That's got nothing to do with the plaintiff in this case. Are you suggesting that the plaintiff in this case is not a victim who has had his rights violated by many, many people?
I'm on the side of justice. I want the right holder to be able to go after the people that have wronged him. Defendants shouldn't be able to shirk liability by simply ganging up by the thousands on a blameless victim plaintiff.
Not going to trial is their business model. I don't think they avoid trial because they'd lose on the merits. They avoid it because it's expensive, difficult, and time-consuming.
The fact that litigation is cost prohibitive isn't the plaintiff's fault. It's the fault of the thousands of defendants who gang up on the one plaintiff. Think of it this way, if thousands and thousands of people were violating your rights, would you have the resources to fight each one in court one-on-one? Of course not.
I'm merely saying that it's likely they are infringers. The legal presumption is that they are not liable for infringement. I don't think the plaintiff will have any trouble overcoming this presumption.
Simple, because they probably are infringers and settling is far less risky and expensive. I don't think they'll want the plaintiff's technicians poking around their computers. And they certainly won't want a jury assessing statutory damages--plus their attorney's fees, the plaintiff's attorney's fees, costs, etc. If a defendant actually did the infringement, settling makes a lot more sense than litigating and losing.
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. Seems to me that the bluff that's being called is that of the defendants. I'll be amazed if even one of them will chose to litigate this over just settling it.
I think the problem with the judge's plan is that these five defendants will likely prefer settling, especially once discovery commences against them in earnest.
I am using the term correctly. "Property" just means the bundle of rights in a thing (as opposed to the thing itself). Copyright is a bundle of rights in a thing--the underlying work. Even Mike admits that copyright is property as the word "property" is used in the Constitution. Ask him.
I haven't denied the existence of a single mistake. There have been many. I've seen any though that compromise the prosecution in the U.S. Sorry, but Dotcom's prosecution is doing just fine. Harping on collateral issues doesn't make the main show go away.
What do those have to do with copyright infringement?
People who otherwise respect property rights forget the rules when it comes to infringement. Just because you can infringe (that super-fast internet connection and huge hard drive just seem so empty for some), that doesn't mean it's OK to do it.
Again, you haven't pointed out any fuck ups that I'm denying exist, nor are you pointing out any way in which Dotcom's prosecution has been compromised. I'm as cool as a cucumber, angry-man AC.
This reminds me of the time average_joe tried to argue that the 1st amendment and copyright never comes into conflict.
You're making the same mistake Mike made when he went super-ballistic-asshole-mode on Professor Adam Mossoff. Of course the two have inherent conflict. That's so obvious and fundamental that I don't think anyone denies it.
The point is that, descriptively speaking and applying actual legal doctrine, copyright laws don't violate the First Amendment. What Prof. Mossoff said was 100% true, and he was merely describing the actual controlling law, i.e., the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitutional question. The Court's interpretation of constitutional issues is the supreme law of the land, and to refer to it accurately is only to state the actual law.
Mike on the other hand points to sources like "No Law" (a book that in its own preface admits the book is "legal fiction") and Prof. Netanal's work. Those types of arguments, the ones that Mike pretends are controlling, are only normative arguments. They're made by people who are saying, "Hey, maybe we should look at it like this." Those are not descriptions of the actual law, they are aspirational ideas of how the law could be if the law changed.
When I (and others, like Prof. Mossoff) say that the two are not in conflict, what we mean is that, legally speaking, the current controlling view is that the two are definitionally balanced (as opposed to ad hoc balanced) internally by the fair use doctrine and the idea-expression dichotomy. It's complicated, but the reason copyright laws get what's essentially a free pass (rational basis scrutiny) is because copyright doesn't lock up ideas and there's fair use.
But isn't the point here that she was effectively censored without ever going to court? Chilling effects and all that.
She was confronted with a copyright claim. Even if she has a viable fair use defense, that doesn't negative the fact that the copyright owner has a prima facie case for infringement. It's not "censorship" for a copyright owner to assert a prima facie claim against an alleged infringer, even if that infringer *might* have a valid fair use defense.
It's with articles like this that the anti-copyright zealots try to get the troops all riled up with chants of "Censorship!" To the extent this woman's use is not fair use, her First Amendment rights are not being infringed. She is still free to say the ideas contained in the expression she has copied.
She could spend a few seconds rewording the sentences, even keeping all of the same ideas, and she wouldn't be infringing. The ideas are not locked up. It's just anti-copyright FUD to pretend like this actual censorship, i.e., the blocking of ideas. To call this "censorship" is ridiculous.
