Rep. Issa actually asked if there should be criminal punishment for bogus takedowns, which I think took people by surprise, and probably goes too far.
I'm not sure. If we're going to go by the legal fiction that intellectual property is... well... property, then a bad-faith takedown is an attempt to destroy/vandalize someone else's property. Why not treat it as such?
Precedent. If the MPAA can get a ruling saying ITC can act as a copyright censor for this, then ITC can act as a copyright censor for the MPAA that much more easily.
as well as one for Tim Cushing, who is listed together with Sam Glover (I have no idea why).
Do you have any idea who? Sam Glover isn't mentioned anywhere in the article except here. He was added to the tags for the story, but the only article under his tag is this one. Who is this mysterious person?
As obnoxious, and frequently outright evil, as Facebook often is, I don't actually see anything wrong with this particular decision. They saw their users being innundated with spammy links to a site running a classic scam, and shut the practice down. That's exactly the sort of thing a good moderator should do.
The problem with the "just let the users decide" idea is that informed consent requires information, and most people don't know that tsu.co is running a pyramid scheme.
The only thing I would change is adding a note or link to the "blocked content" popup explaining why this content is blocked.
I'm reminded of an episode of Leverage where the victim of the week worked at a cooking school before the boss turned evil and forced him and his students out. He tells the team that he heard the boss talking with some shady foreign guys about buying some product for $12,000 a kilo. Elliot immediately says "cocaine." But after they infiltrate the place, they find out it's not cocaine... it's truffles!
That's just PBX routing, and it's very different from what robocallers are doing. One common (and highly abusive) trick, particularly from sleazy debt collectors, is to spoof their caller ID records to make it look like the call is coming from a relative so the person will see it as a trusted number and be sure to answer. That's what spoofing is about. There is no legitimate use for it, and it really ought to be illegal.
Law Enforcement Domestic Abuse Shelters Legitimate Call Centers
Why would these services have a legitimate reason for making their caller ID appear to be coming from somewhere else? I can see how they would have a legitimate reason, in certain circumstances, for not displaying any caller ID, (ie. anonymous calling, which I did say has legitimate uses,) but spoofing is a completely different thing.
Most robocallers make heavy use of number spoofing technology, meaning that fighting robocalling will always be a massive game of Whac-a-Mole no matter what.
You can make it a much less massive game by banning it. Calling anonymously is one thing, but pretending to have a different number than the number you have is something that I can't think of any legitimate use for whatsoever. Can you?
Wow. As if the Chamber of Commerce wasn't ridiculous enough already! Calling spam calls "legitimate, good faith communications"? How can anyone say that with a straight face?
Due to several factors, including fair use and the possibility of licensing, it's not possible to unilaterally declare file sharing to be "trafficking in illegal goods" with any accuracy. This is why courts and Due Process exist, and why we've long held in this country that you can't punish someone on accusation alone, and they're innocent until proven guilty.
How is pre-emptively treating them identically to a guilty verdict without actually going through Due Process not "censoring"?
When a weed grows in your garden, there are two ways to deal with it. You can cut it off above ground, which is easy, but it keeps growing back, and you have to keep cutting it down again and again and again. Or you can do a little bit of hard work and actually pull it out by the root. Only then is it truly gone.
The whole regime of extrajudicial copyright "enforcement" (censorship) that makes a mockery of legal doctrines we hold sacred such as the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process has a root: the DMCA. As long as we don't pull it up, these bad ideas will keep springing up again and again no matter how many times we cut them down.
It's the basis of our system of capitalism for companies to ... try to corner the market and monopolize it
...which is why it has always needed to be regulated. It's interesting the stuff you find when you actually read what Adam Smith had to say on the subject. (The infamous "invisible hand of the market" that's often quoted to support a laissez-faire policy is completely out of context in such a debate.)
It's been said that all it takes to destroy a communist system is for one person in the system to fail. On a similar note, all it takes to destroy a capitalist system is for one company in the system to succeed.
Give the Hyperloop team a few years to set things up, and you'll most likely know a lot more people who do that. The commute time will be on par with the plane ride, but at a fraction of the cost.
In Massachusetts, the wiretapping law criminalizes all secret recording of conversations, even those that take place in public.
How does that make any sense at all? A wiretap violation has two essential components that are right there in the name. You must first have a wire, a technological device that establishes a communication channel between a limited number of parties, with a reasonable expectation of privacy. You must also have a tap, a technological device that breaches the privacy of the wire's communications channel. If a conversation takes place in the open air where anyone can listen in, there is no wire to tap.
How did a statute like this not get immediately shot down by the nearest court for being too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously?
