It's funny you'd mention that because Fox wasn't able to show that any harm was caused by the leak or that there was any criminal intent in the movie's release yet they scored a year in jail for the defendant. The higher standard you refer to offered by the court only applies to those who can afford the membership fees.
Firstly, no one is defending the "pirate" (arrrr, matey), we are just questioning whether or not the punishment fit the crime. A year in federal prison in a case where malicious intent was not proven and where actual harm was not proven seems excessive. He broke the law, and while many of us may not agree with the law, we understand that there are consequences. The majority of us do not think these consequences were appropriate.
To address your points:
1. It is Fox's responsibility to show that harm was done. If they cannot show harm than how can punishment be determined? It is highly unlikely that Fox would have sold more without the leak as the movie did quite better than expected considering the comparison to similar movies with more favorable reviews that did not do nearly as well. If the leak did not help the movie (which also cannot be proven although the numbers suggest it did) then it is a statistical anomaly in comparison.
2. I don't follow your logic. As has been pointed out numerous times, just because he watched the movie via download does not mean that the viewer would have ever paid to watch the movie whther it be in the theaters, a rental/stream, or purchase the dvd. Again no harm can be shown and there is nothing presented by the prosecution to indicate that there was even one lost sale. And again, the statistical evidence (although possibly anecdotal) would indicate that the movie did better than it should have.
3. While yes there was a crime committed, it does not follow that there was a benefit obtained. Nothing in the court filings indicate that the defendant received any financial benefit. Social benefit is irrelevant and impossible to measure, but again nothing was presented to show any evidence of this either.
Following the benefit argument, I would argue that the public trial may have given the defendant more of a social benefit than the pre-release ever could have. Now his name is attached it the release and people know who is, many people are outraged at the severity of the punishment, and Fox has essentially made a martyr out of him rather than provide a deterrent example. As usual, it seems the industry has once again lowered their standing in the public eye and lost even more of the already exponentially small amount of respect they have.
You actually made me laugh out loud. "Well reasoned post"... man that's classic! As if any post in the past, present, or future history of the internet containing the phrase "content grifters would ever be described as "well reasoned". Even without the ad homs your misguided opinion and "reasoned" are not the same thing. You really had me fooled thinking you were being serious until you gave it away with that last one. Good show, sir. Good show indeed! I'll toss in another 50 internets to add to the ones you've already won.
You are absolutely correct. His posting of a blog in and of itself was kinda pathetic but completely legal and absolutely protected under the 1st amendment. Also, it was in no way, shape, or form harassment. What was harassment was him contacting her friends and family pointing them to the blog. That may also have been a violation of the restraining order which is what should have been used to sanction him. Using the 1st amendment in this way is inappropriate and sets dangerous precedent. Typically a judge will avoid a constitutional issue when there is a clear way to reach the same verdict through something less controversial. This judge simply dropped the ball with a ruling.
This is neither plain nor simple. Putting an end to harassment is fine, but the way the court went about it is preposterous. A blog is protected speech. PERIOD. Whether that speech is about my daily routine, cooking, technology, racial superiority, bomb making, or techniques on the abduction of children, it is still all protected free speech. Some of that speech may be abhorrent but it is protected nonetheless. As long as he wasn't slandering or threatening her his speech should have been protected as well and not censored.
Your examples of standing in front of her house are not equitable to the situation and a poor comparison. The example used in the article is probably the best... If he wrote a book about her and published it, provided again that he was not slandering her with mis-truths or threatening her, the speech would and should be protected under the first amendment.
It always comes back to the famous quote "while I may not agree with what you say, I will defend your right to say it." I am not willing to relinquish any rights granted under the 1st amendment, and if you are willing to relinquish these rights over something as petty as this, I truly feel sorry for you and hope you are never put in a place where your decisions can effect the rest of us.
Being that the only person who has said that SOPA/PIPA won't break the internet is an MPAA executive (and his devoted little sycophants), and those that say they will break the internet include almost everyone involved in building and maintaining it, I don't understand why you and your ilk keep trying to defend this point. Not one defender of the bills has brought out a credible source to even attempt to refute the experts who have predicted what will happen, much less been successful at it. If you're going to keep parroting this false assertion couldn't you at least have the decency to try to make up some points like Mr. Dodd instead of just saying "nah-ah it won't break derp derp."
Your trolling needs work and at least 2 additional logical fallacies. 4/10
"Maybe Zuckerberg doesn't view freeloading and infringing as part of his future business model."
