Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Mar 2010 @ 10:24am
Re: Google Italy Verdict
"What this has done is create something that never existed before: the ability for a libeler to widely disseminate, potentially to hundreds of millions of readers, their libel.
"
Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of history. This has existed ever since a libeler could stand in a market square and shout unfounded information to an entire town. Printing presses and newspapers increased the ability from towns to nations or continents, and telegraphs and wire services increased the reach worldwide.
Libel law was created because of a power disparity between someone with a printing press and someone without.
The internet has simply given everyone their own printing press.
You make the assumption that the Internet is a broadcast platform. It is not. It is a communication platform where everyone can participate. All you have online is your reputation - anyone who consistently makes false statements is quickly found out, and it becomes easier and easier to see them for what they are.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Mar 2010 @ 10:56am
Mmm. Pie.
Wish I had some kind of graphic or video skills. RIAA is just begging for reponse made of a video about a town controlled by an entrenched pie monopoly, a new baker who wants to sell new types of pies, a tech company who made a pie replicator, and lots of cutesy sad people who are turned to happy people by the upstarts.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Mar 2010 @ 6:35am
Re: What's the big deal?
"Isn't it legal under the Copyright law to make a backup of any product owned for archival purposes?"
Yes, it is.
UNLESS the thing you're backing up has any form of DRM. The anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA makes it illegal to break any type of DRM even for perfectly legal purposes with your legally purchased content.
As for your situation, Microsoft doesn't care how you install Windows on however many computers you have, as long as you have a legally purchased license for each install.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Mar 2010 @ 11:16am
Re: Burden of Proof
"My main problem with YouTube's particular policy is that it puts the burden of proof on the defendant, not the plaintiff."
Has nothing to do with Youtube/Google. That's how the DMCA is written, and that's just one of the problems with the DMCA.
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, Google has two choices:
1) Take content down. Google is now covered legally under section 230 and doesn't have to worry about being sued.
2) Leave content up. Google is now liable if content holder decides to sue. Copyright infringement goes up to $150,000 per violation.
That's all the options. There really is no choice here. Even if Google had infinite resources, Google does not have the ability to determine if fair use applies (they can guess, but only a court can decide). Even if Google had infinite resources, Google does not have the ability to determine if the use was given permission by the content holder (the law assumes the content holder doesn't screw up, but we've seen many cases where they do).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Mar 2010 @ 6:10am
Legal argument?
IANAL, but I had the following thought. Companies can supress free speech on their services if they choose, there is only a first ammendment issue at play if the goverment is supressing speech.
Is there a legal argument to be made that the DMCA's notice and takedown procedure forces companies to implement prior restraint? Hence the law is not allowing a company the choice?
Or does the wording of the DMCA sidestep the constitution by not forcing a company to do it, only holding them liable if it later determined to be a copyright violation?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 8:12am
Reminds me of
That email reminds me of that town mayor (councilman maybe?) a few years ago that went ballistic on the makers of a Linux distro cause his server wasn't configured and he got the standard error message built into the distro. He starting sending emails to the claiming they were hackers and thieves, and wouldn't quit when they tried to refer him to his hosting company to get the thing fixed.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Feb 2010 @ 1:51pm
Re: (rip it yourself)
"Well, if you buy the DVD you can always rip it and remove the crap part yourself. Its for personal use, do whatever you want with it."
I hope that was sarcastic. I tried doing that legitimately. I went out and bought software from a retail store that would allow me to do that. Installed it, it worked great. A few months later, had to reload Windows on my box. No problem, I still have the software. Attempted to install. Uhoh. It needs to authenticate to a license server, which no longer exists, because the MPAA sued the software maker out of existance. It was DVD X Copy and 321 Studios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_X_Copy
Never again. Guess I just use software from a company based outside the US, or download the pirated version. At least until the MPAA figures out that pissing off customer who want to follow the law, but still enjoy thier products in a way that works for them, is a bad idea.
