The problem here is that Oracle is claiming that the functionality of their API is copyrighted and that Google infringed by writing their own independent implementation (expression) of that functionality. By your own argument Oracle should fail here, but the CAFC patent court (and why is a patent court hearing a copyright case again?) ruled otherwise.
From the Federal Circuit’s opinion:
It is undisputed that the Java programming language is open and free for anyone to use. Except to the limited extent noted below regarding three of the API packages, it is also undisputed that Google could have written its own API packages using the Java language. Google chose not to do that. Instead, it is undisputed that Google copied 7,000 lines of declaring code and generally replicated the overall structure, sequence, and organization of Oracle's 37 Java API packages. The central question before us is whether these elements of the Java platform are entitled to copyright protection.
How do you square your claim that it’s the functionality and not the expression that’s at issue with the Federal Circuit’s statement that it’s 7,000 lines of code (the literal elements) plus the “structure, sequence, and organization” (the nonliteral elements) that’s at issue?
Many of us clearly think that APIs fit under this as a system or method of operation. But, others disagree.
I guess count me as one who disagrees. It's not the functionality that's copyrighted, it's the expression. All computer code is functional--that's the point. But that doesn't mean it's not copyrightable. And it's not just the expression that's at issue here. It's also nonliteral elements such as the structure and sequence. Any reason you don't mention that?
First of all, they weren't random. Can't you be bothered to read the article? They were ONLY from publicly posted links.
How would they search the unsearchable private parts? That said, how does randomly searching the public parts mean that it's not random? Isn't it a random selection from the available set?
It's been debunked. Just because you can't be bothered to CLICK ON THE LINK PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLE doesn't mean that it hasn't.
Let's see actual analysis of the actual methodology.
Alrighty then:
For Mega the researchers looked at 500 files that were shared online. However, the overwhelming majority of Mega’s files, which number more than 500,000,000, are never shared in public.
Please spell it out for me: (1) What is the exact claim in the report? Are they claiming that ~80% of ALL files on Mega are infringing? Or are they only talking about the percentage of publicly-available files? (2) Whatever the beef is with the percentage of infringing files for Mega, how does that apply to the other 29 filelockers in the report? (3) What about all of the other claims in the report other than the percentage of infringing files? (4) How does disagreeing with one number (even though you haven't explained exactly what it is about this number they got wrong) mean that the ENTIRE report is "debunked"?
To be honest, all of those things you mentioned seem like automatic flags to me. An IP address that gets tons of report clicks - blacklist it. Someone keeps sending a certain keyword over and over again - blacklist that keyword. A link from a unregistered user usually always gets flagged (I know this one from personal experience).
I appreciate the comment. It wasn't a matter of a link being "reported" and the software picking up on it. It was a link being posted once, and then hours later that same link would cause a different post to go to the spam filter--with it never getting out of that limbo. This happened whether the original post with the link was hidden as "reported" or not. It was deliberate action on TD's part to prevent me from posting the links. The links were being blocked because they led to a post of mine that criticized Mike. For about two weeks, Mike et al. did everything they could to prevent me from posting on TD because I was critical of Mike. Blocking IPs, keywords, links, etc. It was an incredible display on their part.
Mike's responses to you concerning this have been open and honest. If you feel that someone's responses to you are not open and honest just because it isn't the answer you wanted, that is really your problem, not anyone else's.
I appreciate the link. Sorry to say this, but Mike is simply being less than honest about his desperate attempts to silence me last year. It's really as simple as that. Regardless, I wouldn't even be bringing this up if he'd lift the block he has on my home IP address. I know he won't admit that he did what he did. I don't care. It's the principle that he's blocking my IP address, which he could fix so easily, that bothers me. If my IP weren't blocked, I'd be happy to drop this. But it's not. And the fact that I financially support the site makes it suck all the more. Hell, I didn't even complain when I ordered goods from his online shop and he failed to send me one of the items I ordered. I'd like to think it was a mistake, but I honestly think it was probably intentional.
