special-interesting (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 8:15am
Re: How many times I gotta tell ya: markets are NOT dynamic!
I kind of agree with OOTB in that our markets are locked up in layers (and layers and tons) and tons of regulation as it seems every industry from sugar to aircraft have their own special interest protectionist legislation. The realm of intellectual growth and advancement (and the culture of such) is tied by eternal copyright.
Yes there is still a lot of dynamism left in the markets and am grateful for that. The attitude of “it moves; tax and legislate it!” will kill off many of the good ideas in favor of the one (firm, group?) writing the text of the legislation.
Legislation by itself is not always bad but legislation written by and for a monopoly is.
special-interesting (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:25am
Few times can I express the cultural (file) sharing effect in the unique way Pirate Bay (and its founders) have. The PirateBay comes close to achieving international greatness. (so few organizations do) (I said greatness that is rare)
How does the world learn that War is terrible? (all nations edit history) Commercial profits are good (what is a monopoly anyway) and that hitting your kids is bad. (And. Reading philosophy is good? Hahaha)
I compare the Pirate-Bay to the, before burnt to the ground by the Luddite (and dead) Romans, library of Alexandria.
No way is what I hear on popular news close to real actuality.
When anyone limits the access to historical knowledge... they are (in the learning that war is bad sense) wrong. (and many other ways too.)
special-interesting (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:59am
DRM = DRM. Nuff said. One might even ask if they could go to the bathroom for a fee.
I have worried about HTML5 in that it is a new format that needs to be swept under the Privoxy rug like prohibited actions like java, flash or shockwave.
If the terms for copyright were even close to to reasonable (well within one's lifetime) we might consider something like this but even then...
On the face of it current copyright limits are like a death sentence on ideas learned over public (hahaha) media. If you cannot use what you hear, before you die, why read/listen? Why even pay attention to the news if we cannot speak of it to our friends and neighbors. (without a fee)
Several time I have said that news-aggregation sites are nothing more than gossip. If greater than that that they should be given ad fees for referring interested clients to their sites. If firms could use HTML5 for regulating this they would. (to their own likely demise)
Java, flash and whatever are always banned from general browsing. Never visit a new site with such enabled and you will, 99.99% likely, never get a virus. If that breaks a site then so what don't go there.
special-interesting (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:35am
Where is the basic trust we shared as Americans gone? What lovable societal meem was lost when the TSA entered the scene.
Degrading into conspiracy theory: A direct result of DEA policy of supporting foreign suppliers of drugs.
If one was really against terrorism then they would remove all the laws regulating drugs including prescriptions. This would remove any monetary support for gangs, hoodlums, most terror cells, gangsters, motivation for many bank robberies and the development of new drugs based on societal use. (don't laugh as many current drugs were first found by individual use and its success as such)
In all that we consider the feelings of an elected representative's feelings about being searched with the scrutiny to find even a hidden jump drive.
special-interesting (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 12:54am
PETA... is actually hard to comment on in the sense that they don't make the sense they did at their inception. Another great organization hijacked by radical idiots.
Have to admit; once a wildly radical group reaches some level of damage it blurs in my mind. Cannot even distinguish PETA from MADD as both seem hijacked by an internal desire to force some specific Utopian ideal on the public at large. As much as I love animals they don't (to me) represent any ideal or standard that distinguishes their effort.
The PETA effort seems to only remind me that life is hard, horrible and it is pointless to hammer anyone who is undergoing such reality. PETA to me is like the DEA of the animal world. Despite the wonderful stories expounded upon in the promotion adverts what good do they do? In reality they bust up animal owners undergoing sever economic trauma or family crisis. Do they help these people? No. They use them ruthlessly for promotion of their intervention crusade.
If PETA could say that these same owners subjected to their militaristic actions had refused a grant from them to actually help the animals themselves... I would be more sympathetic to their efforts. Considering the economic expense of each intervention it would surly be a potential lowest cost solution.