Fast forward five years. I hear RealNetworks is releasing a legitimate DVD backup utility. Guess what happened? Yep, same thing. They got sued and the software isn't available.
If I am stuck breaking the law in order to enjoy a DVD, even when I purchased a legal version, what incentive is there to attempt to follow the law in the first place? http://xkcd.com/488/
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 7:25am
Re: Grok and SCO
This situation would be very different than the SCO saga. With SCO, the company who kept the lawsuit going was the one that was bankrupt. SCO kept getting investments in order to keep the pointless lawsuit going in the mistaken attempt the lawsuit would be successful and they'd get a ton of money.
With Veoh, the company defending against the pointless lawsuit is the one that is bankrupt. Even without the lawsuit, Veoh isn't profittable, so I doubt there'd be any investors, because even with a win, all they get is a ruling that says Veoh doesn't have to pay any money to Universal. But they're still bankrupt.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Jan 2010 @ 6:49am
Prior art
We need to have a prior art defense added to trademark law. I think a symbol used since the dawn of civilization (7000-10,000 years ago) would qualify.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jan 2010 @ 10:07am
Re: Are the Banks Double Dipping?
In most identity theft cases this may be a valid argument - but in this instance the amount is too large. FDIC insurance only covers up to $250,000 per account.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jan 2010 @ 6:17am
Re: Re: Re:
"If you want to go to court, you pay the fees. It's not unusual."
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, you don't pay for defending yourself against a criminal charge unless you are found guilty. There's no part of the Miranda rights that a police officer has to read that says 'You are required to pay court fees to contest your innocence.' You want to discuss civil/criminal differences? I'm game, lets talk punishments when guilt is proven. Criminal charges are the only ones that have wide-ranging restrictions on freedoms (in additional to monetary penalties), while civil charges result in fines, restitutions and occasionally extremely narrow specific restrictions on freedoms. Cutting off someone's (more specifically, an entire household's) internet access is a wide-reaching punishment.
Also, I highly doubt that the people being accused WANT to go to court - the ones that WANT to go to court are the content owners.
"Also, and this is VERY important, the internet connection is going to be cut "due to a baseless accusation", it's a 3 strikes law, not a "one and done" deal."
I agree that's absolutely important. It is important that someone's freedom is being restricted on the basis of accusations and not convictions, no matter how many there are.
"I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc."
So you are admitting you want to punish someone who is not the actual guilty party? If your roommate gets pulled over for drunk-driving, do you lose your driving license as well?
'It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.' - Voltaire
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Jan 2010 @ 1:20pm
"Free"
I'm sick of the word free. The word has been morphed into ambiguous meanings.
That second quote did it in. "...of giving away their content for free, in exchange for revenue from Web advertising." Giving content in exchange for ad revenue is exactly the opposite of free. This should be obvious to TechDirt readers, but much of the wider business community wouldn't recognize it after it punched them in the face.
I think we need a thought-raising article (hopefully picked up by more main stream sources) on the difference between "free" and "no monetary cost to end users" or a similar wording.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 8:19pm
Re:
"some people in this situation have changed or simply misspelled their names to avoid the extra scrutiny."
NYT article says the same. Mikey apparently was 1 month old on Sept 11 2001, his parents have been trying to get him off the list for seven years, and his mother is a photographer who has ridden on Air Force 2 when Al Gore was on it.
I feel so safe that an 8 year old can't get through security carrying a bottle of water, but all a terrorist has to do is misspell their name to get waved through.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 1:12pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Minimum hold time?
"Because nobody will invest if there is such a ridiculous requirement. What if you buy a stock, then news comes out and you want to unload it?"
That statement is demonstrably false. In fact, if you've ever actually done any work in the stock market, you'd know that there already is an effective 'minimum hold time' for the large majority of investors. Your trades do not settle for 3 days (do a trade on Monday, stock/cash in your account at market close on Wednesday, so you can't really do anything until Thursday). That's an SEC regulation already. The way you can get around that particular regulation is with a margin or day-trading account with your brokerage (they're offering you *credit* to buy and sell stocks - sound dangerous? it is). Most investors do not have those types of accounts.
