Napster settled, but probably would have been guilty of direct commercial infringement if the RIAA had really gone balls out on it. Unfortunately. It was also the most amazing thing that ever happened and had even one record label seen the massive opportunity it presented one of them would have built iTunes and I wouldn't be forced to learn MacOS at work.
Copyrighted is my grammatical Achilles heel... and I don't think I'm glossing over anything, I just think the judge wants a chance to listen to experts discuss those minute differences instead of just making an opinion from motions.
We dont know how much, if any, reproducing of works without checking for licensing happens inside megaupload's network. I think thats why the lawsuit was allowed to go through. Their service is pretty slick and they are clearly distributing copywritten content without any prior aproval. If they are sorting and making things better for distribution without a copyright, and then selling access its a pretty clear violation of US law. If they were simply a warehouse of uploaded content (like megaupload on its own) then it would be fine, or if it were other 3rd party providers that were making content easy to find then again that would be fine under case law, but this is a new breed of animal.
Because it lumps a large and diverse group of people under a uniform heading of 'women' and applies individual positive and negative traits of some of the group members to the entire group.
Because someone bigoted against women doesn't have to be a man. Do you know how much faster and easier suffrage would have been if all the women were on the same page?
Now see, MegaUpload might be actually guilty of Direct Infringement because of this little thing it does (that no one else does afaik): They let users upload files to MegaUpload, and then they sift through them and offer them on their pay sites MegaVideo etc. So in a sense, if you ignore the first step of the process, then they house the infriging content AND distribute through 2 separate wings of their business. I dont necessarily agree with the ruling, but I can certainly understand it.
Im pretty sure you're an idiot who doesnt know what hes talking about.
A) The computer and internet costs are NOT infringement costs, unless you are seriously going to say that the internet and computers are ONLY good for piracy.
B) If your only mode of comparison to seamless downloading and watching of content is to rent a DVD, then my friend, the world has passed you by.
The simple matter is, people already have a 1000 dollar computer and a 100 dollar internet connection for other reasons, so why should they have to spend money on gas and lock themselves into a return commitment when they dont have to! Thats the sticking point, is that people dont HAVE to go to blockbuster and rent a movie anymore because technology has fixed that issue. The market has set the price for digital content extremely low, and the only people debating that are the sellers. Unfortunately for them the laws of capitalism have already told us 300 years ago that that doesnt work, sooooo ya.
Re: Re: Re: How to get any technology or service banned!
different meanings heh, analogue means 'having analogy to something else', analog means 'using a waveform directly instead of the digital representation of the waveform'
Are you saying then that half of crime is done on the internet, period? That's preposterous. The entire entertainment industry is what, 10 billion bucks? 12? Maybe 30 if you count porn (which is mostly doing fine offering free crap on the internet). Look at the annual figures on drug smuggling in the US. Or what is the cost of a human life (rape and murder). If you're saying that "nobody anywhere is unaware that highways and the interstate system are used for illegal purposes, in much the same proportion that the internet is used for illegal purposes". I think you're blowing this piracy thing a little out of proportion....... Or you're not being serious, but I know someone, somewhere thinks this and its insane and insensitive to those victimized by real crime.
BBS
floppy disks
ZIP disks
Hard drives
Usenet
CIFS
CDs
IRC (DDC / FTP)
P2P (napster, gnutella, bittorrent)
These are all technologies that I have used to share content (copywritten or not) on, in roughly chronological order. Each one still in use is easily encrypted and many are widely used to infringe with, or easily could be again.
There has not been a single reliable technology created yet to prevent any of it. All the enforcement to date has been of the inefficient, analog variety. Meaning police work, human intervention and the courts. [Also, according to chrome spellcheck 'analog' isn't a word. And neither is 'spellcheck'.] If anyone thinks this is a battle they can win, they cant. The only reason any of these methods have been abandoned is because something better came along (or the courts shut a single, large provider down and then everyone else found something better ala napster to bearshare to limewire to various bittorrent sites).
Yes, so they know that the website www.newzbin2.org or whatever is a search engine that leads to infringing content. Short of blocking web access to that site arbitrarily there is nothing they can do. None of the content comes from that IP address, so they would have to look at every single packet that they serve to find out if somewhere in there it references a usenet address (which it rarely will) and then start blocking on that IP. And they have to do this 10s of thousands of times, and this has to be looked at constantly by network engineers or the countless false positives would destroy their network.
Im 27 years old and I finished probably 3 or 4 times as many games as I do now as a ratio of how many I start. I had no problem shelling money out for xcom, doom, quake, halflife etc. but now? there are still good ones, probably as many too, but there are soooo many garbage ones now that why would you risk it?