What fuck ups have I ever denied? All I said was that I don't think the prosecution is nearly as far off track as some are spinning it. Is the Megaupload website down? Yep. Is Dotcom being extradited? Yes. There's obviously been some collateral fuck ups, but the critics aren't explaining how the ultimate trial has been compromised. It's just anti-IP enforcement FUD from anti-copyright zealots who get super-excited when there's anything critical of the prosecution that they can use to discredit the whole thing. Only a pirate apologist would right article after article about anything that can be spun in Dotcom's favor. This is some of the most blatant apologism on the internet, hands down. Good God, all that happened here is the judge decided to hold an evidentiary hearing. Certain zealots are calling that a defeat for the DOJ. Give me a break.
I'm talking about ideas as the core values that the First Amendment protects. The First Amendment protects ideas, even (and especially) the unpopular ones:
The First Amendment protects works which, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, regardless of whether the government or a majority of the people approve of the ideas these works represent.
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 34 (1973).
The First Amendment protects the exchange of ideas:
The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. This objective was made explicit as early as 1774 in a letter of the Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Quebec:
‘The last right we shall mention, regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.’ 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 108 (1774).
All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance—unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion—have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957).
Copyright doesn't block ideas because copyright is not censorship. Censorship is exactly what the First Amendment was created to protect--censorship is the enemy of ideas. Copyright doesn't lock up ideas, it only locks up specific expressions. And these specific expressions--these works--are quite valuable socially.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that litigation is cost prohibitive isn't the plaintiff's fault. It's the fault of the thousands of defendants who gang up on the one plaintiff. Think of it this way, if thousands and thousands of people were violating your rights, would you have the resources to fight each one in court one-on-one? Of course not.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: With you on view, except for spelling:
Made me chuckle, since that describes certain zealots perfectly.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Send in the Troops
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
On the post: Bringing Music & Tech Together To Move Things Forward Productively
Re:
Details TBD, after several rounds of Kool-Aid.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should say "to protect against." My bad.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am using the term correctly. "Property" just means the bundle of rights in a thing (as opposed to the thing itself). Copyright is a bundle of rights in a thing--the underlying work. Even Mike admits that copyright is property as the word "property" is used in the Constitution. Ask him.
On the post: Court Doesn't Buy DOJ's Argument For Why Megaupload User Can't Sue To Get His Data Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People who otherwise respect property rights forget the rules when it comes to infringement. Just because you can infringe (that super-fast internet connection and huge hard drive just seem so empty for some), that doesn't mean it's OK to do it.
On the post: Court Doesn't Buy DOJ's Argument For Why Megaupload User Can't Sue To Get His Data Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re:
You're making the same mistake Mike made when he went super-ballistic-asshole-mode on Professor Adam Mossoff. Of course the two have inherent conflict. That's so obvious and fundamental that I don't think anyone denies it.
The point is that, descriptively speaking and applying actual legal doctrine, copyright laws don't violate the First Amendment. What Prof. Mossoff said was 100% true, and he was merely describing the actual controlling law, i.e., the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitutional question. The Court's interpretation of constitutional issues is the supreme law of the land, and to refer to it accurately is only to state the actual law.
Mike on the other hand points to sources like "No Law" (a book that in its own preface admits the book is "legal fiction") and Prof. Netanal's work. Those types of arguments, the ones that Mike pretends are controlling, are only normative arguments. They're made by people who are saying, "Hey, maybe we should look at it like this." Those are not descriptions of the actual law, they are aspirational ideas of how the law could be if the law changed.
When I (and others, like Prof. Mossoff) say that the two are not in conflict, what we mean is that, legally speaking, the current controlling view is that the two are definitionally balanced (as opposed to ad hoc balanced) internally by the fair use doctrine and the idea-expression dichotomy. It's complicated, but the reason copyright laws get what's essentially a free pass (rational basis scrutiny) is because copyright doesn't lock up ideas and there's fair use.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re:
She was confronted with a copyright claim. Even if she has a viable fair use defense, that doesn't negative the fact that the copyright owner has a prima facie case for infringement. It's not "censorship" for a copyright owner to assert a prima facie claim against an alleged infringer, even if that infringer *might* have a valid fair use defense.
It's with articles like this that the anti-copyright zealots try to get the troops all riled up with chants of "Censorship!" To the extent this woman's use is not fair use, her First Amendment rights are not being infringed. She is still free to say the ideas contained in the expression she has copied.
She could spend a few seconds rewording the sentences, even keeping all of the same ideas, and she wouldn't be infringing. The ideas are not locked up. It's just anti-copyright FUD to pretend like this actual censorship, i.e., the blocking of ideas. To call this "censorship" is ridiculous.
On the post: Court Doesn't Buy DOJ's Argument For Why Megaupload User Can't Sue To Get His Data Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re:
The First Amendment protects the exchange of ideas:Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957).
Copyright doesn't block ideas because copyright is not censorship. Censorship is exactly what the First Amendment was created to protect--censorship is the enemy of ideas. Copyright doesn't lock up ideas, it only locks up specific expressions. And these specific expressions--these works--are quite valuable socially.
Next >>