Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 7:15am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the analysis.
If you intentionally caused harmed to rightholders who were in the U.S., then under the "Calder effects test," you could be prosecuted in the U.S. since there is jurisdiction wherever you cause harm to others.
There are two glaring problems.
First - "intentional" harm. Sure, offering a valuable, legal product or service in one country can cause harm to competitors elsewhere. That's how capitalism and free markets are supposed to work - Toyota making a cheap, fuel efficient, and popular car and selling it worldwide causes "intentional" harm to Ford if they can't (or refuse) to compete. If you're arguing against that, then you're promoting the idea of a law such as "felony interefence with a business model."
Next - how does this not result in a situation where the most restrictive law in the world can apply to anyone who does anything on the internet? If someone in the US, or the US government, can sue or charge me for doing something entirely legal in my own country, then whatever happened to each country's own sovereignty? Are we heading back to a world where large countries are effective empires and free markets are replace with mercantilist ones?
Is there anyone who is not a lawyer that thinks this is not absolutely bat-shit insane?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 6:48am
Re: Re:
It doesn't have to be free. All of us know there are SOME costs to operate such a network. But we all know it's NOT what the telcos tell us.
I think this is the real threat Google fiber is to the telcos. And like all entrenched monopolies, they're mistaking the threat for something else - thinking that its only about speed or "free" access.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 2:08pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're in Florida and you defame someone in California, the courts in California can have jurisdiction over you.
Correct, because you haven't violated Idahoan law.
Can you give a clear reasoning as to why these two statements are not in conflict with each other?
More to the topic at hand:
Let's say a sovereign country, for example, a island country out in the Pacific somewhere, has no copyright laws. It also has no treaties or otherwise with the United States tangling their laws with US laws.
That country does have internet access, however, and I, as a resident of that Pacific island, set up a file locker service. I run the service entirely from this island, I do not lease servers outside of it. I offer my service to anyone that wishes to pay for storage on my servers, as it is not illegal to do so in my country. And since my country has no copyright laws, there is nothing illegal about me ignoring a DMCA notice from some foreign country.
Now given that hypothetical situation, what would happen if the US DOJ tried to criminally charge me in the US, regardless of whether they could serve me papers in my country or not?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 12:18pm
Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to be physically in a jurisdiction to violate the laws in that jurisdiction.
If you're not in a particular jurisdiction, violating the laws of that jurisdiction is irrelevant, as they don't have jurisdiction over you.
If there's a law in Idaho that makes it illegal to possess marijuana, but you're in Washington state and light up a joint (where it is legal), the Idaho State Police can't arrest you and drag you back to Idaho.
Aren't you a lawyer? It doesn't show, if so.
Assuming John is a lawyer (and if so, I'm sure he's a good one), can John sue you for libel in the UK for that statement? (Yes, I'm aware there's a civil/criminal difference here. I'm making a point.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 7:48am
Re:
I agree with everything you said.
However, if FOX goes through with their threat to sue the makers of the hats, in order for the hat makers to make the above arguments in court, they would need to pay a lawyer far more than they are ever likely to recoup in selling the hats in the first place.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 1:45pm
This right here...
"If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution."
This right here encapsulates everything that is wrong in the heads of those dependant on the insane version of copyright that we have today.
Business solutions (IOW adapting to the market) are seen as a last resort only after government lobbying and threats from lawyers have failed. That statement shows they have no desire to actually serve their customers and give them what they ask for (convenience, quality, and reasonable prices).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 8:26am
Re: Re:
No, it would be more like arguing that Chrysler needs to pay to have the police investigate whether anything was stolen since the shoplifter drove a car to your store.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 8:22am
Re:
That seems to have been their strategy ever since the first appeal when Veoh was already dead. At the time, there was speculation as to what would happen to the ruling since the "winner" might not have been able to argue on the appeal on account of being bankrupt.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Apr 2013 @ 8:22am
Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
I don't understand what you're arguing, or if you just don't understand what those graphs represent.
The claim was made that taxes were high. I showed historical rates that show they're not. While not explicitly stated, taxes for the middle earners track the rates for the highest and lowest in a similar manner. In addition to individual tax rates, the corporate rate is also historically low, again more evidence that tax rates are not high. And yes, the tax rates as compared to other countries is important in showing that taxes are not high.
