"As for Mike and "pro-piracy", all I can say is that his vehement opposition to SOPA and Protect IP seem pretty much in line with supporting piracy, or at least supporting the "soft" piracy of the remix culture."
I don't follow your logic... What does one have to do with the other? Being a supporter of file-sharing is certainly not a prerequisite for opposing censorship. While there may be many people who do support file-sharing and oppose PIPA/SOPA, that is by no means the only group who has something to lose. In fact, I would say that file-sharers probably have the least to lose by this legislation since they really won't make a dent in the availability of infringing content.
Unless Ad-Homs are the extent of your debating skills, I would request that you expand on your position to explain the perceived link between the two.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
"And you can have all of these things-- but you've got to respect the content creators and give them a practical mechanism to police piracy. "
They have a practical mechanism to police file-sharing already. It's called the DMCA. It is also poor legislation that hampers individual rights, but it was already passed. When content owners see that their product is being used against their wishes, they can inform the site owner and have it taken down. The content owners are the ones that have a problem with specific use of a work, and they are the ones that should express this displeasure and file a request to have it removed.
"For instance, think about how society gives out tickets to people who are caught speeding. A camera takes a picture and the plate is used to identify the car. Do people sit around and suggest that perhaps someone stole the car just as everyone around here seems to believe that a IP address is always used by someone other than the homeowner? If there are extenuating circumstances, a judge is ready to listen."
Careful with this example because it actually goes against your argument. Speed cameras catch a vehicle, not a driver. Much like an IP address does not identify a person. Also, speed cameras are in place for the purpose of revenue generation not as a deterrent. There are no points assigned for this offense because it is impossible to determine who was driving. A small fine is issued to the owner (for state revenue generation), but there is no criminal liability.
"The same thing happens with most other crimes. The cops arrest and then the trial comes afterwards.
Yet around here, shutting down a web site with plenty of evidence is seen as some arbitrary move by a dictatorship. Nope. It's not much different from what happens to every other criminal around. The cops collect evidence and then they shut it down-- just as they collect evidence and arrest someone."
There are safeguards in place for the police to do their job and for the court systems to do theirs. One of these safeguards is called due process. The police cannot arbitrarily just arrest someone without evidence, and that evidence needs to be substantially more than simply at the request of a private citizen or organization. The current legislation is a clear attempt to circumvent due process, and this is one of the major reasons that people have issue with it.
Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
"I don't like the broad language, let alone that it can be used to justify anything, BUT I'm not going to agree that letting pirating go on is either practical or wise."
Make no mistake, if this bill gets passed, it will do absolutely nothing to curb file-sharing in any way, shape, or form. People who want to download will continue unabated. At worst, the methods might change slightly, but for the most part nothing will change. If this bill only targeted "pirates", then I don't think anyone would really care whether it was passed or not. Since it's the innocent people that will suffer due to the broad language used in the bill and it's ripe potential for abuse, there is no reason that anyone (freetard or paytard alike) should support it.
This bill does nothing but erode away the rights of the American public granted by the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments!
Since many have tried to sway your view with conventional wisdom, facts, logic, name calling, and pretty much every other method available, let me try with a haiku...
PIPA... SOPA... Why?
D.M.C.A. is enough.
Censorship is wrong!
Please reflect on that for a bit and see if it stirs anything in your soul :)
Why don't you explain to us how you've been ripped off as an artist? Tell the story and maybe you'll get some supporters. This is an honest request. Tell the story instead of just flipping out on a guy who clearly got screwed. Maybe you have more in common than you you realize...
Actually, with all of the startups that could be snuffed out before they get on their feet by large players trying to avoid competition, yeah, I think it takes a pro-abortion stance.
These are two totally different examples, and one is bad, and one is actually surprisingly good...
Murder deprives someone of something... namely their life. This is a nonsensical comparison, so we'll just forget you mentioned it.
