Perhaps drawing more attention to that resulted in her correcting her earlier ruling.
How exactly do the new rulings "correct" her prior rulings? Different issues, different rulings. They have nothing to do with each other, as far as I can surmise.
I didn't understand the point of the torrentfreak article when I read it last week. I certainly don't understand whatever the point is you're making now. Care to explain?
But that is not the crux, nor the point, of the article. The article merely points out that if this was such a big problem, then at least we should likely see some correlation between internet growth and the growth of the ills that Hatch and the others claim are worsened by this.
And perhaps there has been a growth of ills attributable to internet porn. That's my point. Without more information, those numbers you quoted are meaningless and there's no reason to even post them.
Hmm. That's a separate issue. And you do know that correlation is not "meaningless." It doesn't mean causation, but correlation is still a useful attribute to understand. But, again, mo one was making a causal argument here (other than Hatch).
Again, we don't even know if there is correlation, since you're looking at the total numbers with no mention of which portions thereof are attributable to internet porn. The numbers are meaningless. That you proffered them is puzzling.
Honestly, if you're going to set yourself up as a FUD Buster, it helps not to be wrong about almost everything.
I'm just trying to add something of value to the conversation. I don't see how that makes me "wrong."
Radley Balko goes through the various claims that Hatch makes about online pornography and debunks them all pretty thoroughly . . .
Just because the overall trends show a decline, that does not necessarily mean that the decline is due to internet porn. For all we know, those numbers would have declined more but for internet porn. Without causation, those numbers are meaningless, no?
If you're going to set yourself up as a FUDbuster, it would help for you to not lie about what I have said.
Otherwise, it makes you look like a FUD spreader.
I didn't say no one should be responsible. Individuals are still responsible for what they do. What I pointed out was having the connection subscriber be responsible for traffic on their own local network does not make sense. That's not the same thing as saying no one should be responsible, and either you know that, or you have no business commenting on this topic.
My apologies if I misrepresented you.
I still don't follow you, though. If the subscriber is not responsible for what his children do on the internet, then who is? The children? There is a reason that parents can be held liable for the actions of their children.
Do you really not believe that a subscriber is responsible for the actions of those he authorizes to use his subscription? I might agree if we were talking about unauthorized use, but that's not the case here.
Did you REALLY inetionally put this in for a laugh? You really can't be claiming that we should not be responsible for our own computers and network?
I think he's quite serious. I'm not sure who he thinks should be responsible for what happens on the internet. Apparently, it's nobody. Not the ISPs, not the infringers, and not any subscribers who might have infringement under their own roof.
Perhaps they don't see the value in streaming and just want to control the delivery system, in which case they're just reactionary idiots. But my guess is they don't have the muscle to change the methods of the ratings system.
It seems clear to me that Viacom sees the value of this streaming, and they want to make sure that some of that value goes back to them. Even if the streamed views are not counted for advertising purposes, getting a licensing fee from TWC would be better than getting nothing at all.
I just don't see what's so nefarious about Viacom's position. If TWC is making money using Viacom's IP in a way not covered by their agreement, then why shouldn't Viacom object? It would be more noteworthy if they didn't.
In the end, it comes down to a contractual dispute over what TWC's deal with Viacom says, but the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. TWC's offering is really limited, and all it's doing is making Viacom's content more valuable to subscribers. Viacom, in typical entertainment industry fashion, seems to think that everyone needs to pay it for making its content more valuable.
You know what would make it more valuable to Viacom? TWC paying a fee to transmit Viacom's IP to their broadband customers. If the agreement between them really does not allow TWC to transmit to iPads, then why shouldn't Viacom assert their rights and get a piece of the action? Obviously, they believe that doing so will be better for their bottom line. Who are you to say definitively that they are incorrect about this?
"Moreover, defendants have intentionally attempted to stymie plaintiffs’ copyright enforcement efforts. Even if Hotfile does block access to specifically identified copyrighted works, Hotfile has implemented technical features to ensure continued infringing access to plaintiffs’ content. For example, Hotfile permits registered users to upload a single copy of a work once, but then make five additional separate copies of the work on Hotfile’s servers, each with a different URL link. The purpose of this feature is to frustrate copyright owner takedown notices: it permits an uploading user to post one URL link at a time, then, when the link is discovered and deactivated in response to copyright owner notices, to immediately post a link to the same content without even having to upload the work again to Hotfile’s servers. There is simply no legitimate consumer or commercial reason to replicate a single uploaded content file five times on the Hotfile servers."
That's from the DMCA: 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A): "(i) Conditions for Eligibility.— (1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider— (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers"
I disagree. It disrupts infringement, and it gets out the message that copyright, trademark, and child porn laws are being enforced by Uncle Sam on the internet. With the addition of COICA, websites that merely shift to a non U.S.-based domain name won't be able to hide. I think as a deterrent, it is effective. We'll see.
I would think it's necessary due to it being a prior restraint issue concerning speech. And what your side has never shown is why couldn't they have a adversarial hearing, just to make sure there isn't Constitutional issues.
Of course they COULD have a prior adversary hearing. They COULD also order out for Chinese. Who cares? The only relevant issue is whether they MUST. The lengthy history of in rem forfeitures and ex parte seizures suggests that no prior adversary hearing is necessary. The law just doesn't support your point of view. Should it? Maybe so. Maybe that's better. But that's not the point. The point is that the law in fact allows for such seizures on the basis of probable cause alone.
What isn't explained is why law enforcement on both sides of the Atlantic are so damn afraid of actually having an adversarial hearing before seizing a domain. If they're so sure that these sites are illegal, why are they so afraid of facing the site owners in court?
