When illegal drugs are seized, they are evidence of a crime. What's more, that evidence may well disappear or be destroyed before the case ever comes to court unless seized.
A domain name is not evidence of anything other than the fact that the server for a particular domain name is located on a computer that responds to a particular IP address. What's more, the act of seizing the domain name changes the information, thus rendering the domain name useless for any purpose.
According to the DMCA, section 512(c)
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
It seems to me that Henry Adaso might have a good case for enforcing that part of the DMCA that is supposed to ensure that the DMCA isn't abused. The question is, can he bring charges, or must the court do that? The next question is whether or not there's enough money available to pay the legal bills needed to see this case through to the supreme court of needed.
if Google didn't consider the DMCA notice valid, why was the review removed from the search results?
It sure looks like Google has decided that keeping the RIAA happy is more important than keeping the internet audience available for advertisers.
Anonymous is generally to protect you from other citizens who may not agree and may make your life miserable for stating it. It's not intended to protect you if you make false, libelous, or have you statements.
Well then, the plaintiff should have to show that the statements meet the legal criteria for false or libelous statements before being permitted to request the anonymity be stripped from the defendants.
Are there 10,000 statements that meet that criteria? I'd be very surprised if there more than a handful that even come close.
The prosecution is saying it's because they don't want the capabilities of the SWAT team to become public knowledge.
To me, that sounds more like they don't want the activities of the SWAT team to become public knowledge.
It's more likely the lawyers looked at the numbers.
- Pay a small percentage of your income, and it all goes away.
- Tell Microsoft to forget it, and risk a lawsuit. With a lawsuit, you'd have to pay your legal bills up front, possibly costing millions. If you win, there's a good chance you'll still be stuck with paying your legal bills. If you lose, you pay your legal bills, millions in fines, and possibly even have to pay Microsoft's legal bills.
Win or lose, it's going to tie up most of your attention and energy for the next several years at least.
Looked at it that way, it's not hard to figure out why such a shakedown racket works.
Cutting corporate income taxes would be fine, but only if it were accompanied by a couple of other changes.
- Tax all income, no deductions, no exceptions for investment income etc. If you get money, it's income. This would also include inheritances, gifts, whatever.
- Tax any and all money leaving the country. If a company wants to invest overseas, or an individual wants to throw money into an offshore bank account, go ahead, but the government takes a share of the money first.
See, that's part of the problem, how you are framing it. They didn't purposely IGNORE the 4th amendment, just the end results of steps taken may ended up with them exceeding it.
See, that's part of the problem. They chose a plan of action without considering whether or not the law permitted that action. Isn't the whole purpose of law enforcement to ensure that everyone follows the law at all times?
The US government has been making up the law for years now.
Gitmo, drone attacks, extraordinary rendition, warrant-less surveillance, domain seizures... the list goes on.
"I still don't understand why we don't just do the simple thing: make dangerous and distracted driving illegal, and just teach people the human consequences of doing something moronic like texting while driving."
It's very easy to get a conviction in court by having a police office stand up in court and say "I saw this individual operating a motor vehicle while using a cellphone"
It's much harder to get a conviction if all the police officer can say is "in my opinion, this individual was not paying proper attention to operating the vehicle"
No, it just shows how quickly the labels will jump on anybody doing more than eight bars (the fair use limit, IIRC) in something even vaguely resembling commercial use.
There is no fixed fair use limit. the only way to determine if the amount used is fair is for a court to make that determination. It is entirely possible to use all of a song and still have it considered fair use.
Of course, finding out whether or not you've guessed right is going to be expensive, especially if you've guessed wrong.
umm no. Visa chose to do business with Wikileaks. Visa then arbitrarily chose to ignore the contract they had signed with Wikileaks. The court is reminding Visa that once you sign a contract, you have to live up to the terms of the contract.
If Wikileaks had been in violation of the agreement, then Visa would have been able to use that as justification for terminating the contract. The fact that they were not able to show such violations to the court makes it hard to believe that any such violations occurred.
Before you start pointing at things like 'treason' and 'espionage', please explain why no charges have ever been filed against Wikileaks in spite of over two years time in which to do so.
On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
A domain name is not evidence of anything other than the fact that the server for a particular domain name is located on a computer that responds to a particular IP address. What's more, the act of seizing the domain name changes the information, thus rendering the domain name useless for any purpose.
On the post: Universal Music Uses Bogus DMCA Claim To Take Down Negative Review Of Drake's Album
Can a third party bring charges of perjury?
