As far as why it shouldn't be patentable the burden lies on you to explain why it should be patentable not the other way around.
Mike said it's not patentable. I said he didn't actually show that it's not patentable. Why is the burden on me to show that it is or isn't? My point is that Mike didn't back up his claim. My only claim is that Mike didn't demonstrate that the patent is invalid. I don't see the point in discussing your views of the entire patent system. That's not relevant to my point, which, again, is that Mike didn't actually show that the patent is invalid.
Mike has laid out his argument why he believes aiding and abetting doesn't apply in file-sharer/host scenarios. I happen to think has as a valid point - the prosecution can't just keep conflating each different party's involvements in order to come up with an aiding and abetting charge.
This prime example of you disagreeing with Mike's opinion, but instead of simply just disagreeing with it, you have to go to whine that Mike is lying or being purposely misleading or a "Dotcom shill" or whatever your latest ad hominem happens to be.
Thanks for the link. I'll have to read through that post. I'm talking about this post from last week:
Then it gets deep into that attempt by the "boundless imagination" of the US government to create secondary criminal liability where it does not exist.
The Supreme Court has recognized that, in the civil context, secondary copyright infringement liability may obtain based on uncodified “common law” doctrines. See MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930, 937 (2005). Federal crimes, in contrast, are “solely creatures of statute.” Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 424 (1985)....
In fact, there is no such crime. Strikingly, the criminal copyright infringement statute, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), says nothing whatsoever about secondary liability. See, e.g., Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434 (1984) (“The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.”). The statute does not state that criminal liability can be predicated upon theories of secondary liability, nor does it contemplate that the reach of criminal liability is to be coextensive with civil liability. Because the Government’s proposed theory of secondary criminal copyright infringement is not codified, it is unknown to federal law—and it is no basis for this Court to assert jurisdiction.
Indeed, a theory of secondary criminal copyright infringement or any species thereof, including aiding and abetting through cloud storage case, would be unconstitutional under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. “A penal statute must define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). If the Government’s theory takes hold, then ordinary people and legal scholars alike will be left guessing where civil secondary copyright infringement ends and criminality begins, particularly in an era when automated file transactions and “foot faults” faced by high-volume providers of online services are routine.
There, Mike approvingly cites Dotcom's argument that "there is no such crime" and it "is not codified." I'm not talking about the argument that the government can't prove aiding and abetting here. I'm talking about the argument that there's no such crime. There is. And it's codified at 18 USC 2. Mike cut out the mention of 18 USC 2 when he quoted Dotcom's brief. I doubt that's an accident. And, of course, none of this explains why Mike can't even acknowledge that there's also charges for direct infringement, such as with the film "Taken" and the scraping of YouTube's servers. Those claims are not about aiding and abetting. They're about direct criminal infringement. Yet Mike never acknowledges that they exist. His coverage of Dotcom is so lopsided and ludicrous that I can only assume it's because he wants to protect Dotcom.
If you believe something is patent worthy, if you want a patent system to begin with, the burden is not on others to show that something is non-patent worthy. The burden is on you to show that the patent is a good one.
I never said the patent should have been granted. I explicitly said I hadn't done the research of the claims, the prior art, and the case law to know whether the patent is invalid. And my point is that neither did Mike.
If you believe there are so many good patents out there why not mention them yourself. Or start your own blog? I, for one, do not believe there are many good patents out there. Sure some of the shills around here have mentioned some potentially good ones but, for the most part, the overwhelming majority of the patents seem to be bad and even the alleged good ones are suspect. The burden lies with patent proponents to prove that patents are a good thing and that these alleged good patents provide us with a social good (and also not to confuse a good invention with a good patent). So far I have seen very little evidence that patents are good. That I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong. You are the patent proponent, you are the one claiming that patents are good, so why are you putting it on Mike to defend your position?
I meant "good" in that it meets all the standards for patentability, such as under Sections 101, 102, 103, and 111. Mike is arguing that this design patent is anticipated under 102. He didn't actually show that the patent is "bad," i.e., unpatentable. That's my point. As far as whether patents are "good" in the sense you're talking about, I'm not the guy to answer that as I don't have enough information to discuss it intelligently. My opinion is that there's pros and cons. How those should be weighed, I truly don't know. Not my specialty. I think both sides make good arguments.
