And how does that conclusion prevent parallel construction?
It happens all the time already, this will just give them one more reason to use this illegal - but hard to prove - practice.
I can assure you, however, that the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal to determine what position appears to have greater support, nor does it attribute greater weight to comments based solely on the submitter's identity.
All of this is true... since they just ignored the comments altogether.
Now, if only he was as honest in the other quotes, it would be a day to celebrate. But we all know he's just a political hack placed to take no positive action other than dismantle the authority of his agency. (Which is a common trait in the current administration.)
Re: Pirates escape for a few months. -- But BIG NEWS to the GOOD:
First, he's not a "hero" to anybody. He's more a symbol of the overreach and lack of due process from the US.
Nothing more, nothing less.
First, check your definition of "stealing". He didn't do that, neither literally nor figuratively. He offered a service that was heavily (but far from exclusively) used for sharing copyrighted content without authorization from the copyright owners.
There might be a need for a proper trial regarding some of the uses he made of his own platform (advertising for "piracy", uploading unauthorized content himself or through his employees, etc.), but that requires 1. correctly labeling the facts and 2. following due process. If you advocate for a suspension of due process because you don't like the guy, you open the door for any other abuse. Including against yourself.
There are very likely a ton of people out there who don't like you for some reason. Do you think you should be denied due process if they accuse you of anything, simply on the basis that you are unpopular?
(Well, I'm half convinced you will answer "of course I do" because you're so sure it will never happen to you. Or "of course I don't" then proceed to tell us how Dotcom is the one and only exception... until the next one.)
This is what is at stake here. Not whether this man will face "justice", but whether we'll be talking about "justice on a criminal" or "legal harassment from big corporations".
As I see the problem, there should be two basic rules. We can elaborate but these two should be the foundation: - no intermediary liability, as long as they don't proactively push for illegal content. (This would need to be very strictly and narrowly defined, as the vet few exceptions to free speech are supposed to be.) - no automatic takedown required, ever. Automatic detection of "bad content" can only lead to notification, either to a moderation team or to potential "victim" of the content. Mandating automated takedown will definitely lead to abuse.
The copyright lobby has used such obvious fallacies to claim money they never deserved.
There was also a french report claiming 10,000 jobs lost to piracy... by claiming stupid things like "value of a pair of eyes: 0.60 euro". (That's pretty cheap. This report killed the black market for human organs there.)
It's time to make the politicians understand how outrageous these lobbies are. Sadly, their ears are stuffed with enough dollars to pave the way to Mars...
Re: Re: Re: 'They told you to do it, but you're the one who chose to do so.'
You should add that their decision actually reinforces this behavior. This could not be successfully sued because no precedent exists to prohibit it. Since this case will not establish a precedent either, this behavior will not be prohibited in the future either. Even better, this case establishes more precedent that it cannot be sued. It's a vicious circle there.
Wayback machine doesn't show any mention of "space lizards" in the IP Center home page. It was likely a very short-lived hack or joke that was fixed as soon as discovered.
Also, IP Watch uses Godzilla as an example of Space Lizard. I don't remember anything about Godzilla coming from space.
Actually, I don't agree with "end with the author's death".
When you want to sell or license the exclusivity to a work, the buyer will want a period he can plan on. If you say that the exclusivity might expire on the very day the contract is signed (accident, murder, etc.), the contract will have a very random value. The publisher might not like that.
Instead, make it a set duration. Registration (to keep track of both the author and the date of creation, also keeping current beneficiary) for a minimal fee (a fee low enough to not be a barrier of entry something like $1), possibly short times renewable a few times. 5 years renewable twice, or ten years renewable once, that kind of duration would be ok since I've read somewhere that a close-to-optimal copyright duration is 15 years.
Not a lifetime (you want to encourage creation? don't provide a lifetime revenue to craetors). No expiration on death (to keep exclusivity deal worth the paper they were signed on).
Then, it's the author's responsibility to save his revenues and/or create more work as with any other job.
This kind of survey is flawed from the questions and the answers.
The idea is not so much "what do you think about this?" than it is "please give us reasons to censor you".
Biased questions, multiple choice answers that lack either neutral or downright opposite answers to what they expect, baseless restrictions on answers... not to mention the super-obvious mixed-bag of "crimes" that serve as the basis for the survey.
