No. People who drive as if thier destination and thier time is infinitely more important than anyone else on the road with them is a pet peeve of mine. Using your turn signal as if it's a command signal that others should defer to, instead of a signal of your intentions is indictative of that sort of driver to me. Those are the idiots I was referring to.
I see it the other way. The person changing lanes, expecting other drivers to "defer" to their turn signal is the one being discourteous. Why should I have to accommodate some idiot who doesn't know which lane they should be in?
...and then pull in behind them and honk at them for being a jerk who doesn't know to defer to someone with a turn signal on.
Defer? In my state it is the person who is changing lanes responsibility to make sure the lane is clear. There is nothing in our laws that says other motorists have to "defer" to your turn signal, adjust their speed or even make room for you.
Where in the world are you from, where that looks like an everyday occurrence? I've lived all over the US and also outside it, and I don't believe I've ever seen sandbags in the road obstructing traffic, particularly in the middle of "a busy thoroughfare"!
I've seen sandbags in the middle of the road where I live more than once. They are used to weigh down temporary construction signs and sometimes do not get picked up with the sign.
That does not preclude or stop the legitimate needs to investigate a multiple murder to it's logical conclusion and to gain access where possible to every piece of data they can.
While this may be true, it's not a crime, in and of itself, to protect your own personal privacy, even if it makes law enforcement's job harder.
If your goal is to make law enforcement's job easier, then why aren't you advocating abolishing the US Constitution? That would make the their job a whole lot easier, wouldn't it?
I know it may hurt your one track mind, but have you considered that it discourages one type of crime but may encourage another? Crime isn't a one size fits all thing.
Ok, I get that it discourages phone theft, but what crime is being encouraged here? The "crime" of protecting your own personal privacy? The "crime" of being able to have private conversations with other people? The "crime" of not wanting to be geo-tracked wherever you go? What "crimes" are you talking about?
Why shouldn't the procedures for domain name seizure include an adversarial hearing prior seizing the domain name? A domain name cannot flee or be destroyed. The government informs the operator of the hearing and if the operator really is a bad actor, the chances of them showing up are next to nil and the domain get seized ex parte anyways.
This simple procedure change would alleviate the government from First Amendment scrutiny altogether and the results would most likely be the same, except that the truly innocent would have a chance to defend themselves.
I'll ask once again, since you didn't answer the other time I asked:
If these domain seizures can withstand the First Amendment scrutiny, as you are arguing, then why has the government dropped every single one of these cases involving copyright infringement so far and quietly return the domain names?
Also, why did ICE stop the practice of seizing domain names connected with copyright infringement, but still continued to seize domain names connected to counterfeit goods?
Also, here are some extremely convincing arguments as to why these domain seizures are illegal. Karl articulates it about a million times better that I ever could:
You seem to arguing strenuously in favor of the government's actions here, so let me ask you question:
Why do you think the government dropped all of these case if, as you claim, the domain seizures could withstand First Amendment scrutiny without any problems?
LOL! The standard was "probable cause." I know you can accept reality, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Except that Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961) says that the standard for seizing items protected by the First Amendment is higher than just "probable cause" and Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964) says that an adversarial hearing must happen prior to seizing protected speech otherwise the seizure is considered prior restraint and unconstitutional.
Cox as a retail ISP isn't a transitory digital network, that label is generally saved for IP transit companies, who are moving the data such as Level3 or others. They have no end user contact or control over and end user's connection.
This is incorrect. 17 U.S. Code § 512(a) says nothing whatsoever about having "end user contact" or any other such nonsense. It defines a transitory digital network as one where the communication is initiated by someone else, routing is automatic and the content is not modified. This includes Tier 1 companies, local internet providers and possibly operators of open WiFi spots.
Congress specifically carved out liability exceptions for transitory networks on purpose and specifically spelled out that the DMCA notification requirements for a service provider who hosts user content (17 U.S. Code § 512(c)) do not apply to transitory networks with 17 U.S. Code § 512(n) which states:
(n)Construction.— Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions for purposes of applying this section. Whether a service provider qualifies for the limitation on liability in any one of those subsections shall be based solely on the criteria in that subsection, and shall not affect a determination of whether that service provider qualifies for the limitations on liability under any other such subsection.
"“Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies"
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. The full quote is:
Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.
The court reinforced what most thought was basic common sense: that the copyright holder was better situated than the service provider to determine whether a given use was possibly infringing or not since the copyright holder would have better knowledge of who was authorized to use the work.
That ruling did not, by any means, make a DMCA notice into anything more that what it has always been: a notice that the copyright holder believes an infringement has occurred.
Interestingly, that quote was used to clarify (somewhat) what "red flag" knowledge is. The court basically said that "red flag" knowledge needed to come from the copyright holders in the form of correct DMCA notices because they are the ones with knowledge of who is authorized the use the work or not.
Is there a law that allows you to serve me with a notice of such? Represented as bonafide legal judgement? No?
As explained above, a DMCA notice is not a "bonafide legal judgement" at all.
It's simply a statement of "good faith belief" that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. An actual "legal judgment" can only come from an actual court of law.
Well, then go pound sand, pirate boy.