So your argument is that adding colored stripes to a toothpick makes it patentable. I'm sorry, I couldn't help but laugh.
You do understand that this is a DESIGN patent, not a UTILITY patent, right? Can you explain why this design wouldn't be patentable? The USPTO issued the design patent, by the way.
I find it kind of funny that you take the allegations of the DOJ as gospel truth, but disregard any defense from Dotcom out of hand. Perhaps YOUR bias is showing.
I'm talking about points of law, such as whether it's a crime to aid and abet criminal copyright infringement. Whether Dotcom is guilty of this crime or not, I think Mike is wrong to say that it's not even a crime. It's ludicrous to say it's not a crime. Yet, Mike keeps saying it. And he won't back it up, I assume, because he can't. And he's so sensitive about this one point that he tried to ban me for even bringing it up. I'm going to continue to bring it up, regardless. I won't be bullied by Mike's insecurity and inability to take criticism.
Personal question here - do you not think the the DOJ's actions have been a bit over the top on this case. Freezing assets to prevent mounting a defense, objecting to the defense's choice of lawyer, swat style raids, etc., etc...
I think alleged criminals have their assets frozen as a matter of course. Why should Dotcom get special treatment? As far as the raid goes, I don't have an informed opinion because I don't know what factors go into making that kind of decision and I don't know what information they had. It seemed over the top, but I don't really know. As to your other points, I think everyone should be treated the same. This applies to the MPAA and Dotcom.
There is a difference between 'being wrong' and disagreeing with you. and not responding to every last comment that disagrees with him is different than being unable to defend one's position. People have other things to do and they don't have time to respond to comments all day, especially repetitive comments that have already been addressed multiple times (which is what I see from the shills around here).
Of course there's a difference between being wrong and simply disagreeing with someone. I'm talking about times he's been shown to be wrong. For example, the thing with Dotcom. Mike keeps saying that there's no such thing as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. But that's not true. The statute, 18 USC 2, has been pointed out to him many times. Yet, he won't acknowledge it. In fact, in his last article defending Dotcom, he quotes a paragraph from Dotcom's brief but conveniently cuts out the sentence mentioning 18 USC 2. I doubt that was accidental.
But there's tons of other things. For example, with Aereo, Mike seems to think that it's only a performance if the retransmission is contemporaneous with the original broadcast. I've tried to explain to him that he's misunderstanding the contemporaneity thing. What makes something a performance is the fact that it's perceivable contemporaneously as it's received. This is why YouTube is performing, even though it's not retransmitting anything contemporaneously with a source broadcast. But Mike just keeps repeated his wrong view that there's no performance unless it's contemporaneous with a source transmission. There's tons and tons of stuff just like this, and no matter how much they are pointed out, Mike doesn't listen and he keeps repeating his wrong understanding.
This is not a guy who's much interested in the truth. That much seems clear. And he's certainly not a guy who admits that he's wrong and thanks you for pointing it out. Instead, he gets really angry, and he usually only comes into the comments when he thinks he can score a point. So I think it's hilarious that he's question the integrity of this AC when his own integrity is so dubious.
In reading through the article and comments, and the alleged criticisms, I don't see anywhere where Mike is wrong. Are you trying to claim that these toothpics should be patent worthy? Really? If that's the case then I only have to leave it up to the reader to decide who's right. I suspect most readers will decide that you're insane.
