Tyanna, they are apparently doing the reverse, going onto torrent sites, downloading their client's files from various people, and tracking the IPs that provide the pieces. This effectively shows intent to share and download (they made it publically available) and it is also much harder to falsify an IP address this way as well.
They aren't catch people downloading, they are catching people sharing.
It doesn't matter if it's your internet connection or poorly done home repairs, the logic is the same. If you want to go to court, you pay the fees. It's not unusual.
Also, and this is VERY important, the internet connection is going to be cut "due to a baseless accusation", it's a 3 strikes law, not a "one and done" deal. A user would have to be the most unlucky person on the planet to have three seperate and unique complaints over time that were all baseless. I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc. Often "innocent" people aren't as innocent as they claim, and they would be very unlucky indeed if they were "innocent" three times in a row.
You want fries? Ask your boss if you can take what's left at the end of your shift. Please.
As for the rest, let's just say we long since stopped debating if she illegal shared files (found guilty and unlikely to change) and now it is down to numbers. This is the third set of numbers, and the next set could be up or down depending on the leanings of a given judge on a given day. She can get out cheap now (about the price of a good car) or she can spin the legal wheel of fortune and come up with a $10 cost or a million dollars plus again. I am just thinking that she appears to be getting some pretty bad legal advice if she isn't willing to settle at some point, considering she has been found guilty.
I was not talking about their use of Reuters content. I was talking about the SOURCES they REPORT ON. The people in the stories. Those people are getting press coverage, and the Daily Mirror is making money off of them.
Mike, this is why I think you are reaching so damn far on this one, it's almost beyond understanding. Your logic fails so badly it's rather difficult to explain in simple terms why you are so far off. I actually read the post 3 times looking for a hidden punchline, and found none.
All I can say is that this sort of logic is why I can doubt much of your more mainstream thinking. The logical jump to get you from one place to another is astonishing.
You keep telling companies that don't want to be indexed or deep linked to use robots.txt or whatever. Is this not exactly what they are doing, denying newsnow access as is their right, whatever their logic?
You appear to be ranting because they did basically what you said they should do.
Paul, it's all nice, but example, that Mac User may have had their wireless active and allowed pass thru access to their internet connection. SOD connects to their Mac using a PC, and ta da, infringement that appears to come from an Apple computer.
There are plenty of ways that these things are possible.
Are they 100%? NOPE. Nothing is 100%. I am sure some errors are made. That is why they have this thing called court. I am just saying that some of the people who are crying the loudest about being innocent either know they are in fact guilty and don't like getting caught, or have security holes in their internet access that can make them unaware of infringement happening on their connection.
Wardriving. Old fashioned, but a very effective way to get internet connectivity for free.
Paul, I think that there is more to this story, which would greatly change things.
Example: for the 78 year old that got the letter, how does he access the internet? Does he use a wireless and a laptop? If he uses a desktop instead, has he ever had anyone stay over at his home? Perhaps a child or even a grandchild used his computer to download stuff? Is his computer connection perhaps shared with other flatmates, or similar?
It is easy for people to say "I didn't do it" or use the good old SODDI (the online version of "two black youths"). I suspect in most of the cases, people are either embarrassed to admit what they downloaded, or have permitted access to their internet connection through wireless or other means.
Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if less than honest people in the world are infecting computers with hidden P2P programs that forward the results on to other locations, sort of as a hacker's personal distributed VPN. But in the end, people are responsible for what happens on their internet connection.
let's adjust all prices to the amount you can afford. I'm not rich enough to pay full price for the condo I want in Hong Kong (50+ million), but I think I might have maybe 10% of that. I wonder if they would let me have it because it's a pretty good deal for them, right?
Maybe we can adjust prison sentences too. The older you are, the less time you get. So when you are 20, dealing drugs gets you 20 years, when you are 30, it's only 10, and when you are 60, it's community service. That sounds fair.
Yeah, good idea!
If you can't do the time (or pay the price) don't do the crime.
It's not a recipe for driving away older players, as much as it's cutting your nose off to spite your face.
What happens if the "old players" stop producing the content? What will NewsNow have? I think they will have a nice empty website.
The hypocrisy is Mike thinking that a pure aggregator site should somehow be able to dictate to a content site their business models.
Further, it is also very hypocritical to on one hand invite news sources to block out google (robots.txt) and then peeing all over the Mirror for blocking someone out. It's their choice, NewsNow doesn't get to make that choice for them.
I am thinking not so much feisty as getting the same sort of bad legal advice that seems screwing over Tenenbaum. She can get out of this cheap and easily, and still she declines?
I smell some fail here, I doubt the numbers are going to get better for her.
Does the Daily Mirror pay it's "sources"? Well, if they are using Reuters or AP, I suspect they are. Do they pay politicians to have press conferences or pay the police to give statements? I don't think so.
The reach is simple: The Mirror creates original content. NewsNow does not. The Mirror doesn't just photocopy other newspapers and run the story.
Stories like this show you as desperate to try to discredit "old media", I think mostly because you see that news aggregation services are hitting a wall. That sort of kicks the crap out of the "information for FREE!" model, no?