If your opinion is that taxes are "too high" then that is your opinion. But the fact is that taxes are at some of the lowest points that they have been throughout the recent history of this country. I'm not making any value judgements on whether this is good or bad, just pointing out the facts.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Apr 2013 @ 6:31am
Re:
Much like a laptop going through customs, phones contain a lot of information. And like a laptop, the owner generally does not choose specific information to include - unlike the physical world where your hypothetical person chose to carry his diary and a picture around. Also, a phone may not actually include some of this information, but just links to where it resides in the cloud. If I choose to carry my keychain around on me, and am detained, does that mean the police can search my house without a warrant? My storage locker? My friend's house (that I also have a key to)?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 9:48am
Re: Define helpful
I think there might be an argument to be made that by directing their anger in these ways wastes that justified anger. Sure, it might feel good to let it out. But if they couldn't let that anger out online, some would be protesting in the streets and starting revolutions, like say what happened in Tunisia and Egypt.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 9:38am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Answer below. Had a day of stories to catch up with and some work to do. Heading to lunch now, but I expect a detailed answer from you when I get back. Toodles.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 9:30am
Re: Re: Re:
I do infringe. I do so knowingly in many cases, and I think it is highly likely that I also do so without even realizing it. Can my co-worker overhear my legally streamed music from Spotify when I play it at work? That might infringe (according to certain rights organizations), but it might not. What about taking a picture of my friends when we visited an art museum? Does incidentally catching a copyrigted artwork in the picture even when it was not the subject of the picture infringe?
But what does that matter? Pointing to my infringing is simply another ad hom attack by someone who cannot even debate on the topic he brought up - namely the desirability of copyright and its benefits and its faults.
So AJ, do you infringe? Have you ever infringed copyright knowingly? What about anytime unknowingly? I answered your question, you answer mine. Then answer my question as to why it matters.
Is it possible that some copyrighted content would not have been created without copyright? Certainly. But does that offset instances where we know that other content is not created, or is suppressed after it is created because of copyright being misused? My argument is that the explosive growth of content creation we have today is in spite of copyright (not because of copyright), and we could have even more new content if copyright was scaled back or scrapped entirely. In addition to new content, we could have new innovative services to make it easier to access all of that content, copyrighted or not. Why won't you address this question, AJ? Why won't you address the issue that copyright is regularly used to censor new content and prevent new innovations? Should I keep attacking you, AJ, or do you want to debate the topic?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am
Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
This is slimy, but there is no reason to be in favor of tax simplification.
Are you familiar with oppurtunity costs? The simplest reason for being in favor of simplification of taxes is for the amount of time wasted on them that could be better spent doing something else more productive. The resources in time, money, and frustration spent by individuals and companies just paying their taxes is enormous.
It is that they are high.
That statement is incorrect. Taxes are near historical lows, both in rates and actual taxes paid.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 8:23am
Re:
Hi AJ. As expected, you're trying to make this about Mike instead of the subject at hand. While your comment is an improvement from the pointless and boring insult-slinging, attacking the author instead of the topic is still an ad-hom.
only focus on the negatives of copyright
The premise of your question is that there are positives to copyright that could be highlighted. I don't accept that, although I am open to evidence that shows it. Provide some and your comment won't have been useless if it results in a intersting discussion.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 6:33am
Re:
A decade? That's funny. That's like saying WW2 started at the Battle of Midway or on D-Day. 20 years ago we were already fighting the encryption wars. It was clear way back then. Do some research on the clipper chip, key escrow, and import/export controls. EFF and EPIC were founded on this stuff.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you intentionally caused harmed to rightholders who were in the U.S., then under the "Calder effects test," you could be prosecuted in the U.S. since there is jurisdiction wherever you cause harm to others.
There are two glaring problems.
First - "intentional" harm. Sure, offering a valuable, legal product or service in one country can cause harm to competitors elsewhere. That's how capitalism and free markets are supposed to work - Toyota making a cheap, fuel efficient, and popular car and selling it worldwide causes "intentional" harm to Ford if they can't (or refuse) to compete. If you're arguing against that, then you're promoting the idea of a law such as "felony interefence with a business model."
Next - how does this not result in a situation where the most restrictive law in the world can apply to anyone who does anything on the internet? If someone in the US, or the US government, can sue or charge me for doing something entirely legal in my own country, then whatever happened to each country's own sovereignty? Are we heading back to a world where large countries are effective empires and free markets are replace with mercantilist ones?
Is there anyone who is not a lawyer that thinks this is not absolutely bat-shit insane?
On the post: With Google Fiber On The Way, AT&T Fiber Customers Receive Free Boost To Connection Only 976 Mbps Slower Than Google's Connection
Re: Re:
I think this is the real threat Google fiber is to the telcos. And like all entrenched monopolies, they're mistaking the threat for something else - thinking that its only about speed or "free" access.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: The extent of a country's laws
A site run entirely from within 1 country will be generally available to the entire world thanks to the way the Internet works.
He had servers in the US. He did financial transactions in the US.
Those arguments are more persuasive, but not a slam dunk.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct, because you haven't violated Idahoan law.
Can you give a clear reasoning as to why these two statements are not in conflict with each other?