Gotcha... the business model that made him a billionaire was cool with that stuff but now he's moving in a new direction.
"Where are Verizon, ATT, Comcast and all of the other ISP's. You'd think if SOPA was really going to break the Internet, they'd be at the top of the list."
Well, if you'd read the first sentence of the article, it's a list of successful entrepreneurs. None of the companies you listed or their CEO's would fall under that category.
My guess as to why Zuckerdouche (I'm not bitter) isn't making a public stance is because in the back of his mind he is holding on to the idea that SOPA may just enable him to stop any competition that could threaten facebook. He has an empire to protect and why try to beat competition with superior products and services when you can use bad legislation to stop them before they can fight back? I mean that's the whole purpose of the law right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
^THIS^
Your comment is basically exactly what I was going to respond. As Netflix, itunes, and Steam have proven, the way to compete with piracy is to "Give the people what they want, how they want it, when they want it, at a reasonable price." If this is your business model, then anyone who still downloads the content wasn't going to buy it anyway and it wasn't a lost sale that you should feel the need to recoup through extortion or litigation.
Suing your potential customers is always wrong. Period. The RIAA learned this painfully, but apparently other industries aren't paying attention. The results of these pay-up-or-else schemes has always ended the same way... a possible recoup of short-term profits with a massive loss of goodwill alienating what could have been a long term fanbase of people willing to pay.
I honestly wanted to play Witcher 2 and was waiting for Steam to put it on sale. Went on sale 2 days ago but the sale came and went with no money from me. I commend CDP for releasing games without DRM, but this next lesson they are going to have to learn the hard way. They will never get a dime of my money until they recognize that this move was a mistake. I wouldn't even take the time to download the game and play it for free. It's sad that they can get it so right on one side and so wrong on the other. Hopefully they realize quickly that the loss of goodwill wasn't worth whatever they bring in from the extortion letters.
Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
"reasonably defending their rights"
If and when a company does reasonably defend their rights it will be applauded. Reasonably defending their rights would be taking action against a person or entity who is profiting from the copyrighted work without permission. Copyright is a social contract which grants exclusive control as to who can profit from the protected work.
In this case a company is sending shakedown letters to possibly innocent people based on so called "evidence" which has been shown unreliable on multiple occasions. The no DRM move is the correct approach. Extortion letters to private users and innocent people is the wrong approach and deserving of criticism. Does that help clear things up?
If I'm not mistaken (but very well could be), I thought that Stevens Media transferred the IP rights to Righthaven after courts started to realize they didn't have standing to sue. Although the courts weren't all that impressed with the move and didn't allow it to change the fact that when the suits were filed Righthaven didn't have the right to do so, it might mean that they currently own the IP and that Steven's Media might lose the IP rights they granted for the sole purpose of their extortion scheme. Wouldn't that be the most delicious irony of all this mess?
It's not possible to get "burned by pirates"... File sharing does not equal lost sales. From the article:
I don't think anyone doubts that the film will end up being available from unauthorized sources. It may already be available that way. Hell, I'd bet that Louis himself expected it to show up for free pretty quickly. But the point is that the people who still "pirate" the video really don't matter. Those people were never going to pay anyway.
What this doesn't address is that many people who download the video (who weren't going to pay for it and hence wouldn't be exposed to it without unauthorized access) might actually go and pay for it because they liked it and recognize it's value. This is why the "piracy can boost sales" argument is made so frequently.
I wish Louis all the best with this project and truly appreciate his release without crippling, annoying, deal-breaking DRM. I want to give him 5 bucks just because I'm impressed with his attitude.
Excellent trolling and most likely you're correct, as sad as that may be. I'm confused with your analogy on one point. Even if this passes, what will be the RtB? MAFIAAFire is free and so is the Pirate Bay Dancing, and so will ever other technological workaround for the DNS blocking that comes out 35 seconds after the bill passes.
Other things that will soon be free:
The thousands of man hours that every internet geek around the world will invest to fix the internet after you break it. This fix will be done in such a way that you won't be able break it again no matter how hard you huff and puff, although I'm certain it won't stop you from blowing...
A whole new collection of open source software covering everything from anonymizing internet browsing with 2 clicks or less, to encryption, to dark nets made easy.
Oh, can't forget this one... Foodstamps for all the congressmen and senators who will be voted out of office for making their legacy the censorship of the American internet. Hoped they saved those bribes... er... lobbying dollars.