On the other hand, people speeding is pretty decent comparison, although it goes against your point. The police have a good understanding that many many people speed. Speed limits were put in place for the purpose of revenue generation. The police recognize that they can't catch every speeder because that would mean almost everyone on every road everywhere at some point in time. When a group of cars is speeding and there is only one officer, he has to choose one of the group and issue a citation. Again, this is not about safety, it's about revenue generation. The ticket is issued, the state makes some money, people who see the ticketing officer slow down momentarily and then speed back up as soon as he's out of site, and life goes on. So in a way, they have accepted the fact that people speed and that they can't catch them all. Ive actually heard judges say this exact same thing in court when some tries the "but everyone else was speeding so why me" defense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: FIrst, it's "a massive class action lawsuit", not just one rapper.
It was Universal and the other labels that argued that itunes sales were part of licensing and not part of traditional sales. They did this because it served their purpose at the time. Chuck D is using their own argument against them. He is agreeing that the sales are licenses to the music, as they asserted, and now that means that they owe him money based on his contract.
Again, they wanted these sales to be considered license agreements, and now they must pay for the unintended consequences of what they made a reality. Shifting the blame to Chuck D and other artists is incorrect. The artists are just taking advantage of something the labels brought on themselves, and rightfully so. It's nice to see the labels on the receiving end of the legal beatdown stick for a change. I hope more artists join this lawsuit and get what they deserve.
An innocent website, like that of a start-up may not have the resources for both maintaining business operations and fighting a lengthy court battle. They've done nothing wrong since it's already agreed they are innocent, so forcing them out of business to prove that innocence is contrary to the ideals behind what our legal system is supposed to stand for, as well as a perversion of justice.
If option 1 is true, then I would expect the suit to be dropped as soon as the merger is finalized. As for option 2, I believe the offer has already been made, so I don't think Google would throw out a lower one now all of a sudden because of the pending lawsuit.
As has been stated, the connection between Google and IV is well documented, but imagine if this were true and Google was the one that initiated this against Motorola through IV...
SPLITSVILLE FOR YAHOO, U.S. CHAMBER – Yahoo has quietly left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, MT has learned. For Yahoo’s part, a spokeswoman would only say to MT that the company “has memberships with numerous trade associations and belongs to a number of organizations that promote a free and fair marketplace which enable Yahoo! to innovate on behalf of our more than 700 million users. As our membership renewal time neared and we reviewed our membership, we decided not to renew."
As the gentleman above me pointed out... Reading is Fundamental.
An interesting and very valid point. If no one is downloading your game, movie, album, etc... then it means one of two things:
1. People simply don't know about it
2. It sucks
The first reason is normally the problem though because people will turn to file sharing if something isn't worth spending the money on because of its lack of quality. I think it becomes a morbid curiosity sometimes to see something that is actually that bad.
Your comment is the definition of FUD. It is a simple matter to find out if the discount online pharmacy you're going to use is legit or not. Or did you mean "unsafe medication" like you can get from Canada that is actually the real medicine but just priced so that people can afford it?
/stilllernintodoitrite
Sorry the above should have looked like this:
We're going to have to settle for the torches and pitchforks. I completely support your assertion but ironically it would be unconstitutional. From Wikipedia:
"To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
I still think there should be some sort of severe penalty but treason is out of the question. If nothing else, a public official that supports and passes an unconstitutional law should be impeached with prejudice.
We're going to have to settle for the torches and pitchforks. I completely support your assertion but ironically it would be unconstitutional. From Wikipedia:
[i]To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Iva Toguri, known as Tokyo Rose, and Tomoya Kawakita were two Japanese Americans who were tried for treason after World War II.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
[/i]
I still think there should be some sort of severe penalty but treason is out of the question. If nothing else, a public official that supports and passes an unconstitutional law should be impeached with prejudice.
To borrow the quote from the Nathan Fillion post...