Surprised to see one of your comments not hidden behind the "click here" wall. Your points have merit, but will almost certainly result in a knee-jerk negative reaction by those who are disinclined to address them on their merits.
It'll be hidden before the day is through, don't worry. That said, I really am disappointed by posts like this. I know Mike can do better.
You are deliberately ignoring the point he just made. Mega divides its files into two sets:
1. public files available for download by anyone 2. private files accessible by only approved groups and the uploader.
Mikes conclusion very clearly states that taking a a sample from only the publicly available files is a bad sample set because the publicly available files account for less than the majority of all files stored on mega it is by definition not a representative sample of the data which taints all results derived by the report.
This is because it could be that publicly available files contain a statistically higher amount of infringing property, but it could also be true that none of the private files hosted by mega contain infringing material. An if that was true then the report suggests a wildly larger amount of infringement than may actually be occurring, and we will never know because the data is bogus.
That is why the report is bogus. Because it uses a non representative sample of data to draw conclusions.
Can you show me in the report where they say that they're using the numbers from the publicly-available files to make conclusions about the non-publicly-available files? I'm not saying that's not true. I just don't remember seeing that. What page is that on? Or did they only limit their percentage to the publicly-available files? I'm not sure I understand exactly what this criticism is.
Regardless, even if that's true for Mega, what does that have to do with the other 29 filelockers? It makes no sense to decide that the entire report, which makes many claims, is "bogus" because you disagree with one particular part of it.
That's a pretty big problem with their "study" and calls into question their results.
You haven't shown us anything. They collected a random sample of 500 files for each site. Unless you can tell me how their methodology in collecting those 500 samples is wrong, or even what the margin of error is, I don't see how you've demonstrated that it "calls into question their results." Can you be more specific? As far as a court being needed to determine if they're infringing, I think that's bullshit. Also, these were publicly available files, not private backups.
If one assumes that any violation of copyright, no matter how slight, is infringement worth $150,000, that seems like a decent number. Taken to its maximum, by reading my comment you save a copy of it to a storage device (your brain). That'll be $150,000.
Here's why Mike's reliance on that paper is so dumb: It assumes that all sorts of things that Mike would say are not infringing are in fact infringement. For example, look at Mike's original post about the paper: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml Mike says: "Replying to an email with quoted text? Infringement! Reply to 20 emails? You're looking at $3 million in statutory damages." The problem with that is that Mike doesn't actually think that replying to an email is infringement. And he's right, because it's not. Imagine if someone were sued for infringement for replying to an email with quoted text. Mike would vigorously defend that person, and rightly so. But when that same stupid claim is part of a paper that makes copyright look dumb, it's repeated without question. That's the double standard I'm talking about.
Just an honest question - are you a presuppositionalist christian in the vein of Sye Ten Bruggencate? The reason I ask this is that I've been watching videos on that subject and on that person, and one thing that is always noted by his opponents is his constant repeating of himself, word for word, no matter how many times he is refuted.
He hasn't shown, for example, that their conclusion is wrong that 80% of the content at the top cyberlockers is pirated. He hasn't shown that the revenue or net figures for these sites is wrong because the methodology is flawed. He just has some silly argument that they must not be profitable because some unidentified "industry" isn't doing it. That makes no sense. Let's see actual analysis of the actual methodology. If he can't provide that, then he hasn't debunked it.
Just like what you did right now, in demanding, yet again, a reasonable debate (further question, why did you put them in scare quotes?)
I was quoting Mike. He said "reasonable debates." It wasn't scare quotes. It was just regular quotes.
Just an honest question - are you a presuppositionalist christian in the vein of Sye Ten Bruggencate? The reason I ask this is that I've been watching videos on that subject and on that person, and one thing that is always noted by his opponents is his constant repeating of himself, word for word, no matter how many times he is refuted.
