Then stop worrying about Mike. There are plenty others around here that will debate it with you. I don't whine when the President won't debate the issues with me, I just debate them with someone else.
It ought to be a requirement that any law enforcement officer should be able to quote you the exact location of the law you are breaking (Title 9 chapter 68 Section 80 paragraph 1, etc) and also have a current copy of the law at hand, whether printed or electronic. They ought to be able to say to you as you are being arrested what law you've broken.
They enforce the law. It's their job to know what they are enforcing inside and out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Dismissed by Youtube's copyright filter, dismissed by the copyright owner in a series of DMCA notices, or dismissed by a court? I think you're talking about the former two, because it's only the latter that can make the final determination. That any given full-length movie with any given commentary would not pass muster is not my argument. That it could be done, is.
VPNs can cost money, and you are relying on the VPN to not log all of your activity. TOR is slow. Your neighbor's connection, however?
And let's not forget that this has to be some nefarious thing. Cracking the wireless encryption is one reason why infringement might happen on your router even though you didn't do it. Also, letting a friend attach his laptop who may very well forget that he set utorrent to start automatically. Sure he started it on his own network, but now he's doing the rest on yours and completely unwittingly.
Re: Re: Yes, we need a new open Trade Rep to push artists' rights
Of course not. Chris Dodd would not want the next USTR to be more open. I disagree with bob on a lot of things, and I disagree that the USTR should be pushing copyrights at all, let alone so much, but at least bob's saying he wants it to be more transparent.
Depending on the algorithm used, it is true, and no, you're ISP has no idea it is going on. Once the WEP encryption is broken, you can gain wireless access on that access point. Once you have that, anything you do on it is the same as if the owner gave you the access point password.
Fun stuff: they can also change their MAC address to the same as yours, so that if you were to look at logs later, it would appear to be going to your own machine.
All of this goes to show that these strikes plans are stupid. IP addresses are not even people, let alone the owner of the account.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
If you want a copy of the 1s and 0s that make up my bank account, you are welcome to it. And that is where your "infringement = theft" mantra falls down. If you take the 1s and 0s from my bank account, that's stealing (which is why people keep certain 1s and 0s secret). If you copy them, well, that's fractional reserve banking.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Yay, you have a citation for something you said. This is a first.
Unfortunately, while what you cited gives examples of what can be considered fair use commentary, you are using that to say you can't use a whole work, even though Rikuo showed you two court cases where the amount of work used (even all of it) does not bar a fair use case.
You lose this one. Better luck on some of your other threads.
Re: now any news article about any company that CBS is in a legal fight with has become suspect.
This is the main point. It's not even the articles that are written that you have to be suspect about (did CBS alter this article) it's even about the articles they aren't writing (did CBS pressure them to [not] write about such and such). And it goes beyond that. No one wants to put a lot of effort into a piece just to have the powers that be editorialize or even completely block their work. So every time a CNET writer wants to write an article they have to pause and think to themselves "will this make it past the filters". If they hesitate on that question, most likely they won't even write it.
CNET is dead and CBS killed it. I hope CBS got their money's worth, because 1.8 billion dollars is a lot of money.
No he's right. IP addresses are way better than anything we use to put away murderers and rapists. If those crimes were prosecuted with the same level of stringent evidence as an IP address is, then all the owners of the property where the crime was committed would finally be behind bars like they ought to be. Get raped or murdered on your own property? Well, the address says you own it, therefore you are guilty. If you don't want to be guilty, you should have been murdered somewhere other than home.
Every time there's an article about some panel where the panelists are all in favor of a general path but want to talk about details, the regular idiots here say that it's a bad panel because they don't have people who disagree with the general path. Perhaps they've decided they'll host their own panel where all the naysayers get together and hash out the details of stopping innovation.
I came here to point out the hypocrisy in this statement. Let's change a few more words:
Doctors have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. "Doctors have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for medications and the Pharma industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.
