I think he was implying that there is a cost to the risk that the publisher will sue you for copyright infringement or you could get arrested for theft. Doesn't matter if the charges are legit or bogus; there's still a cost to defend yourself against them. If the charges stick, the cost is increased even further, so you have to consider the probability of that too. See: Vimeo, Jammie Thomas, Joel Tennebaum.
Assault and battery with a deadly weapon? I was always told that battery means physical contact happened, assault merely means that you threatened the person. IANAL, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
The deadly weapon part is shakier, but any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make a case that a taser can be used to kill people, even if only by misusing it.
I was afraid that might be an issue for me, but I was able to transfer six domains (granted, not a lot) pretty easily in less than two hours, end to end.
That's a good point. In addition to that, I'd wonder how many of those new registrations will still be registered after the five-day grace period to void a registration. I'd also like to see how this tracks with GoDaddy's previous history (for the two weeks before the boycott day). If there's an unreasonable spike on Dec. 29 for new domains or ones transferred in, that means someone is playing with the numbers.
Meanwhile, over at NameCheap, they've gotten over 30K domains transferred in to them from GoDaddy, resulting in a contribution of over $60k ($2 per domain) to the EFF.
There were about 10K domains transferred before yesterday, which means about 20K were transferred on the day of the boycott itself. Since NameCheap can't be the only registrar people were transferring their domains to, I have to assume that more went elsewhere. That doesn't jive with GoDaddy's figures of 15K transferred out. Someone is fudging somewhere.
2:30pm EST and it's over $12,000, of which six are mine. =) (Yes, I shifted my six domains over from GoDaddy.)
My guess is it will spike even further towards the evening as those chained to their offices go home and start moving their personal domains.
For what it's worth, the actual process of moving the domains was surprisingly painless. I'd read some horror stories, and I feared I might run into roadblocks or (as a few people suggested) get actively blocked by GoDaddy, but none of that was the case for me. Less than two hours end to end.
So, here's a fun thought. My understanding is that, like most of these copyright cases, Righthaven has settled with an unknown number of defendants for an unknown sum of money. This implies that they had some revenue. However, now they're claiming they can't afford their bills. So would it make sense for one of the lawyers demanding payment of their legal bills to file a motion with the court demanding that Righthaven account for every single penny of revenue they've received in order to "prove" that they can't afford to pay? I think it would be very illuminating to see how much they've earned for undisclosed settlements, and where that money has actually gone now.
"gee, I can't trust this email stuff to communicate with my friends; now I'm going to start sending real letters through the USPS!"
I think you missed the point a bit. These ads aren't aimed at Joe Blow sending a love note to his girlfriend, or at a girl writing her Aunt in Nowhere, Nebraska. They're aimed at middle managers at firms, both big and small, who don't understand email and technology. They're designed to remind them that paper mail is traditional, and therefore better (yeah, right), while at the same time sowing some FUD about email. One person sending an email versus a paper letter to a friend or family member won't make or break the Post Office. One company switching all its billing to email instead of paper mail will make a measurable dent in their revenue, though.
Any of our visiting lawyerly folks care to comment on the possibility of the court ruling that the actions of Righthaven's management are so egregious that it's grounds for breaching the corporate liability shield and going after Righthaven's owners personally (or, for that matter, after Stephens Media itself)?
(And yes, that was an insanely-bad run-on sentence-question hybrid-monstrosity. Yes, I just wrote another abomination. Yes, I need more (or less?) caffeine.)
The assumption in your statement is that voting for someone else will somehow change things, which in turn implies that other politicians would be different. I've yet to be convinced that's a real possibility. More to the point, changing the mind of one elected official is irrelevant. You have to change the mind of the majority of them, AND convince them they won't lose the next election if they endorse your stance.
The nature of the modern "democratic" political system is that he who has the most money (to campaign) has a huge boost over he who doesn't. In turn, corporations can raise and spend way more money in one election cycle than an average person earns in a lifetime.
Politicians who get elected either have to have that money, or they have to have some edge over their opponents to draws votes -- and unless that edge is a national issue that affects pretty much everyone in a public and emotional manner (e.g., wars, pension payments), it also won't affect the outcome.
Copyright is not a sexy or emotional topic. No one gets out of bed thinking, "We have to change copyright!" People DO get out of bed thinking "We have to end this war!" or "We have to make sure my grandmother gets her government pension/social security check/welfare payment/other handout!"
