But there aren't an infinite number of gTLDs. Each gTLD that gets added potentially creates a new problem for trademark holders. That's all they're saying.
While I agree with them that it's true, I don't necessarily agree that it's a good enough reason to not have new gTLDs.
Adding a new folder (directory) on my 1 terabyte hard drive does not mean it now holds more than 1 terabyte. All a domain name is, whether a top level one or not, is a organizational container and a pointer to a resource. They are called URLs - Uniform Resource Locators.
The issue here is domain names. Imagine if popularsite.com has been having problems with squatters abusing similar domains like popularsite.net and popularsite.org. Now with 200 more domain names comes potentially 200 times as many problems with cybersquatters.
Of course, Copycense points us to the news that "The Copyright Alliance" (a sort of propaganda/lobbying organization for extreme copyright maximalists) has now come out against generic TLDs as well for the delightfully ridiculous reason that it means "more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators."
You left off the end of the sentence: "First, more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators for new abusive registrations." Adding gTLDs would do this, so I don't see how the claim is so ridiculous.
Apparently, the internet isn't a series of "tubes," but it's a box with limited space, and this will expand it. Or something.
The limited number of gTLDs does create a "box with limited space" in one sense. Adding more gTLDs makes the box bigger.
I'm not saying I agree with them and that these new gTLDs need to be stopped. But at the same time, I don't think their claims are ridiculous on their face.
It was really the first big DMCA safe harbor lawsuit to make use of the "red flag" provisions of the DMCA. Most safe harbor cases have focused on whether or not the service provider responded to notices, but in this case, the court said that there were enough "red flags" that, even in the absence of notices, IsoHunt should have blocked certain files. This is problematic for any number of reasons, as it leaves an incredibly vague standard out there that is, in many ways, incompatible with the notice-and-takedown provisions of the DMCA. The only real way to reconcile these would be to say that red flags only apply to very specific infringing works, rather than the fact that infringement takes place on the site. Unfortunately, the court didn't really do that here.
I know the "red flag" provision of the DMCA troubles you, and I'm wondering this: Can you provide us with a hypothetical example of something that would qualify as "red flag" knowledge under the DMCA, but wouldn't be actual knowledge? Clearly, the DMCA provides for both. I'm just wondering if you can give us an example of something that isn't actual knowledge, but is "red flag" knowledge.
In the end, that's really only going to make it more difficult for people who have ideas, because studios aren't going to want to hear them for fear of future liability. If multiple people come up with similar ideas, studios shouldn't be forced to pay them all due to some bizarre implied contract...
I think you're missing the other side of it, which is that people won't want to pitch ideas for fear that they will be taken. The implied contract protects people so they'll want to pitch more ideas. I find your desire to give the idea pitchers no protection odd.
So, have you found any law, or legal textbook, that defines what “intellectual property” means yet?
So where did you go? You claim I'm spreading FUD and demand I look something up for you. I did look that up for you, and then you disappear. That's rude.
I'm not running and hiding from anything. I'm merely pointing out that the complaint alleges that CNET was more than just a mere conduit. Mike noticeably, and predictably I might add, completely glossed over the parts of the complaint where CNET is alleged to have done certain actions that could be considered as intentionally fostering piracy.
I'm not turning this into some greater issue about new technology. I'm only saying that the lawsuit on its face is not "silly" to me. How did I tie myself into a logical knot? If CNET is saying download this, it's great, and you can use it to pirate, then that does open them up to liability under current copyright jurisprudence.
You're need to try and take me down me down a notch over this is amusing.
The complaint alleges that CNET was more than just a conduit, though. I don't know if the claims are true--and I'm not giving an opinion of the merits of the case--but I don't think it's quite as simple as that. As alleged, CNET was not a mere innocent party.
Allegedly, CNET did make expressions as to how the software could be used to infringe, such as reviewing the software and comparing it to Napster. That could be inducement. As I recall, part of Grokster's downfall was their claim that they were the new Napster.
It could be contributory infringement since CNET, allegedly, knew that it was being used to infringe and made a material contribution to that infringement by distributing millions of copies of the software.
It could be also be vicarious infringement, since CNET allegedly profited (I'm sure the 220 million downloads, plus presumably more page views, earned them money), and they had a right and ability to control it (they could have not allowed the software to be distributed on their website).
I don't think this is cut and dry either way. It depends on what actions CNET took what they knew.
I never said you're not entitled to your own opinion. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to your attempts to portray my position as being ridiculous, plenty of people who understand the law better than you agree.