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
I'd rather be on the right side than the winning side any day. And what do you really win by truncating the rights of citizens? Your legislation will do nothing to stop dedicated file-sharers and will only harm innocent people. All it will achieve in the end is less respect for copyright and less respect for the industry that won't adapt. You think you're making progress, but all you're doing is digging your grave a little deeper. You'd do everyone a favor, yourself included, if you'd just climb into it and get it over with.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
I'm really trying to understand your argument, but I'm having difficulty following the logic...
Why would Hotfile requesting a jury trial have anything at all to do with the validity of the takedowns under the DMCA which defines the vaildity of takedowns? If WB doesn't own the copyright they have no right to request the content be taken down whether it be through a standard DMCA request or a streamlined request system that they asked to be implemented.
Without seeing the system in question, it's difficult to say if Hotfile should be at fault for simple strings being able to take down longer titles that contain the string. If it is essentially a search engine that returns matching results, then it is absolutely WB's responsibility to verify the titles are accurate. There is no way for anyone to mistake the open source software they had taken down for anything other than what it is. This makes me agree that WB was using a script to take down the files and it just checked all results returned from the search without any verification.
I would tend to agree with you. IANAL nor am I well versed in this aspect of the DMCA, but it would seem to me that the ISP/Cyberlocker/WebsiteOwner/DMCA recipient would be in the best position to identify DMCA abuse and report it or file suit against the abuser.
While the above seems common-sensical to me, Hotfile has the opportunity like any other recipient of a DMCA request to deny it if it is obviously a bogus claim. WB would have no standing to sue Hotfile for not complying with DMCA takedowns that it didn't have standing to file in the first place.
This is one of the biggest problems with the DMCA, because the recipients are so worried about losing their safe harbor for noncompliance that they honor all requests with any scrutiny. In streamlining the DMCA process for WB, Hotfile essentially believed that they wouldn't abuse it (just writing that makes me lol). Now, having the perjury clause in the EULA of the system could potentially provide them the grounds they need to bring the suit. This is going to be an interesting case indeed.
Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
"It's not about sympathy for him. It's about the fact that the studios are DEFINITELY thieves, cheats, and liars and so anything they say about the importance of strict copyright laws should be completely disregarded due to their untrustworthiness."
Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.
It's not a rhetorical question at all, and the answer is a resounding yes.
This law is (will be) draconian and should therefore not be followed. Just because something becomes a law doesn't make the law right, just, or ethical. I believe we have a duty as citizens to not follow laws that are unjust, and the government saying "because I said so" is not proper justification. Governments that do that are tyrannical, and history has shown that people don't put up with them for too long.
On the post: Viacom, 'Decimated By Piracy,' But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't follow your logic... What does one have to do with the other? Being a supporter of file-sharing is certainly not a prerequisite for opposing censorship. While there may be many people who do support file-sharing and oppose PIPA/SOPA, that is by no means the only group who has something to lose. In fact, I would say that file-sharers probably have the least to lose by this legislation since they really won't make a dent in the availability of infringing content.
Unless Ad-Homs are the extent of your debating skills, I would request that you expand on your position to explain the perceived link between the two.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch
They have a practical mechanism to police file-sharing already. It's called the DMCA. It is also poor legislation that hampers individual rights, but it was already passed. When content owners see that their product is being used against their wishes, they can inform the site owner and have it taken down. The content owners are the ones that have a problem with specific use of a work, and they are the ones that should express this displeasure and file a request to have it removed.
"For instance, think about how society gives out tickets to people who are caught speeding. A camera takes a picture and the plate is used to identify the car. Do people sit around and suggest that perhaps someone stole the car just as everyone around here seems to believe that a IP address is always used by someone other than the homeowner? If there are extenuating circumstances, a judge is ready to listen."