(How do I know the above is true? I used to do tech support for ThomsonReuters financial products, some of which are involved in the HFT business, and I have a family member who is a broker for Bank of America.)
Now, on the other hand, my thoughts on HFT itself. I think HFT, even in the best case done by a responsible and intelligent brokerage, while not dangerous, is actually a net detrimental effect on the market. Why? It does NOT reward something risky that succeeds or punish something risky that fails. HFT allows large firms (the only ones who can afford the equipment to do it) to skim money off of smaller investors (frequently their own "customers"), not based on the merits of any particular trade, but by simple volume of doing as many transactions as possible - all it does is add in layers of middlemen in between a real investor and the company they wish to invest in. In the worst cases, HFT can be an unmitigated disaster for all the reasons in the previous thread on the subject.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Nov 2009 @ 7:07am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Made their bed, now they can lay in it
"And this is where I start to get really close to a total meltdown."
DH, I agree.
When the financial apocalypse was happening a year ago, I had a similar feeling. Intellectually I knew that the bailout was needed (and better than most, I do tech support on the backend servers and networks that much of the financial data goes across). But a significant portion of me wanted go Tyler Durden: watch everything burn and the world go into chaotic spasms like a wolf eating its own entrails.
I have reached that point with copyright, patents and other intellectual property. The system is rigged and I think it is beyond repair. The only thing to do is wipe it out and start from scratch.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Nov 2009 @ 7:19am
Re: Incorrect Blockbuster Description
If you read the press release, watching the movies on laptops and mobile phones is planned for the future depending on how the kiosks work out initially. At the beginning, you'll only be able to watch the movies on a special proprietary Blockbuster set-top box.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Nov 2009 @ 8:15am
Magazine attempting to protect their artificial 'scarcity'
It seems pretty obvious why the journalist doesn't like the game being available - it is a threat to their business model.
Video game journalists get free and early access to the games in exchange for writing about them and giving them good reviews. If the (full or mostly full) game is available for free on a torrent network, everyone can download and play, and decide for themselves whether or not to buy it without needing the opinions of some journalist or game reviewer.
It is the same as the possibility of everyone having access to all the music ever recorded making music reviewers obsolete.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 11:14am
Re: Come again?
"The heart of the indictment revolves around Harris selling software and hardware used to circumvent TPMs in cable modems. It is somewhat unclear why this action wasn't brought under the DMCA. In any event, based on the indictment, it is unlikely that the CDA will play any role in this case."
The CDA protects service providers (the guy that runs the forums and sells equipment with legitimate uses) from illegal actions by others who are beyond his control. Without knowing particular circumstances, is there anything inherently illegal about circumventing a TPM?
If I sell you a knife, and you use the knife to kill someone, can I be convicted of murder? If I sell you a permanent marker, and you use that marker to circumvent the copy protection of a CD, am I liable to copyright infringement?
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
"
Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of history. This has existed ever since a libeler could stand in a market square and shout unfounded information to an entire town. Printing presses and newspapers increased the ability from towns to nations or continents, and telegraphs and wire services increased the reach worldwide.
Libel law was created because of a power disparity between someone with a printing press and someone without.
The internet has simply given everyone their own printing press.
You make the assumption that the Internet is a broadcast platform. It is not. It is a communication platform where everyone can participate. All you have online is your reputation - anyone who consistently makes false statements is quickly found out, and it becomes easier and easier to see them for what they are.
On the post: RIAA Takes The Cake: Equates File Sharing To Children's Fairy Tale
Mmm. Pie.
Also, pie is yummy.
On the post: RealNetworks Agrees To Pay $4.5 Million In Legal Fees To Hollywood Over RealDVD; Gives Up
Re: What's the big deal?
Yes, it is.
UNLESS the thing you're backing up has any form of DRM. The anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA makes it illegal to break any type of DRM even for perfectly legal purposes with your legally purchased content.
