"The publicity rights law would be first here. A video tape of other visitors to the store wouldn't be valuable. The tape is valuable only because of who is on it."
How about other visitors stealing, though? Refer to Failblog and such for a whole bunch of those.
"Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?"
I know in the UK there are laws that make it illegal to hand over CCTV footage except in exceptional circumstances, but AFAIK there's no similar legislation in the US.
So, was it unethical to hand over the footage? I would say yes. Was it illegal? I'd say probably not. I think it's the same disparity between morality and legality that comes up in file-sharing discussions.
Let's stop feeding them, please. Just click 'Report' and move on. They are only interested in making attacks on Mike, and we're enabling them by replying. Just ignore them.
I'm sure they said EXACTLY the same things about slavery, and we still ended up with those human right things.
Strange how societies work, huh?
But don't let that get you down -- even though you are a caricature of all that is evil and stupid in the world, you're still our favourite batshit crazy AC of all time.
The inevitable? You mean that more enforcement is coming? We know that. Actually, we even know that more enforcement is coming after that.
But we also know that at some point people will push back hard and you may end up losing all IP law as a result.
Same thing that happens to all oppressive things. Maybe that'll be a bad thing in the long term (who knows?), but you won't have anyone else to blame but yourselves -- and you've been warned.
Did he commit criminal infringement? Very questionable, he was only linking. Did he facilitate anyone to commit criminal infringement? Probably not the viewers, who'd be civil infringers if anything at all. The uploaders, then? If yes, does that mean any site owner linking to content that turns out to be infringing can have his property seized? And in turn, if yes, is something like that unconstitutional, or will Mr Washington be making trillions of volts of static electricity from spinning in his grave..?
Do tell, why is Mike being such a "manipulative liar"? What's he got to gain exactly? Hey, maybe he's just doing it to piss you off!
And don't delude yourself: if Mike wasn't blogging about these ideas, others would. Many of the ideas Mike has come up with are common sense -- so common in fact that I had come up with similar stuff before even finding Techdirt!
Yet, I'm not a 'pirate'. That doesn't mean I don't totally see why current IP monopolies are at odds with free expression and free trade...
Troll guy, you're so fucked up in the head it's appalling. Really, your hatred towards Mike is so messed up it's got to be pathological. Some screw is loose somewhere, and for everybody's sake you better go see your shrink.
I'm tired having you around bitching all the time, while failing to make even one point that stands to scrutiny. That you dismissed Karl's entire diatribe with a single-line comment was so rude it was horrifying -- and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Don't even dare wonder why you are labeled a troll. An offensively outrageous one. If I were in Mike's position, I'd be worried about my physical safety, because like I just said you seem... unhinged.
For the record, here's a lawyer who took the time to write a very detailed article about why ICE d'un goofed. To make things more hilarious, that lawyer actually linked to TechDirt to say Mike was correct in his assessment, thus proving your entire argument is complete bullshit.
The only one here with an agenda is YOU. You are here stalking the owner of this blog, because he puts forward opinions you don't like.
You are obviously the one who has a personal grudge against the blog owner, and who constantly attacks him and the community because quite clearly you don't agree with their ideas. Nice way to vent your frustration, loser.
If you took the effort to look at the charts, you'd see that in 2010 the top-grossing films have NOT been sequels, with the exception of Toy Story 3. In fact in 2009, Avatar, the highest-grossing film of all time, was an original film.
Pharma spends "billions" on R&D, but they spend way more on marketing, and their profits dwarf most other industries by a huge margin (high-risk business my arse). Their patent lengths are too short? Ask the people who need access to stupidly-priced patented drugs NOW to stay alive, I'm sure they'll agree.
On the post: Does Hollywood Deserve Its Own Patriot Act?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Close the revolving door
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
How about other visitors stealing, though? Refer to Failblog and such for a whole bunch of those.
"Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?"
I know in the UK there are laws that make it illegal to hand over CCTV footage except in exceptional circumstances, but AFAIK there's no similar legislation in the US.
So, was it unethical to hand over the footage? I would say yes. Was it illegal? I'd say probably not. I think it's the same disparity between morality and legality that comes up in file-sharing discussions.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
On the post: An Open Letter From A Canadian To The New York Times, Eh?
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strange how societies work, huh?
But don't let that get you down -- even though you are a caricature of all that is evil and stupid in the world, you're still our favourite batshit crazy AC of all time.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You wouldn't think he'd have figured that out by now?!?!
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But we also know that at some point people will push back hard and you may end up losing all IP law as a result.
Same thing that happens to all oppressive things. Maybe that'll be a bad thing in the long term (who knows?), but you won't have anyone else to blame but yourselves -- and you've been warned.
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Crazy people don't know they're crazy. You clearly have a grudge against Mike (yes, you DO!), and I'm amazed at the lengths you'll go to show it.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And don't delude yourself: if Mike wasn't blogging about these ideas, others would. Many of the ideas Mike has come up with are common sense -- so common in fact that I had come up with similar stuff before even finding Techdirt!
Yet, I'm not a 'pirate'. That doesn't mean I don't totally see why current IP monopolies are at odds with free expression and free trade...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm tired having you around bitching all the time, while failing to make even one point that stands to scrutiny. That you dismissed Karl's entire diatribe with a single-line comment was so rude it was horrifying -- and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Don't even dare wonder why you are labeled a troll. An offensively outrageous one. If I were in Mike's position, I'd be worried about my physical safety, because like I just said you seem... unhinged.
For the record, here's a lawyer who took the time to write a very detailed article about why ICE d'un goofed. To make things more hilarious, that lawyer actually linked to TechDirt to say Mike was correct in his assessment, thus proving your entire argument is complete bullshit.
The only one here with an agenda is YOU. You are here stalking the owner of this blog, because he puts forward opinions you don't like.
Mike should get a restraining order against you!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: cc's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you took the effort to look at the charts, you'd see that in 2010 the top-grossing films have NOT been sequels, with the exception of Toy Story 3. In fact in 2009, Avatar, the highest-grossing film of all time, was an original film.
Pharma spends "billions" on R&D, but they spend way more on marketing, and their profits dwarf most other industries by a huge margin (high-risk business my arse). Their patent lengths are too short? Ask the people who need access to stupidly-priced patented drugs NOW to stay alive, I'm sure they'll agree.
On the post: Double Standard On The Special 301 Report: Industry Is Allowed Vague, Unsupported Statements; Consumer Advocates Are Not
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>