Instead of inane attempts to insult people, perhaps your time would be better spent on actually learning about the subject you are attempting (badly) to argue. Here is a place to start:
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. People who drive as if thier destination and thier time is infinitely more important than anyone else on the road with them is a pet peeve of mine. Using your turn signal as if it's a command signal that others should defer to, instead of a signal of your intentions is indictative of that sort of driver to me. Those are the idiots I was referring to.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re:
I see it the other way. The person changing lanes, expecting other drivers to "defer" to their turn signal is the one being discourteous. Why should I have to accommodate some idiot who doesn't know which lane they should be in?
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re:
Defer? In my state it is the person who is changing lanes responsibility to make sure the lane is clear. There is nothing in our laws that says other motorists have to "defer" to your turn signal, adjust their speed or even make room for you.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re:
I've seen sandbags in the middle of the road where I live more than once. They are used to weigh down temporary construction signs and sometimes do not get picked up with the sign.
On the post: Penis Pump Company Threatens To Report Techdirt To Interpol Because We Wrote About Its Bogus DMCA Demands
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
Re: Re: Re:
While this may be true, it's not a crime, in and of itself, to protect your own personal privacy, even if it makes law enforcement's job harder.
If your goal is to make law enforcement's job easier, then why aren't you advocating abolishing the US Constitution? That would make the their job a whole lot easier, wouldn't it?
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
Re:
Ok, I get that it discourages phone theft, but what crime is being encouraged here? The "crime" of protecting your own personal privacy? The "crime" of being able to have private conversations with other people? The "crime" of not wanting to be geo-tracked wherever you go? What "crimes" are you talking about?
On the post: God v. Copyright: Mike Huckabee Invokes Religion In Copyright Suit
Re: Church of the BitTorrent
Missionary Church of Kopimism
On the post: New Year's Message: Keep Moving Forward
I'm looking forward to another year of stimulating discussions on intreasting topics and I am wishing everyone a safe and prosperous 2016.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption... But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.
Not sure what demographic you are referring to, but, it surely isn't the audence here at Techdirt:
49% over the age of 35 (74% over age 25)
61% earn over 50k/year
72% college educated
Source: https://www.quantcast.com/techdirt.com
On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why shouldn't the procedures for domain name seizure include an adversarial hearing prior seizing the domain name? A domain name cannot flee or be destroyed. The government informs the operator of the hearing and if the operator really is a bad actor, the chances of them showing up are next to nil and the domain get seized ex parte anyways.
This simple procedure change would alleviate the government from First Amendment scrutiny altogether and the results would most likely be the same, except that the truly innocent would have a chance to defend themselves.
On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If these domain seizures can withstand the First Amendment scrutiny, as you are arguing, then why has the government dropped every single one of these cases involving copyright infringement so far and quietly return the domain names?
Also, why did ICE stop the practice of seizing domain names connected with copyright infringement, but still continued to seize domain names connected to counterfeit goods?
On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/22214113120/once-again-why-homeland-securitys-domai n-name-seizures-are-almost-certainly-not-legal.shtml
On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think the government dropped all of these case if, as you claim, the domain seizures could withstand First Amendment scrutiny without any problems?
On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
It's my understanding that it's a standard for any case involving protected speech, not just obscenity cases.
On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains
Re:
Except that Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961) says that the standard for seizing items protected by the First Amendment is higher than just "probable cause" and Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964) says that an adversarial hearing must happen prior to seizing protected speech otherwise the seizure is considered prior restraint and unconstitutional.
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re:
This is incorrect. 17 U.S. Code § 512(a) says nothing whatsoever about having "end user contact" or any other such nonsense. It defines a transitory digital network as one where the communication is initiated by someone else, routing is automatic and the content is not modified. This includes Tier 1 companies, local internet providers and possibly operators of open WiFi spots.
Congress specifically carved out liability exceptions for transitory networks on purpose and specifically spelled out that the DMCA notification requirements for a service provider who hosts user content (17 U.S. Code § 512(c)) do not apply to transitory networks with 17 U.S. Code § 512(n) which states:
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"“Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies"
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. The full quote is:The court reinforced what most thought was basic common sense: that the copyright holder was better situated than the service provider to determine whether a given use was possibly infringing or not since the copyright holder would have better knowledge of who was authorized to use the work.
That ruling did not, by any means, make a DMCA notice into anything more that what it has always been: a notice that the copyright holder believes an infringement has occurred.
Interestingly, that quote was used to clarify (somewhat) what "red flag" knowledge is. The court basically said that "red flag" knowledge needed to come from the copyright holders in the form of correct DMCA notices because they are the ones with knowledge of who is authorized the use the work or not.
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re:
As explained above, a DMCA notice is not a "bonafide legal judgement" at all.
It's simply a statement of "good faith belief" that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. An actual "legal judgment" can only come from an actual court of law.
Well, then go pound sand, pirate boy.
Instead of inane attempts to insult people, perhaps your time would be better spent on actually learning about the subject you are attempting (badly) to argue. Here is a place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says Tech May Advance, But It Will Never Outrun Collection Societies
Re:
Not forever, just until the Great Work of the One Bit is done.
Next >>