Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Oct 2009 @ 3:14pm
Re: Re: Re:
"Copyright violation is done out of the same spirit of disrespect. It doesn't matter what the other person's rights are, it doesn't matter what is right or wrong, it all about you, your wants, you "needs".
Nobody wants to back down, nobody wants to be weak, and nobody cares about anyone else's rights or space."
And of course we all know the RIAA and MPAA respect everyone's rights, such as 6 year olds, 90 year old grandmothers and dead people.
Copyright violation isn't in the same ballpark, city, state, or even country as MURDER. The ones who want it to be are the ones you shill for.
Used to be that music and culture were there for the good of all. Before copyright. If you want to talk about disrespect, perhaps you need to look closer at the ones who decided 'intangible goods' needed to be locked up so only a fraction of people could enjoy them, and those who continue to try to push more onerous terms.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Oct 2009 @ 3:30pm
Re: Re: Re:
"Quite simple, if the demand is there, and there is no free option, they buy it or they don't. But at that point, the music industry isn't competing with pirates for the public's attention."
You are missing a very significant fact. Even assuming that it was possible to stop *all* illegal file-sharing, there will still be free options.
My MP3 player is full of completely free, legally downloaded songs on it. Jonathan Coulton. Nine Inch Nails. Machinae Supremacy. Dozens of others. I find new artists putting all of their music online for free regularly.
If you kill all illegal file sharing, you've only killed the greatest advertising system for music from major music labels yet invented - while not doing a thing to compete with independent artists that are harnessing its power.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Oct 2009 @ 8:38am
Backwards
It only makes sense to the music industry and royalty collection association executives, but the answer is:
They see the music as selling the advertised product.
Instead of seeing a partnership as both music and product helping each other, or more sales of the music because it is associated with a product. To those execs, all of the value is in the music and there is no (or little) value in anything else, because they've been trained to think like that. And so, they make a product more valuable and think they deserve to be paid for it. As has been said before, they over-value the music to the detriment of everything else.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Oct 2009 @ 6:48am
Re: Okay, question...
Not a lawyer either, but it does sound like you're right about the first part. However, settlements are between two parties (not the government or an enforcement agency), so if SoundExchange is fine with Pandora lobbying with them for increased rates, then there's no problem.
As to the second part, no private contract or settlement can prevent you from giving testimony when in court when under a legal subpoena (or in front of the Senate or Congress which have the same legal rules as an actual court, including perjury).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Oct 2009 @ 10:45am
Re: If it were only that easy...
"They claim to drive traffic back to your site, but many add their own commenting or social networking to keep the users on their site."
If people are going to the aggregators for social networking and commenting, perhaps it is because those people WANT social networking and commenting (specifically a real conversation) that the news sites DO NOT provide. Provide a real value and just maybe those people will be on your site instead.
"It also bypasses traffic to the front page of your website."
Oh, and welcome to 1995, where 'hyperlinking' directly to the page you want is in, and being directed to a confusing disorganized mess of a front page is out! Hey, think, in a few years you just might get rid of the tag!
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:39am
Re: can someone explain to me
The judge made the right call here.
I was unaware of the company town idea, but after reading the wikipedia entry, I'm curious if ISPs could be considered in this manner to a small extent. We're approaching a point where many essential services are online-only or at least the most useful access is done online, such as job-hunting and banking. Could an ISP deny service to someone if they were willing to pay? What if they were the only ISP available in the area? Could the telcos ever deny service to individuals when they were local monopolies?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:23am
Re: You ask a question, then answer it
My guess would be some IP lawyer needed some billable hours, with full knowledge of IOC/USOC litigiousness, told them, "Hey, I noticed you don't have a trademark on your name. You gotta get this for (long list of bogus reasons). I can do this for you quick and cheap, and in the very unlikely event someone challenges it, we can discuss additional payment."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Oct 2009 @ 7:18am
Lobbying
But of course it is good business sense to do what the laws allow. They're the ones that paid the lobbyists and politicians to write the laws!
/sarcasm
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Oct 2009 @ 8:33am
Re:
"Mike, you missed one thing here. They said "But the weekly notifications we send to BT relate solely to music files which we know are being shared illegally" which would imply they expect BT to assume BPI is giving them a legitimate list."
BT cannot assume that the list is legitimate. They don't have the resources - but more importantly they shouldn't need to have them. Just like the Australian ISP in other articles said,
"They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'."