Mike's point in that article is that the USPTO is stupid because they granted that design patent. The point I tried to make is that Mike didn't actually show that the patent was invalid. He mentioned substantial similarity, but he didn't explain how the ordinary observer test operates and why, in his opinion, the other toothpicks he pictured invalidated the patent. As many people noted, his picture was of toothpicks with three colorless grooves, while the patented toothpicks had two colored stripes. Mike didn't even mention the differences (three grooves vs. two stripes, colorless grooves vs. colored stripes) much less apply the test to arrive at his conclusion that the patent is invalid. It seems clear that he hastily threw the post together, doing little research, for the purpose of shaming the USPTO. This is part of his ongoing effort to do the same. He often tries to point out "bad" patents, with no mention of all the "good" patents, in order to discredit the entire system. There certainly are some "bad" patents, as is to be expected with a system such as the U.S. patent system (with its thousands of examiners, who are humans who make errors). But as far as showing that this patent shouldn't have been granted, and as far as showing that the USPTO is stupid, he didn't come close. And, of course, he said nothing in the comments except: "Either way, it's not new." But he didn't show it's not new.
This is the theory behind the prosecution of Dotcom. He had a web site. Someone uploaded something to his web site. The law says he can only be held liable for that if he doesn't take it down on demand; if he follows DMCA requests he is not liable. The government is asserting he is liable anyway.
But you're not addressing the allegations of direct infringement. One of the charges is over the film "Taken" which one of the alleged conspirators personally uploaded. And then the indictment discusses other files that they uploaded, for example, the alleged conspirators scraped YouTube to get ALL of the content offered there. Those weren't the actions of others. But as far as the actions of others is concerned, the indictment alleges that they KNEW that certain infringing works were being uploaded by users and then knowingly paid them as part of the rewards program and assisted them by hosting the material. That's knowingly aiding and abetting. The DMCA, if it even applies here, doesn't protect against knowingly helping others to infringe. Mike never mentions any of this because he's protecting Dotcom et al., but you should read the indictment. You won't get anything close to the truth from Mike. He's apparently unable to be critical of Dotcom.
There are many examples where an opinion is shown to be erroneous, but nothing is ever forthcoming acknowledging the error. A good example because it is easy to understand is from an article a couple of weeks ago concerning a design patent for toothpicks. There were facts recited in the article that were later shown to be in error, and yet the author made no attempt to address the errors. Again, this is but one example, and is selected specifically because the errors in the article are easy to identify.
A couple of years ago I had a list of all the times I'd seen where Mike had been shown to be wrong in the comments and he either said nothing or attempted to defend his position but then ran away when he realized he couldn't. If I have time, I'll try and find it. It's hilarious. That design patent post is a good example. It's funny how he pretends like you're lying when it's so easy to show times when Mike was wrong but wouldn't admit. And then, of course, he just repeats the same things that were shown to be wrong in later posts. I guess if he doesn't admit he's wrong, he can pretend like he isn't. I think you and I both know that Mike doesn't care about the truth nearly as much as he should. And he hates to corrected. Heck, the reason he banned me last year (which he won't discuss honestly and with any sense of transparency) is because I corrected him about whether aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement is really a crime. Mike, hilariously, just parrots Dotcom's argument that it's not, and it's so easy to prove him wrong. But Mike doesn't want to confront the truth. He wants to keep pretending like 18 USC 2 doesn't really exist and doesn't apply to criminal infringement. Mike can't win on the merits, so he turns to the only thing he has left--personal attacks. It's sad. And funny. But mostly sad. Really, really sad.
Who was charged with criminal copyright infringement and how did Dotcom aide and abet them?
Dotcom et al. are charged with (1) conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, (2) criminal copyright infringement of a work being prepared for distribution, which includes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement, and (3) criminal copyright infringement, which includes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. (2) is for the film "Taken," which the indictment claims Van Der Kolk uploaded to the servers in Virginia. (3) is for all of the other works mentioned in the indictment, such as the videos the group allegedly scraped from YouTube and the works their users uploaded/downloaded. The third parties that they allegedly aided and abetted aren't mentioned by their real names, nor do they have to be. The government just has to show that they criminally infringed and that Dotcom et al. helped them.
I talked about how silly Dotcom's/Mike's argument is that there's no such thing as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement (Mike's *really* touchy about that one). I discussed Dotcom's/Mike's argument that the court doesn't have constructive possession of Dotcom's assets. I discussed the fact that aiding and abetting liability can attach even if the principal is not identified or charged. I'm happy to discuss these things on the merits and to back up what I say with citations. It's hilarious that you're calling me out for this when I think I do this more than anyone else on Techdirt--including Mike.
