At a guess, I would say it's the 'I bought it, it's mine' argument. I purchased the music, I'll do what I want with it. IP law is the only 'property' law in which a purchase is not really a purchase.
Yes, and like all politicians, they represent whomever gives them the most money, which is not their constituency is most, if not all, cases.
We, The People, did not push to enact copyright, the industry did that. If we were truly being represented, copyright would be reigned in. (No, I'm not an abolitionist.)
Arrrrgh! More terrible car analogies! The two are no where near the same, and you know it. Please stop with the analogies that do not even come close to being analogies.
You want them to pay court costs and huge fines? Fine. PROVE ACTUAL HARM. Right now you're sitting on a high-horse proclaiming it's the law as if that were the morally appropriate thing, and calling copyright a 'right.' It's an exclusionary right, not and inclusive right. It excludes the rights of the people to art and literature that is pertinent to culture and society to their detriment.
Cut the cord, already! Stop suckling at the teat of government and learn to adjust to the realities of today's technological society.
All enforcement is expensive when you have to use the courts and civil actions. However, this doesn't give you the right to goad the government into making it criminal, and I put the blame for the high costs directly on the shoulders of the people charging for these 'enforcement' services. Yes, that would be the IP lawyers.
"So, tough shit, either own up that you want your content for free"
No one said they want it all for free. That's your own baseless, ridiculous assertion.
Other than that, I've no problems with what you've said. Yeah, I can point out the 'infringement isn't theft!' thing, but you're already well aware of that, I'm sure.
Because people are dumb, and don't know how to set their network protocols themselves. It's supposed to remove a level of 'idiot' from the installations. Most front-line Comcast workers HATE IT. (Yes, I worked for them during the transition from AT&T to Comcast. No 'special software' at that time, but the morbid joke was that it was coming soon since the DSL providers were already using it.)
Re: Does this even scratch smug assertions that you'll get away with "piracy"?
They're welcome to sue me until they are blue in the face. All of my property falls under 'exempt assets.' Don't know what that means, look it up. I got nothin' for them to steal from me.
Had to really look to find out the lady who died was in Canada. So... PROTECT IP wouldn't help her TWICE, since, you know, it wouldn't have even applied to her in the first place.
Where does it say that he won that one? That's one I'd actually be interested in reading, but the linked article is just stating a suit is ongoing, not that he won.
To be fair, there are a LOT of lawyers who defend killers. Don't look down on defense attorneys just because they defend the bad guy. Hell, prosecutors don't have that great a track record, themselves.
The 'gatekeeper' is not the one pressing the charges, actually, so that's really a non-starter. It's the government pressing on this, or so was my understanding. It is ridiculous for them to do this when neither MIT nor JSTOR feel they need to be 'made whole.' This is pure vindictiveness, and makes one suspicious of other publishers pressing the government on doing this.
These would be Nashua's finest, not the US's finest. Note the several different levels of police presence. Local, state, federal, FBI, DHS, etcetera, etcetera. Just more proof of a true police state, hmm?
Mmmm... nnnno? No, they won't. Not unless your open wifi is causing service issues for other customers. The ones I've dealt with (as customer or employee) generally just don't care.
On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We, The People, did not push to enact copyright, the industry did that. If we were truly being represented, copyright would be reigned in. (No, I'm not an abolitionist.)
On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want them to pay court costs and huge fines? Fine. PROVE ACTUAL HARM. Right now you're sitting on a high-horse proclaiming it's the law as if that were the morally appropriate thing, and calling copyright a 'right.' It's an exclusionary right, not and inclusive right. It excludes the rights of the people to art and literature that is pertinent to culture and society to their detriment.
Cut the cord, already! Stop suckling at the teat of government and learn to adjust to the realities of today's technological society.
On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
All enforcement is expensive when you have to use the courts and civil actions. However, this doesn't give you the right to goad the government into making it criminal, and I put the blame for the high costs directly on the shoulders of the people charging for these 'enforcement' services. Yes, that would be the IP lawyers.
"So, tough shit, either own up that you want your content for free"
No one said they want it all for free. That's your own baseless, ridiculous assertion.
Other than that, I've no problems with what you've said. Yeah, I can point out the 'infringement isn't theft!' thing, but you're already well aware of that, I'm sure.
On the post: Comcast Hijacks Mac Firefox Users' Homepage; Offers Blame Game And Faux Apology In Return
Re: special software for internet?
On the post: Judge Decreases Amount Jammie Thomas Owes For File Sharing Again (Yes, Again); Says It's Appalling
Re: Re: Re: Less money is more of a deterrent
On the post: Judge Decreases Amount Jammie Thomas Owes For File Sharing Again (Yes, Again); Says It's Appalling
Re: Does this even scratch smug assertions that you'll get away with "piracy"?
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her
Re: Don't forget Wilfred Brimley vs Hardees
On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Made Famous Over 2006 Arrest For Videotaping Police... Arrested Again While Videotaping Police
Re:
On the post: Once Again, Law Enforcement Protects Us From The America-Destroying Scourge Of Children With Lemonade Stands
Re: Re: Re: Lessons
On the post: You Know What's Missing From The Aaron Swartz Indictment? Any Mention Of Copyright
Re: Where does the law say infringement and theft are different.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml
You tried to argue the point there, too, and failed miserably as usual.
On the post: Feds Charge Aaron Swartz With Felony Hacking... For Downloading A Ton Of Academic Research
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele Insists That 70-Year Old Is Responsible For Porn Downloads... Even If Someone Else Used WiFi
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Explains His Legal Theory
Re: And the problem is ???
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Explains His Legal Theory
Re: Re: Re: MUCKRAKER
On the post: Court Refuses To Issue Injunction Stopping Secret Web Spycams From Running On Rental Laptops
Re: Re: cover the camera
On the post: The Failures Of Facial Recognition Software: Drivers Losing Licenses For Looking Like Terrorists
Re:
Next >>