That is the exact position BT is in. If BPI wants something done, they need to first get a legal order for BT to reveal who the user is by presenting convincing evidence. They then need to take that individual to court for damages, again by presenting convincing evidence of that damage. That's called due process of law. Now, whether that's something BPI *should* do is entirely a different question (with a pretty obvious answer of no from anyone who bothers to think about it).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Sep 2009 @ 10:59am
Re: In this case, it's the medium
You're right, it is the medium. A medium they have no control over. If he said the same thing at the post-game interview, nobody would've cared.
Because the team and the NFL have control over the interview. They can keep any particular reporter out of it if they choose, for whatever reason. They can limit what the player says, even if it means they have to drag him out of the room while the cameras are rolling.
The NFL has no control over Twitter. None. How dare a player communicate with people over something the NFL doesn't control.
Expect to see teams have websites in which fans can 'interact' with the players, if they don't already. But the teams (and thus the NFL) will have control over the website and can take down or limit the interaction.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Sep 2009 @ 1:21pm
Re: Out of date technology
Too late.
Some copy machines already have such technology in them, to a limited extent.
I used to work for Canon, doing tech support for various products, including copiers. Many of them had anti-counterfeiting tech built in to prevent duplication of money and security paper (stocks, bonds and such). Depending on the particular machine, some would just mangle the output to be illegible, up to locking the machine up until it was serviced by a technician that could remove the lock.
Not just the million dollar machines had this. The tech had worked its way down some sub-$1000 copiers a few years ago.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Sep 2009 @ 12:09pm
Propaganda
Does this make it more or less likely that schools receiving the huge bills will start using the propaganda materials distributed by copyright holders?
I bet the schools couldn't make (free) copies of the materials, since they're covered under copyright, and I don't see them paying extra for them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Sep 2009 @ 2:07pm
Hollywood movies
The creator of this game has obviously watched too many Hollywood movies involving anything technological.
They've taught us:
-You can copy a bug in a program on a floppy, put that floppy into another completely unrelated system and wipe that system out.
-Hacking a supercomputer is like flying through a virtual city and that viruses are cute as they destroy it and cause breakers in the control room to blow.
-The US nuclear arsenal is controlled by a friendly AI that wants to play games.
-Writing a virus is best done on an 8-display system and that screwing up on one module causes the virus to break apart. Likewise, re-hacking your own virus' unbreakable encryption can be done in 60 seconds with a gun to your head.
-Ripping the guts out of a scanner and hooking them up to an iPod works to scan text from a computer screen.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Sep 2009 @ 8:52am
What then?
Has anyone at the bank figured out what they're going to do if they actually do get the person's name?
Knock on his door and force him to delete the email? Have the police follow him around to make sure he doesn't do anything with the info?
Assuming of course there's anything more than an IP address of the login to that gmail account. When I signed up to gmail, the only thing I remember inputting was another email address in case I forgot my password.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Sep 2009 @ 10:44am
How do you kick someone off the internet, anyway?
How is kicking someone off the internet accomplished, anyway?
Lets say that someone gets caught downloading illegal content and their ISP has to kick them off. Lets also assume that the person is single and lives alone to avoid further issues of involving family members or roommates in the same penalty.
Would the person have to leave their job because they can no longer connect to the net, and find a job that has no internet connection?
What is to stop this person from going back to the same ISP, or another ISP, and getting another internet account? Is there some government database that contains people's names that an ISP has to check before they can give someone internet access? What if there are errors in the database, or someone else has the same name (no-fly list, remember that)?
What counts as an ISP? I can obviously get internet access through my cable company, and through the phone company. What about a DSL reseller also going through the phone company where the customer only interacts with the reseller, and the phone company also only interacts with the reseller? Independent dial-up companies still exist for most areas of the country. Mobile broadband with a data card. A data plan on a cell phone connected to a computer. Satellite internet access. Heck, if you pay enough, you can get a leased line or a dedicated circuit from multiple providers other than those I've already listed in many areas. Are all these businesses going to have to check something before they can allow me access?
Whats to stop me from connecting to my neighbor's or Starbuck's wifi?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Sep 2009 @ 7:21am
Re: buy more stuff
if you were actually inside the industry, you'd know that roughly 60-70% of college students (varies by country) would rather risk getting sued than risk their internet getting cut off.