To point; they want to attack digital whaling? Because these people have no voice with me... so what? A group with no credibility has no truck with me. I'd rather walk through a sludge basin than deal with such tripe.
special-interesting (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 1:33pm
I don't think that the public or the average commercial enterprise benefits from this agreement. There is no agreement that can benefit the public at large if it is secret from such. I (dose anyone?) do not believe that current legislators will act benevolently on my behalf.
Consumer well being? Who asked me? (a typical consumer) Furthermore. I have witnessed the total denial of consumer (average public) opinion being ignored by Washington (remember ACTA anyone?) so where is my opinion in all of that anyway? (I like the term 'smoke screen')
The American public has been excluded from... public discourse. It is a shame.
Thanks for the good commentary. (everyone)
It should be said that corporate well being is dependent on the well being of the consumer. A strong consumer base gives credence to great corporate success.
As a note to history it is vital that we, as a public, have the tools to pay attention to historical trends such as economic protectionism, and the wars it generates.
special-interesting (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:37am
This started off as “an ode to Bob” (inspiring argument btw) but grew like most of my essays do,
let us examine corporate profit needs (ownership, possibly monopolistic) vs. an individual's personal and a society's general (and economic) growth needs.
Lets look at my own selfish, egotistic self.
-brings out microscope- ( -runs and hides- Donnn't loook at meeeee!)
I want to be articulate, funny, intelligent, rich, own successful firms, make sense, have impact and don't forget be popular (in a good and profitable way as fame can be an expense). At rare moments in my life I can actually attain these things. (probably not today)
Now lets look at reality. Am stupid, not funny, clumsy, not intelligent and my popularity is definitely an expense. (No. I wont buy you lunch; learned that lesson long ago.)
I don't have a direct solution to being so lame or broke but as most, somewhat, clever human beings do... have come up with some workarounds. That is; I use the good/great work of others to grow my own character, awareness and profit in the directions that I, can hopefully, choose.
I quote other brilliant words, phrases and even entire sentences (when I can remember them) in my written works. And. Since my memory is so bad I also copy whole sections and quote them also. (with references) Since my self image sometimes wavers I act like Goofy or Sherlock Holmes as needed at dull meetings and or lively parties. I ever read and tell the jokes from others often. (most of the time you hear a joke from a friend its usually made by some one else anyway) Can I even spell many of the words in this document? Sometimes, but I use a spell checker and someone else's skills to get it better than I could alone.
Can I make money on my own? Maybe but will probably use a combination of business models from others.
Can I write music like so many other artists do? No. I play what I hear on the radio or whatever media. Can I act as funny as a Monty Python skit? No way. I use their scrips to act funny in front of friends and family or even (gasp) a home made skit on videotape that I want to share on youtube. When I read a great graduate level textbook on philosophy I make such knowledge mine! (Back off dude.) On and on etc. etc. etcetera.
I also want to profit by all this (growth in some good chosen direction) someday and not be told off by a copyright owner with selfish puritanical (or not) beliefs. To be able to return back to society both in spending my profits and in writing my own interpretation or adaptation of all I have learned. Hopefully making a profit off of that also.
My point is that at some time all this (of what some original content creator made) eventually enters the ever growing and changing stream of culture. It becomes a part of our self-image and a part of society as a whole and allows each individual or firm to reuse, combine, reinvent those old ideas into something greater. The active debate is when this happens.
The UN-natural concept of eternal copyright produces legal challenges to the personal (intellectual adsorption) or commercial adoption of any such copyrighted items/ideas.
Our very life is a collection of meems and we create and nurture it by the inclusion of cultural behavior (meems) we stumble upon in life. A company or corporation is also a collection of meems through the individuals who own, run and work for it.
We diminish (because of eternal copyright) as individuals, commercial enterprises and as a culture of people when the public commons decreases. The opportunities for commercial exploitation of the culture we learn of, in our lifetime, is at stake.