This ones free now, but will still be free afterwards so it's worth mentioning: Every piece of digital content ever.
"Good work, Johnson. Now sprinkle some crack on him and let's get out of here."
I guess that's why so many people are flocking to Iran and China's DNS systems... I mean look at all the harmful content they have so courteously removed from their walled internets to keep from reaching the eyes of unsuspecting citizens. Truly they are shining examples of taming this wild west internet and bringing civility back to the masses.
So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites? If anything I'd find it more trustworthy for NOT taking me to such places.
Let's take a look at how well the government has done so far...
They labeled 80k+ innocent blogs as being involved in child pornography
They illegally censored a music blog for over a year before admitting that the site was legal and returning it
They unconstitutionally seized a Spanish website that was declared legal twice by Spain's court without any due process in a case of clear prior restraint
Fair enough, and I agree completely that the internet isn't always the most reliable source of information. That being said, I think the part of this story that focuses on the lawyer and what was or was not said to him by the government is really the smallest part of the story. I would hope that Masnick is able to corroborate the assertions with some sort of document, but if the story is true, then it seeds like that will be impossible, and the lawyers take on what happened will again be hearsay. (I will say that I do tend to believe that the events portrayed are what actually happened in this case, but I would never claim them to be fact without proof.)
I still think we are focusing on the wrong part of this story though. The behavior of ICE and the government in this case is inexcusable and warrants investigation of the constitutional violations, the abuse of authority, and (if what the lawyer said is true) a blatant attempt to cover up their wrong doing.
What happened here (that can be proven by the established facts) is improper censorship. Whether or not the lawyers version is true will not change the rest of the material facts. If what he says is true it makes the case even worse based on the governments conduct, but even he is a bold faced liar it doesn't excuse the government's behavior in the least. They dropped the ball on this and violated the founding principles of our society. I don't think there is any way to dispute that, but if anyone has an argument I'd be happy to debate it.
Let me ask you... Aside from the lawyers version of the story which can't currently be substantiated, do you feel there is any defense to excuse the government's behavior that we can prove?
That's really my take on it, but it is completely obvious that there were no legitimate reasons for the seizure in the first place. The "evidence" they used to take the site were tracks provided by the content owners for promotion. Do you dispute this? Seizure law has specific timeframes and an adversarial process that was not followed in this case. Do you dispute this? PACER can confirm that there are no court documents available to show that any motions were filed or extensions requested or even the smallest resemblance to anything that could even conceivably be considered due process. Do you dispute this?
The only unsubstantiated assertion presented in this article is that the government specifically denied the lawyer a chance to be heard, a chance to respond, a chance to speak to the court to advise that his client objected to any further extensions, and that they told him to "trust them".
The matter of the blog being censored for a year is clearly a matter of public record. Thus far there has been no justification shown for this censorship and an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it was improper and in violation of the constitution. Do you dispute this?
I guess the real question, is which part of the article are actually objecting to? Without documentation due to the alleged sealed nature of any court documents, nothing take what the lawyer asserts beyond a level of hearsay. I concede that point, but again, I'm not really clear what you are saying is unbelievable?
It's quite amusing that you would sit there and try to defend the seizure of the site and defame the site as a criminal entity when the government has essentially said they totally screwed this up, dismissed the charges, and returned the blog as legal business while sealing away all evidence of its own impropriety...
Whatever your using seems to good to keep to yourself... puff puff, pass, bro!
Basically it was already reported that the blog was seized without due process. The "evidence" used by ICE was already presented and shown to be completely fictional. The blog itself was down for over a year. This story is Mike saying "the blog is back and here's what their lawyer told me".
I would expect more information as it becomes available, but aside from the government's secret extensions and sealed court documents, most of this story is an historical account of information that has not been disputed.
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Compare and contrast
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To address your points:
1. It is Fox's responsibility to show that harm was done. If they cannot show harm than how can punishment be determined? It is highly unlikely that Fox would have sold more without the leak as the movie did quite better than expected considering the comparison to similar movies with more favorable reviews that did not do nearly as well. If the leak did not help the movie (which also cannot be proven although the numbers suggest it did) then it is a statistical anomaly in comparison.
2. I don't follow your logic. As has been pointed out numerous times, just because he watched the movie via download does not mean that the viewer would have ever paid to watch the movie whther it be in the theaters, a rental/stream, or purchase the dvd. Again no harm can be shown and there is nothing presented by the prosecution to indicate that there was even one lost sale. And again, the statistical evidence (although possibly anecdotal) would indicate that the movie did better than it should have.