Lets start with the fact they have used a very thin pretext, his company having servers on US soil, to claim that they have jurisdiction over someone living in New Zealand.
Why is that pretextual? The servers were indeed in the United States.
You seem to think that, because due process ahsn't happened in the US, it doesn't apply.
This is utterly wrong-headed. The GCSB have already been called to task over their illegal actions; the FBI hyave refused to hand over their illegally-obtained copies of the data; the DoJ seemed to be using RICO to freeze the MU assets after telling MU that they needed to keep their data intact, then once the data suited to the DoJ case was taken, attempting to force the servers to be wiped.
Those are just three of the court-recorded things in the Dotcom cases. I'm not saying that Dotcom was in the right; what I'm saying is that you cannot commit a crime and claim to be lawful. Everything the Alphabetti Spaghetti has done has made Dotcom look more in the right.
IF the case had been tighter, then perhaps there would be less counter-skepticism of Dotcom's claims.
But the claim is that Mike was regurgitating Dotcom's arguments from the motion to dismiss in the forfeiture action. That's U.S. law exclusively. I'm trying to understanding how Mike is being pro-due process by being completely non-skeptical of Dotcom's arguments--even the arguments that have nothing to do with due process.
You also abandoned any pretense of wanting a thoughtful conversation when you accused Mike of simply regurgitating Dotcom's arguments, so I'm afraid you're getting reported. Again.
In that post, Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism as to their validity. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Rather than "reporting" me, why not engage me on the merits?
But only one side has been consistently caught outright lying about things regarding the case. And that is the side that is supposed to uphold the rule of law.
And when those who are supposed to uphold the rule of law ignore it, then they're criminals.
I asked this before, and no one could give an answer. Can you point to any way in which Dotcom's due process rights have purportedly been violated in the U.S.? I don't think anyone can, because it hasn't happened. And this is why it's bogus to say that Mike is being pro-due process when he regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism. Given that some of Dotcom's arguments don't pass the laugh test, it shows a pro-piracy bias. Mike isn't defending due process, he's defending Dotcom--no matter how specious Dotcom's claims are.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start with the shortest and simplest of many responses to the ludicrous notion that questioning the government's claims about Kim Dotcom, while giving Dotcom the benefit of the doubt in his statements, shows a "pro-piracy bias". RD said what everyone with a basic sense of justice was thinking:
Wrong.
Taking everything Dotcom argues at face value, while being skeptical of everything the government argues, shows a *pro due process* bias.
This seems pretty silly. One can be skeptical of Dotcom's self-serving arguments yet still be quite supportive of due process. Give me a break. That doesn't explain why Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any of the skepticism he shows at other times. It's not because Mike is pro-due process, and being pro-due process means that everything Dotcom argues should be repeated without question. That's not an insightful comment.
That particular commenter makes similar "mistakes" nearly every day on this site. This was not a mistake or a one off.
This particular poster is calm and reasoned and attempts to add insight to the discussion. You respond with incredible hostility. That sucks. And you yourself make "mistakes" everyday--lots of them. I point these out regularly, yet you don't respond or acknowledge them (unless they're super-obvious, like when you accidentally said "would not" instead of "would" the other day). Why don't you ever back up what you say, Mike? Is it because you're not honest?
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike said it's not patentable. I said he didn't actually show that it's not patentable. Why is the burden on me to show that it is or isn't? My point is that Mike didn't back up his claim. My only claim is that Mike didn't demonstrate that the patent is invalid. I don't see the point in discussing your views of the entire patent system. That's not relevant to my point, which, again, is that Mike didn't actually show that the patent is invalid.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike has laid out his argument why he believes aiding and abetting doesn't apply in file-sharer/host scenarios. I happen to think has as a valid point - the prosecution can't just keep conflating each different party's involvements in order to come up with an aiding and abetting charge.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110720/00560515172/justice-department-practicing-mix-and- match-sleight-of-hand-law-seizure-case.shtml
This prime example of you disagreeing with Mike's opinion, but instead of simply just disagreeing with it, you have to go to whine that Mike is lying or being purposely misleading or a "Dotcom shill" or whatever your latest ad hominem happens to be.