Society of ownership? Who can profit from that but only a few? Do we own our own lives and the culture we collect (Creating the being/company we call/identify-with ourselves?) through media and books we read?
One might ask that we pay for every word or phrase we say as almost everything has been said before. At some point a corporation (artist, artists family and artists great, great, great grandkids) must let go. (don't even try and tell me that the copyright industry doesn't have, ready to go, a proposal for another culturally destructive copyright term extension. With great cigarette arguments to go with it.)
At this time, because of the abuses and punitive legal damage the monopolistic copyright industry has done, I am for the complete abolishment of the entire copyright act. (makes for great heated discussion at a party) (and lets get after the trademark law for being used as a permanent copyright also. Batman anyone?) Come up with something else please.
I propose a limit (for cultural inclusion into the lives of the intended audience) to be much less than the lives of such audience. An absolute (for artists and corporations) limit of 15-30 years fits this well. If not something like this then noting and no term at all. (Or nothing at all.)
Ok, rant over. -powers down-
-gets down from high horse, standing on soap box, sitting on a pulpit, on a hill-
special-interesting (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 8:02am
Re:
Follow up.
It is often said and most of the time true that a lawyer only works for the client and often represents people/organizations whom they do not agree with otherwise how would a convicted felon get decent legal representation. This is obvious.
Most (all?) of these firms seem to be artificial shell firms derived entirely by the Predna group. Only time and public scrutiny will tell. If such is true then the lawyer only working for the client defense is hollow.
special-interesting (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 7:17am
Everyone has some internal clicker or checklist on whether to trust anyone or organization and its common for many not to trust their own boss or firm.
“comment” +/- unspecific scoring (Where n1, n2, n3 and n4 are unique to each individual.)
+n1 “a very narrow, careful, and precise subject-line search”
+n1 “,did not involve a review of email content, limited to a search of the subject line, the contents of no one's emails were searched,”
-n3 “Harvard violated there own IT policy by not providing prior written notice” (thanks Arther Moor)
-n4 “search was conducted”
etc.
This all adds up to some unspecific analysis different to everyone. n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 = subjective answer.
When an employee does not trust upper management it cuts off vital internal communication. I mean, its not like one to speak to anyone who is considered hostile or as unfairly taking advantage of you. No good can come from fragmented management or isolation of personnel.
A University might have a different level of expectation of privacy than say from a Utility company billing department's e-mails to delinquent customers. Whatevr the company policy is its how it is implementation on an individual basis that is most important.
Most feared is probably the immediate supervisor who may be looking for the usual advantage over other managers/employees and has no scruples (read as 'bully') about privacy or your career goals.
special-interesting (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 6:18am
I am both breathless and speechless at the unusual directness of a judge's examination of the normal, typical operations of a copyright troll. Yes this scrutiny is only likely because of flagrant violations of court procedures and falsifying submitted documents (and other stuff) but who's complaining anyway?
What I do find so very encouraging is the brief mention of the methods for identifying potential targets for profitable prosecution. Not yet brought to light was why Steele apparently chose "Internet porn piracy”.
Clear (for whatever reasons) was the prosecutions choice to target the sensitive realm of controversial content. (p0rn) This is possibly abuse by segmenting out a class of people already targeted and publicly demonized (persecuted?) by religious and puritan organizations. Did they feel that pressuring such individuals from this group would be more susceptible to unpublicized capitulation?
This may not be specifically religious persecution but since it is a group persecuted by various religions it is definitely related. No question about it. It would be enlightening to examine the religious and moral beliefs of the prosecutors in such cases. Even if the motive was only profit it could still be found that the profiling was discriminatory.
It is my understanding that this is the real ievil meat any such specialized copyright troll dines on. These are not just normal defendants but religiously segmented targets for legal stone-throwing.
Making sure to not leave unsaid the obvious; The unexplored depth of the many horrors of common copyright trolls has only been briefly touched on...