He hasn't shown, for example, that their conclusion is wrong that 80% of the content at the top cyberlockers is pirated. He hasn't shown that the revenue or net figures for these sites is wrong because the methodology is flawed. He just has some silly argument that they must not be profitable because some unidentified "industry" isn't doing it. That makes no sense. Let's see actual analysis of the actual methodology. If he can't provide that, then he hasn't debunked it.
Just like what you did right now, in demanding, yet again, a reasonable debate (further question, why did you put them in scare quotes?)
I was quoting Mike. He said "reasonable debates." It wasn't scare quotes. It was just regular quotes.
Oh, wow. So you're really claiming that those two studies are "debunked"? That's fine if you want to debunk them, but you haven't actually done any such thing.
Studies you don't like are declared debunked, even if you haven't debunked them. Yet, other ridiculous claims are repeated as true, even if they're ridiculous on their face. Tehranian's "$4.544 billion" figure comes to mind. That number is so dumb, and based on such ridiculous premises, that I honestly can't believe you still cite it as you did last month: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140825/07343128313/could-taking-selfie-museum-violate-copyright- law.shtml Another example is the claim that patent trolls cost $29B per year: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/10452719493/29-billion-spent-dealing-with-patent-trolls-u s-alone-last-year.shtml The methodology there was ridiculous, but you just repeated the figure as if it were true. How is that you're so skeptical of studies you don't like, but then you turn off your inner skeptic when it's a study result you do like? Care to address the double standard? Do you even see that you do this?
Of course, as we've noted for years, if cyberlockers were really so profitable, then shouldn't the response from the entertainment industry be to offer up such services themselves?
You're saying that cyberlockers aren't profitable because the "entertainment industry" doesn't chose to offer cyberlockers. How does that make sense? How could the decision to not offer something prove that that thing is not profitable? It doesn't. It's just terrible logic on your part.
Lammi, of course, leaves out that the DCA study was commissioned by the industry and that the methodology was so ridiculous that at least one company branded a "piracy haven" has already demanded a retraction of the report and an apology, claiming the report is defamatory. The methodology is clearly bogus.
Other than your disagreement with their conclusion about Mega, can you actually tell us specifically what it is about the methodology that's "clearly bogus"? What about all of the other sites they looked at? You haven't debunked the methodology because you haven't actually even discussed what their methodology is. You're just rushing to call it debunked without actually debunking it. Again, the double standard.
Then there's the second study:
A recent KPMG study found that nearly all of the most popular TV shows and movies of the past three years (which are, not surprisingly, also the most pirated), are available through video-on-demand services.
Except, as discussed, that's totally misleading. What the study found was that all of those works were available on at least one of 34 different services.
They say the videos are "available though video-on-demand services," and you say that's "totally misleading" because there were "34 different services"? Again, how is it misleading? The report was very upfront about what percentage of films were available on the different types of services. Again, you just want it to be debunked, but you haven't debunked it.
In fact, buried deep in the report was the more telling stat that if you used the most popular movie/TV service out there, Netflix, less than 20% are available.
This is just so dumb. It wasn't "buried deep in the report," it was included in a full-sized graphic on page 8, IIRC. That's not "buried deep." The report was very upfront and honest about everything it said. Why the need to pretend like they weren't?
There are reasonable debates to be had here, but if you're basing your arguments off of debunked studies, don't expect to be taken seriously.
When are you going to have a "reasonable debate" rather than making unsupported claims that these reports are debunked? Posts like this just make you look unreasonable. How are we to take you seriously?
I have no clue how Techdirt's multiple spam filters work, but if I was designing one, any IP address that constantly gets excessive "report" votes would automatically go into the spam filter forever.
Have you ever thought that this is a situation that you've created all by yourself?
