Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 1:01pm
Re: Re:
Then one may not have read the rules generally listed on or around the doors of most malls.
Even without those, since she works at the mall, its highly likely that she signed something that said she could be recorded and those recordings could be used for just about anything. Its standard boilerplate in most employment agreements.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 7:20am
Re: Re: Re:
Hotfile knows exactly what they are selling, speedy access to content of questionable legality.
The same argument has been made against Xerox machines, the VCR, cassette tapes, YouTube, and more. It is an old, tired argument that is wrong.
Hotfile and other file locker services have significant legitimate use. It is not their responsibility to protect the business models of other companies who cannot adapt to the market.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2011 @ 2:12pm
Also why is Facebook worth $50 billion despite only generating $800 million in revenue in 2009?
Just in case you're not actually being sarcastic... the answer to the question is because the 'well educated Harvard/Stanford/Wharton MBAs' from Goldman Sachs valued it that way.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jan 2011 @ 2:46pm
Re:
If by "defending themselves from thievery" they bribe corrupt politicians to pass laws that only benefit dying legacy industries and take away constitutional rights and you don't think we won't speak up, how dare you?
...
I love how the shills try to act like trampling constitutional rights is valid in the pursuit of profits.
If somebody tried to illegally steal half my paycheck throught a website I'd do what I could to shut them down to
Did you forget the part about your tax dollars being used to prop those industries up? Or does that not bother you because lobbying and political campaign contributions are legal?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jan 2011 @ 12:59pm
Re:
The amount of effort needed to even start an online lawsuit is much higher than it is in normal terms. Just trying to determine who you should sue, with "safe harbor" hosts and services all either denying access to user information or providing that information at an incredibly slow pace is work by itself.
You're really saying that because it's difficult to identify the actual responsible party, law enforcement can just pick a convenient 3rd party? Imagine if that happened elsewhere:
1) Little old lady gets mugged. It was dark, so she didn't get a good look at the attacker. No one in the area is volunteering information. Can the cops just say that's its too difficult to find the attacker and decide to arrest the first guy they think actually did it?
2) Bomb threat is phoned in to a building. Building is evacuated, and no bomb is found. Luckily no one is hurt. Turns out the threat came in from a pay phone. Instead of doing an investigation and finding the individual, cops shut down the local phone company. Since they don't keep records of who uses their pay phones, they're obviously guilty of allowing their phone network to be used for terrorist purposes!
Domain seizures are not unlike seizing a car or a business are part of an investigation. A warrant is issued, served, and executed. Expecting the rules to be different online is just not going to wash it.
We're not talking about seizing a physical object or a business. You started off your post saying how things online are very different and that the same procedures for dealing with something offline aren't going to work online. Now you're saying that the procedures used for seizing something online should be the same as those offline.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jan 2011 @ 6:45am
Overly complicated
Wait... this seems overly complicated to me. The government sets up a corporation. The point of this corporation is to get various government agencies to free up their data. The corporation then provides it to the public.
Why doesn't the government, you know, just free the data and give it to the public? Through whatever the British equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act is.
This seems to me like something that politicians can point to and say "We're being transparent!" without actually accomplishing anything and not really being transparent at all.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 1:07pm
Re: Re: Re:
"Just the hundreds of parents that noticed their children becoming dullards after the MMR. All of the ppl in my life noticed the same. Seems to be a pattern. Now with all this shit even if it is, it will never be looked into."
Anecdotal observations are not proof. There's a very good reason that double-blind medical studies are done. Expectations effect results, often quite strongly. If you expect to see a pattern, you're going to find one, whether it is there or not.
I find it amusing and depressing that all the anti-vaccination nutjobs (and I will not apologize for calling you or anyone else that) claim that "big pharma" is suppressing their views for monetary reasons. The entire nutjob movement was started because Wakefield was paid by a lawyer suing for money, in addition Wakefield stood to profit because he was involved with a company that had a competing vaccine.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 11:04am
Re: Re: Re: #1 AC
"No, they have the intent to profit from people who have already broken the law and need legal help. They are no shipping out cases of beer or giving away free beer bongs to get people drunk. Analogy fail."
So a site that was not giving out anything illegal would not have gotten caught up this this? Explain why Dajaz1 was.
"Another analogy fail. The underlying product isn't illegal in and of itself. Gun dealers don't sell guns to minors, which would be illegal. See how it works? If you know things are illegal, you shouldn't be involved."
No matter how much you wish it, blogs and websites that allow users to post links or content are not illegal.
"Again, logical fail. TD types will remind you that there are all sorts of legal torrents out there. If you read the stories and comments here, you would think that piracy is a very minor problem, a small amount of torrent traffic."
I doubt very much that anyone regularly posting on TechDirt has said exactly that. You're setting up a strawman.
Is most of of torrent traffic unauthorized by the copyright holder? Very probably it is.
