She isn't even being charged with copyright infringement because there was no copyright infringement. She was charged with a bogus law that shouldn't even exist "criminal use of a motion picture exhibition".
She would have to violate one of the grants of copyright (such as distribution) to have committed copyright infringement. She has done nothing that should be against the law even in the land of overbearing copyright.
I actually don't understand the big deal over Redbox pricing. Redbox offers DVD's for $1 a day. Blockbuster offers DVD's for $5 for 5 days (at least last time I was there, it's been awhile).
Seems to me it's the same price, just with more flexible terms.
I must say I really couldn't care less if my country had 'prominence'. All I care about is reasonable security (not the current security theater), freedom, and basic services. From there prosperity will come.
The idea of becoming isolationist on the government level today is actually quite interesting as we are easily global on a personal level, and an isolationist government shouldn't effect that one bit.
I think you read that wrong. The presumption is that the creator of the work owns the copyright unless otherwise proven. Meaning that if Metallica takes me to court for distributing their black album the presumption is that they own the copyright, but if Warner Music sues me they have to provide proof that they own the copyright.
It almost sounds like the judge is saying that MCS doesn't own the copyright, because it's the individuals that own their rights. So MCS can't sue, but the individuals could?
I suspect this is about right. If Pfizer (for example) was trying to 'pay for delay' filing a suit puts them in a much better bargaining position.
If they just walked up to a generic company and wanted to buy them off, lets say it would cost $10 million.
Now if they sue first they can say 'it will cost you $2 million to defend in court, plus delay the product for six months anyway ($5 million worth), or we can just pay you $3 million to sit around for a year'.
Of course all fictional numbers, but you get the idea.
What I don't understand is why some other generic company wouldn't just pick up the slack.
Just how do you expect people to run successful business without a well tested, detailed, step by step plan? It's almost as if you think entrepreneurs should take risks, work hard, and find ways to differentiate themselves from their competition. That just isn't the way things are done. We must ensure that the time tested business plans of our corporate overlords are not threatened.
I swear the next thing you'll start saying is that individuals can have innovative ideas, or that small timers can disrupt the big boys. It's just crazy.
I know of a couple people who now pay a small fee for high speed bandwidth and a decent amount of storage specifically for an off shore bittorrent server. There are several of these service providers, but I can't remember the name of any off the top of my head (maybe somebody can point a couple out).
The bittorrent traffic is all on their server, and the user has file access to their account.
I don't think it was the car or the islands. I would assume that this specific version of 'Crocs' was named after a specific type of cold-blooded, leathery creature with a large mouth full of teeth.
Looks like I was a bit off, but here is what they posted:
Nothing is impossible. Nothing is out of reach. That's the lesson we take away from today, boys and girls (and men and women). Not long after we switched to Gazelle, and instituted the request bounty system, a request popped up for Microsoft COFEE - a forensic tool supplied by Microsoft to law enforcement offices around the world. You can Google it for more details, but the gist is that the tool was developed and distributed solely to law enforcement agencies. Sounds tempting, right?
And it was. So much so that user after user voted for the request, adding to the ever-increasing bounty. Everyone seemed to have a good laugh with it, figuring that no one would ever get their hands on it and actually upload it. That was the staff consensus, at least. Several imitators were uploaded and removed, users were warned, and the bounty remained.
Then, today, a user actually did it. They got a copy of COFEE and uploaded it here. The resourcefulness of our users never ceases to amaze us. Suddenly, we were forced to take a real look at the program, its source, and the potential impact on the site and security of our users and staff. And when we did, we didn't like what came of it. So, a decision was made. The torrent was removed (and it is not to be uploaded here again.)
Just to be clear: we were not threatened by Microsoft or any law enforcement agency. We haven't been contacted, nor has our host. This was a decision made by the staff based on our own conversations and feelings about the security impact of having the software here. We know some of you, perhaps the majority of you, won't agree with it. To those that feel that way, we can only offer an apology and the explanation that we removed it for your security, and ours.
This is not an indication of any policy or rule changes going forward. This is a one-time decision, for a unique situation. This is not something we will do with other torrents or requests. At this point, the software can probably be found elsewhere, for anyone who wants it. We hope you all understand, and will continue searching out those rare items which attract huge request bounties. Feel free to discuss this here, but this decision is final. Thank you, all.