Forget the popcorn. (later) I want a hot dog with everything on it. -scarf-
special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 6:03pm
Re:
Am and am not surprised on the no-show. Kind of like pleading the 5th but with silence instead.
So far it has been only a civil action but this hearing was in relation to misconduct unbecoming of an attorney inside the courtroom and a prelude to more serious action.
The judge may have wanted to issue warrants today but he was thrown two more bones to pick with Prenda. One is the issue with Allen Mooney (of various spellings) which at least doubles the likely contempt of court (and other) charges and somewhat need to be sorted out. Second is the Verizon being taken for a ride affair of which, justifiably, they are miffed about and also needs some thought.
special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:46pm
Re: Prenda using Hollywood Accounting?
Hollywood accounting is famous for pictures grossing over 110 million and NEVER fessing up on the common clause of 'percentage of profit'. (Profits? What profits? We don't have no stinking profits!)
Hollywood accounting has got to be a stereotype phrase by now for: Don't sign that contract without a percentage of the GROSS receipts. (even if the percentage is much smaller the return is much larger.)
special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 2:05pm
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
I would like to see a book report or essay on the TechDirt posts graded like Drug Court judges do when evaluating if the defendant was just wheedling or actually understood (learned is too much) that the behavior was frowned upon.
The difference between crocodile tears and, at least, feigning complicity.
Singing Amazing Grace would not really help as John Newton, the author 1748, continued his slave trading for six years after he wrote the lyrics.
special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 12:59pm
Most of what has transpired (with some Cooper exceptions) so far has been like typical of a classic copyright troll (funny shell firms, preposterous claims, preying on controversial content) of which I hope the judicial community is paying attention to but...
These guys are special. Outright, absolutely, waaaay out there in the legal twilight zone.
special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 12:23pm
What ever happened to the long lost principle of constitution law “If even ONE person's rights are violated” the entire written law was tossed Hopefully along with the pork barrel spending attached.
That'll teach um for writing bad, loosely worded, special interest influenced, law.
Just what do we pay judges for anyway since obviously they haven't allowed a jury to actually listen to (and even re-listen to as new aspects arise) constitutional concerns of even the most basic privacy issues of our electronic age. (A judge basically tells a jury what it can or cannot consider)
The obvious (unjust?) constitutional privacy issues are clear. They are only muddled by the judicial, thus law enforcement, confusion between a written letter and an e-mail of that same text. Even though the Constitution makes no distinction some mistaken judge/jury did and, to date has been, allowed to stand.
An example of the utter unjust implementation of such legal precedence is the DMCA take-down notice (abused by thousands) that does not include review by a judge.
The eternal copyright problems can be solved with public awareness of the personal value (for your kids!) of public domain and copyright terms much less than the life of (yourself) the audience. (15-30 yrs)
These reasonable terms would force content creators to come up with new sequels or better yet entirely new works instead of loafing back and leaching off of past (thus removing 95% of the dead UN-republished media from culture) works. In this way the public domain would grow rather than shrink and the available cultural content a person could use and profit from would increase also.
There are so many examples of culture being selectively edited by anyone with a two bit copyright claim (on even pivotal public speeches) its beyond any 'cultural' state of emergency could describe.
special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 11:15am
Hard to say atm but its got that fishy scent of money that a good detective follows. Especially with all the spelling variations.
My imaginary vision (grows) of the Prenda (John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Duffy and Brett Gibbs etc.) involved characters sitting in a Phil Donahue TV show contested by the various vexed Judges (Judge Otis Wright, others) plus representation from DieTrollDie and some anonymous (behind a curtain) defendants have a lively and loud arguments, about fair use and IP as hearsay evidence, and then bringing out...
The caretaker Mr. Cooper which raises the level of rabid screaming and whining from the squalling law firms while, large muscled men with no hair, security personnel hold them back from violent fist fighting...
and our next involved mystery guest( held in the isolation box back stage) is... Allen Mooney! Please come out now!