3. While yes there was a crime committed, it does not follow that there was a benefit obtained. Nothing in the court filings indicate that the defendant received any financial benefit. Social benefit is irrelevant and impossible to measure, but again nothing was presented to show any evidence of this either.
Following the benefit argument, I would argue that the public trial may have given the defendant more of a social benefit than the pre-release ever could have. Now his name is attached it the release and people know who is, many people are outraged at the severity of the punishment, and Fox has essentially made a martyr out of him rather than provide a deterrent example. As usual, it seems the industry has once again lowered their standing in the public eye and lost even more of the already exponentially small amount of respect they have.
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You actually made me laugh out loud. "Well reasoned post"... man that's classic! As if any post in the past, present, or future history of the internet containing the phrase "content grifters would ever be described as "well reasoned". Even without the ad homs your misguided opinion and "reasoned" are not the same thing. You really had me fooled thinking you were being serious until you gave it away with that last one. Good show, sir. Good show indeed! I'll toss in another 50 internets to add to the ones you've already won.
On the post: Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts
Re: The point
On the post: Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts
Re: Re: Re:
Your examples of standing in front of her house are not equitable to the situation and a poor comparison. The example used in the article is probably the best... If he wrote a book about her and published it, provided again that he was not slandering her with mis-truths or threatening her, the speech would and should be protected under the first amendment.
It always comes back to the famous quote "while I may not agree with what you say, I will defend your right to say it." I am not willing to relinquish any rights granted under the 1st amendment, and if you are willing to relinquish these rights over something as petty as this, I truly feel sorry for you and hope you are never put in a place where your decisions can effect the rest of us.
On the post: Is Facebook Selling Out The Internet?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Facebook Selling Out The Internet?
Re:
"Maybe Zuckerberg doesn't view freeloading and infringing as part of his future business model."
Gotcha... the business model that made him a billionaire was cool with that stuff but now he's moving in a new direction.
"Where are Verizon, ATT, Comcast and all of the other ISP's. You'd think if SOPA was really going to break the Internet, they'd be at the top of the list."
Well, if you'd read the first sentence of the article, it's a list of successful entrepreneurs. None of the companies you listed or their CEO's would fall under that category.
My guess as to why Zuckerdouche (I'm not bitter) isn't making a public stance is because in the back of his mind he is holding on to the idea that SOPA may just enable him to stop any competition that could threaten facebook. He has an empire to protect and why try to beat competition with superior products and services when you can use bad legislation to stop them before they can fight back? I mean that's the whole purpose of the law right?
On the post: CD Projekt Shakes Down Suspected File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
Your comment is basically exactly what I was going to respond. As Netflix, itunes, and Steam have proven, the way to compete with piracy is to "Give the people what they want, how they want it, when they want it, at a reasonable price." If this is your business model, then anyone who still downloads the content wasn't going to buy it anyway and it wasn't a lost sale that you should feel the need to recoup through extortion or litigation.
Suing your potential customers is always wrong. Period. The RIAA learned this painfully, but apparently other industries aren't paying attention. The results of these pay-up-or-else schemes has always ended the same way... a possible recoup of short-term profits with a massive loss of goodwill alienating what could have been a long term fanbase of people willing to pay.
I honestly wanted to play Witcher 2 and was waiting for Steam to put it on sale. Went on sale 2 days ago but the sale came and went with no money from me. I commend CDP for releasing games without DRM, but this next lesson they are going to have to learn the hard way. They will never get a dime of my money until they recognize that this move was a mistake. I wouldn't even take the time to download the game and play it for free. It's sad that they can get it so right on one side and so wrong on the other. Hopefully they realize quickly that the loss of goodwill wasn't worth whatever they bring in from the extortion letters.
On the post: CD Projekt Shakes Down Suspected File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
If and when a company does reasonably defend their rights it will be applauded. Reasonably defending their rights would be taking action against a person or entity who is profiting from the copyrighted work without permission. Copyright is a social contract which grants exclusive control as to who can profit from the protected work.
In this case a company is sending shakedown letters to possibly innocent people based on so called "evidence" which has been shown unreliable on multiple occasions. The no DRM move is the correct approach. Extortion letters to private users and innocent people is the wrong approach and deserving of criticism. Does that help clear things up?
