then? The reality is that you could still be charged with rape if she is able to prove she was drunk or high. Your knowledge of her state may only be a mitigating factor; it does not guarantee you won’t be charged.
http://teenadvice.about.com/od/daterape/a/daterapeguysfyi_2.htm
The arguments being displayed in the comments above are so full of bullshit that everyone's reasoning is just that, bullshit. There's a 99% chance that if you go out and have sex with a woman who is drunk, you stand a very good chance of being charged with date rape. IN a court of law, if it's proven that the woman was drunk when you had sex, you will most likely be charged with rape.
Don't be stupid and have sex with a woman who's drunk.
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
Even if the woman you're having sex with consents, if she was drunk at the time she gave her consent, it's still considered rape.
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
It doesn't matter if she consented when she was drunk, it's still considered rape.
On the post: Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations To Get Out Of Transparency Requests
We even have a president who spouts national security under the guise of terrorism when its a common fact that we haven't been attacked by terrorists since September 11th, 2001. And the reason we were attacked was because Democrats struck a deal with The Taliban, who turned around and decided to attack us. Then, Obama (a Democrat) decided to strike a new bargain with The Taliban.
Democrats, instead of aligning themselves with Americans who live in the United States, continue to support rebels in other countries who work at overthrowing legitimate governments and in aligning themselves with terror groups.
We also have FBI, Police Departments and SWAT teams who spend more time killing and assassinating Americans that they try to cover up their inept behavior.
The most recent example of this inept behavior, happened just a few days ago:
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/
On the post: Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations To Get Out Of Transparency Requests
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
There is NO difference.
On the post: Google Starts Disappearing Part Of The Internet In Europe
On the post: DOJ Says 'Not Our Fault' That Police Actually Believed FBI Report Calling Juggalos Gang Members
WOW!
On the post: UK Home Secretary: UK Isn't A Surveillance State... And I'd Give You Proof, But You Might All Die Because Of It
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Suppose a torrent site was charging its users a subscription fee to download movies, music and whatnot. Everyone can bitch and moan all they want, but it's still copyright infringement.
The problem was that Aereo made the argument that they were capturing the free broadcasts but what everyone forgets to understand is that Aereo was turning around and charging subscribers for those programs without paying any kind of conpensation to the networks who own that content.
The Supreme Court saw through Aereo's scam and came to the conclusion that if they were allowed to continue that the networks would simply transfer all of their broadcasting to "cable and satellite" networks, ending free TV.
On the post: Phew: Appeals Court Says Having 'Dirt' In Your Domain Name Doesn't Remove Safe Harbor Protections
Courts are increasingly limiting the protections that website operators have under Section 230. I find it sad that website operators are trying to create more protections for crap that isn't even covered under Section 230.
Section 230 only offers limited protections under very specific circumstances. For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt can be held liable for the messages posted by its users. Simply having "dirt" in the name of your website doesn't grant you additional protection ... it doesn't give additional protections or remove any protections just because of the "dirt" name.
On the post: Phew: Appeals Court Says Having 'Dirt' In Your Domain Name Doesn't Remove Safe Harbor Protections
Next >>