In the "Far Cry" case, the letter to the subscriber was written by the EFF and USCG and then given to the ISP to give to the subscriber in question. This way USCG didn't know the identities of the subscriber.
I know.
In the "Far Cry" case, the purpose of the letter was to tell the subscriber about their rights vis-a-vis the subpoena. It was not about USCG's offer to settle.
I thought that it contained info on how to respond along side the info on penalties and settlement fee. After the new letter was drafted, the settlement mentioned went up. That's how I've read it so far.
Here you go again. It's no wonder you're so popular.
Once again, Mike's interpretation is completely implausible.
No it isn't. USCG delaying and using the new letters ordered from the Far Cry case allows them to not have to go through this issue again should EFF or others bring similar complaints in other cases. The subpoena took so long to arrive in this case precisely because of the suit in the other case, which may have meant they'd have to fight against similar claims (which they wouldn't want to waste money on - produce the new letter and send that one instead when it's done).
There is no claim that CNET has been a go between for any defendants. That seems to be a misinterpretation on your part.
This isn't only Mikes interpretation either, from the CNET article:
So why did DGW wait so long between filing the Doe suits and sending subpoenas to ISPs? Well, the law firm certainly had its hands full with all the opposition it faced. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union took DGW to court about whether it was proper to name thousands of individuals in a single lawsuit. Time Warner Cable objected to being compelled to look up thousands of customer records and claimed it was an undue burden. Just last week, an ISP from South Dakota filed a motion to quash one of DGW's subpoenas and argued that a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., doesn't have jurisdiction over it.
In the EFF case, a federal judge sided with DGW, but EFF and the ACLU did convince the judge to prod DGW to change the language it uses when notifying accused file sharers of the allegations. EFF and the ACLU argued that former notices were confusing.
In a correspondence between DGW and the Qwest customer who contacted CNET, the law firm told him that file sharers have a right to fight or "quash" the subpoena and specified the kind of information Voltage Pictures requested from Qwest. DGW appears to have done away with passages about how copyright owners can sue copyright violators for up to $150,000.
"Well, it's not what I would have written," said Cindy Cohn, EFF's legal director. "I think the letters are much better than they were, but I don't think [DGW] has done a great job of explaining what is happening."
Another change from the previous forms is the price accused file sharers can pay to settle their case. For example, last May, DGW gave Houston-resident John Harrison a chance to settle out of court for $2,500. For allegedly downloading "The Hurt Locker," DGW told the Qwest customer from Denver that settling the case early would cost $2,900, according to documents reviewed by CNET.
You claim others do not support their position, then you regularly fail to do so yourself, whilst acting above the rest of us at the same time. This has been the only occasion I've seen from you where you have actually substantiated what you say with something that supports your position.
When you have supported your position, you have often done so with odd interpretations of what you cite that do not actually support what you say they do.
Honestly joe, I'm not gonna bother spelling it out for you any further. If you don't get it now, you never will.
P.S.
Judge Collyer's order that USCG work with the EFF in the "Far Cry" case has nothing to do with the "Hurt Locker" case, which is being presided over by Judge Urbina.
I just checked the docket, and the EFF hasn't filed a thing in the "Hurt Locker" case. Nor has the judge issued any orders about required notice to the defendants with respect to the subpoenas.
EFF has made specific reference to the Hurt Locker case elsewhere:
It appears that EFF have only focused on the Far Cry case either due to insufficient resources or hoping to use it as a slap down on USCG to get them to produce better informational letters in other cases and the future regardless. In line with Mikes interpretation, it would appear that USCG could (and will) use the new letter that has been noted as not being much better than before to point at to say it is meeting requirements if it's brought up in other cases.
In other words, they're hoping they can continue bullying people into settlements whilst claiming being fully informative, even as pre-settlement cost has been raised.
All I really wanted was to annoy you and hope you lived up to your own standards of demanding citations when someone makes a claim, partially because it was annoying having to read through said constant demands in the first place. Especially when you consistently acted like a dick when you think you're right, or have decided something or someone has lost your interest.
This has something that has been dressed up under a new coat in open source known as open core licensing - the "main" product is free (including being put under a BSD like license or otherwise), but you sell proprietary extensions and plugins. There's also one or 2 projects (like Virtualbox) that use an open source "community edition" and a proprietary version, presumably with some form of arbitrary "any more licenses on x premises and you pay" or otherwise EULA.
