While this may be a FOIA-request, the scenario 'give me everything we have on ...' is the most standard use case for document management systems.
If each of these searches costs the tax payer 0.1 % of a $573 billion budget, those tax cuts we have been promised for a while now may finally become a reality, when the DoD is encouraged to upgrade its infrastructure, with OCR and metadata search ...
>>But this is the fallacy of copyright in action. The idea that merely taking the picture "creates value."
The fallacy goes further - who does actually create value? Copyright awards seem to rise with the value creation falling: - the person who created the dress gets nothing - the person wearing it (and inspiring the photographer) gets nothing - the photographer may or may not get a small reward - the journalist writing the story may or may not get a small reward, depending on the wording of their contract - the publisher Buzzfeed makes tons of money - every other news publisher makes tons of money (as long as they re-word the Buzzfeed story rather than copying 1:1.
>>We have repeatedly requested that Mr. Vickery permanently delete any and all copies of [...].
Or, in other words, we have made sure that IF the appropriate authorities finally pull the finger out of their ass and start investigating who else may have downloaded private data, they will find no evidence at all.
Why the FBI needs to read the phone data in the first place? It is too late to prevent the crime, the perps are dead - no evidence needed for convictions-, and the FBI itself has concluded that "They were not directed by [foreign terrorist] groups and were not part of any terrorist cell or network"" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack)
Comcast are collecting a 'Netflix-Tax' already, from consumers who voluntarily pay for a faster internet to watch Netflix in the best possible quality. If it weren't for Netflix and other video services, who would need a fast internet at the rates Comcast charges? People would pay for the cheapest line available and still see their emails coming in fast enough.
And with T-Mobile now effectively removing data caps for bandwidth-guzzling video services on mobile connections, it is difficult to see a technical justification for data caps on fixed-line services at all.
Is there any particular reason Curt Beck is not in prison for obstruction of justice? As city attorney in charge of this case, it would have been his responsibility to ensure the appropriate steps are taken to prevent emails from being deleted. One would think his responsibility would have securing a backup of the files in question in his safe, and/or locking away the entire computer the minute the court ordered the emails to be secured.
Is there a provision for the Government to pay damages for illegally seized goods? Presumably, there is quite some financial value in a well-read blog that has now been destroyed?
Quality reduction and price hikes - not the first dying industry wheeling in the accountants to rescue the bottom line, won't be the last either. Don't think the approach has saved a company that missed the train when the business model started to become obsolete, though.
The scary part is that these regulations make IP in any form obsolete - simply suing competitors based on ALLEGED infringement will drain all the cash from anybody but the largest multinationals. Just the threat of legal action will be enough to extort protection money or lopsided agreements.
How much money did he launder, then? The only number the DOJ throws around are the $ 500 m Hollywood MIGHT have made if all the movies that have allegedly been shared on Megaupload had been purchased at Hollywood's RRP.
If the case is about Megaupload subscriber fees, more precisely the fraction of those fees that may relate to subscribers sharing content without authorisation, the case shrinks to a few million at most. Hardly worth the effort the US and NZ governments and their law enforcement agencies put into it.
More important - if the case is about money laundering, why does the DOJ discuss allegations of file sharing instead of presenting their evidence of file sharing? And what is the MAFIAs role in the money laundering case? Expert witness?
The DOJ and the US government are showing a lot of creativity here to crucify someone who, technically, hasn't really broken a law.
If they were to bring the same eagerness to prosecuting those responsible for some of the excesses in the war on terror, in police brutality and asset forfeiture, they could really make the world a better place.
Same here, why leave all the fun to a robot? Wouldn't mind if Google drove me home after a few pints, or if I could do my emails when the traffic is slow anyway.
Re: Replies to killing access on accusations & copyright math
1. While there are a plenty of examples of wrongful accusations, has anybody actually been sanctioned in any meaningful way for wrongful accusations? One example where someone was accused wrongfully and stood up was Dotcomm's promotion video on Youtube a few years back. MAFIAA did not like and fired DMCA notices on all channels, Dotcomm objected, and we all know what happened next. To Dotcomm, that is, not the MAFIAA.
2. The DMCA was passed back in the nineties, and the $160 K seemed an appropriate compensation when a song or a movie was placed on internet FOR THE FIRST TIME. They were meant to reflect the damage a publisher incurred from this first infringement, the damage caused by enabling thousands, even millions of copies. These days, many copies appear on the internet at roughly the same time, and those accused may have shared a handful of copies at best (torrent upload rates are a fraction of download rates, even if someone seeds for a while, it is rare for ratios to reach double, let alone triple digits.). Ever heard of someone being charged $160000 for shoplifting a piece of chewing gum, as punitive damages? What is worse is the MAFIAAs new (?) approach of double charging: They go after the pirates, the hosters, now ISPs, and want to charge each of them $160 K. That is indeed a lot of money for virtual loss of a few cents profit they may loose if someone downloads a copy without paying.
BREIN has a reputation for using a sledgehammer-response to even the slightest indication of IP infringement.
