Says the one who has explicitly stated that Google should be held responsible for infringing content that even Viacom can't tell whether it's from themselves, tried to justify making it possible to force sites to not link to TPB, and railed against Spain on the basis that it doesn't have US style copyright laws.
You give no reason why this will be bad for the web. You simply state it's going to happen, even as you admit apps don't provide the same or better experience than the web. It'll just magically be so, because content owners will be able to monetize it better, even as no one wants it and they have no customers due to apps being worse, which you admitted.
Reining in the free internet by conforming too and even pushing modern web standards and making regular use of free, open source components in its OS. That's really fighting the idea of open...
They've done this before. When trying to claim that the loss of market share in netbooks compared to more typical desktops and laptops to Linux wasn't really a loss but a win, they only counted sales of netbooks, even excluding sales from online stores (even then the figure was around 70% if I recall for Windows).
Of course, some of the bigger sellers of Linux on netbooks would be online stores, including Dell.
By restricting further what people can legally do, creating a further mess of laws that have to be navigated to produce anything in a variety of industries.
1) No basis for this. Everything ACTA does has so far been to reduce the threshold down to level of accusations and baseless reasoning.
2) Assuming the law is just and makes sense of course, which there is no evidence of in the case of ACTA.
3) I would think merchandise is their primary form of merchandise, not IP. Several industries thrive without copyright and patents, like fashion, and make more money than film, TV and music.
Re: OK, modplan, here is a link to more detailed analysis
The merits of not discussing the details of the case and ignoring what the law actually states seems to only be of merit to people for whom the facts don't support.
Re: Mike thinks this decision is as brilliant as the district-court decision in Grokster....
That link contained no analysis. Something about how the DMCA safe harbor laws let companies use people as human shields - shielding from what, the persons own actions, whom under any court of law should be held responsible for those actions directly?
What point was there to concede? That privacy is dealt with in other laws beyond wiretapping act?
I don't even understand your original point in stating that in the first place. You didn't rebute anything, you just stated a fact (I assume referring to 4th amendment?).
Which does nothing to rebute claims of its legality. All of you've done is restate your opinion on a ruling that hasn't happened. That's not a fact that desputes anything.
Once again it shows how much this is based on personal agenda, not on fact.
The only evidence you have of Google doing anything illegal is based on misreadings of the law about having to do purely with intent to record data and relying on the claim that they intended to use publicly accessible data, which no one denies.
Intentionally is a clarification to differentiate between unintentional (someone who doesn't know and/or realise what they're doing or that they've done so), not that intent in itself is illegal, especially when you actually take into account the various exemptions to wiretapping not being illegal (or not even being considered wiretapping by popular use of the term), which includes when information is broadcast over publicly accessible communications like unecrypted wi-fi, and assuming you haven't used the information for nefarious purposes, which there is no evidence of.
You're welcome to blindly parrot conspiracy theories that Google is genuinely wiretapping to use data for nefarious, illegal purposes based on misreadings of the law and misunderstandings and misuse of technology and technological terms.
The data was being broadcast over unencrypted Wi-Fi. I read your whole post, but nothing addressed this. Unecnrypted Wi-Fi services are very clearly " configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;".
Intentionally intercepting unecrypted, open data is not illegal unless you use personal information for illegal purposes.
(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
On the post: USTR Statement On ACTA Makes No Mention Of Releasing Latest Draft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TV Show Released On BitTorrent Raises $20,000 Pretty Damn Fast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another Journalist Seduced By App Madness Predicts The End Of The Web
Re: and another thing.... ;)
On the post: Another Journalist Seduced By App Madness Predicts The End Of The Web
Re: Re: Re: hmmm
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Re:
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Re: You need to have a "market" before you can have a market share
You don't use something that fundamentally powers your business like Google, Facebook or Twitter does purely because it's free.
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Same old same old...
Of course, some of the bigger sellers of Linux on netbooks would be online stores, including Dell.
On the post: EU Pushing For Criminalizing Non-Commercial Infringement In ACTA
Re: Re: One potential answer
On the post: EU Pushing For Criminalizing Non-Commercial Infringement In ACTA
Re: Is there an option?
2) Assuming the law is just and makes sense of course, which there is no evidence of in the case of ACTA.
3) I would think merchandise is their primary form of merchandise, not IP. Several industries thrive without copyright and patents, like fashion, and make more money than film, TV and music.
Yet another baseless post from Sam I Am.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re:
Fantastic argument you have there.
On the post: Kickstarter Conundrum: Money Changes Everything... But What If It Doesn't Let You Change Enough?
From the horses mouth
http://twitter.com/j oindiaspora
On the post: Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom
Re: OK, modplan, here is a link to more detailed analysis
On the post: Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom
Re: Mike thinks this decision is as brilliant as the district-court decision in Grokster....
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Still an accident - or gross incompetence by a leader in the field of data.
Mapping public Wi-Fi spots is not illegal. Darryl storming in again with another misinformed, overly long, badly formatted post.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent of what exactly?
I don't even understand your original point in stating that in the first place. You didn't rebute anything, you just stated a fact (I assume referring to 4th amendment?).
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent of what exactly?
Once again it shows how much this is based on personal agenda, not on fact.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Intentionally is a clarification to differentiate between unintentional (someone who doesn't know and/or realise what they're doing or that they've done so), not that intent in itself is illegal, especially when you actually take into account the various exemptions to wiretapping not being illegal (or not even being considered wiretapping by popular use of the term), which includes when information is broadcast over publicly accessible communications like unecrypted wi-fi, and assuming you haven't used the information for nefarious purposes, which there is no evidence of.
You're welcome to blindly parrot conspiracy theories that Google is genuinely wiretapping to use data for nefarious, illegal purposes based on misreadings of the law and misunderstandings and misuse of technology and technological terms.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent of what exactly?
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent of what exactly?
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Intent of what exactly?
Note you misleading statement of the law.
Next >>