How much of business is simply dressing up old concepts in slightly new clothing...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Giving that link a quick look, it doesn't appear to do much to contradict much of the existing research of disruption, at least on the summary they provide. It seems to not properly understand that disruption is more about the business model than technology, and Christensen is keen to note that technology does not always have to be new, in some cases it may merely be "rearranged", where focus is put on an attributes not previously focused on by mainstream markets.
The Innovators Dilemma for example has a fairly in depth study of the hard drive industry, where disruption occurred within the move between different sizes of hard drive (like 8 inch to 5.25 inch drives), even with no fundamental difference in technology. Minicomputers at the time primarily valued hard drive space, and were willing to pay premiums for increases in capacity, but both existing and new companies had difficulties introducing 5.25 inch drives - they were smaller, but didn't meet demand in the capacity of drives. There just so happened to be however desktop computers emerging that were happy to accept smaller drives for less space, and small companies making 5.25 inch drives were happy to even have a revenue stream compared to already incumbent hard drive makers that dismissed or couldn't commit to the smaller drives. This also eventually led to a disruption of minicomputers.
The analysis reveals other interesting patterns of technology competition. First, at many points in time, competing technologies co-exist. In some cases, disrupted technologies continue to survive and co-exist with the new technology by finding a niche market.
This is also something already established - Back in 1997 it was recommended by Christensen and co. for movie theatres facing disruption from improving home theatres and the like to focus on unique attributes like social and family friendly aspects.
The problem that report seems to make is to focus too heavily on the technology when disruption is intended to be more of a description of changes in business models (which technology can some times enable). The effect of first mover advantage is said to be amplified by the asymmetry of motivation created (incumbent companies given incentive to flee upmarket seeing no money at the low end or new market, whilst upstart looks up and sees only money).
I wander with the effect of increased knowledge on this too, and whether the companies were better enabled to handle disruption then they were on previous occasions of studying the effect, also leading to a comparatively lesser effect than previously observed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Well, then there enters a whole other issue of in what way you buy them - integrate them entirely or keep them as a fairly independent unit ;).
There's a whole set of detailed specific and minute details that go beyond the wikipedia article I could go on forever about, but I won't. If you want more details/info just Google Clayton Christensen.
Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
What you said suggested that a company could merely breeze in and win because of superior resources, but this is absolutely not the case. Note that Christensen recommends investing in firms already in that market, not jumping into the market yourself, which is a very big difference. This is with good reason, something that disruptive innovation/technology is entirely about (the difference in business models and the mismatch between the incentives of the company and market size this creates).
What you described with BP is the opening that disruption creates. Whilst BP is hedging its bets, companies working in countries with high non-consumption of oil or aiming at markets where the goods have low power needs (most extreme example of this would be solar powered little calculators) would be better placed and actively work in those markets. By the time BP enters, it'll have great difficulty and expense in doing so.
I highly recommend the playlist, it's a talk by Christensen himself on the topic.
Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Based on what I've seen, the bigger companies wisely wait while someone else spends a bunch of money to test the market. Once it is shown there is money to be made, then the big companies have the resources to come in.
And research shows that the odds of success doing this is incredibly low.
Your arrogance is astounding considering how many times you've been shown to be outright wrong, and have never admitted it nor even reply when it happens.
You have regularly demanded citations from others when they make any particular claim, and yet again you fail to provide any yourself for your own claims.
You regularly make appeals to authority without specific example to back your counter claims.
Even worse, you are now acting as if you have repeatedly shown Mike to be wrong. I have seen no instance of this.
How many civil infringement cases involved demands for personal info that had to be granted via a court before any reasonable evidence was presented to justify said handing over of personal information?
On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
2) Vague statements about "missing the point".
3) Appeal to majority
You have now officially devolved into TAM.
On the post: Glee Cast Members Claim They're Being Stiffed On Royalties From Glee CD
Re: Re:
On the post: Craigslist Shuts Down Adult Services; Says It's Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know.
I thought that it contained info on how to respond along side the info on penalties and settlement fee. After the new letter was drafted, the settlement mentioned went up. That's how I've read it so far.