Thanks for the link. I'll have to read through that post. I'm talking about this post from last week:Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141011/07242628799/megaupload-say-us-govt-is-trying-to-steal-ass ets-based-crimes-that-are-figments-govts-boundless-imagination.shtml
There, Mike approvingly cites Dotcom's argument that "there is no such crime" and it "is not codified." I'm not talking about the argument that the government can't prove aiding and abetting here. I'm talking about the argument that there's no such crime. There is. And it's codified at 18 USC 2. Mike cut out the mention of 18 USC 2 when he quoted Dotcom's brief. I doubt that's an accident. And, of course, none of this explains why Mike can't even acknowledge that there's also charges for direct infringement, such as with the film "Taken" and the scraping of YouTube's servers. Those claims are not about aiding and abetting. They're about direct criminal infringement. Yet Mike never acknowledges that they exist. His coverage of Dotcom is so lopsided and ludicrous that I can only assume it's because he wants to protect Dotcom.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said the patent should have been granted. I explicitly said I hadn't done the research of the claims, the prior art, and the case law to know whether the patent is invalid. And my point is that neither did Mike.
If you believe there are so many good patents out there why not mention them yourself. Or start your own blog? I, for one, do not believe there are many good patents out there. Sure some of the shills around here have mentioned some potentially good ones but, for the most part, the overwhelming majority of the patents seem to be bad and even the alleged good ones are suspect. The burden lies with patent proponents to prove that patents are a good thing and that these alleged good patents provide us with a social good (and also not to confuse a good invention with a good patent). So far I have seen very little evidence that patents are good. That I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong. You are the patent proponent, you are the one claiming that patents are good, so why are you putting it on Mike to defend your position?
I meant "good" in that it meets all the standards for patentability, such as under Sections 101, 102, 103, and 111. Mike is arguing that this design patent is anticipated under 102. He didn't actually show that the patent is "bad," i.e., unpatentable. That's my point. As far as whether patents are "good" in the sense you're talking about, I'm not the guy to answer that as I don't have enough information to discuss it intelligently. My opinion is that there's pros and cons. How those should be weighed, I truly don't know. Not my specialty. I think both sides make good arguments.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do understand that this is a DESIGN patent, not a UTILITY patent, right? Can you explain why this design wouldn't be patentable? The USPTO issued the design patent, by the way.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm talking about points of law, such as whether it's a crime to aid and abet criminal copyright infringement. Whether Dotcom is guilty of this crime or not, I think Mike is wrong to say that it's not even a crime. It's ludicrous to say it's not a crime. Yet, Mike keeps saying it. And he won't back it up, I assume, because he can't. And he's so sensitive about this one point that he tried to ban me for even bringing it up. I'm going to continue to bring it up, regardless. I won't be bullied by Mike's insecurity and inability to take criticism.
Personal question here - do you not think the the DOJ's actions have been a bit over the top on this case. Freezing assets to prevent mounting a defense, objecting to the defense's choice of lawyer, swat style raids, etc., etc...
I think alleged criminals have their assets frozen as a matter of course. Why should Dotcom get special treatment? As far as the raid goes, I don't have an informed opinion because I don't know what factors go into making that kind of decision and I don't know what information they had. It seemed over the top, but I don't really know. As to your other points, I think everyone should be treated the same. This applies to the MPAA and Dotcom.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there's a difference between being wrong and simply disagreeing with someone. I'm talking about times he's been shown to be wrong. For example, the thing with Dotcom. Mike keeps saying that there's no such thing as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. But that's not true. The statute, 18 USC 2, has been pointed out to him many times. Yet, he won't acknowledge it. In fact, in his last article defending Dotcom, he quotes a paragraph from Dotcom's brief but conveniently cuts out the sentence mentioning 18 USC 2. I doubt that was accidental.