I think it's secondary liability. Others disagree. You point to Goldman's tweet that ends with a question mark and pretend like it's proof-positive of the issue. It's amusing. You still haven't addressed the issue of why the suit is silly.
Dude. You've been posting on this site for a few months now, and early on we were happy to treat you nicely. Then you became a total and complete childish asshole. Any time people disagree with you, you talk down to them, you mock them mercilessly and you insist they simply don't understand. If we treat you you like that, it's only because you've earned it. You don't threaten shit. You're target practice.
How did I earn it in this thread? I merely stated an opinion without making it personal. You swooped in and started the hostility. I honestly think you hate that I call you out with such ease when it comes to substantive law.
The entire post explains why it is silly. Your inability to read is really not my problem.
Silly as in frivolous? Your post left me with many questions, but no answers. Shall we run through the claims in the complaint? You've given no analysis, just conclusory statements and innuendo.
No. Please refrain from making false statements about my beliefs. It's childish. I also find it funny that in a comment discussing one of the legal reasons we explained why this lawsuit is silly, you pretend I did not explain it. Your failure at reading comprehension does not obligate me to repeat myself. Anyone is free to read my post.
Again, you resort to personal attacks and deflection. Anything but talk about the substance. Let's stay focused. Why isn't this inducement, contributory, or vicarious infringement? Can you talk about substantive matters, rather than talking about talking about it? That would be more productive than what you've turned this thread into.
The holding of Grokster is summarized in the reporter as such: "[O]ne who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
So party one is the distributor of the software (CNET and Limewire, who is also a defendant by the way), party two is the infringer, and party three is the copyright holder. In my opinion, the fact that Limewire made the software is irrelevant. The issue is that CNET distributed it. I don't see how CNET can avoid liability by arguing that their liability is tertiary instead of secondary, so the whole argument seems moot to me anyway.
I refuse to even read Karl's posts, so I have no idea what Karl said.
Prof. Goldman put a question mark, meaning he's questioning it, not making a definitive statement about it. I think they are a third-party because they are distributing the software. You may disagree. Prof. Goldman may disagree. I'm entitled to my own opinion.
Why can't I express an opinion that differs from yours without being met with your incredible hostility? Do I threaten you that much?
Nevertheless, you still haven't explained why the lawsuit is "silly." That's the real issue here. If CNET knew the software was being used to infringe, which the complaint suggests they did, then the claim isn't that silly after all. Is it that unreasonable to hold a party liable who helped disseminate 220 million copies of software they knew was being used to commit infringement? I don't think it's necessarily so silly.
You seem to default to lawsuit = silly, so it's no surprise that you think this is silly. I'm just wondering if you can back up the "silly" claim with some sort of legal argument.
Umm, no. This is third-party liability. (1) CNET, (2) the direct infringers, and (3) the plaintiffs.
There's three claims: inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement. The defendant allegedly uploaded 220,000,000 copies of the Limewire software.
Funny how you say the lawsuit is "silly," yet you don't really address the claims in the complaint.
There are lots of definition sections throughout the law. Here's a few:
For purposes of this subchapter, the term “intellectual property enforcement” means matters relating to the enforcement of laws protecting copyrights, patents, trademarks, other forms of intellectual property, and trade secrets, both in the United States and abroad, including in particular matters relating to combating counterfeit and infringing goods.
15 U.S.C.A. § 8112.
(3)For purposes of this subsection, the term “intellectual property” means an invention patentable under Title 35, or any patent on such an invention, or any work for which copyright protection is available under Title 17.
15 U.S.C.A. § 278n.
(F)(i) For the purposes of subparagraph (B)(i)(II), adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights includes adequate and effective means under the laws of the foreign country for persons who are not citizens or nationals of such country to secure, exercise, and enforce rights and enjoy commercial benefits relating to patents, trademarks, copyrights and related rights, mask works, trade secrets, and plant breeder's rights.
19 U.S.C.A. § 2411.
(9) Qualified intellectual property--For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified intellectual property” means property described in subsection (e)(1)(B)(iii) (other than property contributed to or for the use of an organization described in subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)).
26 U.S.C.A. § 170.
I could go on and on. So I take it you'll answer my question now.
So, have you found any law, or legal textbook, that defines what “intellectual property” means yet?
Were you the one who was saying that something isn't property unless you can point to a statute that defines it as such? If so, can you show me where it says that something isn't property unless a statute says it is?
That's just not how it works.
Answer me this: What, in your mind, is the definition of property?
The binary groups (pictures, video, etc.) are a small percentage of the overall total number of groups on Usenet. The vast majority are text-only discussion groups on everything from politics to basket-weaving which have nothing to do with "other people's content".