I'm not all that surprised what.cd pulled it and I doubt it has anything to do with pressure from any outside organization. what.cd is basically an invite only music specific torrent site. They have very strict rules on uploading, sharing ratio, file naming, the works.
Or how about we let economics and the free market work. The price of digital goods falls to $0. The files are in unencumbered standard formats that I can easily transfer to any device I want REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURE!
Now, here's the key... because I have complete control over my files, and manufactures aren't forced to incur the costs of implementing a content control scheme, and there is no need to connect to a central key system, and no extra fees to pay for the "privilege" of being in such a system. It actually works all the time.
I could see a complaint if '3G' was in small print at the bottom with a little '*', but I count '3G' prominently showing up in text and speech nine times. Verizon is being completely above board here (well, at least in this commercial).
Just because competing in business is hard, and our products have a marginal cost of $0, doesn't mean we should get a governmental exception from the free market. There are just as many working business models for software development that don't rely on selling non-rivilrous goods as there are for music, and I'd bet the same applies for books and any other product you can imagine.
Software will be free, just like music will be free (free as in cost that is). It will expand to all things with no marginal cost. It will happen. Much is already free. The only variables are how long it will take, and how much it will be fought against.
I've been meaning to get an arduino board. Start up a new hobby. Now I know where I'll be buying all my parts. Straight from SPARC... oh wait, I mean SparkFun... I think... damn, now I'm so confused.
This is actually much worse. You never have the content so there is no hope of recovering the video. At least with other failed services there was the possibility to crack the DRM and recover your purchased media.
Not only that, but you would have to have a consistent high speed connection in order to use your video. So much for watching on the train, or letting the kids watch that movie in the Van on the way to grandma's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC (please use the subject line, huh?)
The problem is you seem to think that the piece of art is somehow 'owned' by the artists/rights holder. I'm sorry, but that 'ownership' is nothing more than a historical legal arrangement between society and artists (one that has been altered after the fact on several occasions to the detriment of society). It is not possible to actually own a song, or and idea, or a poem...
We as a society were concerned that if we did not provide an incentive (in the form of protected rights, which do not mean ownership) to creators that society would hindered by not having new created works. The purpose of these laws are to benefit society. However recent studies bring in the question any benefit of these protections (and fly in the face of the ridiculous scope of the current protections), especially given the massively lower barrier to entrance from modern technology.
On the post: Director Of New Moon Says Jailing Of Girl For Snippets Of Video Of His Movie Is 'Terribly Unfair'
It's not even copyright infringement!
She would have to violate one of the grants of copyright (such as distribution) to have committed copyright infringement. She has done nothing that should be against the law even in the land of overbearing copyright.
On the post: Study Being Promoted As 'Redbox Kills Jobs' Actually Shows That Hollywood Jobs Will Grow
Re: I'm shocked and dismayed
Seems to me it's the same price, just with more flexible terms.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Making French Cultural Works More Available Takes Away French Heritage?
Re: Re: You know...
The idea of becoming isolationist on the government level today is actually quite interesting as we are easily global on a personal level, and an isolationist government shouldn't effect that one bit.
On the post: SOCAN Tries To Keep Its Copyright Consultation Submission Offline And Secret, But Fails
Re:
Sorry, I'm just too busy laughing to think clearly now.
You tell 'em. Those damn commies not supporting an infinite, perpetual, and all encompassing government granted monopoly. How dare they.
On the post: Music Publishers Lawsuit Against Yahoo, Microsoft, Real Tossed For Failing To Prove They Hold Copyrights
Re: Re: Re: Re: presumption of valid claims
"person whose name is indicated... in the usual manner"
I'm not sure how that is determined.
On the post: Music Publishers Lawsuit Against Yahoo, Microsoft, Real Tossed For Failing To Prove They Hold Copyrights
Re: Re: presumption of valid claims
On the post: Music Publishers Lawsuit Against Yahoo, Microsoft, Real Tossed For Failing To Prove They Hold Copyrights
Owner needs to sue?
Just a guess with the info we have.
On the post: Pay-For-Delay Agreements Again Show How Pharma Abuses Patent Law To Harm Us All
Re: Re:
If they just walked up to a generic company and wanted to buy them off, lets say it would cost $10 million.
Now if they sue first they can say 'it will cost you $2 million to defend in court, plus delay the product for six months anyway ($5 million worth), or we can just pay you $3 million to sit around for a year'.
Of course all fictional numbers, but you get the idea.