I'm sure Mike doesn't appreciate me bringing it up, but this all went down the summer before last. There was nothing automatic about it. There was a period of a week or two when every new IP address I'd post from would be summarily blocked. Mike, or one of his flunkies, was desperate to keep me from posting. They were even blocking certain words. For example, if the post included the word "cluck," it was sent to the spam filter. The same exact post with the word "cluck" removed would post just fine. They weren't just blocking my IPs, they were blocking certain keywords and even certain links I was posting. Again, it wasn't automatic. It was blatant censorship because I was critical of Mike. I'm kind of surprised he's still blocking my home IP over a year later. Seems really childish. I've try to get him to discuss what happened openly and honestly, but he won't. I can easily circumvent the block, but it's the principle of it. You'd think a guy who is so anti-censorship wouldn't do this, but you'd think wrong.
The appeal is actually being heard *today* on that case... I had meant to do a separate post on it, but ran out of time...
Oh, that's very cool! I can't wait to see what the Ninth says. I'm torn on the prior restraint issue. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a prior restraint since it's not a typical licensing scheme and I'm not sure that the speech is even substantively protected. But... then the government is allowing recipients to release some numbers, so that makes it seem like a licensing scheme. It's a head scratcher! I think the best argument is that the speech is substantively protected since there's insufficient narrow tailoring. But... then I think I agree with the government that it's not a content-based restriction. It's a content-neutral restriction, so it gets intermediate scrutiny (and thus not strict narrow tailoring). But I'm not sure it even meets that lower standard. I could see this going either way. That's what makes it fun.
By the way, I posted a comment in this thread a few minutes ago: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141007/17534928757/shameful-harvard-law-review-copyright-maximal ism-over-legal-citations-put-to-test-with-new-public-domain-effort.shtml It got caught in your spam filter. This means you're still routing posts from my home IP to the spam filter. Given your beliefs about censorship, and given that I'm a financial supporter of your site, this is really troubling. And, as you know, it's trivially easy to circumvent the block (as I'm doing with this comment). I'd really appreciate it if you'd remove that block. I know you don't want to talk about it. Neither do I. But as long as I'm still blocked, I'll keep bringing it up. I'd rather the block be removed so we can both put that behind us. If you have any concerns, you know my email address. Thanks.
As Carl has noted in his previous correspondence with you, numerous courts have mandated use of The Bluebook. As a consequence, The Bluebook has been adopted as an edict of government and its contents are in the public domain.
Well, that's certainly debatable. See, for example:
We are not prepared to hold that a state's reference to a copyrighted work as a legal standard for valuation results in loss of the copyright. While there are indeed policy considerations that support CCC's argument, they are opposed by countervailing considerations. For example, a rule that the adoption of such a reference by a state legislature or administrative body deprived the copyright owner of its property would raise very substantial problems under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. We note also that for generations, state education systems have assigned books under copyright to comply with a mandatory school curriculum. It scarcely extends CCC's argument to require that all such assigned books lose their copyright—as one cannot comply with the legal requirements without using the copyrighted works. Yet we think it unlikely courts would reach this conclusion. Although there is scant authority on CCC's argument, Nimmer's treatise opposes such a suggestion as antithetical to the interests sought to be advanced by the Copyright Act. See Nimmer § 5.06 [C] at 5–60.
CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1994).
Or see Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997). There's certainly case law that cuts the other way, but a balanced approach would recognize the fact that there are differing views.
The most recent edition of the Bluebook says that this would be the correct format to cite this blog post:
That's great! I needed to cite a blog post just yesterday, and I turned to the 18th edition of the Bluebook and found that the suggested cite was stupid. This helps a lot. Thanks!
Unfortunately, it looks like the judge allowed them to continue issuing them since the government planned to appeal(obviously, they really couldn't do anything else), and given the 'speed' court cases can take at that level, even if the next judge again finds against the government, that'll likely be several years after the original ruling, and in the meantime, NSL's for everyone.
I just found a page on the Ninth Circuit's website dedicated to the NSL litigation: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000715 It appears that Judge Illston's opinion has been consolidated with two other cases. Appeal No. 13-15957 is the one from Judge Illston's opinion. I'm not sure what the other two cases are (I'll have to read through the filings). It looks like the final reply brief was filed in June, so I doubt it will be much longer before the Ninth Circuit decides the issue. Given that these NSL recipients are arguing the same things as Twitter, I suspect that Twitter's case will be put on hold pending the Ninth Circuit's decision.