As for your situation, Microsoft doesn't care how you install Windows on however many computers you have, as long as you have a legally purchased license for each install.
On the post: Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation
Re: Burden of Proof
Has nothing to do with Youtube/Google. That's how the DMCA is written, and that's just one of the problems with the DMCA.
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, Google has two choices:
1) Take content down. Google is now covered legally under section 230 and doesn't have to worry about being sued.
2) Leave content up. Google is now liable if content holder decides to sue. Copyright infringement goes up to $150,000 per violation.
That's all the options. There really is no choice here. Even if Google had infinite resources, Google does not have the ability to determine if fair use applies (they can guess, but only a court can decide). Even if Google had infinite resources, Google does not have the ability to determine if the use was given permission by the content holder (the law assumes the content holder doesn't screw up, but we've seen many cases where they do).
On the post: Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation
Legal argument?
Is there a legal argument to be made that the DMCA's notice and takedown procedure forces companies to implement prior restraint? Hence the law is not allowing a company the choice?
Or does the wording of the DMCA sidestep the constitution by not forcing a company to do it, only holding them liable if it later determined to be a copyright violation?
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Reminds me of
Searched, but couldn't find the story.
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re: (rip it yourself)
I hope that was sarcastic. I tried doing that legitimately. I went out and bought software from a retail store that would allow me to do that. Installed it, it worked great. A few months later, had to reload Windows on my box. No problem, I still have the software. Attempted to install. Uhoh. It needs to authenticate to a license server, which no longer exists, because the MPAA sued the software maker out of existance. It was DVD X Copy and 321 Studios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_X_Copy
Never again. Guess I just use software from a company based outside the US, or download the pirated version. At least until the MPAA figures out that pissing off customer who want to follow the law, but still enjoy thier products in a way that works for them, is a bad idea.
Fast forward five years. I hear RealNetworks is releasing a legitimate DVD backup utility. Guess what happened? Yep, same thing. They got sued and the software isn't available.
If I am stuck breaking the law in order to enjoy a DVD, even when I purchased a legal version, what incentive is there to attempt to follow the law in the first place? http://xkcd.com/488/
On the post: Veoh Shuts Down; What Happens To The Lawsuit?
Re: Grok and SCO
With Veoh, the company defending against the pointless lawsuit is the one that is bankrupt. Even without the lawsuit, Veoh isn't profittable, so I doubt there'd be any investors, because even with a win, all they get is a ruling that says Veoh doesn't have to pay any money to Universal. But they're still bankrupt.
On the post: Who Dat Holds The Trademark To Who Dat? NFL Threatens While WhoDat Inc. Asks Why?
Prior art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis
On the post: Bank Sues Identity Fraud Victim After $800,000 Removed From Its Account
Re: Are the Banks Double Dipping?
On the post: Bank Sues Identity Fraud Victim After $800,000 Removed From Its Account
All the victim needs to do...
'PlainsCapital promptly filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas'
We all know if you file a patent suit in that particular court you automatically win.
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, you don't pay for defending yourself against a criminal charge unless you are found guilty. There's no part of the Miranda rights that a police officer has to read that says 'You are required to pay court fees to contest your innocence.' You want to discuss civil/criminal differences? I'm game, lets talk punishments when guilt is proven. Criminal charges are the only ones that have wide-ranging restrictions on freedoms (in additional to monetary penalties), while civil charges result in fines, restitutions and occasionally extremely narrow specific restrictions on freedoms. Cutting off someone's (more specifically, an entire household's) internet access is a wide-reaching punishment.
Also, I highly doubt that the people being accused WANT to go to court - the ones that WANT to go to court are the content owners.
"Also, and this is VERY important, the internet connection is going to be cut "due to a baseless accusation", it's a 3 strikes law, not a "one and done" deal."
I agree that's absolutely important. It is important that someone's freedom is being restricted on the basis of accusations and not convictions, no matter how many there are.
"I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc."