But there's tons of other things. For example, with Aereo, Mike seems to think that it's only a performance if the retransmission is contemporaneous with the original broadcast. I've tried to explain to him that he's misunderstanding the contemporaneity thing. What makes something a performance is the fact that it's perceivable contemporaneously as it's received. This is why YouTube is performing, even though it's not retransmitting anything contemporaneously with a source broadcast. But Mike just keeps repeated his wrong view that there's no performance unless it's contemporaneous with a source transmission. There's tons and tons of stuff just like this, and no matter how much they are pointed out, Mike doesn't listen and he keeps repeating his wrong understanding.
This is not a guy who's much interested in the truth. That much seems clear. And he's certainly not a guy who admits that he's wrong and thanks you for pointing it out. Instead, he gets really angry, and he usually only comes into the comments when he thinks he can score a point. So I think it's hilarious that he's question the integrity of this AC when his own integrity is so dubious.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141003/06500028716/design-patent-granted-toothpick.shtml
In reading through the article and comments, and the alleged criticisms, I don't see anywhere where Mike is wrong. Are you trying to claim that these toothpics should be patent worthy? Really? If that's the case then I only have to leave it up to the reader to decide who's right. I suspect most readers will decide that you're insane.
Mike's point in that article is that the USPTO is stupid because they granted that design patent. The point I tried to make is that Mike didn't actually show that the patent was invalid. He mentioned substantial similarity, but he didn't explain how the ordinary observer test operates and why, in his opinion, the other toothpicks he pictured invalidated the patent. As many people noted, his picture was of toothpicks with three colorless grooves, while the patented toothpicks had two colored stripes. Mike didn't even mention the differences (three grooves vs. two stripes, colorless grooves vs. colored stripes) much less apply the test to arrive at his conclusion that the patent is invalid. It seems clear that he hastily threw the post together, doing little research, for the purpose of shaming the USPTO. This is part of his ongoing effort to do the same. He often tries to point out "bad" patents, with no mention of all the "good" patents, in order to discredit the entire system. There certainly are some "bad" patents, as is to be expected with a system such as the U.S. patent system (with its thousands of examiners, who are humans who make errors). But as far as showing that this patent shouldn't have been granted, and as far as showing that the USPTO is stupid, he didn't come close. And, of course, he said nothing in the comments except: "Either way, it's not new." But he didn't show it's not new.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you're not addressing the allegations of direct infringement. One of the charges is over the film "Taken" which one of the alleged conspirators personally uploaded. And then the indictment discusses other files that they uploaded, for example, the alleged conspirators scraped YouTube to get ALL of the content offered there. Those weren't the actions of others. But as far as the actions of others is concerned, the indictment alleges that they KNEW that certain infringing works were being uploaded by users and then knowingly paid them as part of the rewards program and assisted them by hosting the material. That's knowingly aiding and abetting. The DMCA, if it even applies here, doesn't protect against knowingly helping others to infringe. Mike never mentions any of this because he's protecting Dotcom et al., but you should read the indictment. You won't get anything close to the truth from Mike. He's apparently unable to be critical of Dotcom.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A couple of years ago I had a list of all the times I'd seen where Mike had been shown to be wrong in the comments and he either said nothing or attempted to defend his position but then ran away when he realized he couldn't. If I have time, I'll try and find it. It's hilarious. That design patent post is a good example. It's funny how he pretends like you're lying when it's so easy to show times when Mike was wrong but wouldn't admit. And then, of course, he just repeats the same things that were shown to be wrong in later posts. I guess if he doesn't admit he's wrong, he can pretend like he isn't. I think you and I both know that Mike doesn't care about the truth nearly as much as he should. And he hates to corrected. Heck, the reason he banned me last year (which he won't discuss honestly and with any sense of transparency) is because I corrected him about whether aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement is really a crime. Mike, hilariously, just parrots Dotcom's argument that it's not, and it's so easy to prove him wrong. But Mike doesn't want to confront the truth. He wants to keep pretending like 18 USC 2 doesn't really exist and doesn't apply to criminal infringement. Mike can't win on the merits, so he turns to the only thing he has left--personal attacks. It's sad. And funny. But mostly sad. Really, really sad.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom et al. are charged with (1) conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, (2) criminal copyright infringement of a work being prepared for distribution, which includes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement, and (3) criminal copyright infringement, which includes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. (2) is for the film "Taken," which the indictment claims Van Der Kolk uploaded to the servers in Virginia. (3) is for all of the other works mentioned in the indictment, such as the videos the group allegedly scraped from YouTube and the works their users uploaded/downloaded. The third parties that they allegedly aided and abetted aren't mentioned by their real names, nor do they have to be. The government just has to show that they criminally infringed and that Dotcom et al. helped them.