It will be interesting to see how far this lawsuit goes. Unfortunately, the courts are often willing to give great deference to the government when it insists things need to be secret, but there's always a chance that a court may recognize the problematic nature of how the government gags companies in this manner.
As expected, it is specifically about people refusing to disperse at an unlawful assembly, so as long as the protest is not in violation of the law, they would not be able to arrest people for refusing to disperse.
It's another crime to not disperse from that "unlawful assembly" when so ordered. If there's less than six people, or if they're not assembled for an illegal purpose, then these statutes don't apply.
Your response was a good read. I realize you get beat up a lot around here, sometimes you deserve it, but right or wrong I do enjoy your posts, keep it up.
Well, thank you! I enjoy constitutional law (specifically, free speech, due process, equal protection, and search/seizure) as much as I do IP law.
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Make It Clear That APIs Are Not Copyrightable
Re: Re:
From the Federal Circuit’s opinion: Source: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF
How do you square your claim that it’s the functionality and not the expression that’s at issue with the Federal Circuit’s statement that it’s 7,000 lines of code (the literal elements) plus the “structure, sequence, and organization” (the nonliteral elements) that’s at issue?
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Make It Clear That APIs Are Not Copyrightable
I guess count me as one who disagrees. It's not the functionality that's copyrighted, it's the expression. All computer code is functional--that's the point. But that doesn't mean it's not copyrightable. And it's not just the expression that's at issue here. It's also nonliteral elements such as the structure and sequence. Any reason you don't mention that?
On the post: Appeals Court Very Concerned About Gag Orders On National Security Letters
Thanks for the link. Listening now.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would they search the unsearchable private parts? That said, how does randomly searching the public parts mean that it's not random? Isn't it a random selection from the available set?
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see actual analysis of the actual methodology.
Alrighty then:
For Mega the researchers looked at 500 files that were shared online. However, the overwhelming majority of Mega’s files, which number more than 500,000,000, are never shared in public.
Which is right there in THE LINKED ARTICLE at http://torrentfreak.com/report-brands-dotcoms-mega-a-piracy-haven-140918/
Debunked.
Please spell it out for me: (1) What is the exact claim in the report? Are they claiming that ~80% of ALL files on Mega are infringing? Or are they only talking about the percentage of publicly-available files? (2) Whatever the beef is with the percentage of infringing files for Mega, how does that apply to the other 29 filelockers in the report? (3) What about all of the other claims in the report other than the percentage of infringing files? (4) How does disagreeing with one number (even though you haven't explained exactly what it is about this number they got wrong) mean that the ENTIRE report is "debunked"?
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I appreciate the comment. It wasn't a matter of a link being "reported" and the software picking up on it. It was a link being posted once, and then hours later that same link would cause a different post to go to the spam filter--with it never getting out of that limbo. This happened whether the original post with the link was hidden as "reported" or not. It was deliberate action on TD's part to prevent me from posting the links. The links were being blocked because they led to a post of mine that criticized Mike. For about two weeks, Mike et al. did everything they could to prevent me from posting on TD because I was critical of Mike. Blocking IPs, keywords, links, etc. It was an incredible display on their part.
Yes he has, repeatedly. Here is the most recent:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140904/09583328416/tor-asks-help-keeping-net-anonymity-as -option-anyone-any-site.shtml#c1219
Mike's responses to you concerning this have been open and honest. If you feel that someone's responses to you are not open and honest just because it isn't the answer you wanted, that is really your problem, not anyone else's.