On the post: Innovative Open Textbook Company Fights Back Against Publishers' Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Re: How many times I gotta tell ya: markets are NOT dynamic!
Yes there is still a lot of dynamism left in the markets and am grateful for that. The attitude of “it moves; tax and legislate it!” will kill off many of the good ideas in favor of the one (firm, group?) writing the text of the legislation.
Legislation by itself is not always bad but legislation written by and for a monopoly is.
On the post: Warner Bros. Lets Veronica Mars Crew Prove Demand For A Movie Via Kickstarter
If it works?(In the sense that anyone can do this.) Who cares.
On the post: Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression
How does the world learn that War is terrible? (all nations edit history) Commercial profits are good (what is a monopoly anyway) and that hitting your kids is bad. (And. Reading philosophy is good? Hahaha)
I compare the Pirate-Bay to the, before burnt to the ground by the Luddite (and dead) Romans, library of Alexandria.
No way is what I hear on popular news close to real actuality.
When anyone limits the access to historical knowledge... they are (in the learning that war is bad sense) wrong. (and many other ways too.)
On the post: Disappointing: Tim Berners-Lee Defends DRM In HTML 5
I have worried about HTML5 in that it is a new format that needs to be swept under the Privoxy rug like prohibited actions like java, flash or shockwave.
If the terms for copyright were even close to to reasonable (well within one's lifetime) we might consider something like this but even then...
On the face of it current copyright limits are like a death sentence on ideas learned over public (hahaha) media. If you cannot use what you hear, before you die, why read/listen? Why even pay attention to the news if we cannot speak of it to our friends and neighbors. (without a fee)
Several time I have said that news-aggregation sites are nothing more than gossip. If greater than that that they should be given ad fees for referring interested clients to their sites. If firms could use HTML5 for regulating this they would. (to their own likely demise)
Java, flash and whatever are always banned from general browsing. Never visit a new site with such enabled and you will, 99.99% likely, never get a virus. If that breaks a site then so what don't go there.
On the post: Innovators Break Stuff, Including The Rules: How Gates, Jobs & Zuckerberg Could Have Been Targeted Like Aaron Swartz
On the post: Senator Tweets About 'Very Uncomfortable' TSA Pat Down: 'OMG'
Degrading into conspiracy theory: A direct result of DEA policy of supporting foreign suppliers of drugs.
If one was really against terrorism then they would remove all the laws regulating drugs including prescriptions. This would remove any monetary support for gangs, hoodlums, most terror cells, gangsters, motivation for many bank robberies and the development of new drugs based on societal use. (don't laugh as many current drugs were first found by individual use and its success as such)
In all that we consider the feelings of an elected representative's feelings about being searched with the scrutiny to find even a hidden jump drive.
-two page rant tossed into campfire-
On the post: PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed For Its Depiction Of Whaling; Ubisoft Responds With A Heaping Dose Of Sarcasm
Have to admit; once a wildly radical group reaches some level of damage it blurs in my mind. Cannot even distinguish PETA from MADD as both seem hijacked by an internal desire to force some specific Utopian ideal on the public at large. As much as I love animals they don't (to me) represent any ideal or standard that distinguishes their effort.
The PETA effort seems to only remind me that life is hard, horrible and it is pointless to hammer anyone who is undergoing such reality. PETA to me is like the DEA of the animal world. Despite the wonderful stories expounded upon in the promotion adverts what good do they do? In reality they bust up animal owners undergoing sever economic trauma or family crisis. Do they help these people? No. They use them ruthlessly for promotion of their intervention crusade.
If PETA could say that these same owners subjected to their militaristic actions had refused a grant from them to actually help the animals themselves... I would be more sympathetic to their efforts. Considering the economic expense of each intervention it would surly be a potential lowest cost solution.
To point; they want to attack digital whaling? Because these people have no voice with me... so what? A group with no credibility has no truck with me. I'd rather walk through a sludge basin than deal with such tripe.