More to the topic at hand:
Let's say a sovereign country, for example, a island country out in the Pacific somewhere, has no copyright laws. It also has no treaties or otherwise with the United States tangling their laws with US laws.
That country does have internet access, however, and I, as a resident of that Pacific island, set up a file locker service. I run the service entirely from this island, I do not lease servers outside of it. I offer my service to anyone that wishes to pay for storage on my servers, as it is not illegal to do so in my country. And since my country has no copyright laws, there is nothing illegal about me ignoring a DMCA notice from some foreign country.
Now given that hypothetical situation, what would happen if the US DOJ tried to criminally charge me in the US, regardless of whether they could serve me papers in my country or not?
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re:
If you're not in a particular jurisdiction, violating the laws of that jurisdiction is irrelevant, as they don't have jurisdiction over you.
If there's a law in Idaho that makes it illegal to possess marijuana, but you're in Washington state and light up a joint (where it is legal), the Idaho State Police can't arrest you and drag you back to Idaho.
Aren't you a lawyer? It doesn't show, if so.
Assuming John is a lawyer (and if so, I'm sure he's a good one), can John sue you for libel in the UK for that statement? (Yes, I'm aware there's a civil/criminal difference here. I'm making a point.)
On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money
Re:
However, if FOX goes through with their threat to sue the makers of the hats, in order for the hat makers to make the above arguments in court, they would need to pay a lawyer far more than they are ever likely to recoup in selling the hats in the first place.
On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money
Re: You know this song...
On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money
Re: Re:
It's felony interference with the textile industry's business model. I'm surprised it isn't on the books already.
On the post: Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits
This right here...
This right here encapsulates everything that is wrong in the heads of those dependant on the insane version of copyright that we have today.
Business solutions (IOW adapting to the market) are seen as a last resort only after government lobbying and threats from lawyers have failed. That statement shows they have no desire to actually serve their customers and give them what they ask for (convenience, quality, and reasonable prices).
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re: Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
An open letter
I'm sorry to break it to you, but Santa Claus isn't real. Neither are unicorns and fairies.
Sincerely,
Josh
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
The claim was made that taxes were high. I showed historical rates that show they're not. While not explicitly stated, taxes for the middle earners track the rates for the highest and lowest in a similar manner. In addition to individual tax rates, the corporate rate is also historically low, again more evidence that tax rates are not high. And yes, the tax rates as compared to other countries is important in showing that taxes are not high.
If your opinion is that taxes are "too high" then that is your opinion. But the fact is that taxes are at some of the lowest points that they have been throughout the recent history of this country. I'm not making any value judgements on whether this is good or bad, just pointing out the facts.
On the post: EFF Fights Texas' Claims That Searching A Cell Phone Is No Different Than Searching 'A Pair Of Pants'
Re:
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Re: Define helpful
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re:
But what does that matter? Pointing to my infringing is simply another ad hom attack by someone who cannot even debate on the topic he brought up - namely the desirability of copyright and its benefits and its faults.
So AJ, do you infringe? Have you ever infringed copyright knowingly? What about anytime unknowingly? I answered your question, you answer mine. Then answer my question as to why it matters.
Is it possible that some copyrighted content would not have been created without copyright? Certainly. But does that offset instances where we know that other content is not created, or is suppressed after it is created because of copyright being misused? My argument is that the explosive growth of content creation we have today is in spite of copyright (not because of copyright), and we could have even more new content if copyright was scaled back or scrapped entirely. In addition to new content, we could have new innovative services to make it easier to access all of that content, copyrighted or not. Why won't you address this question, AJ? Why won't you address the issue that copyright is regularly used to censor new content and prevent new innovations? Should I keep attacking you, AJ, or do you want to debate the topic?
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Are you familiar with oppurtunity costs? The simplest reason for being in favor of simplification of taxes is for the amount of time wasted on them that could be better spent doing something else more productive. The resources in time, money, and frustration spent by individuals and companies just paying their taxes is enormous.
It is that they are high.
That statement is incorrect. Taxes are near historical lows, both in rates and actual taxes paid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Inc ome_Earners.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png
https://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/File:Estate_Tax_Returns_as_a_Percentage_of_Adult_Deaths,_1982_-_2010.gif
And compared to other developed countries, the US has very low taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tax_Revenue_as_Share_of_GDP_for_OECD_Countries_in_2009. jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-(75-05).JPG
Everything above is from Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other sources for the data if you care to look.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re:
only focus on the negatives of copyright
The premise of your question is that there are positives to copyright that could be highlighted. I don't accept that, although I am open to evidence that shows it. Provide some and your comment won't have been useless if it results in a intersting discussion.
On the post: Can Commercial VPNs Really Protect Your Privacy?
Re:
Next >>