I appreciate the link. Sorry to say this, but Mike is simply being less than honest about his desperate attempts to silence me last year. It's really as simple as that. Regardless, I wouldn't even be bringing this up if he'd lift the block he has on my home IP address. I know he won't admit that he did what he did. I don't care. It's the principle that he's blocking my IP address, which he could fix so easily, that bothers me. If my IP weren't blocked, I'd be happy to drop this. But it's not. And the fact that I financially support the site makes it suck all the more. Hell, I didn't even complain when I ordered goods from his online shop and he failed to send me one of the items I ordered. I'd like to think it was a mistake, but I honestly think it was probably intentional.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re:
It'll be hidden before the day is through, don't worry. That said, I really am disappointed by posts like this. I know Mike can do better.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. public files available for download by anyone
2. private files accessible by only approved groups and the uploader.
Mikes conclusion very clearly states that taking a a sample from only the publicly available files is a bad sample set because the publicly available files account for less than the majority of all files stored on mega it is by definition not a representative sample of the data which taints all results derived by the report.
This is because it could be that publicly available files contain a statistically higher amount of infringing property, but it could also be true that none of the private files hosted by mega contain infringing material. An if that was true then the report suggests a wildly larger amount of infringement than may actually be occurring, and we will never know because the data is bogus.
That is why the report is bogus. Because it uses a non representative sample of data to draw conclusions.
Can you show me in the report where they say that they're using the numbers from the publicly-available files to make conclusions about the non-publicly-available files? I'm not saying that's not true. I just don't remember seeing that. What page is that on? Or did they only limit their percentage to the publicly-available files? I'm not sure I understand exactly what this criticism is.
Regardless, even if that's true for Mega, what does that have to do with the other 29 filelockers? It makes no sense to decide that the entire report, which makes many claims, is "bogus" because you disagree with one particular part of it.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re:
You haven't shown us anything. They collected a random sample of 500 files for each site. Unless you can tell me how their methodology in collecting those 500 samples is wrong, or even what the margin of error is, I don't see how you've demonstrated that it "calls into question their results." Can you be more specific? As far as a court being needed to determine if they're infringing, I think that's bullshit. Also, these were publicly available files, not private backups.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re:
Here's why Mike's reliance on that paper is so dumb: It assumes that all sorts of things that Mike would say are not infringing are in fact infringement. For example, look at Mike's original post about the paper: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml Mike says: "Replying to an email with quoted text? Infringement! Reply to 20 emails? You're looking at $3 million in statutory damages." The problem with that is that Mike doesn't actually think that replying to an email is infringement. And he's right, because it's not. Imagine if someone were sued for infringement for replying to an email with quoted text. Mike would vigorously defend that person, and rightly so. But when that same stupid claim is part of a paper that makes copyright look dumb, it's repeated without question. That's the double standard I'm talking about.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re:
I have no idea what that is. Sorry!
My point is that Mike didn't actually look at the methodology in the reports. For example, the cyberlocker report is here: https://media.gractions.com/314A5A5A9ABBBBC5E3BD824CF47C46EF4B9D3A76/8854660c-1bbb-4166-aa20-2dd9828 9e80c.pdf
He hasn't shown, for example, that their conclusion is wrong that 80% of the content at the top cyberlockers is pirated. He hasn't shown that the revenue or net figures for these sites is wrong because the methodology is flawed. He just has some silly argument that they must not be profitable because some unidentified "industry" isn't doing it. That makes no sense. Let's see actual analysis of the actual methodology. If he can't provide that, then he hasn't debunked it.
Just like what you did right now, in demanding, yet again, a reasonable debate (further question, why did you put them in scare quotes?)
I was quoting Mike. He said "reasonable debates." It wasn't scare quotes. It was just regular quotes.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Re: Re:
I have no idea what that is. Sorry!
My point is that Mike didn't actually look at the methodology in the reports. For example, the cyberlocker report is here: https://media.gractions.com/314A5A5A9ABBBBC5E3BD824CF47C46EF4B9D3A76/8854660c-1bbb-4166-aa20-2dd9828 9e80c.pdf
He hasn't shown, for example, that their conclusion is wrong that 80% of the content at the top cyberlockers is pirated. He hasn't shown that the revenue or net figures for these sites is wrong because the methodology is flawed. He just has some silly argument that they must not be profitable because some unidentified "industry" isn't doing it. That makes no sense. Let's see actual analysis of the actual methodology. If he can't provide that, then he hasn't debunked it.