What I don't understand is why some other generic company wouldn't just pick up the slack.
On the post: How Georgia Wonder Turned Lack Of Cash To Record Into An Opportunity
You just don't get it.
I swear the next thing you'll start saying is that individuals can have innovative ideas, or that small timers can disrupt the big boys. It's just crazy.
On the post: Calling For An Independent Invention Defense In Patents
Re: Re: Just how could you prove it was done independently?
The legal issue isn't to prove a lack of copying (not possible), it's to prove copying (you know that whole innocent until proven guilty thing).
And yes, at least here in the US, the standard for a civil suit is preponderance of the evidence.
On the post: Verizon Starts Passing On RIAA Infringement Letters To Users
More than encryption
The bittorrent traffic is all on their server, and the user has file access to their account.
On the post: Can A Moron Driving A Porsche Recognize The Difference Between The Car And A Pair Of Crocs?
Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft's COFEE Computer Forensic Tools Leaked
Re: What.cd
Nothing is impossible. Nothing is out of reach. That's the lesson we take away from today, boys and girls (and men and women). Not long after we switched to Gazelle, and instituted the request bounty system, a request popped up for Microsoft COFEE - a forensic tool supplied by Microsoft to law enforcement offices around the world. You can Google it for more details, but the gist is that the tool was developed and distributed solely to law enforcement agencies. Sounds tempting, right?
And it was. So much so that user after user voted for the request, adding to the ever-increasing bounty. Everyone seemed to have a good laugh with it, figuring that no one would ever get their hands on it and actually upload it. That was the staff consensus, at least. Several imitators were uploaded and removed, users were warned, and the bounty remained.
Then, today, a user actually did it. They got a copy of COFEE and uploaded it here. The resourcefulness of our users never ceases to amaze us. Suddenly, we were forced to take a real look at the program, its source, and the potential impact on the site and security of our users and staff. And when we did, we didn't like what came of it. So, a decision was made. The torrent was removed (and it is not to be uploaded here again.)
Just to be clear: we were not threatened by Microsoft or any law enforcement agency. We haven't been contacted, nor has our host. This was a decision made by the staff based on our own conversations and feelings about the security impact of having the software here. We know some of you, perhaps the majority of you, won't agree with it. To those that feel that way, we can only offer an apology and the explanation that we removed it for your security, and ours.
This is not an indication of any policy or rule changes going forward. This is a one-time decision, for a unique situation. This is not something we will do with other torrents or requests. At this point, the software can probably be found elsewhere, for anyone who wants it. We hope you all understand, and will continue searching out those rare items which attract huge request bounties. Feel free to discuss this here, but this decision is final. Thank you, all.
/The What.CD Staff
On the post: Microsoft's COFEE Computer Forensic Tools Leaked
What.cd
On the post: FCC Poised To Let Hollywood Break Your TV And DVR
Re: Re: Re:
Now, here's the key... because I have complete control over my files, and manufactures aren't forced to incur the costs of implementing a content control scheme, and there is no need to connect to a central key system, and no extra fees to pay for the "privilege" of being in such a system. It actually works all the time.
On the post: AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's A Map For That' Ad Campaign
Re: Re: People need a thicker skin...
On the post: As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet
Re: Music, music, music...
Just because competing in business is hard, and our products have a marginal cost of $0, doesn't mean we should get a governmental exception from the free market. There are just as many working business models for software development that don't rely on selling non-rivilrous goods as there are for music, and I'd bet the same applies for books and any other product you can imagine.
Software will be free, just like music will be free (free as in cost that is). It will expand to all things with no marginal cost. It will happen. Much is already free. The only variables are how long it will take, and how much it will be fought against.
On the post: SPARC No Fun At All; Threatens SparkFun
New customer
On the post: Disney's Keychest: Is Giving Back Your Fair Use Rights With More DRM Really A Step Forward?
Re: Re: I'm surprised...
Not only that, but you would have to have a consistent high speed connection in order to use your video. So much for watching on the train, or letting the kids watch that movie in the Van on the way to grandma's.
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC (please use the subject line, huh?)
We as a society were concerned that if we did not provide an incentive (in the form of protected rights, which do not mean ownership) to creators that society would hindered by not having new created works. The purpose of these laws are to benefit society. However recent studies bring in the question any benefit of these protections (and fly in the face of the ridiculous scope of the current protections), especially given the massively lower barrier to entrance from modern technology.
Next >>