Yes, the vast majority of groups are not the binary ones, but the binary ones are where the bulk of the traffic is.
The number of groups with or without binaries is irrelevant. The fact is, the vast majority of the traffic is in the binary groups. The binary groups are where infringement is rampant, and it is in those groups that Giganews really makes their money.
Right. If you exceed the scope of your license, it's copyright infringement.
This is why Mike's statement didn't make sense to me when he said: "Of course, Disney is claiming that this isn't a contractual issue, but a copyright one, but even that makes no sense. Dish's license with Starz clearly includes a license to display the content."
Even if true, if Starz licensed rights that it didn't have the right to license, and those unlicensed rights were exercised, then it's copyright infringement, not breach of contract.
I was referring to the alt.binaries groups. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Many ISPs block those groups because it is well known what they are used for. Giganews sells access those groups while advertising great speed and retention. Seems clear enough to me what Giganews is about.
Great post. So if Starz did warrant to Dish that it had rights from Disney that it did not, and Dish's infringement is the result of relying that misinformation, then how does it work procedurally? Starz would then be responsible for defending Dish against Disney, right? Would Starz be added as a party to the lawsuit, or would they simply just have to provide or pay for Dish's defense without being a party? Just wondering how that works... Thanks.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
Re: Re:
While I agree with them that it's true, I don't necessarily agree that it's a good enough reason to not have new gTLDs.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
Re: Re:
The issue here is domain names. Imagine if popularsite.com has been having problems with squatters abusing similar domains like popularsite.net and popularsite.org. Now with 200 more domain names comes potentially 200 times as many problems with cybersquatters.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
You left off the end of the sentence: "First, more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators for new abusive registrations." Adding gTLDs would do this, so I don't see how the claim is so ridiculous.
Apparently, the internet isn't a series of "tubes," but it's a box with limited space, and this will expand it. Or something.
The limited number of gTLDs does create a "box with limited space" in one sense. Adding more gTLDs makes the box bigger.
I'm not saying I agree with them and that these new gTLDs need to be stopped. But at the same time, I don't think their claims are ridiculous on their face.
On the post: 9th Circuit Hears Two Key Cases About DMCA Safe Harbors: IsoHunt And Veoh
I know the "red flag" provision of the DMCA troubles you, and I'm wondering this: Can you provide us with a hypothetical example of something that would qualify as "red flag" knowledge under the DMCA, but wouldn't be actual knowledge? Clearly, the DMCA provides for both. I'm just wondering if you can give us an example of something that isn't actual knowledge, but is "red flag" knowledge.
Thanks.
On the post: Appeals Court Effectively Opens The Floodgates For People To Claim Hollywood 'Stole' Their Ideas
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
What is your problem? Why are you following me around asking me the same question? This is now the third time that you've asked me this that I'm aware of. I've already answered you: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110503/15385914134/disney-claims-its-copyright-infringement-dish- to-offer-starz-to-non-premium-subscribers.shtml#c648
WTF?
On the post: Appeals Court Effectively Opens The Floodgates For People To Claim Hollywood 'Stole' Their Ideas
I think you're missing the other side of it, which is that people won't want to pitch ideas for fear that they will be taken. The implied contract protects people so they'll want to pitch more ideas. I find your desire to give the idea pitchers no protection odd.
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
So where did you go? You claim I'm spreading FUD and demand I look something up for you. I did look that up for you, and then you disappear. That's rude.
On the post: Silly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For Download
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not turning this into some greater issue about new technology. I'm only saying that the lawsuit on its face is not "silly" to me. How did I tie myself into a logical knot? If CNET is saying download this, it's great, and you can use it to pirate, then that does open them up to liability under current copyright jurisprudence.
You're need to try and take me down me down a notch over this is amusing.
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
On the post: Silly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For Download
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The complaint alleges that CNET was more than just a conduit, though. I don't know if the claims are true--and I'm not giving an opinion of the merits of the case--but I don't think it's quite as simple as that. As alleged, CNET was not a mere innocent party.
Allegedly, CNET did make expressions as to how the software could be used to infringe, such as reviewing the software and comparing it to Napster. That could be inducement. As I recall, part of Grokster's downfall was their claim that they were the new Napster.
It could be contributory infringement since CNET, allegedly, knew that it was being used to infringe and made a material contribution to that infringement by distributing millions of copies of the software.
It could be also be vicarious infringement, since CNET allegedly profited (I'm sure the 220 million downloads, plus presumably more page views, earned them money), and they had a right and ability to control it (they could have not allowed the software to be distributed on their website).