It will be interesting to see what action they take against those abusing the BREIN-brand in a blatant and illegal attempt to intimidate a legitimate second-hand bookseller.
On the post: Defense Department Tells MuckRock It Will Need To Come Up With $660 Million To Cover FOIA Request Fees
High time for the overseers to investigate!
If each of these searches costs the tax payer 0.1 % of a $573 billion budget, those tax cuts we have been promised for a while now may finally become a reality, when the DoD is encouraged to upgrade its infrastructure, with OCR and metadata search ...
On the post: 'The Dress' A Year Later: The Meme Has Faded, But The Copyright Will Last Forever
The fallacy goes further - who does actually create value? Copyright awards seem to rise with the value creation falling:
- the person who created the dress gets nothing
- the person wearing it (and inspiring the photographer) gets nothing
- the photographer may or may not get a small reward
- the journalist writing the story may or may not get a small reward, depending on the wording of their contract
- the publisher Buzzfeed makes tons of money
- every other news publisher makes tons of money (as long as they re-word the Buzzfeed story rather than copying 1:1.
On the post: Rather Than Ending NSA's Key Surveillance Tool, White House To Now Let Other Agencies Use It
How many more administrations will it take ...
On the post: Judge Wants To Know More About FBI's Secret Recordings Of Conversations Near Courthouse Steps
On the post: Child-Monitoring Company Responds To Notification Of Security Breach By Publicly Disparaging Researcher Who Reported It
Or, in other words, we have made sure that IF the appropriate authorities finally pull the finger out of their ass and start investigating who else may have downloaded private data, they will find no evidence at all.
Obstruction of justice or compliance with COPPA?
On the post: FBI's Own Actions Likely Made Farook's iPhone Data Inaccessible
Could it be, by any chance ....
On the post: No, A Judge Did Not Just Order Apple To Break Encryption On San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone, But To Create A New Backdoor
On the post: Moral Panics: Twitter Feels Compelled To Tell You It's Deleted Over 125,000 Terrorist Twitter Accounts
Time to rethink the strategy?
On the post: NZ Newspaper: An 'Honor' To Welcome Small Pacific Rim Countries As They Sign Away Much Of Their Sovereignty
On the post: Comcast-Funded Think Tank: Broadband Usage Caps Make Netflix Streaming Better. You're Welcome.
And with T-Mobile now effectively removing data caps for bandwidth-guzzling video services on mobile connections, it is difficult to see a technical justification for data caps on fixed-line services at all.
On the post: House Intelligence Committee Orders Investigation Into Surveillance Of Congress That It Authorized
On the post: Former NYPD Boss Ray Kelly's Emails 'Inadvertently' Wiped Despite Court Order To Preserve Them
One would think his responsibility would have securing a backup of the files in question in his safe, and/or locking away the entire computer the minute the court ordered the emails to be secured.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
On the post: The Cable Industry's Response To A Banner Year For Cord Cutting? Massive Across The Board Price Increases For 2016
On the post: TPP's Forgotten Danger: Stronger Trade Secrets Protection, With Criminal Penalties For Infringement
On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context
Re: Money Laundering
If the case is about Megaupload subscriber fees, more precisely the fraction of those fees that may relate to subscribers sharing content without authorisation, the case shrinks to a few million at most. Hardly worth the effort the US and NZ governments and their law enforcement agencies put into it.
More important - if the case is about money laundering, why does the DOJ discuss allegations of file sharing instead of presenting their evidence of file sharing? And what is the MAFIAs role in the money laundering case? Expert witness?
On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context
A Christmas Wish ....
If they were to bring the same eagerness to prosecuting those responsible for some of the excesses in the war on terror, in police brutality and asset forfeiture, they could really make the world a better place.
On the post: Self-Driving Cars Have Twice The Accidents, But Only Because Humans Aren't Used To Vehicles Following The Rules
Re: Sign me up when KITT is ready
On the post: $25 Million Jury Verdict In Rightscorp Case Raises Serious Questions About Copyright Law
Re: Replies to killing access on accusations & copyright math
2. The DMCA was passed back in the nineties, and the $160 K seemed an appropriate compensation when a song or a movie was placed on internet FOR THE FIRST TIME. They were meant to reflect the damage a publisher incurred from this first infringement, the damage caused by enabling thousands, even millions of copies. These days, many copies appear on the internet at roughly the same time, and those accused may have shared a handful of copies at best (torrent upload rates are a fraction of download rates, even if someone seeds for a while, it is rare for ratios to reach double, let alone triple digits.). Ever heard of someone being charged $160000 for shoplifting a piece of chewing gum, as punitive damages?
What is worse is the MAFIAAs new (?) approach of double charging: They go after the pirates, the hosters, now ISPs, and want to charge each of them $160 K. That is indeed a lot of money for virtual loss of a few cents profit they may loose if someone downloads a copy without paying.
On the post: Dutch eBook Readers Being Reminded They Don't Actually Own Those eBooks They Bought
It will be interesting to see what action they take against those abusing the BREIN-brand in a blatant and illegal attempt to intimidate a legitimate second-hand bookseller.
Next >>