Anonymous, go stick it! He is not supporting piracy here, this is the epitome of parody which in most countries is a protected form of free expression, regardless of whether something is copyrighted that you use in your parody.
I'm beginning to think that you are the epitome of a troll and really hope that someone bans you from posting very soon.
State judges are elected. Federal judges, as far as I know, are appointed by the President and then voted on by Congress (do you see the problem with that system? I'll give it to you: congressional bribes/lobbying money).
You are not living in the real world then. There are many companies that have said that if the courts would get off their asses and realize that if you have bought something, you own it, that they could make a model like this work.
Like it isn't already a figment of our imaginations? The fact is that cultural stuff like music is supposed to have a small window where people make their dollars on it of about 5 years, regardless of the massive extensions of copyright today.
Yeah, that Anonymous Coward who keeps on posting here (yet never makes an account) is just a shill for the media companies.
It's time for the media companies to stop living in the past and realize that today, there is no artificial scarcity to music like there was 200 years ago.
You are forgetting that BlockBuster was sued over that as well. I remember the lawsuits that lead to them changing their policy on that, especially when people were pointing out that "Hey, I was miles away at the time these things were checked out with my card! If I cannot be held liable when someone uses my car to hit someone when they have stolen it, I cannot be held liable here either!"
Actually, it is your bank's problem, because if you can prove that the charges are fradulent (pretty easy to do in most states) they have to immediately put that money back into your account.
Not according to the judges who have had these things come up in front of them and negated them as not being equal to other contracts because unlike other legal contracts hardly anyone ever reads them.
One time I have to agree with the non-paranoid among us. This is not equivalent to judge, jury and executioner.
All three of those things will be in a different place at a different time, and the latter is only if you are convicted of a very heinous crime (though I am totally against the death penalty).
In this day and age, there is no reason why they couldn't have police carry around a small printer so that they could print out these things in their car.
No, it sounds like you need to read the postings. If a router is UNSECURED, that means that basically anyone under the sun could use the router to download CP, copyrighted works, etc.
Hell, even if a router is SECURED, that can happen if someone spies on you putting in the password and gets that password.
Like the guy is pointing out: AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF! In fact, if that is the only evidence that someone has that someone else is infringing? The judge should throw out the case and refuse to grant a search warrant or anything else, because those things are easily faked/manipulated/etc.
No, it isn't. Why? Because the fact is that an IP address is NOT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION! It could be that someone up the street 4 doors is using my wireless router, secured or not, without my knowledge.
Therefore, a IP address alone does not rise to the level of 'evidence' for anything.... not a search warrant or anything.
Gordon, you are exactly right. The way that I read it, they were trying to say that using a wireless router AT ALL would make you look guilty of copyright infringement.
Excuse me, but Windows is quite easy to secure if you do a few things:
1. Run an antivirus and firewall software.
2. Only download things from trusted sources.
3. Use Firefox or something similar that has a NoScript/AdBlock Plus funtionality through extensions or built-in to avoid being pwn'd by Javascript malware.
Just by doing those three things, I have been able to avoid ALL viruses on my machine, save those goddamned codec pack viruses that for a while, I was stupid enough to download.
Actually, you could set up the company in a false name, close it down after six months.... you are set for life with the amount of money you could get in one month, let alone six.
On the post: 'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim
Re:
I'm beginning to think that you are the epitome of a troll and really hope that someone bans you from posting very soon.
On the post: Yet Another Judge Says No To Mass Infringement Lawsuits
Re:
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
Re:
On the post: Will Amazon Cave In And Get Licenses For Its Streaming Player?
Re:
On the post: The IP Maximalist's Guide To Making It Big
Re: Re:
It's time for the media companies to stop living in the past and realize that today, there is no artificial scarcity to music like there was 200 years ago.
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re:
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Also True of Video Rental Stores
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re:
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Using Skype To Get Warrants While At A Crime Scene
Re: Who needs to sit around a courtroom for a trial when everyone can just login via Skype?
On the post: Police Using Skype To Get Warrants While At A Crime Scene
Re: Re: I AM...
All three of those things will be in a different place at a different time, and the latter is only if you are convicted of a very heinous crime (though I am totally against the death penalty).
On the post: Police Using Skype To Get Warrants While At A Crime Scene
Re: Re: Warrants
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, you are assuming that it would even GET PAST THE JUDGE and to a jury in the first place.
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, even if a router is SECURED, that can happen if someone spies on you putting in the password and gets that password.
Like the guy is pointing out: AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF! In fact, if that is the only evidence that someone has that someone else is infringing? The judge should throw out the case and refuse to grant a search warrant or anything else, because those things are easily faked/manipulated/etc.
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Therefore, a IP address alone does not rise to the level of 'evidence' for anything.... not a search warrant or anything.
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
1. Run an antivirus and firewall software.
2. Only download things from trusted sources.
3. Use Firefox or something similar that has a NoScript/AdBlock Plus funtionality through extensions or built-in to avoid being pwn'd by Javascript malware.
Just by doing those three things, I have been able to avoid ALL viruses on my machine, save those goddamned codec pack viruses that for a while, I was stupid enough to download.
On the post: What Does It Take For Mobile Operators To Care About SMS Cramming Scams?
Re: Re:
Next >>