I'm really not sure how any of us can watch this video and not comment excessively.
I really want to hear from the trolls on this one. Jamie Thomas is being held accountable for listening to music for personal use while Girl Talk is PROFITING from "samples" (cue the Darth Vader music).
Why? The copyright laws were clearly meant to prevent Girl Talk not attack the consumer base. Tens of thousands of lawsuits were initiated against consumers but NONE against Girl Talk. Why?
What about RiP? Besides being a documentary, it is clearly for PROFIT and should have to pay millions in license fees, according to the law. So rally the troll troops and give us a response that makes sense.
I wonder if any of the lawyers defending Jamie Thomas or the judges in the case are aware that Spotify exists NOW.
Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. There was no service to legally meet her needs at the time of her lawsuit, but there is now. Her basic human nature has not changed, wanting to listen to what she wants when she wants, but the technology caught up. So exactly why is she guilty now?
This seems simple. Jamie should have to pay whatever Spotify would pay for the use of those 24 songs. Let's assume she listened to each song 20 times.
I really want to say, let the RIAA figure out the math on that, but they would arbitrarily assume she listened to each track 10 million times.
The more I see things like this, the less respect I have for people who try to confuse theft and infringement and imply that sharing is done only for profit.
I used to think that the ITU knew how the internet works. For some reason they believe that Telcos are the only players on the field.
If they are looking at the internet as a phone connection, then someone should explain to them that cable and satellite TV companies also offer broadband and in the mobile space 802.16 (WiMAX) is becoming a reality. What about internet backbone providers? How to they fit into this?
This doesn't sound like it was thought out by anyone who actually knows what the internet is or how it is accessed.
Can we just give the CIA a break? The digital age is soooo new to them and no one has ever asked them how they operate before (other than a few nosey congressmen and maybe a POTUS or 2).
They are all scratching their heads and wondering why they need written rules for an agency that has no authority to operate in the US.
It seems we normal people are just too stupid to understand the law. The argument is that these products are produced outside of the US and thus not subject to US Copyright law, but it would appear that the resellers are accused of breaking US Copyright law which does not apply to the products in question.
So it would seem that international agreements come into play, which leaves the question of which country's copyright laws apply and do they have a right of first sale.
For some reason I just don't believe that you cannot resell your own property in most other countries, as they must have something similar to our right of first sale doctrine, and if they do, wouldn't that apply in the US.
Time for a recap... Instead of FACT, which makes little sense given the way the organization operates, it looks like there are quite a few good suggestions for changing their acronym to BOGUS that would better describe them and no longer confuse the police.
Brain-dead Old Guys Uselessly Suing
Buying Officials and Guilds then Uselessly Suing
Bitchy Old Guru's Underestimating Society
Bribing Officials Gets U SOPA
Benign Organization Going Ultra Syncophantic
Good stuff. Remember that it's this type of group effort that got Rick Santorum the infamous meaning for his last name.
An organization called FACT shuts a site down with bogus charges is pretty ironic. Maybe the police were confused and the organization should change its acronym to BOGUS so that even a moron in a hurry can divine their plans.
I'll leave it up to the TechDirt community to come up with the meaning of BOGUS.
Without alcohol there would be no drunk driving fatalities. Banning motor vehicles would achieve the same thing. Maybe politicians should look into banning alcohol and cars and they could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
You may not trust humanity, but you can count on human nature. When there is a direct threat to something the public has come to enjoy and expect, they will speak out. Governments around the world are VERY aware that they now have to be careful with any legislation that impacts the internet. The days of back room deals may not be over, but now people are learning just how often they occur and why, and are not pleased with it.
It's actually a very interesting construct, since governments want to hinder communication which only makes all those people communicating pay more attention to what governments are doing.
Again the digital world just seems so impossible for people to grasp.
A majority of the drivers on the road were doing just fine NOT killing themselves before SatNav became popular. Does turning on a SatNav turn off their brains suddenly or has society become just THAT litigious?
Now I'm wondering why the people that publish the paper maps that we used to buy at gas stations haven't sued Google and TomTom for killing their business model.
If these patents are so damned valuable then why the hell don't the "inventors" do anything with them.
Think about defensive patents. The holder in most cases isn't actually doing anything with their "invention", but rather using it as a deterrent to getting sued.
You simply shouldn't be allowed to sue for patent infringement if you are not doing anything with your patent other than holding on to it and hoping someone does something amazing with it so you can sue.
The RIAA/MPAA want to enforce statutory damages, which is fine so long as they admit that infringement is NOT theft. They don't want to do that because it would shine a light on how silly their rationale is.
If someone stole 24 CDs from a store which could then be shared digitally, there isn't a court in the nation that would fine the thief $1.5 million dollars.
Why does the internet make courts so stupid? At least one judge tried to grasp reality.
Isn't hacking an system and stealing data already illegal? Are they going to pass a new law that makes it more illegal?
Cybercrime? These people must moonlight at the patent office where if you slap cyber or internet in front of a word and it magically becomes some strange new thing that is almost impossible to understand.
