Don't cry for Google. They've already made plenty of money placing ads on rogue sites. And I'm guessing that they already are monitoring/blacklisting child porn and such, so I doubt that it will be a threat to its business model.
The bill, as I understand it, allows the government to get an order prohibiting search engines (or interactive computer services) from taking users to a site that has been declared to be a rogue site. That's not much of a "liability". They have the ability to challenge the order and if they lose and then choose to defy the judge's order then I presume they could be cited for contempt. I don't see any safe harbor issues at all. But then again I'm not a piracy apologist so maybe Mike could explain it to me.
I understand that you and the rest of the techdirtbags and sundry piracy apologists hate the fact that it may become harder to get the copyrighted content of others for free. The nerd rage is palpable.
In the example you site, are you suggesting that all or most of the content was not infringing? How come the site owner didn't protest in court?
Not to add to your misery (but I will) Sen. Klobuchar's bill making unlawful streaming a felony has dropped as well. Now maybe you, Gigi Sohn and your other professional apologist friends can get together with Ron Wyden for a good cry.
the bill has dropped. It's bipartisan, enjoys broad support and soon become law. Wyden will try to derail it but will fail. The House is working on a companion bill that will breeze through. Game, set, match.
I never claimed that. If you had even bothered to read the bill you'd have known its requirements already. Instead, you don't bother to read it so the facts don't interfere with your assumptions and biases.
For rogue sites dedicated to infringing activities it doesn't require an adversarial hearing, it requires a presentation of facts to a judge. There are tens of thousands of infringing sites that would be a slam dunk to prove to a judge are infringing and subject to PROTECT IP.
The procedure to have a site declared a rogue site is substantially the same as one that culminates with an arrest warrant. Evidence of wanton infringement is presented to the judge and he then renders a decision.
A police officer doesn't have to witness the act to make an arrest. He can act on a warrant as described above. In the real world officers make arrests all the time based on evidence. Download an episode of "Cops" and watch what happens when a wife with a bloody nose accuses her husband of beating her.
If you us your pawn shop to sell stolen goods or your home as a crack house they are subject to forfeiture. Look it up.
Your airline analogy makes no sense. It would be correct to say it doesn't violate US law to go to a country like Sweden or Spain and download content that is subject to copyright in the US. But if the streaming or downloading is received in the US, it's subject to US law. Just like you can go to Amsterdam and smoke away, but if you mail a sample back to yourself in Peoria don't expect immunity from prosecution.
"LOL ... U R 2 Funny ... what profit? From ads, the music industry constantly complains that ads don't make enough money, and are not a business model they want to try. "
That was the most breathtakingly stupid thing I've ever heard. Rogue sites costs are nearly zero. What does it cost to steal creative output and offer it for sale on a website? Almost every dime a rogue site takes in is pure profit. Are you really so desperate that you advance a cockamamie argument like that?
Maybe you're not slow. Maybe you just don't want to get it.
The enforcement aspects are US centered. No US credit card companies, no US ad networks, no US search engines. Note the common denominator- US, not French, not Nigerian.
What innovation has been vetoed? Talkies: No; Technicolor: No; VCR: No; DVD: No; DVR: No; HD: No; 3D: No
I don't know why you can't acknowledge that the objection is to people taking something of value that doesn't belong to them and making money off of it for themselves. It's NOT about resistance to technological change. Your analogy about Model T's replacing horses is pure gibberish.
"Also on the "horribly ugly" side of things is the extension of this bill to cover search engines. That is, when the Attorney General uses the law, one of the things that can be done is obtaining an order saying search engines must no longer link to certain sites. This seems like a massive form of meddling in how a search engine operates. I also can't see how it could survive First Amendment scrutiny. It's a blatant case of the government telling a search engine what it can and cannot link to in its index. "
Search engines already screen for child porn. Does that pass your First Amendment muster? And domain name registrars seem to have taken actions on child porn too. Free speech issue?
The bottom line here is that freeloading (which really is what the debate is about) is going to become incrementally more difficult. Dedicated infringers may have little trouble, but casual ones who just do it because it's easy and riskless will do far less. The foreign pirates who steal and monetize other's content for personal profit will have a much harder time. Tough shit.
Understand that without the ability to profit from one's creativity and innovation, there is a drastic disincentive to create and innovate? And just because a market is subject to a set of rules doesn't mean that competition within that market isn't free. Free does not mean lawless.
OK, so go lobby to confer private right of action across the entire internet ecosystem. But you really don't want that either and it would mean you'd have one less half-baked argument.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: The real targets
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re:
How do you compete with free?
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re:
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re:
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/468207-New_Bill_Would_Criminalize_Illegal_TV_Show _Streaming.php
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
On the post: Limewire Settles For $105 Million; How Much Of That Will Go To Artists?
Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/limewire-agrees-pay-major-record-labels-105m-2735 0
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that you and the rest of the techdirtbags and sundry piracy apologists hate the fact that it may become harder to get the copyrighted content of others for free. The nerd rage is palpable.
In the example you site, are you suggesting that all or most of the content was not infringing? How come the site owner didn't protest in court?
Not to add to your misery (but I will) Sen. Klobuchar's bill making unlawful streaming a felony has dropped as well. Now maybe you, Gigi Sohn and your other professional apologist friends can get together with Ron Wyden for a good cry.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the bill has dropped. It's bipartisan, enjoys broad support and soon become law. Wyden will try to derail it but will fail. The House is working on a companion bill that will breeze through. Game, set, match.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The procedure to have a site declared a rogue site is substantially the same as one that culminates with an arrest warrant. Evidence of wanton infringement is presented to the judge and he then renders a decision.
A police officer doesn't have to witness the act to make an arrest. He can act on a warrant as described above. In the real world officers make arrests all the time based on evidence. Download an episode of "Cops" and watch what happens when a wife with a bloody nose accuses her husband of beating her.
If you us your pawn shop to sell stolen goods or your home as a crack house they are subject to forfeiture. Look it up.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
On the post: Full Text Of The PROTECT IP Act Released: The Good, The Bad And The Horribly Ugly
Re: Re:
"LOL ... U R 2 Funny ... what profit? From ads, the music industry constantly complains that ads don't make enough money, and are not a business model they want to try. "
That was the most breathtakingly stupid thing I've ever heard. Rogue sites costs are nearly zero. What does it cost to steal creative output and offer it for sale on a website? Almost every dime a rogue site takes in is pure profit. Are you really so desperate that you advance a cockamamie argument like that?
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
The enforcement aspects are US centered. No US credit card companies, no US ad networks, no US search engines. Note the common denominator- US, not French, not Nigerian.
What innovation has been vetoed? Talkies: No; Technicolor: No; VCR: No; DVD: No; DVR: No; HD: No; 3D: No
I don't know why you can't acknowledge that the objection is to people taking something of value that doesn't belong to them and making money off of it for themselves. It's NOT about resistance to technological change. Your analogy about Model T's replacing horses is pure gibberish.
On the post: Full Text Of The PROTECT IP Act Released: The Good, The Bad And The Horribly Ugly
Search engines already screen for child porn. Does that pass your First Amendment muster? And domain name registrars seem to have taken actions on child porn too. Free speech issue?
The bottom line here is that freeloading (which really is what the debate is about) is going to become incrementally more difficult. Dedicated infringers may have little trouble, but casual ones who just do it because it's easy and riskless will do far less. The foreign pirates who steal and monetize other's content for personal profit will have a much harder time. Tough shit.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>