Is piracy a very minor problem? Actually, piracy is no problem at all. Obsolete business models and the refusal to adapt to the changing market is the problem.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 10:46am
Re:
"Have you considered that it is using copyright violation for profit?"
If they were, then instead of involving the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration & Customs Enforcement, the copyright holders should have sued the sites in court as that is the proper place for civil disputes to be decided. This way due process of law would have been followed.
"it is building a website with the intent of profiting from people who are breaking the law."
Using the same argument, wouldn't the companies making the systems to catch people running red lights at intersections or speeding on the highway and profiting off them be illegal? What about a pawn shop (some of the goods could have been stolen)? Gun manufacturers (their weapons are used in crimes)? An office supply store who sold equipment to Bernie Madoff? Obviously this is absurd.
The point is this: Assign liability to the actual person who is breaking the law (assuming there is a law and it is being broken) instead of a 3rd party who just happens to be easier to identify.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 8:48am
Re: Re: Re:
"I'm not sure why you think I made an assumption re: copyright's relationship to creation."
Then you have my apologies. I made an incorrect assumption that since you were an Anonymous Coward, you were one of the many who would have to incorrectly conflate the two.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 3:01pm
Re:
I'm not accepting your interpretation, but even if that's true: You're making an assumption that something that is bad for the GPL (the legal license) is necessarily bad for the software (or programmers contributing code).
Basically, you're making the same wrong assumption that content would not be created without copyright.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 2:35pm
Re: Re: Re:
"it turns out that they can show some value of damages."
They can't. If they could have shown actual damages and not completely made up and bogus studies, they would have been screaming about them for 10 years. They would have with the Napster case, or Grokster, or in any of the 3 Jamie Thomas cases, or any of the others that have been in the courts.
They resist every effort because if the actual hard evidence is shown, everyone will know beyond any doubt that they've been outright lying. No amount of PR or shills on message boards will be able to dissuade that knowledge. Oh, and the bands and artists will have a field day on all the missing royalties.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 1:29pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The guys running these websites are now exposed. They are in legal jeopardy."
Calling bullshit on this. In order to be in legal jeopardy, a law must have been broken. Please point out even one specific single act where a law was broken.
Any music hosted on these servers was provided by the artists who created it or the labels who marketed it with either explicit or implicit permission to host and share it.
Any forum posts, links to other sites, or user generated content would clearly fall under DMCA safe harbors provisions. If no takedown requests were sent then the operators are under no legal obligation to remove the content in question.
Again, please point out even one single specific instance of a law being broken.
On the post: Woman Threatening To Sue Mall Because Mall Video Captured Her Text-And-Walking Into A Fountain
Re: Re:
Even without those, since she works at the mall, its highly likely that she signed something that said she could be recorded and those recordings could be used for just about anything. Its standard boilerplate in most employment agreements.
On the post: Guy Sues Newspaper Editor For Refusing To Remove Articles He Doesn't Like About His Son
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's an idea. Put a star next to their names on the blogs.
On the post: Third Parties Increasingly Targeted In Infringement Cases
Re: Re: Re:
The same argument has been made against Xerox machines, the VCR, cassette tapes, YouTube, and more. It is an old, tired argument that is wrong.
Hotfile and other file locker services have significant legitimate use. It is not their responsibility to protect the business models of other companies who cannot adapt to the market.
On the post: How Facebook Used White Space To Crush Myspace
Just in case you're not actually being sarcastic... the answer to the question is because the 'well educated Harvard/Stanford/Wharton MBAs' from Goldman Sachs valued it that way.
On the post: The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
Re:
...
I love how the shills try to act like trampling constitutional rights is valid in the pursuit of profits.
If somebody tried to illegally steal half my paycheck throught a website I'd do what I could to shut them down to
Did you forget the part about your tax dollars being used to prop those industries up? Or does that not bother you because lobbying and political campaign contributions are legal?
On the post: Customs Boss Defends Internet Censorship; Says More Is On The Way
Re:
You're really saying that because it's difficult to identify the actual responsible party, law enforcement can just pick a convenient 3rd party? Imagine if that happened elsewhere:
1) Little old lady gets mugged. It was dark, so she didn't get a good look at the attacker. No one in the area is volunteering information. Can the cops just say that's its too difficult to find the attacker and decide to arrest the first guy they think actually did it?
2) Bomb threat is phoned in to a building. Building is evacuated, and no bomb is found. Luckily no one is hurt. Turns out the threat came in from a pay phone. Instead of doing an investigation and finding the individual, cops shut down the local phone company. Since they don't keep records of who uses their pay phones, they're obviously guilty of allowing their phone network to be used for terrorist purposes!
Domain seizures are not unlike seizing a car or a business are part of an investigation. A warrant is issued, served, and executed. Expecting the rules to be different online is just not going to wash it.
We're not talking about seizing a physical object or a business. You started off your post saying how things online are very different and that the same procedures for dealing with something offline aren't going to work online. Now you're saying that the procedures used for seizing something online should be the same as those offline.
