The Twitter deal still seems really thin to me. I'm not sure how a juror posting vague, poetry-like expressions about the seriousness of their duties or opinions about the court's coffee translates into the denial of a fair trial to the victim. They don't even attempt to show any prejudicial content in the messages.
That said, the juror sleeping seems like the bigger deal of the two.
Your answer to the slippery, indefinite nature of "dedicated to" is to respond with the similarly slippery, indefinite "primarily designed for".
As for taking deliberate actions to avoid acting, you and I both know that's impossible to prove or disprove. YouTube takes down content when notified, but under SOPA their lack of preventative measures may or may not trigger that clause. For you to claim otherwise when Viacom is practically salivating over the possibility is disingenuous.
So after all those arguments about how core the violation must be, do you agree that the seizure of Dajaz was wrong? I notice you didn't include a %. Why not? It must be easy, right?
That's a very slippery and undefined term, and Wikipedia is a big place. We already hear from the trolls here that a music blog who might have posted a copyrighted video amongst all the legit ones deserves no protection, but when people reasonably point out that Wikipedia could fall into the same boat, the same trolls turn around and claim that such a violation wouldn't be enough to take it down.
So here's the challenge: What % of content in violation makes a site "dedicated" to infringement?
As Volokh points out, the latest clueless amendment to the constitution proposed by people hostile to the Citizens United ruling would give the government grounds to ban speech from any corporation, including those in the TV and newspaper industry.
So if corporations aren't the press, and individuals aren't the press, who is?
Indeed. I wish Glen had made the exact same point by writing something like "What counts is whether the distribution is authorized" as the very next sentence.
Re: Re: "designed to encourage participation and feedback"
No, it's definitely OOTB. Just one more example for his "the country is progressing into a fascist police state, but I support their efforts to make the spreading of ideas illegal" list of hypocritical positions.
Re: Re: Re: You haven't explained what could replace copyright.
1. I have to right to any action that does not involve violence or the threat of violence against another person or his property.
2. Content is not property.
3. Distribution of non-property is not violence.
Ergo, I have the right to distribute content as I see fit.
You avoided the comparison because you know the number of musicians who got rich without record companies can be counted on your fingers.
No, I avoid the comparison because it's meaningless. When the automobile was first developed, you would have been there going "This will never work! Compare the number of people employed in making horde-drawn carriages to the number of people making cars and . . ."
By "gatekeeper" do you mean rights holder?
No, I mean gatekeeper. In the past, the kind of capital required to produce and edit quality recordings and distribute them across the globe was way, WAY out of the league of your average musician, and hence they had to go through gatekeepers to get exposure.
How much does it cost today to edit music on your home computer and upload it to the internet? Yeah.
Your argument is from 50 years ago. It's time to catch up.
On the post: Tweeting Juror Leads To Retrial For Guy Convicted Of Murder
Re:
The Twitter deal still seems really thin to me. I'm not sure how a juror posting vague, poetry-like expressions about the seriousness of their duties or opinions about the court's coffee translates into the denial of a fair trial to the victim. They don't even attempt to show any prejudicial content in the messages.
That said, the juror sleeping seems like the bigger deal of the two.
On the post: Senator Briefly Brings Fake Driver's License App To The Public Eye Before Having It 'Taken 'Round Back And Shot'
Obvious Next Step
Problem solved.
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for taking deliberate actions to avoid acting, you and I both know that's impossible to prove or disprove. YouTube takes down content when notified, but under SOPA their lack of preventative measures may or may not trigger that clause. For you to claim otherwise when Viacom is practically salivating over the possibility is disingenuous.
So after all those arguments about how core the violation must be, do you agree that the seizure of Dajaz was wrong? I notice you didn't include a %. Why not? It must be easy, right?
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
That's a very slippery and undefined term, and Wikipedia is a big place. We already hear from the trolls here that a music blog who might have posted a copyrighted video amongst all the legit ones deserves no protection, but when people reasonably point out that Wikipedia could fall into the same boat, the same trolls turn around and claim that such a violation wouldn't be enough to take it down.
So here's the challenge: What % of content in violation makes a site "dedicated" to infringement?
On the post: Should Shield Laws Protect Journalists? Or Journalism?
The Press Is No One
So if corporations aren't the press, and individuals aren't the press, who is?
On the post: Spotting Counterfeit Chips Is Hard; Spotting Digital Piracy Is Even Harder
Re:
On the post: Details On SOPA/PIPA Alternative Released... With Open Requests For Feedback
Re: Re: "designed to encourage participation and feedback"
On the post: Court Dismisses Puerto 80 Rojadirecta Case (For Now)... But Doesn't Give Back The Domain
Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
"Uploading Youtubez: The smoking gun of piracy."
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
"I PLEEEEAD, THE FIF!"
On the post: MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: You haven't explained what could replace copyright.
2. Content is not property.
3. Distribution of non-property is not violence.
Ergo, I have the right to distribute content as I see fit.
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Can't Wait for the Trolls
On the post: MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet
Re: You haven't explained what could replace copyright.
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's not like Switzerland is alone here . . .
On the post: Porn Giant Vivid to Take Legal Action Over HTC Vivid Name
Re: Re: You bastard!
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
Wrong
My position is that you're a lying, hypocritical, brainless twit.
On the post: As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
Re:
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I mean gatekeeper. In the past, the kind of capital required to produce and edit quality recordings and distribute them across the globe was way, WAY out of the league of your average musician, and hence they had to go through gatekeepers to get exposure.
How much does it cost today to edit music on your home computer and upload it to the internet? Yeah.
Your argument is from 50 years ago. It's time to catch up.
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Technical question
Next >>