-washes feet-
On the post: Public Well-Being Must Be 'Primary Measurement' Of US-EU Trade Agreement
Consumer well being? Who asked me? (a typical consumer) Furthermore. I have witnessed the total denial of consumer (average public) opinion being ignored by Washington (remember ACTA anyone?) so where is my opinion in all of that anyway? (I like the term 'smoke screen')
This is a classic cigarette augment! (An argument that you will like and think is cool that which is death for you.) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/02462421991/undisclosed-uspto-employees-write-report-sayin g-uspto-does-great-job-handling-software-smartphone-patents.shtml#c381
The American public has been excluded from... public discourse. It is a shame.
Thanks for the good commentary. (everyone)
It should be said that corporate well being is dependent on the well being of the consumer. A strong consumer base gives credence to great corporate success.
As a note to history it is vital that we, as a public, have the tools to pay attention to historical trends such as economic protectionism, and the wars it generates.
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
let us examine corporate profit needs (ownership, possibly monopolistic) vs. an individual's personal and a society's general (and economic) growth needs.
Lets look at my own selfish, egotistic self.
-brings out microscope- ( -runs and hides- Donnn't loook at meeeee!)
I want to be articulate, funny, intelligent, rich, own successful firms, make sense, have impact and don't forget be popular (in a good and profitable way as fame can be an expense). At rare moments in my life I can actually attain these things. (probably not today)
Now lets look at reality. Am stupid, not funny, clumsy, not intelligent and my popularity is definitely an expense. (No. I wont buy you lunch; learned that lesson long ago.)
I don't have a direct solution to being so lame or broke but as most, somewhat, clever human beings do... have come up with some workarounds. That is; I use the good/great work of others to grow my own character, awareness and profit in the directions that I, can hopefully, choose.
I quote other brilliant words, phrases and even entire sentences (when I can remember them) in my written works. And. Since my memory is so bad I also copy whole sections and quote them also. (with references) Since my self image sometimes wavers I act like Goofy or Sherlock Holmes as needed at dull meetings and or lively parties. I ever read and tell the jokes from others often. (most of the time you hear a joke from a friend its usually made by some one else anyway) Can I even spell many of the words in this document? Sometimes, but I use a spell checker and someone else's skills to get it better than I could alone.
Can I make money on my own? Maybe but will probably use a combination of business models from others.
Can I write music like so many other artists do? No. I play what I hear on the radio or whatever media. Can I act as funny as a Monty Python skit? No way. I use their scrips to act funny in front of friends and family or even (gasp) a home made skit on videotape that I want to share on youtube. When I read a great graduate level textbook on philosophy I make such knowledge mine! (Back off dude.) On and on etc. etc. etcetera.
I also want to profit by all this (growth in some good chosen direction) someday and not be told off by a copyright owner with selfish puritanical (or not) beliefs. To be able to return back to society both in spending my profits and in writing my own interpretation or adaptation of all I have learned. Hopefully making a profit off of that also.
My point is that at some time all this (of what some original content creator made) eventually enters the ever growing and changing stream of culture. It becomes a part of our self-image and a part of society as a whole and allows each individual or firm to reuse, combine, reinvent those old ideas into something greater. The active debate is when this happens.
The UN-natural concept of eternal copyright produces legal challenges to the personal (intellectual adsorption) or commercial adoption of any such copyrighted items/ideas.
Our very life is a collection of meems and we create and nurture it by the inclusion of cultural behavior (meems) we stumble upon in life. A company or corporation is also a collection of meems through the individuals who own, run and work for it.
We diminish (because of eternal copyright) as individuals, commercial enterprises and as a culture of people when the public commons decreases. The opportunities for commercial exploitation of the culture we learn of, in our lifetime, is at stake.
Society of ownership? Who can profit from that but only a few? Do we own our own lives and the culture we collect (Creating the being/company we call/identify-with ourselves?) through media and books we read?