Just like what you did right now, in demanding, yet again, a reasonable debate (further question, why did you put them in scare quotes?)
I was quoting Mike. He said "reasonable debates." It wasn't scare quotes. It was just regular quotes.
On the post: If You're Going To Spread FUD About Evil Cyberlockers, Maybe Don't Use Two Debunked Studies As The Basis?
Studies you don't like are declared debunked, even if you haven't debunked them. Yet, other ridiculous claims are repeated as true, even if they're ridiculous on their face. Tehranian's "$4.544 billion" figure comes to mind. That number is so dumb, and based on such ridiculous premises, that I honestly can't believe you still cite it as you did last month: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140825/07343128313/could-taking-selfie-museum-violate-copyright- law.shtml Another example is the claim that patent trolls cost $29B per year: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/10452719493/29-billion-spent-dealing-with-patent-trolls-u s-alone-last-year.shtml The methodology there was ridiculous, but you just repeated the figure as if it were true. How is that you're so skeptical of studies you don't like, but then you turn off your inner skeptic when it's a study result you do like? Care to address the double standard? Do you even see that you do this?
Of course, as we've noted for years, if cyberlockers were really so profitable, then shouldn't the response from the entertainment industry be to offer up such services themselves?
You're saying that cyberlockers aren't profitable because the "entertainment industry" doesn't chose to offer cyberlockers. How does that make sense? How could the decision to not offer something prove that that thing is not profitable? It doesn't. It's just terrible logic on your part.
Lammi, of course, leaves out that the DCA study was commissioned by the industry and that the methodology was so ridiculous that at least one company branded a "piracy haven" has already demanded a retraction of the report and an apology, claiming the report is defamatory. The methodology is clearly bogus.
Other than your disagreement with their conclusion about Mega, can you actually tell us specifically what it is about the methodology that's "clearly bogus"? What about all of the other sites they looked at? You haven't debunked the methodology because you haven't actually even discussed what their methodology is. You're just rushing to call it debunked without actually debunking it. Again, the double standard.
Then there's the second study:
A recent KPMG study found that nearly all of the most popular TV shows and movies of the past three years (which are, not surprisingly, also the most pirated), are available through video-on-demand services.
Except, as discussed, that's totally misleading. What the study found was that all of those works were available on at least one of 34 different services.
They say the videos are "available though video-on-demand services," and you say that's "totally misleading" because there were "34 different services"? Again, how is it misleading? The report was very upfront about what percentage of films were available on the different types of services. Again, you just want it to be debunked, but you haven't debunked it.
In fact, buried deep in the report was the more telling stat that if you used the most popular movie/TV service out there, Netflix, less than 20% are available.
This is just so dumb. It wasn't "buried deep in the report," it was included in a full-sized graphic on page 8, IIRC. That's not "buried deep." The report was very upfront and honest about everything it said. Why the need to pretend like they weren't?
There are reasonable debates to be had here, but if you're basing your arguments off of debunked studies, don't expect to be taken seriously.
When are you going to have a "reasonable debate" rather than making unsupported claims that these reports are debunked? Posts like this just make you look unreasonable. How are we to take you seriously?
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever thought that this is a situation that you've created all by yourself?
I'm sure Mike doesn't appreciate me bringing it up, but this all went down the summer before last. There was nothing automatic about it. There was a period of a week or two when every new IP address I'd post from would be summarily blocked. Mike, or one of his flunkies, was desperate to keep me from posting. They were even blocking certain words. For example, if the post included the word "cluck," it was sent to the spam filter. The same exact post with the word "cluck" removed would post just fine. They weren't just blocking my IPs, they were blocking certain keywords and even certain links I was posting. Again, it wasn't automatic. It was blatant censorship because I was critical of Mike. I'm kind of surprised he's still blocking my home IP over a year later. Seems really childish. I've try to get him to discuss what happened openly and honestly, but he won't. I can easily circumvent the block, but it's the principle of it. You'd think a guy who is so anti-censorship wouldn't do this, but you'd think wrong.