Precisely. The more you look at it, the more it appears that the entirety of the Democratic debate system this time around is designed to turn it into a coronation for Hillary and shut down anyone and anything that gets in the way. Seeing as how she's thoroughly corrupt from beginning to end, the worst thing that could possibly happen to her would be to give serious attention to a candidate whose strongest issue is fighting corruption!
On the post: DOJ Has Blocked Everyone In The Executive Branch From Reading The Senate's Torture Report
Re: verbalized brand names
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Hears Concerns From Silicon Valley About Copyright Law
I'm not sure. If we're going to go by the legal fiction that intellectual property is... well... property, then a bad-faith takedown is an attempt to destroy/vandalize someone else's property. Why not treat it as such?
On the post: Sorry, MPAA, Court Rejects Your Plan For A Secret SOPA At The ITC
Re: What am I missing?
On the post: Sorry, MPAA, Court Rejects Your Plan For A Secret SOPA At The ITC
On the post: Patrick Zarrelli Claims He's Filing Criminal Charges Against Us Because He Doesn't Like Our Post About Him
Do you have any idea who? Sam Glover isn't mentioned anywhere in the article except here. He was added to the tags for the story, but the only article under his tag is this one. Who is this mysterious person?
On the post: Facebook Bans Tsu Links Entirely, Choosing Control Over User Empowerment
The problem with the "just let the users decide" idea is that informed consent requires information, and most people don't know that tsu.co is running a pyramid scheme.
The only thing I would change is adding a note or link to the "blocked content" popup explaining why this content is blocked.
On the post: DailyDirt: Magic Mushrooms
On the post: The FCC Has Started Publicly Shaming Robocallers Weekly
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The FCC Has Started Publicly Shaming Robocallers Weekly
Re: Re:
Why would these services have a legitimate reason for making their caller ID appear to be coming from somewhere else? I can see how they would have a legitimate reason, in certain circumstances, for not displaying any caller ID, (ie. anonymous calling, which I did say has legitimate uses,) but spoofing is a completely different thing.
On the post: The FCC Has Started Publicly Shaming Robocallers Weekly
You can make it a much less massive game by banning it. Calling anonymously is one thing, but pretending to have a different number than the number you have is something that I can't think of any legitimate use for whatsoever. Can you?
On the post: The FCC Has Started Publicly Shaming Robocallers Weekly
On the post: South Korea Shoots The (Smart) Sheriff; Pull Support For Mandated, Severely Flawed Cellphone Spyware App
On the post: Think Tank Who Proposed SOPA Now Argues That US Should Encourage Countries To Censor The Pirate Bay
Re:
How is pre-emptively treating them identically to a guilty verdict without actually going through Due Process not "censoring"?
On the post: Think Tank Who Proposed SOPA Now Argues That US Should Encourage Countries To Censor The Pirate Bay
The whole regime of extrajudicial copyright "enforcement" (censorship) that makes a mockery of legal doctrines we hold sacred such as the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process has a root: the DMCA. As long as we don't pull it up, these bad ideas will keep springing up again and again no matter how many times we cut them down.
On the post: Not Just Academics Fed Up With Elsevier: Entire Editorial Staff Resigns En Masse To Start Open Access Journal
Re: Copyright is needed as an incentive to create
On the post: Not Just Academics Fed Up With Elsevier: Entire Editorial Staff Resigns En Masse To Start Open Access Journal
Re: academic publishing - a rotten system
...which is why it has always needed to be regulated. It's interesting the stuff you find when you actually read what Adam Smith had to say on the subject. (The infamous "invisible hand of the market" that's often quoted to support a laissez-faire policy is completely out of context in such a debate.)
It's been said that all it takes to destroy a communist system is for one person in the system to fail. On a similar note, all it takes to destroy a capitalist system is for one company in the system to succeed.
Problematic, no?
On the post: Sorry Net Neutrality Chicken Littles, Title II & Net Neutrality Still Haven't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Living The Dream...
Re: Commuting to SF from LV
On the post: Court Tosses Bogus Wiretapping Charge Against Man Who Recorded Cops Who Raided His House
How does that make any sense at all? A wiretap violation has two essential components that are right there in the name. You must first have a wire, a technological device that establishes a communication channel between a limited number of parties, with a reasonable expectation of privacy. You must also have a tap, a technological device that breaches the privacy of the wire's communications channel. If a conversation takes place in the open air where anyone can listen in, there is no wire to tap.
How did a statute like this not get immediately shot down by the nearest court for being too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously?
On the post: Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign
Re: No real surprise
Next >>