One might ask that we pay for every word or phrase we say as almost everything has been said before. At some point a corporation (artist, artists family and artists great, great, great grandkids) must let go. (don't even try and tell me that the copyright industry doesn't have, ready to go, a proposal for another culturally destructive copyright term extension. With great cigarette arguments to go with it.)
At this time, because of the abuses and punitive legal damage the monopolistic copyright industry has done, I am for the complete abolishment of the entire copyright act. (makes for great heated discussion at a party) (and lets get after the trademark law for being used as a permanent copyright also. Batman anyone?) Come up with something else please.
I propose a limit (for cultural inclusion into the lives of the intended audience) to be much less than the lives of such audience. An absolute (for artists and corporations) limit of 15-30 years fits this well. If not something like this then noting and no term at all. (Or nothing at all.)
Ok, rant over. -powers down-
-gets down from high horse, standing on soap box, sitting on a pulpit, on a hill-
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's talk of the "Death of the Commons"
On the post: Deep Dive Analysis: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court -- But Prenda Law Is The Star
Re:
It is often said and most of the time true that a lawyer only works for the client and often represents people/organizations whom they do not agree with otherwise how would a convicted felon get decent legal representation. This is obvious.
However. Ownership of the rights-holding firms, deciding such choice of counsel, themselves seem to be inextricably mixed with the principle partners of Predna. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/tag/livewire-holdings/
Most (all?) of these firms seem to be artificial shell firms derived entirely by the Predna group. Only time and public scrutiny will tell. If such is true then the lawyer only working for the client defense is hollow.
On the post: Harvard Searched Email Subject Lines Of Faculty To Sniff Out Leak
“comment” +/- unspecific scoring (Where n1, n2, n3 and n4 are unique to each individual.)
+n1 “a very narrow, careful, and precise subject-line search”
+n1 “,did not involve a review of email content, limited to a search of the subject line, the contents of no one's emails were searched,”
-n3 “Harvard violated there own IT policy by not providing prior written notice” (thanks Arther Moor)
-n4 “search was conducted”
etc.
This all adds up to some unspecific analysis different to everyone. n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 = subjective answer.
When an employee does not trust upper management it cuts off vital internal communication. I mean, its not like one to speak to anyone who is considered hostile or as unfairly taking advantage of you. No good can come from fragmented management or isolation of personnel.
A University might have a different level of expectation of privacy than say from a Utility company billing department's e-mails to delinquent customers. Whatevr the company policy is its how it is implementation on an individual basis that is most important.
Most feared is probably the immediate supervisor who may be looking for the usual advantage over other managers/employees and has no scruples (read as 'bully') about privacy or your career goals.
On the post: Deep Dive Analysis: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court -- But Prenda Law Is The Star
What I do find so very encouraging is the brief mention of the methods for identifying potential targets for profitable prosecution. Not yet brought to light was why Steele apparently chose "Internet porn piracy”.
Clear (for whatever reasons) was the prosecutions choice to target the sensitive realm of controversial content. (p0rn) This is possibly abuse by segmenting out a class of people already targeted and publicly demonized (persecuted?) by religious and puritan organizations. Did they feel that pressuring such individuals from this group would be more susceptible to unpublicized capitulation?
This may not be specifically religious persecution but since it is a group persecuted by various religions it is definitely related. No question about it. It would be enlightening to examine the religious and moral beliefs of the prosecutors in such cases. Even if the motive was only profit it could still be found that the profiling was discriminatory.
A rare, decent to the point, article that brings up many of the predatory aspects of targeting controversial content viewers: (from http://dietrolldie.com)
http://dietrolldie.com/2013/03/08/copyright-troll-offender-profiling-the-li kely-suspect/
It is my understanding that this is the real ievil meat any such specialized copyright troll dines on. These are not just normal defendants but religiously segmented targets for legal stone-throwing.
Making sure to not leave unsaid the obvious; The unexplored depth of the many horrors of common copyright trolls has only been briefly touched on...
