I don't really get your point. If the vast majority of bullets were used for crime, then you could rightly say that a bullet is probably criminal. How does that demonstrate that what the French court said is incorrect?
The court talks about it raising a presumption. Your headline states that courts are saying that it's necessarily so. That is incorrect since a presumption just means it's likely to be, not that it must be. Presumptions are rebuttable. If the vast majority of torrent sites and torrents are used for infringement, then how is wrong to say that a torrent is probably infringing? The court is, of course, correct about this. They're simply stating the obvious.
Hmm. Well, they were certainly used to try to stop all sorts of others, who the industry insisted were not "legitimately" competing, but which later became important and valuable services and technology.
Of course, if you were around at the advent of radio, I'm sure you would have claimed they weren't "legitimately" competing. Ditto for cable television. And I'm sure you agreed with the RIAA that the MP3 player was not "legitimately" competing, right?
That's the point. When you throw in that word "legitimately" and let the RIAA define what that means, you get important innovations killed off before they can really develop.
But radio, player pianos, VCRs, MP3 players, etc. were all technologies that were allowed under copyright law. I don't really follow how those are examples of things that copyright laws disallowed.
See: "Cable Television isn't competing in a legitimate way."
What you mean is that *today* under the laws that the legacy industry passed, *this site* isn't competing in a way that those legacy industry players *feel* is fair.
How is taking and giving away for free what other people invested time and money in legitimate competition?
What we're saying is that if those sorts of sites are gaining usage and attention, they're innovating and showing the industry what consumers want. And that means there are ways to embrace that and make money for the industry. Shutting them down kills that off.
And I think that's great. I also think a site can gain usage and attention while innovating and the showing the industry what consumers want without infringing.
No one said "only." But this cherrypicking (and it is cherrypicking) of what is "legitimate" and what is not based on what is inconvenient for the legacy players, is highly problematic.
No one said "only," and I've been asking if that's your argument. Apparently it's not. Does that mean you agree that innovation can occur sufficiently without infringement?
I hear people making thin arguments about how maybe it could happen given how something else could have happened but for the fact that it didn't happen that way. If you think you can convince me, give it a shot.
I can understand how that wouldn't make sense to you if you don't realize that property just means rights. Linking in an infringing way violates others people's rights. Intellectual property just means rights, you know.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling me names and saying I'm lying. I'm trying to have a productive conversation. It's unfortunate that you are so hostile to dissenting points of view.
I feel like I explain myself in detail with regularity, more so than most on techdirt.
The "radios, player pianos, VCRs, etc." situations are different because those were actually new technologies that had significant uses other than infringement.
Arguing that something could have happened that didn't doesn't really convince me that something will happen that shouldn't. It's faith based, as I said. An example of something that actually did happen would be better. Moreover, I don't see how pointing to, say, VCRs, shows how the PROTECT IP Act will thwart new technologies. It's a tenuous argument at best.
I actually started using a Bluetooth earpiece because of concerns about this. That way I'm not holding the phone next to my brain. Plus, it makes me look cool.
Right. And correct me if I'm wrong, but streaming is already a misdemeanor. Do you see people getting arrested for posting YouTube videos? No. Then why would anyone think that once they make it a felony--with a higher threshold than the misdemeanor version--all of the sudden YouTube posters are going to be rounded up and jailed? It's all total FUD. It's ridiculous. It's things like this that do not help the credibility of those saying it, if you catch my drift.
That's cute. I've never found your argument that this is just like radio, player pianos, VCRs, etc. to be that persuasive. The differences are significant. And the argument that because maybe some technology might have been blocked had something happened that didn't actually happen isn't that persuasive either. Talk about specious and faith based. Moreover, none of it convinces me that the PROTECT IP Act will actually block new technologies. Why does a new technology have to infringe? That seems to be your premise.
New technologies are free to displace the dominant ones by doing things better and by legitimately competing. Real innovation wouldn't need to infringe to do this.
The point if the industry had their way they would have blocked plenty of innovative tech that is so important we take it for granted today.
I just don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just websites dedicated to infringement. You can create any website or technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
On the post: French Court Says Merely Having The Word 'Torrent' In Your Domain Means You Are Encouraging Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: French Court Says Merely Having The Word 'Torrent' In Your Domain Means You Are Encouraging Infringement
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, if you were around at the advent of radio, I'm sure you would have claimed they weren't "legitimately" competing. Ditto for cable television. And I'm sure you agreed with the RIAA that the MP3 player was not "legitimately" competing, right?
That's the point. When you throw in that word "legitimately" and let the RIAA define what that means, you get important innovations killed off before they can really develop.
But radio, player pianos, VCRs, MP3 players, etc. were all technologies that were allowed under copyright law. I don't really follow how those are examples of things that copyright laws disallowed.
See: "Cable Television isn't competing in a legitimate way."
What you mean is that *today* under the laws that the legacy industry passed, *this site* isn't competing in a way that those legacy industry players *feel* is fair.
How is taking and giving away for free what other people invested time and money in legitimate competition?
What we're saying is that if those sorts of sites are gaining usage and attention, they're innovating and showing the industry what consumers want. And that means there are ways to embrace that and make money for the industry. Shutting them down kills that off.
And I think that's great. I also think a site can gain usage and attention while innovating and the showing the industry what consumers want without infringing.
No one said "only." But this cherrypicking (and it is cherrypicking) of what is "legitimate" and what is not based on what is inconvenient for the legacy players, is highly problematic.
No one said "only," and I've been asking if that's your argument. Apparently it's not. Does that mean you agree that innovation can occur sufficiently without infringement?
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling me names and saying I'm lying. I'm trying to have a productive conversation. It's unfortunate that you are so hostile to dissenting points of view.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "radios, player pianos, VCRs, etc." situations are different because those were actually new technologies that had significant uses other than infringement.
Arguing that something could have happened that didn't doesn't really convince me that something will happen that shouldn't. It's faith based, as I said. An example of something that actually did happen would be better. Moreover, I don't see how pointing to, say, VCRs, shows how the PROTECT IP Act will thwart new technologies. It's a tenuous argument at best.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
Re: Re:
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
On the post: iPad 2 Price Drops From 'Arm And A Leg' To More Reasonable 'One Kidney'
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just don't buy the argument. No technology is being blocked, just websites dedicated to infringement. You can create any website or technology you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's property.
Next >>