Record Labels have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. "Record Labels have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for copyright control and the Recording industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.
Movie studios have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. "Movie studios have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for copyright control and the movie industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.
Cable companies have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. "Cable companies have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for monopolies and the telecommunication industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.
I could keep going, but you get the point. Some company comes to politicians crying that they are a billion dollar industry and politicians bend over backwards to make the populace bend over forward for those industries. But games come up and suddenly being a billion dollar industry is a liability. I guess the real problem is that game companies aren't lobbying hard enough.
Re: Those who forget their history are doomed. Period.
You're at a complete loss as to why the DOJ allows this to happen? A quick google search shows that a Space Pirate has been commenting on techdirt for quite some time, so it can't be an ignorance of current events.
Tell us, what do you define DOJ to mean? Because it can't be the US Department of Justice.
Nuance takes time to understand. You can read all of Mike's thoughts on copyrights on this blog. He's written quite extensively. It's all there. We all know you've had the time to do it, since you've been here long enough.
However, we also know you don't want to talk nuance. You want Mike to say something short and non-nuanced in a single post so you can pounce on whatever it is he says with all the nuance of a shotgun used as a fly swatter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
So you've shown how the post can be considered anti NRA. That comment shows it clearly. But that's not what I'm asking for. You're going off about this post being anti-2nd amendment. That's what I'm asking for. Unless you're argument is that anti-NRA == anti-2nd amendment, you've not shown how it is anti-2nd amendment. And if that is your argument your going to have to do a lot of work to prove why that is correct as I've just given you an example of why being anti-(supporter of some amendment) is not the same as being anti-(amendment).
I'll go so far as to concede that Dark Helmet's post is anti-NRA. Perhaps Dark Helmet hates the NRA and this post's sole intention is to get other's to hate the NRA as well. I'll grant that, but still ask how is it anti-2nd amendment. That's the claim you made, now prove it. Surely if you read this article and came to that conclusion then there is at least one place you can point to that suggests American's should not have the right to bear arms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
So your argument basically boils down to "having anything but 100% positive feelings for and agreement with the NRA at all times means you are against the second amendment"? I don't like Larry Flynt or the Westboro Baptist Church. Am I now anti 1st amendment?
If that's not your argument then stop evading. Point to one line in the article that is anti second amendment. I don't want to hear about where the article is poking fun at the NRA or even being anti NRA. I want to see the part of the article that says people should not have the right to bear arms.
The second amendment has nothing to do with slavery. Let's ignore that we're talking about a people who had just defeated the most powerful army in the world at the time with nothing but militia's (and France's money, but it was militias doing the fighting). Let's ignore that both the south and the north had militias. Let's ignore that when the Bill of Rights were written there was a lot of concern about even a too-powerful Federal government taking away State's rights. Let's ignore that Thomas Jefferson thought we'd need a good rebellion every twenty years. Let's ignore that we're talking about a group of people who had no problem explicitly talking about in the Constitution (a document they purposely made very difficult to change) "importation of people", saying blacks weren't worth a whole person for reasons of representation, and that escape from one state into another did not free them, yet the claim here is that they didn't want to talk about slaves directly in the second amendment.
The second amendment was all about making sure the government (whether at a State vs Nation level or people vs government level) would not become oppressive.
Then off you go ranting about what you think second amendment supporters are and then try to duck out of it in another comment saying you were only talking about gun nuts, yet never define what a gun nut is. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment. I own zero guns and haven't even fired one in over a decade. I get tired of hearing people talk about the second amendment and refer to hunting and personal self defense in the same breath, because the second amendment isn't about those things. But I also love me some first amendment. I'm a huge fan of the entire Bill of Rights.
I'm honestly surprised you would write this. Most of what you say is usually at least thoughtful. But this? This is just garbage. Perhaps you've had a bad day. I don't know. But that's just complete crap.
