Ah, it's justified because there's evidence no one else has seen other than the agents involved. That is such a great basis for probable cause - the evidence we're actually showing you to justify this is shit and doesn't prove anything, please ignore it in favour of the evidence we haven't shown you.
It's a good thing studios haven't been caught doing exactly that kind of thing I guess, it could really put doubt on the idea that all these videos were user uploaded without permission.
We turn now to Aimster's defenses under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. � 512; see 2 Goldstein, supra, � 6.3. The DMCA is an attempt to deal with special problems created by the so-called digital revolution. One of these is the vulnerability of Internet service providers such as AOL to liability for copyright infringement as a result of file swapping among their subscribers. Although the Act was not passed with Napster-type services in mind, the definition of Internet service provider is broad ("a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor," 17 U.S.C. � 512(k)(1)(B)), and, as the district judge ruled, Aimster fits it. See 2 Goldstein, supra, � 6.3.1, p. 6:27. The Act provides a series of safe harbors for Internet service providers and related entities, but none in which Aimster can moor. The Act does not abolish contributory infringement. The common element of its safe harbors is that the service provider must do what it can reasonably be asked to do to prevent the use of its service by "repeat infringers." 17 U.S.C. � 512(i)(1)(A). Far from doing anything to discourage repeat infringers of the plaintiffs' copyrights, Aimster invited them to do so, showed them how they could do so with ease using its system, and by teaching its users how to encrypt their unlawful distribution of copyrighted materials disabled itself from doing anything to prevent infringement.
UMG nevertheless argues that Veoh is ineligible for the safe harbor because its founders, employees, and investors knew that widespread infringement was occurring on the Veoh system. But even if this were true and undisputed, UMG cites no case holding that a provider’s general awareness of infringement, without more, is enough to preclude application of section 512(c).15 No doubt it is common knowledge that most websites that allow users to contribute material contain infringing items. If such general awareness were enough to raise a “red flag,” the DMCA safe harbor would not serve its purpose of “facilitat[ing] the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age,” and “balanc[ing] the interests of content owners, on-line and other service providers, and information users in a way that will foster the continued development of electronic commerce and the growth of the Internet.” S. Rep. 105-190, at 1-2 (1998); H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), at 21. See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 794 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). Congress explained the need to limit service providers’ liability by noting that “[i]n the ordinary course of their operations service providers must engage in all kinds of acts that expose them to potential copyright infringement liability. . . . [B]y limiting the liability of service providers, the DMCA ensures that the efficiency of the Internet will continue to improve and that the variety and quality of services on the Internet will continue to expand.” S. Rep. 105-190, at 8.
They evidently don't. What's odd about this is the dual mentality of Nintendo - on the one hand they recognise and even embrace the idea of trying to build some kind of unique value to effectively compete and gain interest, something evident throughout various statements by execs and the likes of Miyamoto, but on the other hand make statements like this where the idea of having games below x price somehow means that will automatically mean an industry wide apocalypse.
The market will not expect them to develop for the same cost at 1/40th of the price so long as that development cost is justified, provides something you can't easily get elsewhere and the end price is in line with how much people value it.
I don't know, how about your trollish behaviour? The way you spent an entire weekend demanding a response to your comments? Your holier than thou attitude in general? Then you have the gall to claim you should be welcome here.
I really cannot believe someone can be so entirely ignorant of their own actions.
Every time this issue comes up, the most substantial argument that seems to be made (one of the few) is that the sites in question made significant money from putting links and/or shows up.
1) Where is the factual evidence gathered as part of the investigation that actually indicates this
2) As has been pointed out before, if these sites can apparently make so much money that even the likes of ICE has to get involved, why don't copyright holders provide or partner with these sites themselves
Also note a subtle reference to stolen goods, and particularly odd idea that ICE is in particular an organisation uniquely suited to "defending the treasury" (what the fuck?). The linking logic is also bunk - it's completely the reverse of stopping or simply reducing the source of piracy which would make the most sense to instead playing directly into the whac-a-mole situation.
The fact that such material would still be readily available would seem to defeat the point of ordering copies to be retrieved in the first place, particularly when it isn't difficult for others to continue distributing the material.
Pay me £10 by next Thursday to fund buying the bread, knife, butter on my Kickstarter page I'll be happy to do it. I'll even give you some stickers and a t-shirt for supporting sandwich makers everywhere, feel free to choose the filling (if you pay over £15 only).
How is anyone ignoring anything? What's being argued is that ICE's own intent was to take the site down using the domain seizure, regardless of whether it actually did or not, that is a clear attempt that subverts due process. It does clearly matter what the agent says, for that is the reason given and rubber stamped for approval in taking the domain names.
We still arrest and charge criminals who fail to commit a crime whilst in the act of attempting it.
I'm not sure about 1990 to 2000, but what about 98 to 2000? or 2006 to 2007? Were those efficiency gains too? It's remarkable just how many sharp efficiency gains the USPTO makes without any lasting, consistent effect.
(1) Junior examiners becoming more experienced and therefore able to handle a higher case-load; and
This is likely to be a consistent, ongoing process that would not have significant impact unless you can point to an increase in junior examiners that lowered the number of patents being approved or lowered their quality.
(3) Kappos beginning to scrutinize rejections by examiners to determine if they were legitimate. This gave examiners an increased incentive to work with applicants to find common ground, instead of conjuring reasons to reject an application.