The superseding indictment is here if you want to read it: http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/victimwitness/mega_files/Certified%20Mega%20Superseding%20Indictment %20%282-16-2012%29.pdf
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did in the comments to that post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141011/07242628799/megaupload-say-us-govt-is-trying-to-steal-ass ets-based-crimes-that-are-figments-govts-boundless-imagination.shtml
I talked about how silly Dotcom's/Mike's argument is that there's no such thing as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement (Mike's *really* touchy about that one). I discussed Dotcom's/Mike's argument that the court doesn't have constructive possession of Dotcom's assets. I discussed the fact that aiding and abetting liability can attach even if the principal is not identified or charged. I'm happy to discuss these things on the merits and to back up what I say with citations. It's hilarious that you're calling me out for this when I think I do this more than anyone else on Techdirt--including Mike.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is that pretextual? The servers were indeed in the United States.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is utterly wrong-headed. The GCSB have already been called to task over their illegal actions; the FBI hyave refused to hand over their illegally-obtained copies of the data; the DoJ seemed to be using RICO to freeze the MU assets after telling MU that they needed to keep their data intact, then once the data suited to the DoJ case was taken, attempting to force the servers to be wiped.
Those are just three of the court-recorded things in the Dotcom cases. I'm not saying that Dotcom was in the right; what I'm saying is that you cannot commit a crime and claim to be lawful. Everything the Alphabetti Spaghetti has done has made Dotcom look more in the right.
IF the case had been tighter, then perhaps there would be less counter-skepticism of Dotcom's claims.
But the claim is that Mike was regurgitating Dotcom's arguments from the motion to dismiss in the forfeiture action. That's U.S. law exclusively. I'm trying to understanding how Mike is being pro-due process by being completely non-skeptical of Dotcom's arguments--even the arguments that have nothing to do with due process.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain how anyone in the U.S. government is not doing their job in prosecuting Dotcom?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
In that post, Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism as to their validity. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Rather than "reporting" me, why not engage me on the merits?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
And when those who are supposed to uphold the rule of law ignore it, then they're criminals.
I asked this before, and no one could give an answer. Can you point to any way in which Dotcom's due process rights have purportedly been violated in the U.S.? I don't think anyone can, because it hasn't happened. And this is why it's bogus to say that Mike is being pro-due process when he regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism. Given that some of Dotcom's arguments don't pass the laugh test, it shows a pro-piracy bias. Mike isn't defending due process, he's defending Dotcom--no matter how specious Dotcom's claims are.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Wrong.
Taking everything Dotcom argues at face value, while being skeptical of everything the government argues, shows a *pro due process* bias.
This seems pretty silly. One can be skeptical of Dotcom's self-serving arguments yet still be quite supportive of due process. Give me a break. That doesn't explain why Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any of the skepticism he shows at other times. It's not because Mike is pro-due process, and being pro-due process means that everything Dotcom argues should be repeated without question. That's not an insightful comment.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This particular poster is calm and reasoned and attempts to add insight to the discussion. You respond with incredible hostility. That sucks. And you yourself make "mistakes" everyday--lots of them. I point these out regularly, yet you don't respond or acknowledge them (unless they're super-obvious, like when you accidentally said "would not" instead of "would" the other day). Why don't you ever back up what you say, Mike? Is it because you're not honest?
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I only like lawyers who do both.
Next >>