They don't have to explain it. Why should they? They are following the law. They don't have to justify why they didn't take some other course of action that they are not compelled to take.
What you have never shown is that a prior adversary hearing is NECESSARY. Nor can you, because it's not.
On the post: Judge Backpedals On Allowing Mass Infringement Lawsuits After Press Calls Attention To Her RIAA Lobbying Past
How exactly do the new rulings "correct" her prior rulings? Different issues, different rulings. They have nothing to do with each other, as far as I can surmise.
I didn't understand the point of the torrentfreak article when I read it last week. I certainly don't understand whatever the point is you're making now. Care to explain?
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re:
And perhaps there has been a growth of ills attributable to internet porn. That's my point. Without more information, those numbers you quoted are meaningless and there's no reason to even post them.
Hmm. That's a separate issue. And you do know that correlation is not "meaningless." It doesn't mean causation, but correlation is still a useful attribute to understand. But, again, mo one was making a causal argument here (other than Hatch).
Again, we don't even know if there is correlation, since you're looking at the total numbers with no mention of which portions thereof are attributable to internet porn. The numbers are meaningless. That you proffered them is puzzling.
Honestly, if you're going to set yourself up as a FUD Buster, it helps not to be wrong about almost everything.
I'm just trying to add something of value to the conversation. I don't see how that makes me "wrong."
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Policing his own network
On the post: Winklevoss Twins Told To Accept The Millions Facebook Has Already Given Them And To Stop Complaining
I believe it's called misappropriation of trade secrets.
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Just because the overall trends show a decline, that does not necessarily mean that the decline is due to internet porn. For all we know, those numbers would have declined more but for internet porn. Without causation, those numbers are meaningless, no?
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Policing his own network
Otherwise, it makes you look like a FUD spreader.
I didn't say no one should be responsible. Individuals are still responsible for what they do. What I pointed out was having the connection subscriber be responsible for traffic on their own local network does not make sense. That's not the same thing as saying no one should be responsible, and either you know that, or you have no business commenting on this topic.
My apologies if I misrepresented you.
I still don't follow you, though. If the subscriber is not responsible for what his children do on the internet, then who is? The children? There is a reason that parents can be held liable for the actions of their children.
Do you really not believe that a subscriber is responsible for the actions of those he authorizes to use his subscription? I might agree if we were talking about unauthorized use, but that's not the case here.
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: Re: Policing his own network
I think he's quite serious. I'm not sure who he thinks should be responsible for what happens on the internet. Apparently, it's nobody. Not the ISPs, not the infringers, and not any subscribers who might have infringement under their own roof.
On the post: Time Warner Cable, Viacom Go To Court: Does TWC Need Permission To Let Paying Subscribers View Viacom Content On iPads?
Re: Re: Re:
It seems clear to me that Viacom sees the value of this streaming, and they want to make sure that some of that value goes back to them. Even if the streamed views are not counted for advertising purposes, getting a licensing fee from TWC would be better than getting nothing at all.
I just don't see what's so nefarious about Viacom's position. If TWC is making money using Viacom's IP in a way not covered by their agreement, then why shouldn't Viacom object? It would be more noteworthy if they didn't.
On the post: Time Warner Cable, Viacom Go To Court: Does TWC Need Permission To Let Paying Subscribers View Viacom Content On iPads?
You know what would make it more valuable to Viacom? TWC paying a fee to transmit Viacom's IP to their broadband customers. If the agreement between them really does not allow TWC to transmit to iPads, then why shouldn't Viacom assert their rights and get a piece of the action? Obviously, they believe that doing so will be better for their bottom line. Who are you to say definitively that they are incorrect about this?
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure the truth lies somewhere between the complaint and the answer. ;)
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Moreover, defendants have intentionally attempted to stymie plaintiffs’ copyright enforcement efforts. Even if Hotfile does block access to specifically identified copyrighted works, Hotfile has implemented technical features to ensure continued infringing access to plaintiffs’ content. For example, Hotfile permits registered users to upload a single copy of a work once, but then make five additional separate copies of the work on Hotfile’s servers, each with a different URL link. The purpose of this feature is to frustrate copyright owner takedown notices: it permits an uploading user to post one URL link at a time, then, when the link is discovered and deactivated in response to copyright owner notices, to immediately post a link to the same content without even having to upload the work again to Hotfile’s servers. There is simply no legitimate consumer or commercial reason to replicate a single uploaded content file five times on the Hotfile servers."
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
That's from the DMCA: 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A): "(i) Conditions for Eligibility.— (1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider— (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
On the post: Copyright Fight Ensues Over Rebecca Black's 'Friday'
Is there any law that creates a private right of action that you COULDN'T say this about? Maybe the law's not the problem.
On the post: UK Domain Seizures: Nominet Admits It's Helped Police Seize 3,000 Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Domain Seizures: Nominet Admits It's Helped Police Seize 3,000 Sites
Re: Re:
Of course they COULD have a prior adversary hearing. They COULD also order out for Chinese. Who cares? The only relevant issue is whether they MUST. The lengthy history of in rem forfeitures and ex parte seizures suggests that no prior adversary hearing is necessary. The law just doesn't support your point of view. Should it? Maybe so. Maybe that's better. But that's not the point. The point is that the law in fact allows for such seizures on the basis of probable cause alone.
On the post: UK Domain Seizures: Nominet Admits It's Helped Police Seize 3,000 Sites
They don't have to explain it. Why should they? They are following the law. They don't have to justify why they didn't take some other course of action that they are not compelled to take.
What you have never shown is that a prior adversary hearing is NECESSARY. Nor can you, because it's not.
Next >>