Free speech isn't the issue, but thanks for trying to confuse things.
As for the rest of your post, all I can say is that you appear to have never creating anything worth protecting. If you could get out of mom's basement for a minute and look at the other side of the issue, you would be less likely to have such a smug answer.
If you are using sneakernet or worse Fedex, you are paying probably more to be a pirate than it is worth. Would you really pay fedex $25 to ship a retail $15 music CD? Would you spend 2 hours on the cross town express to meet someone to give them a CD?
Sneakernet would also be slow enough that the rights holders likely wouldn't bother with it.
If the DMCA'ing person / company is wrong, they are typically a deep pocket defendant that can pay. If they are correct, what do they get besides a warm feeling and an uncollectable judgement?
RD, you decide this week to post as yourself instead of the string of anonymous posts you have been running for a while? Classic stuff.
When it comes to eyeballs, contrary to what certain guru types might suggest, tons of the wrong eyeballs are worse than fewer of the right eyeballs.
Local newspaper in Long Island wants readers from Long Island. It is who they are aiming for. They don't want to be the most popular long island newspaper in Paris or Bangalore, that isn't their market. They are narrowly (and IMHO correctly) focused on a local marketplace.
It might not make sense in the whole "information wants to be free" mental state that you are in, but sometimes it is better to be narrowly focused than wide open and failing.
RD, I did RTFA, and I think the judge has it wrong. Rights holders should be able to issue a DMCA when they feel it is likely that they are being infringed, without having to have total and complete certainty against fair use and other potential exceptions. Fair use is a defensive claim, nothing more.
What the judge is suggestion is to place an even heavier burden on the rights holders to be 100% certain in all cases, which would effectively widen fair use dramatically by making anything marginal, anything that would be decided in court, anything at all as "not 100% certain", and then not worth issuing a DMCA about, which in turn means giving up that area of discussion.
I know it matches up to your personal desires, but it is legally a one sided concept that would greatly expand user rights and greatly limit right holders rights. That isn't what the law states, so I think the judge is out of line.
I looked at it, and I think they should have called it:
Ilisa
It's a great idea as a concept, but it's about 3 or 4 years too early, the public is not mentally ready for it, and the technology isn't quite there to make this one really work out.
That said, I do think that this is a bit of an indication where some things are going, and keeping a sharp eye on the underlying structure of how this device will permit and encourage revenue streams is important.
The MJ thing is a great example. At 29 seconds, is it fair use? Think about it, take away the music and suddenly the video means nothing. There is little "fair use" in the game here.
DMCA has no specific requirements to account for any fair use, and there is little to show that any notification was given specifically in bad faith. If the copyright holder feels that they COULD win in court, that should be enough.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Re:
They aren't catch people downloading, they are catching people sharing.
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
Re: Re:
Also, and this is VERY important, the internet connection is going to be cut "due to a baseless accusation", it's a 3 strikes law, not a "one and done" deal. A user would have to be the most unlucky person on the planet to have three seperate and unique complaints over time that were all baseless. I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc. Often "innocent" people aren't as innocent as they claim, and they would be very unlucky indeed if they were "innocent" three times in a row.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Rejects Offer From RIAA To Settle For $25k Plus Request For Judge To Vacate Last Week's Decision
Re: Re: Re: Good for her
As for the rest, let's just say we long since stopped debating if she illegal shared files (found guilty and unlikely to change) and now it is down to numbers. This is the third set of numbers, and the next set could be up or down depending on the leanings of a given judge on a given day. She can get out cheap now (about the price of a good car) or she can spin the legal wheel of fortune and come up with a $10 cost or a million dollars plus again. I am just thinking that she appears to be getting some pretty bad legal advice if she isn't willing to settle at some point, considering she has been found guilty.
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/publications/guidance/statutoryinstruments/index.htm
Perha ps you might want to get better informed, rather than just swallowing a story from a website whole.
On the post: Copyright Damages Out Of Control: $51 Million For Satellite Cracking App?
Re:
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
Re: Re:
Mike, this is why I think you are reaching so damn far on this one, it's almost beyond understanding. Your logic fails so badly it's rather difficult to explain in simple terms why you are so far off. I actually read the post 3 times looking for a hidden punchline, and found none.
All I can say is that this sort of logic is why I can doubt much of your more mainstream thinking. The logical jump to get you from one place to another is astonishing.
You keep telling companies that don't want to be indexed or deep linked to use robots.txt or whatever. Is this not exactly what they are doing, denying newsnow access as is their right, whatever their logic?
You appear to be ranting because they did basically what you said they should do.
On the post: Copyright Damages Out Of Control: $51 Million For Satellite Cracking App?
Re:
They are putting the money on your doorstep in a heavy, secure safe, and you are having to use dynamite to get in.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
There are plenty of ways that these things are possible.
Are they 100%? NOPE. Nothing is 100%. I am sure some errors are made. That is why they have this thing called court. I am just saying that some of the people who are crying the loudest about being innocent either know they are in fact guilty and don't like getting caught, or have security holes in their internet access that can make them unaware of infringement happening on their connection.