Find a way to show that copyright will cause or extend a war, or will cause checks to your grandmother to be cut off, and you'll see copyright changes that benefit the public. Otherwise, you have to be able to outspend the copyright industry on lobbying to have a real shot.
Is it just me, or does the "new" image look a lot like a screenshot from the game Everquest, with a gnome dancing on a rock? It's hard to tell from the very small image here, but it really does look like the gnome has the angular lines of the game's (very old) graphical style.
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re:
On the post: Park Ranger Tases Guy Walking Dogs Without A Leash
Re: Re: no excuse
The deadly weapon part is shakier, but any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make a case that a taser can be used to kill people, even if only by misusing it.
On the post: GoDaddy Boycott Fizzles; Twice As Many Domains Transfer In As Out
Re: Registrar transfers are not instantaneous
On the post: GoDaddy Boycott Fizzles; Twice As Many Domains Transfer In As Out
Re: Marketing or deep discounts??
On the post: GoDaddy Boycott Fizzles; Twice As Many Domains Transfer In As Out
https://www.namecheap.com/moveyourdomainday.aspx
There were about 10K domains transferred before yesterday, which means about 20K were transferred on the day of the boycott itself. Since NameCheap can't be the only registrar people were transferring their domains to, I have to assume that more went elsewhere. That doesn't jive with GoDaddy's figures of 15K transferred out. Someone is fudging somewhere.
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: Re: NameCheap transfer counter
My guess is it will spike even further towards the evening as those chained to their offices go home and start moving their personal domains.
For what it's worth, the actual process of moving the domains was surprisingly painless. I'd read some horror stories, and I feared I might run into roadblocks or (as a few people suggested) get actively blocked by GoDaddy, but none of that was the case for me. Less than two hours end to end.
On the post: First Grader Investigated For Sexual Harassment For Kicking A Bully In His Private Parts
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: For VPN Provider HideMyNet DMCA's ABC's Not As Easy As 123
End result?
On the post: Righthaven Asks Court To Speed Up Ruling Against It So It Doesn't Have To Pay For A Trial
Money gone where?
On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead
Individuals versus companies
I think you missed the point a bit. These ads aren't aimed at Joe Blow sending a love note to his girlfriend, or at a girl writing her Aunt in Nowhere, Nebraska. They're aimed at middle managers at firms, both big and small, who don't understand email and technology. They're designed to remind them that paper mail is traditional, and therefore better (yeah, right), while at the same time sowing some FUD about email. One person sending an email versus a paper letter to a friend or family member won't make or break the Post Office. One company switching all its billing to email instead of paper mail will make a measurable dent in their revenue, though.
On the post: House Version Of PROTECT IP To Cover Cyberlockers Too
Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
On the post: If Righthaven Declares Bankruptcy, Expect Lawyers To Go After Stephens Media, Media News, And Righthaven Principals
On the post: Righthaven Fails To Pay Attorneys Fees Ordered By The Court, Court Asked To Declare Righthaven In Contempt
Pierce the corporate shield
(And yes, that was an insanely-bad run-on sentence-question hybrid-monstrosity. Yes, I just wrote another abomination. Yes, I need more (or less?) caffeine.)
On the post: Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension
Re:
The nature of the modern "democratic" political system is that he who has the most money (to campaign) has a huge boost over he who doesn't. In turn, corporations can raise and spend way more money in one election cycle than an average person earns in a lifetime.
Politicians who get elected either have to have that money, or they have to have some edge over their opponents to draws votes -- and unless that edge is a national issue that affects pretty much everyone in a public and emotional manner (e.g., wars, pension payments), it also won't affect the outcome.
Copyright is not a sexy or emotional topic. No one gets out of bed thinking, "We have to change copyright!" People DO get out of bed thinking "We have to end this war!" or "We have to make sure my grandmother gets her government pension/social security check/welfare payment/other handout!"
Find a way to show that copyright will cause or extend a war, or will cause checks to your grandmother to be cut off, and you'll see copyright changes that benefit the public. Otherwise, you have to be able to outspend the copyright industry on lobbying to have a real shot.
On the post: How Much Does A Band Make From Various Music Platforms?
Good music!
On the post: Benchslapped: Judge Invites Lawyers To 'Kindergarten Party' To Learn How To Be A Lawyer
Invitation with teeth...
"The United States Marshals have beds available if necessary, so you may wish to bring a toothbrush in case the party runs late."
I'd read that as "show up and play nice for the rest of this trial, or I'm holding you in contempt and tossing you in jail."
I like this judge. =)
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Everquest?
Next >>