You seems to upset that the judge dares to call a duck a duck when he sees it. He is refusing to let Righthaven hide what they are truly doing behind legalese. There are several aspects of the deal that show that Righthaven was just being used as a liability shield for the original content owners.
Well.... technically, they are not copyright infringers until they are held liable for infringement. There are good arguments that their actions are fair use and thus they are not infringers.
It is almost a shame that more cases did not go to the merits so more uses could be declared fair uses (and thus not infringing). However, I can understand why the defendants would not want to spend the time or the money to prove their point.
Really, it would really more be like if a pirate site found an old copy of Waterworld, put their "blood, sweat, and tears" into selling it, then sued Universal Pictures for copyright infringement.
I mean, you could make it a little less obvious that you wanted to come here and bash "freetards" no matter what the actual story was. You, sir, fail.
One of the exclusive rights of a patent is use. Anyone who uses a product with an infringing patent can be sued. So, technically, Apple could sue purchasers of the Samsung Galaxy. It is generally scene as counter productive and it would be hard to take all the users to court, so they mainly focus on the supplier.
It is not a condition per se. If sent a valid DMCA request, Google will process it. True, if you don't want it to be published, then don't send one. However, since Google will not have received a valid DMCA takedown request, there is nothing for them to be liable for. It is more of a consequence than a condition.
I do get your chilling effects argument, and I don't think the irony should be lost on anyone. I would like to think that that it is Google's way of making a point.
They only way to get rid of them is to impeach and convict them in the House and the Senate. Even with lots of lobbyist's money, I doubt there would be enough political will to go through with it.
That is not the point. A common market would be established by removing trade barriers between the two countries. It is not a matter of sovereignty or any side becoming less independent. It would, however, severely limit the ability to price discriminate between the two countries. Nothing about this advocates Canada adopting the politics of the US. So, your mocking tone fails miserably.
The AC that continually advances this point also continually misses the point. The speech being blocked is not the allegedly infringing content. It is all the other content on the site that does not have anything to do with any infringement. One second of stopping that speech is irreparable harm (see case sited in the brief).
If the US does not have jurisdiction of the Spanish site, then the US could not have seized the website in the first place.
Businesses in general, and pharma specifically, would have a cow if we developed a common market with Canada. There goes price discrimination between the two countries. I know that people aren't calling for a common market per se, but it sounds like they would like more of a common market for pharmaceuticals.
You've got the burden of proof wrong there buddy. You are the one trying to make a point (that doesn't exist). You need to prove your side of the argument. You make bold assertions without anything to back them up, then you somehow feel that others need to prove those assertions are wrong? That is not how life works.
I would love to see the people openly flaunt this ruling. Everybody at one of the games should twitter a play-by-play of the game. Since it apparently isn't a copyright issue, there are no statutory damages.
Re: KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,
I would dare say a majority of the content is uploaded by users as their legitimate content. Whether YouTube itself produces anything is irrelevant. If you don't like how it is set up, then you don't have to upload any of your content to YouTube.
And to preempt your illicit content argument, YouTube bends over backwards, within the realm of technical feasibility, to help content owners police their content.
Talk about missing the point. If you use PROTECTIP to label and thus ban YouTube, you care silencing a lot of legitimate speech. The YouTubes of the world aren't the most sympathetic corporations (lol on "Big Search"). Why do you ignore this? You seem to latch onto this idea that that the only legitimate speech anyone is claiming is the infringing content. Plus, you don't tackle how to distinguish the use of content that is fair use. Big Content (I can do that too) doesn't like fair use and you gladly label sites that have a lot of fair use as rogue sites. However, fair use is free speech.
On the post: Righthaven Loses (Big Time) In Colorado As Well
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses (Big Time) In Colorado As Well
Re:
It is almost a shame that more cases did not go to the merits so more uses could be declared fair uses (and thus not infringing). However, I can understand why the defendants would not want to spend the time or the money to prove their point.
On the post: UK Guy Trademarks Famous Gov't Slogan, Goes After Others For Using It
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, you could make it a little less obvious that you wanted to come here and bash "freetards" no matter what the actual story was. You, sir, fail.
On the post: Microsoft Convinces Yet Another Company to Cough Up 'Protection' Money
Re:
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do get your chilling effects argument, and I don't think the irony should be lost on anyone. I would like to think that that it is Google's way of making a point.
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
Re: Re: Re: Judges are pretty bright on the whole
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
Re: Judges are pretty bright on the whole
On the post: Canadian Pharmacies React To US Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google Over Their Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm
Re: Re: Re:
If the US does not have jurisdiction of the Spanish site, then the US could not have seized the website in the first place.
On the post: Canadian Pharmacies React To US Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google Over Their Ads
Re: Re:
On the post: Surprise: Justice Department Says AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Would Be Anticompetitive
Re: Re:
On the post: Does The Punishment Fit The Crime? Is Manslaughter An Equivalent Crime To Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
On the post: Newspaper Claims Satirical Blogger Mentioning Its Name Is Trademark Infringement
Re: who is the moron here
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Who???
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,
And to preempt your illicit content argument, YouTube bends over backwards, within the realm of technical feasibility, to help content owners police their content.
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Wow!
On the post: Let's Up The Ante: We'll Pay John Sununu & Harold Ford Jr. $1,000 To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill
Re:
Next >>