Forget the popcorn. (later) I want a hot dog with everything on it. -scarf-
On the post: Team Prenda Does Not Show Up In Court; Judge Is Not Amused
Re:
So far it has been only a civil action but this hearing was in relation to misconduct unbecoming of an attorney inside the courtroom and a prelude to more serious action.
The judge may have wanted to issue warrants today but he was thrown two more bones to pick with Prenda. One is the issue with Allen Mooney (of various spellings) which at least doubles the likely contempt of court (and other) charges and somewhat need to be sorted out. Second is the Verizon being taken for a ride affair of which, justifiably, they are miffed about and also needs some thought.
The quiet interlude before... -anticipation-
On the post: Team Prenda Does Not Show Up In Court; Judge Is Not Amused
Re: Prenda using Hollywood Accounting?
Hollywood accounting has got to be a stereotype phrase by now for: Don't sign that contract without a percentage of the GROSS receipts. (even if the percentage is much smaller the return is much larger.)
On the post: Verizon Steps In On Prenda Case; Says Brett Gibbs Never Informed Them Of Judge's Order Killing Subpoenas
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
The difference between crocodile tears and, at least, feigning complicity.
Singing Amazing Grace would not really help as John Newton, the author 1748, continued his slave trading for six years after he wrote the lyrics.
On the post: Verizon Steps In On Prenda Case; Says Brett Gibbs Never Informed Them Of Judge's Order Killing Subpoenas
These guys are special. Outright, absolutely, waaaay out there in the legal twilight zone.
On the post: As Prenda Hearing Nears, We Discover Allan Mooney Has No Clue That He's Listed As Representing Prenda Shell Companies
Re: Re:
(but have to confess I don't watch much TV so am ready to be trout-ed for it)
On the post: Why Site Blocking Orders Need To Be Challenged In Court
That'll teach um for writing bad, loosely worded, special interest influenced, law.
Just what do we pay judges for anyway since obviously they haven't allowed a jury to actually listen to (and even re-listen to as new aspects arise) constitutional concerns of even the most basic privacy issues of our electronic age. (A judge basically tells a jury what it can or cannot consider)
The obvious (unjust?) constitutional privacy issues are clear. They are only muddled by the judicial, thus law enforcement, confusion between a written letter and an e-mail of that same text. Even though the Constitution makes no distinction some mistaken judge/jury did and, to date has been, allowed to stand.
An example of the utter unjust implementation of such legal precedence is the DMCA take-down notice (abused by thousands) that does not include review by a judge.
The eternal copyright problems can be solved with public awareness of the personal value (for your kids!) of public domain and copyright terms much less than the life of (yourself) the audience. (15-30 yrs)
These reasonable terms would force content creators to come up with new sequels or better yet entirely new works instead of loafing back and leaching off of past (thus removing 95% of the dead UN-republished media from culture) works. In this way the public domain would grow rather than shrink and the available cultural content a person could use and profit from would increase also.
There are so many examples of culture being selectively edited by anyone with a two bit copyright claim (on even pivotal public speeches) its beyond any 'cultural' state of emergency could describe.
On the post: As Prenda Hearing Nears, We Discover Allan Mooney Has No Clue That He's Listed As Representing Prenda Shell Companies
My imaginary vision (grows) of the Prenda (John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Duffy and Brett Gibbs etc.) involved characters sitting in a Phil Donahue TV show contested by the various vexed Judges (Judge Otis Wright, others) plus representation from DieTrollDie and some anonymous (behind a curtain) defendants have a lively and loud arguments, about fair use and IP as hearsay evidence, and then bringing out...
The caretaker Mr. Cooper which raises the level of rabid screaming and whining from the squalling law firms while, large muscled men with no hair, security personnel hold them back from violent fist fighting...
and our next involved mystery guest( held in the isolation box back stage) is... Allen Mooney! Please come out now!
-crowd roars
Next >>