Which is it?
On the post: US Patent Office Grants Massively More Patents Than Ever Before
Re: Re:
Yes, because no one would have figured out how to do online press releases if someone didn't patent it.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-ot hers-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml
On the post: UK Government Sets Up 'Public Data Corporation' To Free Up Data
Overly complicated
Why doesn't the government, you know, just free the data and give it to the public? Through whatever the British equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act is.
This seems to me like something that politicians can point to and say "We're being transparent!" without actually accomplishing anything and not really being transparent at all.
On the post: Red Cross Says Theater Nurse Costume Violates The Geneva Conventions
Next
On the post: Report Claims Discredited Study That Linked Vaccines To Autism Wasn't Just A Mistake, But An Outright Fraud
Re: Re: Re:
Anecdotal observations are not proof. There's a very good reason that double-blind medical studies are done. Expectations effect results, often quite strongly. If you expect to see a pattern, you're going to find one, whether it is there or not.
I find it amusing and depressing that all the anti-vaccination nutjobs (and I will not apologize for calling you or anyone else that) claim that "big pharma" is suppressing their views for monetary reasons. The entire nutjob movement was started because Wakefield was paid by a lawyer suing for money, in addition Wakefield stood to profit because he was involved with a company that had a competing vaccine.
On the post: Report Claims Discredited Study That Linked Vaccines To Autism Wasn't Just A Mistake, But An Outright Fraud
Re: I know it's a hot button subject, but
This needs to be said more. Refusing to vaccinate your child is putting both the life of your child and the lives of other people at risk.
Measles can kill.
An un-vaccinated person can still spread measles if exposed even if they do not get it themselves.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re: #1 AC
So a site that was not giving out anything illegal would not have gotten caught up this this? Explain why Dajaz1 was.
"Another analogy fail. The underlying product isn't illegal in and of itself. Gun dealers don't sell guns to minors, which would be illegal. See how it works? If you know things are illegal, you shouldn't be involved."
No matter how much you wish it, blogs and websites that allow users to post links or content are not illegal.
"Again, logical fail. TD types will remind you that there are all sorts of legal torrents out there. If you read the stories and comments here, you would think that piracy is a very minor problem, a small amount of torrent traffic."
I doubt very much that anyone regularly posting on TechDirt has said exactly that. You're setting up a strawman.
Is most of of torrent traffic unauthorized by the copyright holder? Very probably it is.
Is piracy a very minor problem? Actually, piracy is no problem at all. Obsolete business models and the refusal to adapt to the changing market is the problem.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re:
If they were, then instead of involving the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration & Customs Enforcement, the copyright holders should have sued the sites in court as that is the proper place for civil disputes to be decided. This way due process of law would have been followed.
"it is building a website with the intent of profiting from people who are breaking the law."
Using the same argument, wouldn't the companies making the systems to catch people running red lights at intersections or speeding on the highway and profiting off them be illegal? What about a pawn shop (some of the goods could have been stolen)? Gun manufacturers (their weapons are used in crimes)? An office supply store who sold equipment to Bernie Madoff? Obviously this is absurd.
The point is this: Assign liability to the actual person who is breaking the law (assuming there is a law and it is being broken) instead of a 3rd party who just happens to be easier to identify.
On the post: Court Rules That It's Legal To Sell Promotional CDs
Re: Re: Re:
Then you have my apologies. I made an incorrect assumption that since you were an Anonymous Coward, you were one of the many who would have to incorrectly conflate the two.
On the post: Did The State Department's Support Of 'Internet Freedom' Put A Target On Silicon Valley Companies Around The World?
Of course
/s
On the post: Court Rules That It's Legal To Sell Promotional CDs
Re:
Basically, you're making the same wrong assumption that content would not be created without copyright.
On the post: Limewire Seeking All The Recording Industry's Secrets
Re: Re: Re:
They can't. If they could have shown actual damages and not completely made up and bogus studies, they would have been screaming about them for 10 years. They would have with the Napster case, or Grokster, or in any of the 3 Jamie Thomas cases, or any of the others that have been in the courts.
They resist every effort because if the actual hard evidence is shown, everyone will know beyond any doubt that they've been outright lying. No amount of PR or shills on message boards will be able to dissuade that knowledge. Oh, and the bands and artists will have a field day on all the missing royalties.
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Re: Free Pr0n
Imagine that.
On the post: Where Record Labels Ran Into Trouble: Monoculture
Re: Re:
http://xkcd.com/326/
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calling bullshit on this. In order to be in legal jeopardy, a law must have been broken. Please point out even one specific single act where a law was broken.
Any music hosted on these servers was provided by the artists who created it or the labels who marketed it with either explicit or implicit permission to host and share it.
Any forum posts, links to other sites, or user generated content would clearly fall under DMCA safe harbors provisions. If no takedown requests were sent then the operators are under no legal obligation to remove the content in question.
Again, please point out even one single specific instance of a law being broken.
Next >>