I don't think this is cut and dry either way. It depends on what actions CNET took what they knew.
On the post: Silly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For Download
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's secondary liability. Others disagree. You point to Goldman's tweet that ends with a question mark and pretend like it's proof-positive of the issue. It's amusing. You still haven't addressed the issue of why the suit is silly.
Dude. You've been posting on this site for a few months now, and early on we were happy to treat you nicely. Then you became a total and complete childish asshole. Any time people disagree with you, you talk down to them, you mock them mercilessly and you insist they simply don't understand. If we treat you you like that, it's only because you've earned it. You don't threaten shit. You're target practice.
How did I earn it in this thread? I merely stated an opinion without making it personal. You swooped in and started the hostility. I honestly think you hate that I call you out with such ease when it comes to substantive law.
The entire post explains why it is silly. Your inability to read is really not my problem.
Silly as in frivolous? Your post left me with many questions, but no answers. Shall we run through the claims in the complaint? You've given no analysis, just conclusory statements and innuendo.
No. Please refrain from making false statements about my beliefs. It's childish. I also find it funny that in a comment discussing one of the legal reasons we explained why this lawsuit is silly, you pretend I did not explain it. Your failure at reading comprehension does not obligate me to repeat myself. Anyone is free to read my post.
Again, you resort to personal attacks and deflection. Anything but talk about the substance. Let's stay focused. Why isn't this inducement, contributory, or vicarious infringement? Can you talk about substantive matters, rather than talking about talking about it? That would be more productive than what you've turned this thread into.
On the post: Silly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For Download
Re: Re:
So party one is the distributor of the software (CNET and Limewire, who is also a defendant by the way), party two is the infringer, and party three is the copyright holder. In my opinion, the fact that Limewire made the software is irrelevant. The issue is that CNET distributed it. I don't see how CNET can avoid liability by arguing that their liability is tertiary instead of secondary, so the whole argument seems moot to me anyway.
Do you agree?
On the post: Silly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For Download
Re: Re:
Prof. Goldman put a question mark, meaning he's questioning it, not making a definitive statement about it. I think they are a third-party because they are distributing the software. You may disagree. Prof. Goldman may disagree. I'm entitled to my own opinion.
Why can't I express an opinion that differs from yours without being met with your incredible hostility? Do I threaten you that much?
Nevertheless, you still haven't explained why the lawsuit is "silly." That's the real issue here. If CNET knew the software was being used to infringe, which the complaint suggests they did, then the claim isn't that silly after all. Is it that unreasonable to hold a party liable who helped disseminate 220 million copies of software they knew was being used to commit infringement? I don't think it's necessarily so silly.
You seem to default to lawsuit = silly, so it's no surprise that you think this is silly. I'm just wondering if you can back up the "silly" claim with some sort of legal argument.
On the post: Silly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For Download
There's three claims: inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement. The defendant allegedly uploaded 220,000,000 copies of the Limewire software.
Funny how you say the lawsuit is "silly," yet you don't really address the claims in the complaint.
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
15 U.S.C.A. § 278n.
19 U.S.C.A. § 2411.
26 U.S.C.A. § 170.
I could go on and on. So I take it you'll answer my question now.
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
Were you the one who was saying that something isn't property unless you can point to a statute that defines it as such? If so, can you show me where it says that something isn't property unless a statute says it is?
That's just not how it works.
Answer me this: What, in your mind, is the definition of property?
On the post: Perfect 10 Sues Again: This Time It Goes After Usenet Provider Giganews
Re: Re: Re: Re: Giganews
Yes, the vast majority of groups are not the binary ones, but the binary ones are where the bulk of the traffic is.
According to the following, the top 100 groups when looking at bytes posted are ALL binary groups: http://www.newsadmin.com/top100bytes.asp
The number of groups with or without binaries is irrelevant. The fact is, the vast majority of the traffic is in the binary groups. The binary groups are where infringement is rampant, and it is in those groups that Giganews really makes their money.
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
Re: Re: Re:
This is why Mike's statement didn't make sense to me when he said: "Of course, Disney is claiming that this isn't a contractual issue, but a copyright one, but even that makes no sense. Dish's license with Starz clearly includes a license to display the content."
Even if true, if Starz licensed rights that it didn't have the right to license, and those unlicensed rights were exercised, then it's copyright infringement, not breach of contract.
On the post: Perfect 10 Sues Again: This Time It Goes After Usenet Provider Giganews
Re: Re: Nonsense
On the post: Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
Re:
Next >>