How are you proposing to cut off internet access to someone without suing them? Most ISPs are smart enough to not implement any voluntary program that intentionally deprives them of customers. Any mandatory law avoiding the courts is going to run into some serious constitutional issues regarding due process (5th and 14th amendments). For the exact reason you say, it will be *harder* to get someone's internet cut off than to sue them in court for copyright infringement.
As mentioned in the links to the testimony, the Patent Troll Tracker blog is shut down, and only a few lawyers involved in the case have access to it now. After the case is over, it will
I've tried the wayback machine from the Internet Archive without any luck.
On the post: Wrong Number Phone Call Results In Shooting; Some People Need To Chill Out
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody wants to back down, nobody wants to be weak, and nobody cares about anyone else's rights or space."
And of course we all know the RIAA and MPAA respect everyone's rights, such as 6 year olds, 90 year old grandmothers and dead people.
Copyright violation isn't in the same ballpark, city, state, or even country as MURDER. The ones who want it to be are the ones you shill for.
Used to be that music and culture were there for the good of all. Before copyright. If you want to talk about disrespect, perhaps you need to look closer at the ones who decided 'intangible goods' needed to be locked up so only a fraction of people could enjoy them, and those who continue to try to push more onerous terms.
On the post: As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
You are missing a very significant fact. Even assuming that it was possible to stop *all* illegal file-sharing, there will still be free options.
My MP3 player is full of completely free, legally downloaded songs on it. Jonathan Coulton. Nine Inch Nails. Machinae Supremacy. Dozens of others. I find new artists putting all of their music online for free regularly.
If you kill all illegal file sharing, you've only killed the greatest advertising system for music from major music labels yet invented - while not doing a thing to compete with independent artists that are harnessing its power.
On the post: Songs Used In Promotions Get A Ton Of Sales... So Why Does The Music Industry Try To Make It Harder?
Backwards
They see the music as selling the advertised product.
Instead of seeing a partnership as both music and product helping each other, or more sales of the music because it is associated with a product. To those execs, all of the value is in the music and there is no (or little) value in anything else, because they've been trained to think like that. And so, they make a product more valuable and think they deserve to be paid for it. As has been said before, they over-value the music to the detriment of everything else.
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re: So let me get this correct .....
Fixed since the textbook companies are next.
On the post: Why Did Pandora Sign Away Its Right To Petition The Copyright Royalty Board For Lower Rates?
Re: Okay, question...
As to the second part, no private contract or settlement can prevent you from giving testimony when in court when under a legal subpoena (or in front of the Senate or Congress which have the same legal rules as an actual court, including perjury).
On the post: The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
Re: If it were only that easy...
If people are going to the aggregators for social networking and commenting, perhaps it is because those people WANT social networking and commenting (specifically a real conversation) that the news sites DO NOT provide. Provide a real value and just maybe those people will be on your site instead.
"It also bypasses traffic to the front page of your website."
Oh, and welcome to 1995, where 'hyperlinking' directly to the page you want is in, and being directed to a confusing disorganized mess of a front page is out! Hey, think, in a few years you just might get rid of the tag!
On the post: Judge Tells Gamer That Sony Doesn't Violate His Free Speech Rights By Banning Him
Re: can someone explain to me
I was unaware of the company town idea, but after reading the wikipedia entry, I'm curious if ISPs could be considered in this manner to a small extent. We're approaching a point where many essential services are online-only or at least the most useful access is done online, such as job-hunting and banking. Could an ISP deny service to someone if they were willing to pay? What if they were the only ISP available in the area? Could the telcos ever deny service to individuals when they were local monopolies?
On the post: Olympics Tries To Block Olympian Newspaper (From Olympia, Washington) From Trademarking Its Name
Re: You ask a question, then answer it
On the post: Is The Internet Creating An Age Of Consumer Power?
Re:
On the post: Protecting Copyright Often Seems To Fly In The Face Of Good Business
Lobbying
/sarcasm
On the post: BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong
Re:
BT cannot assume that the list is legitimate. They don't have the resources - but more importantly they shouldn't need to have them. Just like the Australian ISP in other articles said,
"They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'."
That is the exact position BT is in. If BPI wants something done, they need to first get a legal order for BT to reveal who the user is by presenting convincing evidence. They then need to take that individual to court for damages, again by presenting convincing evidence of that damage. That's called due process of law. Now, whether that's something BPI *should* do is entirely a different question (with a pretty obvious answer of no from anyone who bothers to think about it).