This would make the system slower, not faster/more efficient. It's true that in this case more patents may be granted, but it also seems true to me at least that this process is slower than outright rejection, leading to an increased workload on the same number of examiners, along with an assumption that the new patents being granted are of any higher or the same quality than the ones already being granted, which doesn't appear to be likely at all, meaning the system is still worse through having granted more bad patents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting to correlate with other data
(1) I doubt you are the appropriate person to judge whether an examining corp is doing a good job or not, as I find it hard to believe that you have the sufficient knowledge to make such a judgment;
Do you have sufficient knowledge to make such a judgement as to how well the USPTO does in reviewing patents?
(2) if it were true that examination was bad, then it likely would not take much to improve to average or good, would it? Perhaps a change in the examination process would do the trick, or maybe just an additional year of experience. Perhaps that could account for an increase in efficiency.
And yet the only thing we have on record as having actually significantly changed is a focus on speeding up patent reviews with no other strategy provided like better efficiency, with an increase of 30%, in itself an increase of over 27% over the previous patent record, and excluding various other points in the graph where similar massive jump occurs like 1998 - 2000, and a massive decline for 2006.
Your specific claim was that the artists would not be able to make money because of digital copies today. This is a claim blatantly false by mere fact that artists today are making money and using free digital copies for promotion of originals, prints, etc.
Your claim was about fundamental business model, not technical or social conditions, the point of our arguments being new technology can be used to help artists who are trying to sell originals or whatever else in gaining exposure they wouldn't have otherwise.
The modern masterworks that people crave ARE able to be duplicated. And that's what I said, isn't it?
No, because you ignored the distinction between a non-scarce digital copy and an actual original, implying that there would be no markets for such, and this no business for said artists. You argued that they wouldn't be able to make any money today, even though selling their works involved nothing to do with pretending a digital file isn't easily reproducible.
But our culture values original artwork less and less.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Evidence Suggests Major Film Studios Uploading Movie Clips To YouTube... Pretending To Be Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/inreaimster(9c6-30-03).htm#Document1z zHN_B9
Completely different situation. From Veoh:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2007cv05744/395693/57 5/
On the post: Nintendo President: The Free Market Is Not A Game We Like To Play
Re: Re: Re:
The market will not expect them to develop for the same cost at 1/40th of the price so long as that development cost is justified, provides something you can't easily get elsewhere and the end price is in line with how much people value it.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re:
I really cannot believe someone can be so entirely ignorant of their own actions.
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Due diligence?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/01402812935/full-affidavit-latest-seizures-again- suggests-homeland-security-is-twisting-law.shtml#c527
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
1) Where is the factual evidence gathered as part of the investigation that actually indicates this
2) As has been pointed out before, if these sites can apparently make so much money that even the likes of ICE has to get involved, why don't copyright holders provide or partner with these sites themselves
Also note a subtle reference to stolen goods, and particularly odd idea that ICE is in particular an organisation uniquely suited to "defending the treasury" (what the fuck?). The linking logic is also bunk - it's completely the reverse of stopping or simply reducing the source of piracy which would make the most sense to instead playing directly into the whac-a-mole situation.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Opposite Of “Tard”
On the post: The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We still arrest and charge criminals who fail to commit a crime whilst in the act of attempting it.
On the post: The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Patent Office Grants Massively More Patents Than Ever Before
Re: Re: IMO
On the post: US Patent Office Grants Massively More Patents Than Ever Before
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting to correlate with other data
On the post: US Patent Office Grants Massively More Patents Than Ever Before
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confirmation Bias
This is likely to be a consistent, ongoing process that would not have significant impact unless you can point to an increase in junior examiners that lowered the number of patents being approved or lowered their quality.
This would make the system slower, not faster/more efficient. It's true that in this case more patents may be granted, but it also seems true to me at least that this process is slower than outright rejection, leading to an increased workload on the same number of examiners, along with an assumption that the new patents being granted are of any higher or the same quality than the ones already being granted, which doesn't appear to be likely at all, meaning the system is still worse through having granted more bad patents.
On the post: US Patent Office Grants Massively More Patents Than Ever Before
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting to correlate with other data
On the post: Mimi & Eunice: Ye Olde Technologie Killing Culture, Scribes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your claim was about fundamental business model, not technical or social conditions, the point of our arguments being new technology can be used to help artists who are trying to sell originals or whatever else in gaining exposure they wouldn't have otherwise.
On the post: Mimi & Eunice: Ye Olde Technologie Killing Culture, Scribes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because you ignored the distinction between a non-scarce digital copy and an actual original, implying that there would be no markets for such, and this no business for said artists. You argued that they wouldn't be able to make any money today, even though selling their works involved nothing to do with pretending a digital file isn't easily reproducible.
To quote many a commenter, citation needed.
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In which case it's a rather worthless analogy that has nothing unique that actually genuinely warrants pointing out the analogy in the first place.
Though you're original analogy when arguing this was that infringement deprives someone of income, which I'm sure others will happily tear apart.
On the post: Mimi & Eunice: Ye Olde Technologie Killing Culture, Scribes
Re: Re: Re:
As it stands now, you can only copy their art if it's a digital image. It very much is a valid comparison.
And what is a pipe dream exactly?
On the post: DailyDirt: 3D Printing Doesn't Require Dorky Glasses
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
Next >>