So you are admitting you want to punish someone who is not the actual guilty party? If your roommate gets pulled over for drunk-driving, do you lose your driving license as well?
'It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.' - Voltaire
On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'
"Free"
That second quote did it in. "...of giving away their content for free, in exchange for revenue from Web advertising." Giving content in exchange for ad revenue is exactly the opposite of free. This should be obvious to TechDirt readers, but much of the wider business community wouldn't recognize it after it punched them in the face.
I think we need a thought-raising article (hopefully picked up by more main stream sources) on the difference between "free" and "no monetary cost to end users" or a similar wording.
On the post: NY Times Finds An 8-Year-Old On TSA Flight Watch List
Re:
NYT article says the same. Mikey apparently was 1 month old on Sept 11 2001, his parents have been trying to get him off the list for seven years, and his mother is a photographer who has ridden on Air Force 2 when Al Gore was on it.
I feel so safe that an 8 year old can't get through security carrying a bottle of water, but all a terrorist has to do is misspell their name to get waved through.
Security theater indeed.
On the post: SEC Concerned About High Frequency Trading
Re: Re: Re: Re: Minimum hold time?
That statement is demonstrably false. In fact, if you've ever actually done any work in the stock market, you'd know that there already is an effective 'minimum hold time' for the large majority of investors. Your trades do not settle for 3 days (do a trade on Monday, stock/cash in your account at market close on Wednesday, so you can't really do anything until Thursday). That's an SEC regulation already. The way you can get around that particular regulation is with a margin or day-trading account with your brokerage (they're offering you *credit* to buy and sell stocks - sound dangerous? it is). Most investors do not have those types of accounts.
(How do I know the above is true? I used to do tech support for ThomsonReuters financial products, some of which are involved in the HFT business, and I have a family member who is a broker for Bank of America.)
Now, on the other hand, my thoughts on HFT itself. I think HFT, even in the best case done by a responsible and intelligent brokerage, while not dangerous, is actually a net detrimental effect on the market. Why? It does NOT reward something risky that succeeds or punish something risky that fails. HFT allows large firms (the only ones who can afford the equipment to do it) to skim money off of smaller investors (frequently their own "customers"), not based on the merits of any particular trade, but by simple volume of doing as many transactions as possible - all it does is add in layers of middlemen in between a real investor and the company they wish to invest in. In the worst cases, HFT can be an unmitigated disaster for all the reasons in the previous thread on the subject.
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Eye
That logo is spying on people with it's large eye.
On the post: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Made their bed, now they can lay in it
DH, I agree.
When the financial apocalypse was happening a year ago, I had a similar feeling. Intellectually I knew that the bailout was needed (and better than most, I do tech support on the backend servers and networks that much of the financial data goes across). But a significant portion of me wanted go Tyler Durden: watch everything burn and the world go into chaotic spasms like a wolf eating its own entrails.
I have reached that point with copyright, patents and other intellectual property. The system is rigged and I think it is beyond repair. The only thing to do is wipe it out and start from scratch.
On the post: Once Again, You Don't Compete With Innovative New Services By Being Lame
Re: Incorrect Blockbuster Description
On the post: PC Game Developer Pirates Own Game As Promotion
Magazine attempting to protect their artificial 'scarcity'
Video game journalists get free and early access to the games in exchange for writing about them and giving them good reviews. If the (full or mostly full) game is available for free on a torrent network, everyone can download and play, and decide for themselves whether or not to buy it without needing the opinions of some journalist or game reviewer.
It is the same as the possibility of everyone having access to all the music ever recorded making music reviewers obsolete.
On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI
Re: Come again?
The CDA protects service providers (the guy that runs the forums and sells equipment with legitimate uses) from illegal actions by others who are beyond his control. Without knowing particular circumstances, is there anything inherently illegal about circumventing a TPM?
If I sell you a knife, and you use the knife to kill someone, can I be convicted of murder? If I sell you a permanent marker, and you use that marker to circumvent the copy protection of a CD, am I liable to copyright infringement?
Next >>