Wardriving. Old fashioned, but a very effective way to get internet connectivity for free.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Re:
Example: for the 78 year old that got the letter, how does he access the internet? Does he use a wireless and a laptop? If he uses a desktop instead, has he ever had anyone stay over at his home? Perhaps a child or even a grandchild used his computer to download stuff? Is his computer connection perhaps shared with other flatmates, or similar?
It is easy for people to say "I didn't do it" or use the good old SODDI (the online version of "two black youths"). I suspect in most of the cases, people are either embarrassed to admit what they downloaded, or have permitted access to their internet connection through wireless or other means.
Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if less than honest people in the world are infecting computers with hidden P2P programs that forward the results on to other locations, sort of as a hacker's personal distributed VPN. But in the end, people are responsible for what happens on their internet connection.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Rejects Offer From RIAA To Settle For $25k Plus Request For Judge To Vacate Last Week's Decision
Re: Good for her
let's adjust all prices to the amount you can afford. I'm not rich enough to pay full price for the condo I want in Hong Kong (50+ million), but I think I might have maybe 10% of that. I wonder if they would let me have it because it's a pretty good deal for them, right?
Maybe we can adjust prison sentences too. The older you are, the less time you get. So when you are 20, dealing drugs gets you 20 years, when you are 30, it's only 10, and when you are 60, it's community service. That sounds fair.
Yeah, good idea!
If you can't do the time (or pay the price) don't do the crime.
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
Re: There�s Hypocrisy, And There�s Hypocrisy
What happens if the "old players" stop producing the content? What will NewsNow have? I think they will have a nice empty website.
The hypocrisy is Mike thinking that a pure aggregator site should somehow be able to dictate to a content site their business models.
Further, it is also very hypocritical to on one hand invite news sources to block out google (robots.txt) and then peeing all over the Mirror for blocking someone out. It's their choice, NewsNow doesn't get to make that choice for them.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Rejects Offer From RIAA To Settle For $25k Plus Request For Judge To Vacate Last Week's Decision
Re: I like that gal.
I smell some fail here, I doubt the numbers are going to get better for her.
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
Another horrible reach by Mike
Does the Daily Mirror pay it's "sources"? Well, if they are using Reuters or AP, I suspect they are. Do they pay politicians to have press conferences or pay the police to give statements? I don't think so.
The reach is simple: The Mirror creates original content. NewsNow does not. The Mirror doesn't just photocopy other newspapers and run the story.
Stories like this show you as desperate to try to discredit "old media", I think mostly because you see that news aggregation services are hitting a wall. That sort of kicks the crap out of the "information for FREE!" model, no?
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope, try again
As for the rest of your post, all I can say is that you appear to have never creating anything worth protecting. If you could get out of mom's basement for a minute and look at the other side of the issue, you would be less likely to have such a smug answer.
On the post: Yes, Three Strikes Laws Have Unintended Consequences That Even Music Industry Execs Hate
Re: Re:
Sneakernet would also be slow enough that the rights holders likely wouldn't bother with it.
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: Re: Re: Nope, try again
If the DMCA'ing person / company is wrong, they are typically a deep pocket defendant that can pay. If they are correct, what do they get besides a warm feeling and an uncollectable judgement?
It is unfair because it is entirely one sided.
On the post: After Three Months, Newsday's Grand Paywall Experiment Has 35 Paying Customers. Yes, 35.
Re: Indeed
When it comes to eyeballs, contrary to what certain guru types might suggest, tons of the wrong eyeballs are worse than fewer of the right eyeballs.
Local newspaper in Long Island wants readers from Long Island. It is who they are aiming for. They don't want to be the most popular long island newspaper in Paris or Bangalore, that isn't their market. They are narrowly (and IMHO correctly) focused on a local marketplace.
It might not make sense in the whole "information wants to be free" mental state that you are in, but sometimes it is better to be narrowly focused than wide open and failing.
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: Nope, try again
What the judge is suggestion is to place an even heavier burden on the rights holders to be 100% certain in all cases, which would effectively widen fair use dramatically by making anything marginal, anything that would be decided in court, anything at all as "not 100% certain", and then not worth issuing a DMCA about, which in turn means giving up that area of discussion.
I know it matches up to your personal desires, but it is legally a one sided concept that would greatly expand user rights and greatly limit right holders rights. That isn't what the law states, so I think the judge is out of line.
On the post: Wait, Who Wants A Proprietary, Locked Down Device That Limits What You Can Do?
Ilisa
It's a great idea as a concept, but it's about 3 or 4 years too early, the public is not mentally ready for it, and the technology isn't quite there to make this one really work out.
That said, I do think that this is a bit of an indication where some things are going, and keeping a sharp eye on the underlying structure of how this device will permit and encourage revenue streams is important.
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: Re:
DMCA has no specific requirements to account for any fair use, and there is little to show that any notification was given specifically in bad faith. If the copyright holder feels that they COULD win in court, that should be enough.
There are no absolutes, except on techdirt.
Next >>