On the post: RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
Calling all trolls
I really want to hear from the trolls on this one. Jamie Thomas is being held accountable for listening to music for personal use while Girl Talk is PROFITING from "samples" (cue the Darth Vader music).
Why? The copyright laws were clearly meant to prevent Girl Talk not attack the consumer base. Tens of thousands of lawsuits were initiated against consumers but NONE against Girl Talk. Why?
What about RiP? Besides being a documentary, it is clearly for PROFIT and should have to pay millions in license fees, according to the law. So rally the troll troops and give us a response that makes sense.
On the post: RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
WOW
Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. There was no service to legally meet her needs at the time of her lawsuit, but there is now. Her basic human nature has not changed, wanting to listen to what she wants when she wants, but the technology caught up. So exactly why is she guilty now?
This seems simple. Jamie should have to pay whatever Spotify would pay for the use of those 24 songs. Let's assume she listened to each song 20 times.
I really want to say, let the RIAA figure out the math on that, but they would arbitrarily assume she listened to each track 10 million times.
On the post: RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
Best quote ever
-Rick Cairns, Music Industry Lobbyist
This is the type of mentality that the copyleft is up against.
On the post: RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
Re: couldn't resist
On the post: The EU Telco Plan To Have The UN 'Tax & Track' Internet Usage Goes Against Fundamental Internet Principles
WTF
If they are looking at the internet as a phone connection, then someone should explain to them that cable and satellite TV companies also offer broadband and in the mobile space 802.16 (WiMAX) is becoming a reality. What about internet backbone providers? How to they fit into this?
This doesn't sound like it was thought out by anyone who actually knows what the internet is or how it is accessed.
On the post: CIA Cannot Find Its Own Regulations On How To Declassify Documents
It's ok
They are all scratching their heads and wondering why they need written rules for an agency that has no authority to operate in the US.
On the post: Why The Supreme Court Needs To Make Sure That Selling A Used iPad Isn't A Copyright Violation
Same question
So it would seem that international agreements come into play, which leaves the question of which country's copyright laws apply and do they have a right of first sale.
For some reason I just don't believe that you cannot resell your own property in most other countries, as they must have something similar to our right of first sale doctrine, and if they do, wouldn't that apply in the US.
On the post: When The Entertainment Industry Can't Legally Shut Down A Site It Doesn't Like, Bogus Charges Can Do The Trick
You guys are AWESOME!
Brain-dead Old Guys Uselessly Suing
Buying Officials and Guilds then Uselessly Suing
Bitchy Old Guru's Underestimating Society
Bribing Officials Gets U SOPA
Benign Organization Going Ultra Syncophantic
Good stuff. Remember that it's this type of group effort that got Rick Santorum the infamous meaning for his last name.
On the post: When The Entertainment Industry Can't Legally Shut Down A Site It Doesn't Like, Bogus Charges Can Do The Trick
Re: Re: Maybe it's just me
On the post: When The Entertainment Industry Can't Legally Shut Down A Site It Doesn't Like, Bogus Charges Can Do The Trick
Maybe it's just me
I'll leave it up to the TechDirt community to come up with the meaning of BOGUS.
On the post: Press Tries To Pin High Profile Killings On The Web & World Of Warcraft
WTF?????
Yep, that's forward thinkin'
On the post: Does 'The Future' Need Lobbyists Too?
Re: Would be nice but...
It's actually a very interesting construct, since governments want to hinder communication which only makes all those people communicating pay more attention to what governments are doing.
On the post: Commerce Dept: Steve Jobs Had Patents, Steve Jobs Made Cool Things; Thus Patents Are Great
Re:
Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
On the post: Two Men Sue Chicago Police; Claim They Were Abused And Falsely Charged For Filming Officers
Re: Hmmm...
On the post: Two Men Sue Chicago Police; Claim They Were Abused And Falsely Charged For Filming Officers
lol
On the post: TomTom Kicks Off FUD Campaign Against 'Dangerous' Open Source Mapping
Ummm
A majority of the drivers on the road were doing just fine NOT killing themselves before SatNav became popular. Does turning on a SatNav turn off their brains suddenly or has society become just THAT litigious?
Now I'm wondering why the people that publish the paper maps that we used to buy at gas stations haven't sued Google and TomTom for killing their business model.
On the post: Google Drive Barely Launched... And Google's Already Hit With Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Annoyed with it all
Think about defensive patents. The holder in most cases isn't actually doing anything with their "invention", but rather using it as a deterrent to getting sued.
You simply shouldn't be allowed to sue for patent infringement if you are not doing anything with your patent other than holding on to it and hoping someone does something amazing with it so you can sue.
On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re:
On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Have your cake and eat it too
If someone stole 24 CDs from a store which could then be shared digitally, there isn't a court in the nation that would fine the thief $1.5 million dollars.
Why does the internet make courts so stupid? At least one judge tried to grasp reality.
On the post: LinkedIn Passwords Leaked... Congress Immediately Wants To 'Do Something!'
I'm confused
Cybercrime? These people must moonlight at the patent office where if you slap cyber or internet in front of a word and it magically becomes some strange new thing that is almost impossible to understand.
smh
Next >>