Careful with this example because it actually goes against your argument. Speed cameras catch a vehicle, not a driver. Much like an IP address does not identify a person. Also, speed cameras are in place for the purpose of revenue generation not as a deterrent. There are no points assigned for this offense because it is impossible to determine who was driving. A small fine is issued to the owner (for state revenue generation), but there is no criminal liability.
"The same thing happens with most other crimes. The cops arrest and then the trial comes afterwards.
Yet around here, shutting down a web site with plenty of evidence is seen as some arbitrary move by a dictatorship. Nope. It's not much different from what happens to every other criminal around. The cops collect evidence and then they shut it down-- just as they collect evidence and arrest someone."
There are safeguards in place for the police to do their job and for the court systems to do theirs. One of these safeguards is called due process. The police cannot arbitrarily just arrest someone without evidence, and that evidence needs to be substantially more than simply at the request of a private citizen or organization. The current legislation is a clear attempt to circumvent due process, and this is one of the major reasons that people have issue with it.
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
Make no mistake, if this bill gets passed, it will do absolutely nothing to curb file-sharing in any way, shape, or form. People who want to download will continue unabated. At worst, the methods might change slightly, but for the most part nothing will change. If this bill only targeted "pirates", then I don't think anyone would really care whether it was passed or not. Since it's the innocent people that will suffer due to the broad language used in the bill and it's ripe potential for abuse, there is no reason that anyone (freetard or paytard alike) should support it.
This bill does nothing but erode away the rights of the American public granted by the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments!
Since many have tried to sway your view with conventional wisdom, facts, logic, name calling, and pretty much every other method available, let me try with a haiku...
PIPA... SOPA... Why?
D.M.C.A. is enough.
Censorship is wrong!
Please reflect on that for a bit and see if it stirs anything in your soul :)
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
Why don't you explain to us how you've been ripped off as an artist? Tell the story and maybe you'll get some supporters. This is an honest request. Tell the story instead of just flipping out on a guy who clearly got screwed. Maybe you have more in common than you you realize...
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Just plain wrong
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Murder deprives someone of something... namely their life. This is a nonsensical comparison, so we'll just forget you mentioned it.
On the other hand, people speeding is pretty decent comparison, although it goes against your point. The police have a good understanding that many many people speed. Speed limits were put in place for the purpose of revenue generation. The police recognize that they can't catch every speeder because that would mean almost everyone on every road everywhere at some point in time. When a group of cars is speeding and there is only one officer, he has to choose one of the group and issue a citation. Again, this is not about safety, it's about revenue generation. The ticket is issued, the state makes some money, people who see the ticketing officer slow down momentarily and then speed back up as soon as he's out of site, and life goes on. So in a way, they have accepted the fact that people speed and that they can't catch them all. Ive actually heard judges say this exact same thing in court when some tries the "but everyone else was speeding so why me" defense.
On the post: Fight The Power: Chuck D Sues Universal Music For Hundreds Of Millions In Unpaid Royalties
Re: Re: Re: Re: FIrst, it's "a massive class action lawsuit", not just one rapper.
Again, they wanted these sales to be considered license agreements, and now they must pay for the unintended consequences of what they made a reality. Shifting the blame to Chuck D and other artists is incorrect. The artists are just taking advantage of something the labels brought on themselves, and rightfully so. It's nice to see the labels on the receiving end of the legal beatdown stick for a change. I hope more artists join this lawsuit and get what they deserve.
On the post: The Article On The E-PARASITE Act That You Need To Read
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If The DOJ Really Wants To Review Anticompetitive Patenting, Why Doesn't It Look At Intellectual Ventures?
Re: the flipside...
If option 1 is true, then I would expect the suit to be dropped as soon as the merger is finalized. As for option 2, I believe the offer has already been made, so I don't think Google would throw out a lower one now all of a sudden because of the pending lawsuit.
As has been stated, the connection between Google and IV is well documented, but imagine if this were true and Google was the one that initiated this against Motorola through IV...