On the post: Human Rights Lawyer Explains Why He's Working For Kim Dotcom: Exposing American Corruption
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.
On the post: Carlos Miller Arrested (Again) For Perfectly Legal Photography
Re: Re: Pretty convenient
They enforce the law. It's their job to know what they are enforcing inside and out.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
On the post: Should You Brag About Your Law School Grades On Facebook?
Re:
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And let's not forget that this has to be some nefarious thing. Cracking the wireless encryption is one reason why infringement might happen on your router even though you didn't do it. Also, letting a friend attach his laptop who may very well forget that he set utorrent to start automatically. Sure he started it on his own network, but now he's doing the rest on yours and completely unwittingly.
On the post: USTR Pushing Excessive SOPA-Style Liability In China
Re: Re: Yes, we need a new open Trade Rep to push artists' rights
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fun stuff: they can also change their MAC address to the same as yours, so that if you were to look at logs later, it would appear to be going to your own machine.
All of this goes to show that these strikes plans are stupid. IP addresses are not even people, let alone the owner of the account.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Unfortunately, while what you cited gives examples of what can be considered fair use commentary, you are using that to say you can't use a whole work, even though Rikuo showed you two court cases where the amount of work used (even all of it) does not bar a fair use case.
You lose this one. Better luck on some of your other threads.
Gentlemen, you are dismissed. Case closed.
On the post: CNET: You Can't Trust Our Reviews, But You Can Trust Our News! Honestly!
Re: now any news article about any company that CBS is in a legal fight with has become suspect.
CNET is dead and CBS killed it. I hope CBS got their money's worth, because 1.8 billion dollars is a lot of money.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
On the post: Who Sets Up An 'Innovation Forum' Hosted By A Guy Who Insists That Nothing Good Has Come From The Internet?
Re:
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Re:
On the post: Just Two More Days To Unlock Your Phone, Then You'll Be Breaking The Law
Re: Those who forget their history are doomed. Period.
Tell us, what do you define DOJ to mean? Because it can't be the US Department of Justice.
On the post: Just Two More Days To Unlock Your Phone, Then You'll Be Breaking The Law
On the post: Churchill's Heirs Seek To Lose The Future By Charging Biographer To Quote His Words
Re:
However, we also know you don't want to talk nuance. You want Mike to say something short and non-nuanced in a single post so you can pounce on whatever it is he says with all the nuance of a shotgun used as a fly swatter.
Now buzz off you pesky fly.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
I'll go so far as to concede that Dark Helmet's post is anti-NRA. Perhaps Dark Helmet hates the NRA and this post's sole intention is to get other's to hate the NRA as well. I'll grant that, but still ask how is it anti-2nd amendment. That's the claim you made, now prove it. Surely if you read this article and came to that conclusion then there is at least one place you can point to that suggests American's should not have the right to bear arms.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
If that's not your argument then stop evading. Point to one line in the article that is anti second amendment. I don't want to hear about where the article is poking fun at the NRA or even being anti NRA. I want to see the part of the article that says people should not have the right to bear arms.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
I've asked before. I'll ask again. Where in this article is there anything that is anti-second amendment? Quote it please. Show me the lines.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: This blog amazes me
The second amendment was all about making sure the government (whether at a State vs Nation level or people vs government level) would not become oppressive.
Then off you go ranting about what you think second amendment supporters are and then try to duck out of it in another comment saying you were only talking about gun nuts, yet never define what a gun nut is. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment. I own zero guns and haven't even fired one in over a decade. I get tired of hearing people talk about the second amendment and refer to hunting and personal self defense in the same breath, because the second amendment isn't about those things. But I also love me some first amendment. I'm a huge fan of the entire Bill of Rights.
I'm honestly surprised you would write this. Most of what you say is usually at least thoughtful. But this? This is just garbage. Perhaps you've had a bad day. I don't know. But that's just complete crap.
Next >>