Anyone trying to answer will one way or another "support" censorship.
We do not believe a reasonable person would be justified, in the eyes of the community, of being seriously offended and aggrieved by the statements at issue.
And Loftis was offended and aggrieved...
That says a lot about what the court thinks of him.
And probably his lawyer too. :D
Once again, this is the result of "everything must have an owner" mentality.
It has already reduced the copyright public domain to mere leftovers. (ie. whatever copyright holders failed to lobby into perpetual copyright.) It created absurd lawsuits about a monkey selfie. It leads to patent trolling operations that are increasingly difficult and costly to defend against. And I could on all day long.
All in the name of the One True God of America. The Almighty Dollar.
"Incentive to creation" is the excuse to every one of these bad ideas, and none of those "wise" ("wise" as in "wise guy") lawmakers will take just to few minutes to check 1. that this will actually be an effective incentive and 2. that the cost to society will not be worse than the benefit. (Nor the added bonus inherent to every law: 3. how it will be abused.)
The terms “children,” “grandchildren,” “legitimate,” “widow,” and “widower” all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals that do not marry and do not have heirs entitled to property by law.
Although I do agree that the Copyright Act only covers human works, this specific argument feels wrong on many levels.
First, does that mean single humans who never marry nor have children cannot benefit from copyright?
Second, even if they don't marry, animals do have children and grandchildren, whether they acknowledge that relationship or not.
The point should be made based on the fundamental of copyright, not on nit-picking a few words in its implementation.
Are they trying to legislate themselves into extinction? They know it failed several times, so they want to try it on a bigger scale. "The solution to the problem is more of the problem", which is the insanity I thought the US had a monopoly on.
> When paired with the cost customers continued to pay their cable providers for things like internet, phone, or additional TV packages, the savings vanished altogether.
So, basically, cord-cutters who don't actually cut the cord don't save money. Big discovery here.
Instead, please tell us more about the large number of cord-cutters who do *not* resubscribe to your overpriced and useless bundles.
Time travelers have a way to optimize that. They create something at any time, then travel to the future to die on the very last day of humanity. (Or even 50 years before that.)
That's how you get eternal copyright when you can time-travel.
That's a question so old it was already formulated in the Antiquity. "Who watches the watchers?" Seems like our modern governments decided the answer is "nobody".
Not to mention the issue with the grandfather paradox. If the blogger complies and removes the post before the 24th, then the lawyer doesn't have a reason to send his C&D on the 25th, so the blogger has no reason to remove the post... You get the point.
Re: State what police and prosecutors did WRONG here.
And why are **you** wrong?
- the FBI didn't just passively "record IP addresses" as other websites do, they sent a malware to other people's computer for that purpose.
- you're assuming what we're assuming, that the cops must obtain warrant for an unknown place. What we're saying is that the cops must follow the procedure because that's what respect and trust for the law hinges on. If they can't apply for a federal warrant, they must apply for 50 state warrants. If that's too much paperwork for them, I'm a little worried about their resources.
- finally, we hear a lot about evidence accepted under a "good faith" exception... that doesn't really exist. That allows the cops to basically do anything as long as they pretend they didn't know better. I could - at the very most - understand this as a way for a cop (or fed, or whatever) out of being sued, but allowing evidence based on invalid warrant (or none at all in some cases) is basically making law enforcement completely lawless. That's the opposite of a country based on the rule of law. Accepting this is equivalent to allow for arbitrary arrests.
On the post: Oregon Supreme Court Sets Up New Limits For Digital Device Searches
And how does that conclusion prevent parallel construction? It happens all the time already, this will just give them one more reason to use this illegal - but hard to prove - practice.
On the post: Ajit Pai Pretends To Care About Identity Fraud That Plagued Net Neutrality Repeal
Pai's honest quote of the day
All of this is true... since they just ignored the comments altogether.
Now, if only he was as honest in the other quotes, it would be a day to celebrate. But we all know he's just a political hack placed to take no positive action other than dismantle the authority of his agency. (Which is a common trait in the current administration.)