On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here you go again. It's no wonder you're so popular.
No it isn't. USCG delaying and using the new letters ordered from the Far Cry case allows them to not have to go through this issue again should EFF or others bring similar complaints in other cases. The subpoena took so long to arrive in this case precisely because of the suit in the other case, which may have meant they'd have to fight against similar claims (which they wouldn't want to waste money on - produce the new letter and send that one instead when it's done).
There is no claim that CNET has been a go between for any defendants. That seems to be a misinterpretation on your part.
This isn't only Mikes interpretation either, from the CNET article:
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You claim others do not support their position, then you regularly fail to do so yourself, whilst acting above the rest of us at the same time. This has been the only occasion I've seen from you where you have actually substantiated what you say with something that supports your position.
When you have supported your position, you have often done so with odd interpretations of what you cite that do not actually support what you say they do.
Honestly joe, I'm not gonna bother spelling it out for you any further. If you don't get it now, you never will.
P.S.
EFF has made specific reference to the Hurt Locker case elsewhere:
http://www.eff.org/uscg
It appears that EFF have only focused on the Far Cry case either due to insufficient resources or hoping to use it as a slap down on USCG to get them to produce better informational letters in other cases and the future regardless. In line with Mikes interpretation, it would appear that USCG could (and will) use the new letter that has been noted as not being much better than before to point at to say it is meeting requirements if it's brought up in other cases.
In other words, they're hoping they can continue bullying people into settlements whilst claiming being fully informative, even as pre-settlement cost has been raised.
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You even cited things that don't support your position!
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100820/00543610697.shtml#c3895
http://techdirt.com/ar ticle.php?sid=20100720/17383310297#c868
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16465610806.shtml#c827
You're welcome.
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Software Startups Realizing That Cookie-Cutter Freemium Doesn't Always Work Well
How much of business is simply dressing up old concepts in slightly new clothing...
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
The Innovators Dilemma for example has a fairly in depth study of the hard drive industry, where disruption occurred within the move between different sizes of hard drive (like 8 inch to 5.25 inch drives), even with no fundamental difference in technology. Minicomputers at the time primarily valued hard drive space, and were willing to pay premiums for increases in capacity, but both existing and new companies had difficulties introducing 5.25 inch drives - they were smaller, but didn't meet demand in the capacity of drives. There just so happened to be however desktop computers emerging that were happy to accept smaller drives for less space, and small companies making 5.25 inch drives were happy to even have a revenue stream compared to already incumbent hard drive makers that dismissed or couldn't commit to the smaller drives. This also eventually led to a disruption of minicomputers.
This is also something already established - Back in 1997 it was recommended by Christensen and co. for movie theatres facing disruption from improving home theatres and the like to focus on unique attributes like social and family friendly aspects.
The problem that report seems to make is to focus too heavily on the technology when disruption is intended to be more of a description of changes in business models (which technology can some times enable). The effect of first mover advantage is said to be amplified by the asymmetry of motivation created (incumbent companies given incentive to flee upmarket seeing no money at the low end or new market, whilst upstart looks up and sees only money).
I wander with the effect of increased knowledge on this too, and whether the companies were better enabled to handle disruption then they were on previous occasions of studying the effect, also leading to a comparatively lesser effect than previously observed.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
There's a whole set of detailed specific and minute details that go beyond the wikipedia article I could go on forever about, but I won't. If you want more details/info just Google Clayton Christensen.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
What you described with BP is the opening that disruption creates. Whilst BP is hedging its bets, companies working in countries with high non-consumption of oil or aiming at markets where the goods have low power needs (most extreme example of this would be solar powered little calculators) would be better placed and actively work in those markets. By the time BP enters, it'll have great difficulty and expense in doing so.
I highly recommend the playlist, it's a talk by Christensen himself on the topic.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
And research shows that the odds of success doing this is incredibly low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list? p=5B14C683F830A679
On the post: Ohio Senator Introduces Bill That Would Let Ex-Convicts Try To Erase Online Information About Their Arrest
Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You regularly make appeals to authority without specific example to back your counter claims.
Even worse, you are now acting as if you have repeatedly shown Mike to be wrong. I have seen no instance of this.
So I demand citations from you.
tl:dr - CITATIONS NAO!!!11
On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>