The problem with this argument is that in order to determine what is infringing or not they need to look at ALL of their customer's data, which is an inherent privacy violation and needlessly expensive to boot. Why should they do that when they dont have to? You can tell them a domain name hosts infringing content, or an IP address, or a range, but if you understand how IP traffic works then you know you need to actually look at the packet to find exactly where it came from and not just the header/footer info and determine, packet by packet, if you should allow it or deprioritize it or what. I understand that the ISPs do this anyway, but the more they are forced to the more expensive it becomes, so they dont want to unless it actually saves them money by keeping their upgrade costs down. Deep packet inspection firewalls are EXPENSIVE.
Newzbin isnt 'used' for anything other than access to Usenet. Maybe you could say Usenet is used primarily to infringe, but then that sounds a lot sillier, since its just a message board right?
The big problem with cutting off access to sites like Newzbin, TPB, torrentreactor etc. is that they dont host the content. Now that might sound like a silly apology to a copyright maximalitist, however its an important technical point, and if you are looking at it as a legal loophole then you are completely missing the point. The point is that by removing those sites you have removed exactly 0% of infringing content out there. And in doing so you used more than 0% of the amount of finite resources you have to combat infringement. See where I'm going? If you use 100% of your resources to combat infringement taking down 'rogue sites' then you have STILL only removed 0% of the content, which is nothing.
The better approach would be to dismantle usenet itself, which there are plenty of legitimate arguments for. Of course this ignores the fact that they already did this, and private citizens replicated the data, and rehosted the service like it was never lost. Usenet is actually a good lesson of why these attempts to remove access to infringing content is pointless, because they tried with usenet (the proper way) and failed miserably.
I think you misunderstood my comment as well, in that Valve has already proven that one can use almost unshakeable DRM on your products but still not screw over your customers....
I meant that steam DOES allow you to play games offline, and even though the service mostly forces you to be online, you arent actually forced to be, as long as you activated the computer on steam and downloaded the required gameplay files
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
Re: Irma Gonzalez
On the post: Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case
MegaUpload....
On the post: Hack Attack In South Korea Gets Access To Data On Over 70% Of Everyone In The Country
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re: Re: Re: How to get any technology or service banned!
On the post: Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content
Re:
A) The computer and internet costs are NOT infringement costs, unless you are seriously going to say that the internet and computers are ONLY good for piracy.
B) If your only mode of comparison to seamless downloading and watching of content is to rent a DVD, then my friend, the world has passed you by.
The simple matter is, people already have a 1000 dollar computer and a 100 dollar internet connection for other reasons, so why should they have to spend money on gas and lock themselves into a return commitment when they dont have to! Thats the sticking point, is that people dont HAVE to go to blockbuster and rent a movie anymore because technology has fixed that issue. The market has set the price for digital content extremely low, and the only people debating that are the sellers. Unfortunately for them the laws of capitalism have already told us 300 years ago that that doesnt work, sooooo ya.
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re: Re: Re: How to get any technology or service banned!
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re: How to get any technology or service banned!
floppy disks
ZIP disks
Hard drives
Usenet
CIFS
CDs
IRC (DDC / FTP)
P2P (napster, gnutella, bittorrent)
These are all technologies that I have used to share content (copywritten or not) on, in roughly chronological order. Each one still in use is easily encrypted and many are widely used to infringe with, or easily could be again.
There has not been a single reliable technology created yet to prevent any of it. All the enforcement to date has been of the inefficient, analog variety. Meaning police work, human intervention and the courts. [Also, according to chrome spellcheck 'analog' isn't a word. And neither is 'spellcheck'.] If anyone thinks this is a battle they can win, they cant. The only reason any of these methods have been abandoned is because something better came along (or the courts shut a single, large provider down and then everyone else found something better ala napster to bearshare to limewire to various bittorrent sites).
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ubisoft Learns Nothing From Its DRM Past; Condemns Paying Customers To Repeat It
Re:
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re:
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood Hates
Re:
The big problem with cutting off access to sites like Newzbin, TPB, torrentreactor etc. is that they dont host the content. Now that might sound like a silly apology to a copyright maximalitist, however its an important technical point, and if you are looking at it as a legal loophole then you are completely missing the point. The point is that by removing those sites you have removed exactly 0% of infringing content out there. And in doing so you used more than 0% of the amount of finite resources you have to combat infringement. See where I'm going? If you use 100% of your resources to combat infringement taking down 'rogue sites' then you have STILL only removed 0% of the content, which is nothing.
The better approach would be to dismantle usenet itself, which there are plenty of legitimate arguments for. Of course this ignores the fact that they already did this, and private citizens replicated the data, and rehosted the service like it was never lost. Usenet is actually a good lesson of why these attempts to remove access to infringing content is pointless, because they tried with usenet (the proper way) and failed miserably.
On the post: Ubisoft Learns Nothing From Its DRM Past; Condemns Paying Customers To Repeat It
Re: Re: Steam.....
On the post: Ubisoft Learns Nothing From Its DRM Past; Condemns Paying Customers To Repeat It
Re: Re: Steam.....
Next >>