Oh god please make it so! I am not sure how much of my money goes to having a bunch of guys run around in funny costumes, but $0 is the only acceptable amount.
This is a great victory for everyone except abusive police officers. However, I would very much like to see the doctrine of qualified immunity to be dropped. If officials act legally, they have no need for qualified immunity.
And here I realize that once again outrage got the better of me and I posted without realizing what you meant by "this". Well, I do find that abhorrent, but no I don't have friends or family who were arrested by ICE for streaming.
I know, let's kick out the illegal aliens for their own good. It's better for them to starve back home than to be exploited in America. I'm sure the people who are forcibly separated from loved ones, friends and jobs are very thankful they are no longer being exploited in the US and can die in poverty in their home country.
There is a company called Google and guess what. They sell no eyewear.
More seriously, what kind of an idiot would conclude from the domain name the activity of the site. It seems pretty clear that he was sharing links towards other people who are streaming. See, that's why his site had the word "stream" in it. If I had a website that shared links towards cat shelters, I would quite possibly include the word "cat" and the word "shelter" in the domain. But apparently from such a DNS record you would somehow conclude that I run a cat shelter website and treat me as such legally. I just don't see how that makes any sense.
"Seems to me you're trying to minimize an entirely legitimate arrest and prosecution. He's practically admitted to knowing it was illegal."
Wait. What? How? He said he was taking down some links to some streams which someone had told him were illegal and he did not was to get into trouble. How is that admitting that the rest of the operation was illegal?
Well yes. Nobody actually finds it remarkable when they arrest and throw in jail young women before shipping them to countries they have not lived in for decades away from friends and loved ones. It also seems they don't get any press when they bust a whole bunch of productive members of society for being productive members of society and kick them out of the country. Those things are so common, that it's not news anymore. Today like every other day, dozens of people were separated from a job or a loved one just because of their place of birth and a bunch of uniformed thugs. God Bless America, because no one else will.
Actually, when I pay my bill, I am paying for access to the global internet. What that means is access to Netflix. I'm pretty sure Netflix pays for the same service on a much larger scale. So it is absurd to divide the different hops. I am paying for Comcast to get me a link to Netflix. If Comcast does not provide me with a link to Netflix (or Amazon, YouTube, Google etc...) I will cancel my subscription.
"But relying on Klout to figure out how they should move forward doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful strategy."
That's quite a statement you make here Mike. How do you know it won't be a fruitful strategy? I'm pretty sure that Klout will make tons of money if the State Department start using Klout extensively. I'm sure the founders and execs of that company will become insanely rich. I'm sure the people working there will get bonuses and raises.
Oh wait... Sorry... You mean fruitful for American foreign policy... My bad.
I work for a company that licenses much content from copyright holders. Part of my job has included implementing DRM (I don't like it but the alternative is not being able to offer the content to users, so this is better) and other ridiculous restrictions from copyright holders. Copyright holders act as though this whole reality thing is just a fad that will go away soon enough. People who go negotiate with copyright holders often come back frustrated at not being able to say: "Your content is already on torrent sites! Why do you want us to implement all of these restrictions which will only bug people who give you money and in no way stop copyright infringement?"
Bottom line: I'm not about to start discussing such matter with my real name as that might jeopardize my company's relation with the copyright holders and my job.
I know. It's outrageous. My free speech rights to punch people in the face is likewise ridiculed. Just because that guy used fancy words and letters and spread information instead of hurting people doesn't mean he should have more rights than me!
Well, the elections are coming up and job creation is on everyone's mind. What I'm hoping for is that the likes of Google and Amazon will get to some candidates and say: "Look at how many jobs WE are creating. Let me tell you what we need: Less patents. Here's a bunch of cash for your campaign, now spread the good word that patents kill jobs." If that momentum can get going, we could have people on both side of the aisle chanting "We want jobs, not patents." Then maybe we can get the Tea Party people say something like: "Patents are socialism for innovation." It's time for the push.
No. I am not entirely sure. But courts don't generally go about creating duties of care willy nilly. Given that there is a substantial social benefit to people leaving their WiFi open (free internet access for anyone in range) I find it doubtful that courts will buy that new duty of care. But hey, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a legal scholar, so I could be completely off base.
My understanding is also that for liability to be established from negligence, it must be shown that the breach of that duty is the proximate cause of the harm. Here, the harm is the copyright being infringed upon. (At least the law says it is a harm) It would be a simple matter to show that the wireless being open is not the proximate cause. After all, someone could have come to your house and asked for your WPA key and you could have given it to them. But obviously, there is no duty to not lend your Internet connection to a stranger or to not have an Internet connection. (That would be quite ridiculous) So even if there is a duty, the breach of that duty is certainly not the proximate cause so there is no negligence.
Can you point to then duty of care that someone has and does not respect when they open their wifi? And don't say: "Stop people from stealing content" because there is no such duty.
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a joke
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re:
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re: Re: Re: What a joke
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re: Why focus on how "little" money he got?
There is a company called Google and guess what. They sell no eyewear.
More seriously, what kind of an idiot would conclude from the domain name the activity of the site. It seems pretty clear that he was sharing links towards other people who are streaming. See, that's why his site had the word "stream" in it. If I had a website that shared links towards cat shelters, I would quite possibly include the word "cat" and the word "shelter" in the domain. But apparently from such a DNS record you would somehow conclude that I run a cat shelter website and treat me as such legally. I just don't see how that makes any sense.
"Seems to me you're trying to minimize an entirely legitimate arrest and prosecution. He's practically admitted to knowing it was illegal."
Wait. What? How? He said he was taking down some links to some streams which someone had told him were illegal and he did not was to get into trouble. How is that admitting that the rest of the operation was illegal?
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re: Re: Why focus on how "little" money he got?
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re: What a joke
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ante Upped Some More: $2,500 For John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bills
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Let's Up The Ante: We'll Pay John Sununu & Harold Ford Jr. $1,000 To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill
On the post: Wait, America-Hating Foreigners Will Be Influenced By How Many Twitter Followers A US Diplomat Has?
That's quite a statement you make here Mike. How do you know it won't be a fruitful strategy? I'm pretty sure that Klout will make tons of money if the State Department start using Klout extensively. I'm sure the founders and execs of that company will become insanely rich. I'm sure the people working there will get bonuses and raises.
Oh wait... Sorry... You mean fruitful for American foreign policy... My bad.
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re:
Bottom line: I'm not about to start discussing such matter with my real name as that might jeopardize my company's relation with the copyright holders and my job.
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re:
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
Re: Re:
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My understanding is also that for liability to be established from negligence, it must be shown that the breach of that duty is the proximate cause of the harm. Here, the harm is the copyright being infringed upon. (At least the law says it is a harm) It would be a simple matter to show that the wireless being open is not the proximate cause. After all, someone could have come to your house and asked for your WPA key and you could have given it to them. But obviously, there is no duty to not lend your Internet connection to a stranger or to not have an Internet connection. (That would be quite ridiculous) So even if there is a duty, the breach of that duty is certainly not the proximate cause so there is no negligence.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re:
Next >>