/makingnewtinfoilhat :)
On the post: Yahoo Dumps US Chamber Of Commerce Over Its Extremist Position On PROTECT IP
Re:
SPLITSVILLE FOR YAHOO, U.S. CHAMBER – Yahoo has quietly left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, MT has learned. For Yahoo’s part, a spokeswoman would only say to MT that the company “has memberships with numerous trade associations and belongs to a number of organizations that promote a free and fair marketplace which enable Yahoo! to innovate on behalf of our more than 700 million users. As our membership renewal time neared and we reviewed our membership, we decided not to renew."
As the gentleman above me pointed out... Reading is Fundamental.
On the post: And Of Course: Study Shows That Getting Rid Of DRM Reduces 'Piracy'
Re: Also in the article...
1. People simply don't know about it
2. It sucks
The first reason is normally the problem though because people will turn to file sharing if something isn't worth spending the money on because of its lack of quality. I think it becomes a morbid curiosity sometimes to see something that is actually that bad.
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
Re: Re: Department of Redundancy Department
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
Re: Re:
Sorry the above should have looked like this:
We're going to have to settle for the torches and pitchforks. I completely support your assertion but ironically it would be unconstitutional. From Wikipedia:
"To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
I still think there should be some sort of severe penalty but treason is out of the question. If nothing else, a public official that supports and passes an unconstitutional law should be impeached with prejudice.
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
Re:
[i]To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Iva Toguri, known as Tokyo Rose, and Tomoya Kawakita were two Japanese Americans who were tried for treason after World War II.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
[/i]
I still think there should be some sort of severe penalty but treason is out of the question. If nothing else, a public official that supports and passes an unconstitutional law should be impeached with prejudice.
On the post: EU, Mexico & Switzerland Will Not Sign ACTA This Weekend, Despite The 'Signing Ceremony'
Re:
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
I'd rather be on the right side than the winning side any day. And what do you really win by truncating the rights of citizens? Your legislation will do nothing to stop dedicated file-sharers and will only harm innocent people. All it will achieve in the end is less respect for copyright and less respect for the industry that won't adapt. You think you're making progress, but all you're doing is digging your grave a little deeper. You'd do everyone a favor, yourself included, if you'd just climb into it and get it over with.
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
Why would Hotfile requesting a jury trial have anything at all to do with the validity of the takedowns under the DMCA which defines the vaildity of takedowns? If WB doesn't own the copyright they have no right to request the content be taken down whether it be through a standard DMCA request or a streamlined request system that they asked to be implemented.
Without seeing the system in question, it's difficult to say if Hotfile should be at fault for simple strings being able to take down longer titles that contain the string. If it is essentially a search engine that returns matching results, then it is absolutely WB's responsibility to verify the titles are accurate. There is no way for anyone to mistake the open source software they had taken down for anything other than what it is. This makes me agree that WB was using a script to take down the files and it just checked all results returned from the search without any verification.
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re:
While the above seems common-sensical to me, Hotfile has the opportunity like any other recipient of a DMCA request to deny it if it is obviously a bogus claim. WB would have no standing to sue Hotfile for not complying with DMCA takedowns that it didn't have standing to file in the first place.
This is one of the biggest problems with the DMCA, because the recipients are so worried about losing their safe harbor for noncompliance that they honor all requests with any scrutiny. In streamlining the DMCA process for WB, Hotfile essentially believed that they wouldn't abuse it (just writing that makes me lol). Now, having the perjury clause in the EULA of the system could potentially provide them the grounds they need to bring the suit. This is going to be an interesting case indeed.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
fixed it for you :)
On the post: Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading
Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.
This law is (will be) draconian and should therefore not be followed. Just because something becomes a law doesn't make the law right, just, or ethical. I believe we have a duty as citizens to not follow laws that are unjust, and the government saying "because I said so" is not proper justification. Governments that do that are tyrannical, and history has shown that people don't put up with them for too long.
Next >>