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
It seems to me that Henry Adaso might have a good case for enforcing that part of the DMCA that is supposed to ensure that the DMCA isn't abused. The question is, can he bring charges, or must the court do that? The next question is whether or not there's enough money available to pay the legal bills needed to see this case through to the supreme court of needed.
On the post: Universal Music Uses Bogus DMCA Claim To Take Down Negative Review Of Drake's Album
Re: Re: Proof Positive
It sure looks like Google has decided that keeping the RIAA happy is more important than keeping the internet audience available for advertisers.
On the post: Shelby County Tries To Reveal The Authors Of Nearly 10,000 Anonymous Internet Comments
Re:
Well then, the plaintiff should have to show that the statements meet the legal criteria for false or libelous statements before being permitted to request the anonymity be stripped from the defendants.
Are there 10,000 statements that meet that criteria? I'd be very surprised if there more than a handful that even come close.
On the post: Judge Overturns $147.2 Million Jury Award Against RIM
Re:
There isn't likely to be such a move any time soon. Too many people in the legal system get paid obscene amounts of money because of patent laws.
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re:
To me, that sounds more like they don't want the activities of the SWAT team to become public knowledge.
On the post: NY Times Picks Up On The Fact That Craigslist Has Become A Legal Bully Against Anyone Who Makes Its Site Better
Re:
If some third party has found a way to remove information from Craigslist, perhaps the Craigslist staff need to review their IT security.
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
On the post: If You Go To The Olympics, You Can Bring Your iPhone Or Android Phone... But You Better Not Tether
Re:
Yup, it looks like interference with a business model again.
On the post: Microsoft Continues To Get Companies To Pay It For Non-Microsoft Software
Re:
- Pay a small percentage of your income, and it all goes away.
- Tell Microsoft to forget it, and risk a lawsuit. With a lawsuit, you'd have to pay your legal bills up front, possibly costing millions. If you win, there's a good chance you'll still be stuck with paying your legal bills. If you lose, you pay your legal bills, millions in fines, and possibly even have to pay Microsoft's legal bills.
Win or lose, it's going to tie up most of your attention and energy for the next several years at least.
Looked at it that way, it's not hard to figure out why such a shakedown racket works.
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
- Tax all income, no deductions, no exceptions for investment income etc. If you get money, it's income. This would also include inheritances, gifts, whatever.
- Tax any and all money leaving the country. If a company wants to invest overseas, or an individual wants to throw money into an offshore bank account, go ahead, but the government takes a share of the money first.
On the post: Disappointing: Craigslist Sues Padmapper For Making Craigslist More Useful & Valuable
Re:
On the post: Feds Wait Until Late Friday To Admit That, Yeah, They Ignored The 4th Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
See, that's part of the problem. They chose a plan of action without considering whether or not the law permitted that action. Isn't the whole purpose of law enforcement to ensure that everyone follows the law at all times?
On the post: Megaupload To DOJ: You Don't Get To Make Up The Rules That Suit You
This is nothing new.
Gitmo, drone attacks, extraordinary rendition, warrant-less surveillance, domain seizures... the list goes on.
On the post: Patent Office Releases Rules To Let Third Parties Provide Documents To Help Reject Patent Applications
Re: Re: Productivity
On the post: AT&T May Try To Charge FaceTime Users, Raising Net Neutrality Questions
Re:
I would happily do so, but alas I lack a paintbrush large enough to make the answer fit onto the point properly.
On the post: California Legalizes Some Texting While Driving, Sort Of
It's very easy to get a conviction in court by having a police office stand up in court and say "I saw this individual operating a motor vehicle while using a cellphone"
It's much harder to get a conviction if all the police officer can say is "in my opinion, this individual was not paying proper attention to operating the vehicle"
On the post: Insanity: Romney's Ad Featuring Obama Singing Al Green Shut Down Via Copyright Claim
Re: Re:
There is no fixed fair use limit. the only way to determine if the amount used is fair is for a court to make that determination. It is entirely possible to use all of a song and still have it considered fair use.
Of course, finding out whether or not you've guessed right is going to be expensive, especially if you've guessed wrong.
On the post: NZ Judge In Dotcom Extradition Case Speaks Out Against TPP & US Copyright Extremism
Re: Re:
On the post: Iceland Court Orders Visa To Start Processing Wikileaks Payments Again Within Two Weeks
Re:
If Wikileaks had been in violation of the agreement, then Visa would have been able to use that as justification for terminating the contract. The fact that they were not able to show such violations to the court makes it hard to believe that any such violations occurred.
Before you start pointing at things like 'treason' and 'espionage', please explain why no charges have ever been filed against Wikileaks in spite of over two years time in which to do so.
Next >>