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that's very cool! I can't wait to see what the Ninth says. I'm torn on the prior restraint issue. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a prior restraint since it's not a typical licensing scheme and I'm not sure that the speech is even substantively protected. But... then the government is allowing recipients to release some numbers, so that makes it seem like a licensing scheme. It's a head scratcher! I think the best argument is that the speech is substantively protected since there's insufficient narrow tailoring. But... then I think I agree with the government that it's not a content-based restriction. It's a content-neutral restriction, so it gets intermediate scrutiny (and thus not strict narrow tailoring). But I'm not sure it even meets that lower standard. I could see this going either way. That's what makes it fun.
By the way, I posted a comment in this thread a few minutes ago: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141007/17534928757/shameful-harvard-law-review-copyright-maximal ism-over-legal-citations-put-to-test-with-new-public-domain-effort.shtml It got caught in your spam filter. This means you're still routing posts from my home IP to the spam filter. Given your beliefs about censorship, and given that I'm a financial supporter of your site, this is really troubling. And, as you know, it's trivially easy to circumvent the block (as I'm doing with this comment). I'd really appreciate it if you'd remove that block. I know you don't want to talk about it. Neither do I. But as long as I'm still blocked, I'll keep bringing it up. I'd rather the block be removed so we can both put that behind us. If you have any concerns, you know my email address. Thanks.
On the post: Harvard Law Review Claims Copyright Over Legal Citations; Now Challenged By Public Domain Effort
Well, that's certainly debatable. See, for example:CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1994).
Or see Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997). There's certainly case law that cuts the other way, but a balanced approach would recognize the fact that there are differing views.
The most recent edition of the Bluebook says that this would be the correct format to cite this blog post:
Cathy Gellis, The Bluebook Stole My IP, STATEMENTS OF INTEREST (June 4, 2014), http://www.cathygellis.com/soi/2014/06/the-bluebook-stole-my-ip.html.
See Rule 18.2 in the 19th Edition.
That's great! I needed to cite a blog post just yesterday, and I turned to the 18th edition of the Bluebook and found that the suggested cite was stupid. This helps a lot. Thanks!
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, it looks like the judge allowed them to continue issuing them since the government planned to appeal(obviously, they really couldn't do anything else), and given the 'speed' court cases can take at that level, even if the next judge again finds against the government, that'll likely be several years after the original ruling, and in the meantime, NSL's for everyone.
I just found a page on the Ninth Circuit's website dedicated to the NSL litigation: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000715 It appears that Judge Illston's opinion has been consolidated with two other cases. Appeal No. 13-15957 is the one from Judge Illston's opinion. I'm not sure what the other two cases are (I'll have to read through the filings). It looks like the final reply brief was filed in June, so I doubt it will be much longer before the Ninth Circuit decides the issue. Given that these NSL recipients are arguing the same things as Twitter, I suspect that Twitter's case will be put on hold pending the Ninth Circuit's decision.
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
I'm surprised you didn't link back to your post from last year about Judge Illston's holding that the NSLs unconstitutional: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14254522342/shocker-court-says-national-security-letters- are-unconstitutional-bans-them.shtml I think Judge Illston's conclusions are very persuasive. As far as I know, that was appealed to the Ninth Circuit but there's been no ruling yet. I wonder if this action will be put on hold until that appeal is decided.
On the post: Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. It's one crime to form an "unlawful assembly," which has to be six or more people who assemble for the purpose of violating a criminal law: http://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxviii/chapter-574/section-574.040/
It's another crime to not disperse from that "unlawful assembly" when so ordered. If there's less than six people, or if they're not assembled for an illegal purpose, then these statutes don't apply.
On the post: Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re:
Well, thank you! I enjoy constitutional law (specifically, free speech, due process, equal protection, and search/seizure) as much as I do IP law.
Next >>