On the post: EU Parliament Votes To Step Back From The Abyss On Copyright For Now
Re: Pirates escape for a few months. -- But BIG NEWS to the GOOD:
First, he's not a "hero" to anybody. He's more a symbol of the overreach and lack of due process from the US. Nothing more, nothing less.
First, check your definition of "stealing". He didn't do that, neither literally nor figuratively. He offered a service that was heavily (but far from exclusively) used for sharing copyrighted content without authorization from the copyright owners.
There might be a need for a proper trial regarding some of the uses he made of his own platform (advertising for "piracy", uploading unauthorized content himself or through his employees, etc.), but that requires 1. correctly labeling the facts and 2. following due process. If you advocate for a suspension of due process because you don't like the guy, you open the door for any other abuse. Including against yourself. There are very likely a ton of people out there who don't like you for some reason. Do you think you should be denied due process if they accuse you of anything, simply on the basis that you are unpopular? (Well, I'm half convinced you will answer "of course I do" because you're so sure it will never happen to you. Or "of course I don't" then proceed to tell us how Dotcom is the one and only exception... until the next one.)
This is what is at stake here. Not whether this man will face "justice", but whether we'll be talking about "justice on a criminal" or "legal harassment from big corporations".
On the post: Lessons From Making Internet Companies Liable For User's Speech: You Get Less Speech, Less Security And Less Innovation
basic rules
- no intermediary liability, as long as they don't proactively push for illegal content. (This would need to be very strictly and narrowly defined, as the vet few exceptions to free speech are supposed to be.)
- no automatic takedown required, ever. Automatic detection of "bad content" can only lead to notification, either to a moderation team or to potential "victim" of the content. Mandating automated takedown will definitely lead to abuse.
On the post: Canadian Music Industry Pitches 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax On Smartphones
Copyright Maths
Doesn't that remind anyone of the "Copyright Maths" presentation with "the 8-billion dollar iPhone"?
Here it is...
The copyright lobby has used such obvious fallacies to claim money they never deserved.
There was also a french report claiming 10,000 jobs lost to piracy... by claiming stupid things like "value of a pair of eyes: 0.60 euro". (That's pretty cheap. This report killed the black market for human organs there.)
It's time to make the politicians understand how outrageous these lobbies are. Sadly, their ears are stuffed with enough dollars to pave the way to Mars...
On the post: Court Has No Problem With Multiple Invasive Probings In Search Of Drugs That Didn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: 'They told you to do it, but you're the one who chose to do so.'
This could not be successfully sued because no precedent exists to prohibit it. Since this case will not establish a precedent either, this behavior will not be prohibited in the future either.
Even better, this case establishes more precedent that it cannot be sued.
It's a vicious circle there.
On the post: WIPO Didn't Want The Pirate Party To Observe Its Efforts, But Happy To Include A Group Whose Mission Is To Battle Space Lizards
Double checked
It was likely a very short-lived hack or joke that was fixed as soon as discovered.
Also, IP Watch uses Godzilla as an example of Space Lizard. I don't remember anything about Godzilla coming from space.
On the post: Copyright Once Again Hiding Important Cultural Artifacts
Re: Eternal Copyright
When you want to sell or license the exclusivity to a work, the buyer will want a period he can plan on. If you say that the exclusivity might expire on the very day the contract is signed (accident, murder, etc.), the contract will have a very random value. The publisher might not like that.
Instead, make it a set duration. Registration (to keep track of both the author and the date of creation, also keeping current beneficiary) for a minimal fee (a fee low enough to not be a barrier of entry something like $1), possibly short times renewable a few times. 5 years renewable twice, or ten years renewable once, that kind of duration would be ok since I've read somewhere that a close-to-optimal copyright duration is 15 years.
Not a lifetime (you want to encourage creation? don't provide a lifetime revenue to craetors).
No expiration on death (to keep exclusivity deal worth the paper they were signed on).
Then, it's the author's responsibility to save his revenues and/or create more work as with any other job.
On the post: Despite Its Problems, More Consumers Should Behave Like Beer Drinkers To Keep Trademark At Bay
On the post: Despite Its Problems, More Consumers Should Behave Like Beer Drinkers To Keep Trademark At Bay
There, FTFY
On the post: EU Commission Asks Public To Weigh In On Survey About Just How Much They Want The Internet To Be Censored
Biased by design
This kind of survey is flawed from the questions and the answers.