On the post: Righthaven Keeps On Losing; Court Grants Receivership Request
Re: Books and Movies!
On the post: Louis CK: Connecting With Fans & Giving Them A Reason To Buy By Being Polite, Awesome & Human
Re:
I don't think anyone doubts that the film will end up being available from unauthorized sources. It may already be available that way. Hell, I'd bet that Louis himself expected it to show up for free pretty quickly. But the point is that the people who still "pirate" the video really don't matter. Those people were never going to pay anyway.
What this doesn't address is that many people who download the video (who weren't going to pay for it and hence wouldn't be exposed to it without unauthorized access) might actually go and pay for it because they liked it and recognize it's value. This is why the "piracy can boost sales" argument is made so frequently.
I wish Louis all the best with this project and truly appreciate his release without crippling, annoying, deal-breaking DRM. I want to give him 5 bucks just because I'm impressed with his attitude.
On the post: Lamar Smith Proposes New Version Of SOPA, With Just A Few Changes
Re:
Other things that will soon be free:
The thousands of man hours that every internet geek around the world will invest to fix the internet after you break it. This fix will be done in such a way that you won't be able break it again no matter how hard you huff and puff, although I'm certain it won't stop you from blowing...
A whole new collection of open source software covering everything from anonymizing internet browsing with 2 clicks or less, to encryption, to dark nets made easy.
Oh, can't forget this one... Foodstamps for all the congressmen and senators who will be voted out of office for making their legacy the censorship of the American internet. Hoped they saved those bribes... er... lobbying dollars.
This ones free now, but will still be free afterwards so it's worth mentioning: Every piece of digital content ever.
"Good work, Johnson. Now sprinkle some crack on him and let's get out of here."
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re:
On the post: Congressional Research Service Shows Hollywood Is Thriving
Re:
Please keep your serial killers straight to avoid unnecessary confusion!
Also, But... But... Piracy!
On the post: SOPA Supporter: If You Use DNSSEC You Can Ignore SOPA/PIPA
Re:
So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites? If anything I'd find it more trustworthy for NOT taking me to such places.
Let's take a look at how well the government has done so far...
They labeled 80k+ innocent blogs as being involved in child pornography
They illegally censored a music blog for over a year before admitting that the site was legal and returning it
They unconstitutionally seized a Spanish website that was declared legal twice by Spain's court without any due process in a case of clear prior restraint
Yeah, I feel safer already... Where do I sign up?
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think we are focusing on the wrong part of this story though. The behavior of ICE and the government in this case is inexcusable and warrants investigation of the constitutional violations, the abuse of authority, and (if what the lawyer said is true) a blatant attempt to cover up their wrong doing.
What happened here (that can be proven by the established facts) is improper censorship. Whether or not the lawyers version is true will not change the rest of the material facts. If what he says is true it makes the case even worse based on the governments conduct, but even he is a bold faced liar it doesn't excuse the government's behavior in the least. They dropped the ball on this and violated the founding principles of our society. I don't think there is any way to dispute that, but if anyone has an argument I'd be happy to debate it.
Let me ask you... Aside from the lawyers version of the story which can't currently be substantiated, do you feel there is any defense to excuse the government's behavior that we can prove?
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: Re: Re:
The only unsubstantiated assertion presented in this article is that the government specifically denied the lawyer a chance to be heard, a chance to respond, a chance to speak to the court to advise that his client objected to any further extensions, and that they told him to "trust them".
The matter of the blog being censored for a year is clearly a matter of public record. Thus far there has been no justification shown for this censorship and an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it was improper and in violation of the constitution. Do you dispute this?
I guess the real question, is which part of the article are actually objecting to? Without documentation due to the alleged sealed nature of any court documents, nothing take what the lawyer asserts beyond a level of hearsay. I concede that point, but again, I'm not really clear what you are saying is unbelievable?
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Whatever your using seems to good to keep to yourself... puff puff, pass, bro!
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/15302012021/who-needs-coica-when-homeland-securi ty-gets-to-seize-domain-names.shtml
Basically it was already reported that the blog was seized without due process. The "evidence" used by ICE was already presented and shown to be completely fictional. The blog itself was down for over a year. This story is Mike saying "the blog is back and here's what their lawyer told me".
I would expect more information as it becomes available, but aside from the government's secret extensions and sealed court documents, most of this story is an historical account of information that has not been disputed.
Next >>