On the post: Social Media Allows For Honest Expression... Don't Stifle It
Re: In this case, it's the medium
Because the team and the NFL have control over the interview. They can keep any particular reporter out of it if they choose, for whatever reason. They can limit what the player says, even if it means they have to drag him out of the room while the cameras are rolling.
The NFL has no control over Twitter. None. How dare a player communicate with people over something the NFL doesn't control.
Expect to see teams have websites in which fans can 'interact' with the players, if they don't already. But the teams (and thus the NFL) will have control over the website and can take down or limit the interaction.
On the post: Canadian Copyright Group Sending Huge Bills To Schools For Daring To Teach Kids With Photocopies
Re: Out of date technology
Some copy machines already have such technology in them, to a limited extent.
I used to work for Canon, doing tech support for various products, including copiers. Many of them had anti-counterfeiting tech built in to prevent duplication of money and security paper (stocks, bonds and such). Depending on the particular machine, some would just mangle the output to be illegible, up to locking the machine up until it was serviced by a technician that could remove the lock.
Not just the million dollar machines had this. The tech had worked its way down some sub-$1000 copiers a few years ago.
On the post: Canadian Copyright Group Sending Huge Bills To Schools For Daring To Teach Kids With Photocopies
Propaganda
I bet the schools couldn't make (free) copies of the materials, since they're covered under copyright, and I don't see them paying extra for them.
On the post: Win Or Lose, This Video Game Deletes Files On Your Computer
Hollywood movies
They've taught us:
-You can copy a bug in a program on a floppy, put that floppy into another completely unrelated system and wipe that system out.
-Hacking a supercomputer is like flying through a virtual city and that viruses are cute as they destroy it and cause breakers in the control room to blow.
-The US nuclear arsenal is controlled by a friendly AI that wants to play games.
-Writing a virus is best done on an 8-display system and that screwing up on one module causes the virus to break apart. Likewise, re-hacking your own virus' unbreakable encryption can be done in 60 seconds with a gun to your head.
-Ripping the guts out of a scanner and hooking them up to an iPod works to scan text from a computer screen.
On the post: Bank Sends Confidential Email To Wrong Address, Hauls Google To Court To Figure Out Who Got The Email
What then?
Knock on his door and force him to delete the email? Have the police follow him around to make sure he doesn't do anything with the info?
Assuming of course there's anything more than an IP address of the login to that gmail account. When I signed up to gmail, the only thing I remember inputting was another email address in case I forgot my password.
On the post: Having ISPs Fight Piracy Could Cost More Than Claimed 'Losses' From Piracy
How do you kick someone off the internet, anyway?
Lets say that someone gets caught downloading illegal content and their ISP has to kick them off. Lets also assume that the person is single and lives alone to avoid further issues of involving family members or roommates in the same penalty.
Would the person have to leave their job because they can no longer connect to the net, and find a job that has no internet connection?
What is to stop this person from going back to the same ISP, or another ISP, and getting another internet account? Is there some government database that contains people's names that an ISP has to check before they can give someone internet access? What if there are errors in the database, or someone else has the same name (no-fly list, remember that)?
What counts as an ISP? I can obviously get internet access through my cable company, and through the phone company. What about a DSL reseller also going through the phone company where the customer only interacts with the reseller, and the phone company also only interacts with the reseller? Independent dial-up companies still exist for most areas of the country. Mobile broadband with a data card. A data plan on a cell phone connected to a computer. Satellite internet access. Heck, if you pay enough, you can get a leased line or a dedicated circuit from multiple providers other than those I've already listed in many areas. Are all these businesses going to have to check something before they can allow me access?
Whats to stop me from connecting to my neighbor's or Starbuck's wifi?
On the post: Having ISPs Fight Piracy Could Cost More Than Claimed 'Losses' From Piracy
Re: buy more stuff
How are you proposing to cut off internet access to someone without suing them? Most ISPs are smart enough to not implement any voluntary program that intentionally deprives them of customers. Any mandatory law avoiding the courts is going to run into some serious constitutional issues regarding due process (5th and 14th amendments). For the exact reason you say, it will be *harder* to get someone's internet cut off than to sue them in court for copyright infringement.
On the post: Patent Troll Tracker Trial: Defamation Or A Chance To Silence A Voice Some Patent Lawyers Didn't Like
Re: I want to read the blog
I've tried the wayback machine from the Internet Archive without any luck.
On the post: China Cracks Down On Pirated Teaching Materials?
Re: Re: Re: What they mean
Next >>