The idea is not so much "what do you think about this?" than it is "please give us reasons to censor you".
Biased questions, multiple choice answers that lack either neutral or downright opposite answers to what they expect, baseless restrictions on answers... not to mention the super-obvious mixed-bag of "crimes" that serve as the basis for the survey.
Anyone trying to answer will one way or another "support" censorship.
On the post: Appeals Court Finally Shuts Down Bogus Lawsuit Targeting A School Official For Words A Journalist Wrote
And Loftis was offended and aggrieved... That says a lot about what the court thinks of him. And probably his lawyer too. :D
On the post: USPTO Suggests That AI Algorithms Are Patentable, Leading To A Whole Host Of IP And Ethics Questions
It has already reduced the copyright public domain to mere leftovers. (ie. whatever copyright holders failed to lobby into perpetual copyright.)
It created absurd lawsuits about a monkey selfie.
It leads to patent trolling operations that are increasingly difficult and costly to defend against.
And I could on all day long.
All in the name of the One True God of America.
The Almighty Dollar.
"Incentive to creation" is the excuse to every one of these bad ideas, and none of those "wise" ("wise" as in "wise guy") lawmakers will take just to few minutes to check 1. that this will actually be an effective incentive and 2. that the cost to society will not be worse than the benefit. (Nor the added bonus inherent to every law: 3. how it will be abused.)
On the post: We Interrupt The News Again With Hopefully The Last Update From The Monkey Selfie Case
Although I do agree that the Copyright Act only covers human works, this specific argument feels wrong on many levels.
First, does that mean single humans who never marry nor have children cannot benefit from copyright?
Second, even if they don't marry, animals do have children and grandchildren, whether they acknowledge that relationship or not.
The point should be made based on the fundamental of copyright, not on nit-picking a few words in its implementation.
On the post: EU Publishers Acknowledge Snippet Tax Concerns, But Say: 'It's OK, You Can Trust Us'
They know it failed several times, so they want to try it on a bigger scale. "The solution to the problem is more of the problem", which is the insanity I thought the US had a monopoly on.
On the post: Another Day, Another Flimsy Report Claiming TV Cord Cutting Won't Save You Money
So, basically, cord-cutters who don't actually cut the cord don't save money. Big discovery here.
Instead, please tell us more about the large number of cord-cutters who do *not* resubscribe to your overpriced and useless bundles.
On the post: Hopefully For The Last Time: The US Has Zero New Works Enter The Public Domain On January 1st
Re: We need to extend copyright
Time travelers have a way to optimize that. They create something at any time, then travel to the future to die on the very last day of humanity. (Or even 50 years before that.)
That's how you get eternal copyright when you can time-travel.
On the post: Canadian Government Looking To Step Up Domestic Surveillance, Scale Back Intelligence Oversight
old problem
"Who watches the watchers?"
Seems like our modern governments decided the answer is "nobody".
On the post: Taylor Swift's Legal Rep Tries To Kill Critical Blog Post With Bogus Defamation, Copyright Claims
Re: Trying to silence a critic is one thing...
If the blogger complies and removes the post before the 24th, then the lawyer doesn't have a reason to send his C&D on the 25th, so the blogger has no reason to remove the post... You get the point.
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Overturn Playpen Suppression Order
Re: State what police and prosecutors did WRONG here.
- the FBI didn't just passively "record IP addresses" as other websites do, they sent a malware to other people's computer for that purpose.
- you're assuming what we're assuming, that the cops must obtain warrant for an unknown place. What we're saying is that the cops must follow the procedure because that's what respect and trust for the law hinges on. If they can't apply for a federal warrant, they must apply for 50 state warrants. If that's too much paperwork for them, I'm a little worried about their resources.
- finally, we hear a lot about evidence accepted under a "good faith" exception... that doesn't really exist. That allows the cops to basically do anything as long as they pretend they didn't know better.
I could - at the very most - understand this as a way for a cop (or fed, or whatever) out of being sued, but allowing evidence based on invalid warrant (or none at all in some cases) is basically making law enforcement completely lawless. That's the opposite of a country based on the rule of law. Accepting this is equivalent to allow for arbitrary arrests.
Next >>