Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"
But they may be in the same office or employer.
I kind of doubt it, not least because out_of_the_blue seems utterly unemployable.
No, I believe that they're the copyright equivalent of Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads." Someone comes up with an idiotic talking point, and they all repeat it.
Your futile attempts to censor one of your detractors by blocking his IP address has already revealed what a hypocritical douchebag you are.
AJ, we all can tell this is you. I'd ask you to stop resorting to sock puppetry, but I know you won't.
It does show how hypocritical you are every time you falsely accuse Mike of using sock puppets. Like every accusation you level against Techdirt, they're all based on your behavior.
17 USC 301 addresses the scope/type of rights that may be associated with state law, but it is not a jurisdictional statute.
I don't see how you could say it is not a "jurisdictional statute" when, quite clearly, its entire reason for existing is to preempt state actions. Every court that mentions it calls it "an explicit preemption provision" (or something along those lines).
There is case law out of the 11th Circuit (Crow v. Wainwright) that deals with a state's entitlement to prosecute matters that may be associated with materials secured by copyright law.
The proper method of analysis is to examine whether the elements of a cause of action for the tort of copyright infringement are equivalent to the elements of the crime of dealing in stolen property as it applies in this case. Despite the name given the offense, the elements essential to establish a violation of the Florida statute in this case correspond almost exactly to those of the tort of copyright infringement. [...]
Section 301 clearly prohibits Florida from prosecuting Crow in this case, and we conclude that Crow's conviction is null and void. We therefore REVERSE this case and REMAND it to the district court with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. I could hunt down other cases that said the same thing, if you want.
Can you find even one court that said that the State could prosecute for actions that were covered entirely under Federal copyright law? I've never heard of one.
I meant that the Supreme Court didn't have to decide it in any case, since it is a matter of black-letter law.
The court did not rule that copyright infringement was not "theft" as a normative matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "normative matter" in this instance, since criminal acts must be explicitly defined by statute.
Criminal matters are not explicitly limited.
Where do you get that? Here is the relevant text from 17 USC 301:
On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.
There's no distinction made between civil and criminal laws. The only rights and remedies that are allowed, as a matter of black-letter law, are the ones granted in Title 17.
The Supreme Court ruled on all piracy in 1985, whether online or not.
And they ruled that copyright infringement is not "theft, conversion, or fraud," and that you can't be charged with any of those things for copyright violations.
They didn't have to rule on preemption, since Federal copyright laws have preempted state copyright laws since 1976. Meaning that if you infringed on any work that is covered by Federal copyright law, you can only be charged under the Federal copyright statutes.
But, of course, the California D.A. doesn't want to do that, because it would probably turn out like the myVidster case.
Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations
To be clear:
Pandora is asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations do for streaming on the Internet.
That is, if you're a terrestrial radio station, and you run Internet streams in the same way that Pandora does, the terrestrial radio stations pay far less for their Internet streams.
Are you seriously suggesting that Breyer's intent was to overturn Dowling?
And I'm the fucking idiot?
Just like the OP wrote.
No, he didn't. He said that copyright infringement was "no different than garden-variety theft." Not that it was "no less" than garden-variety theft, but that they were one and the same thing under the law.
And he was doing it to justify the California A.G. bringing theft charges, not copyright infringement charges, against the site owners.
He is wrong, and an entire Supreme Court case that focused only on this specific issue showed that he is wrong.
The sad part about this is that Biden has one of the worst political records in history when it comes to privacy.
In fact, it was some of Biden's legislation that spurred Phil Zimmerman to create PGP. When he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he introduced two bills: the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, and the Violent Crime Control Act. Both contained this language:
providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications
According to Zimmerman, "It was this bill that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
Second, even if you consider state statutes to be "common law," no state has ever equated copyright infringement with theft. They've always been considered two separate things.
One major difference is that theft laws are always criminal (either misdemeanors or felonies). Copyright infringement has always been primarily a civil infraction.
That's why IsoHunt was never found guilty of any criminal act. They only faced civil liability.
I've tried that hundreds if not thousands of times.
Not once have you interacted with Mike, where you didn't insult him and lie about him.
Not once.
As usual, you're the only one here who doesn't have "even one honest cell in his body." You've proved this over and over and over again.
Enjoy your delusion that refusing to interact with a lying, petulant asshole is the same as refusing to discuss something "on the merits." I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.
the US Supreme Court itself already stated that digital piracy was "no different than garden-variety theft."
No, they didn't.
The quote you're referring to is this one: "And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); §1956(c)(7)(D) (money laundering includes the receipt of proceeds from copyright infringement)."
That was from a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer - not the opinion of the court.
Furthermore, the statutes he quoted to support his (dicta) claim were all copyright infringement statutes. Not a one was a statute dealing with theft, conversion, or fraud.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court, when it decided exactly this issue, said explicitly that copyright infringment was not theft, and that people who engage in piracy cannot be charged under Federal theft laws:
In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. [...] Thus, the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, or merchandise," for the copyright holder's dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits.
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. [...] The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Dowling's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2314 was overturned.
So, you're 100% wrong: the Supreme Court said no such thing, and in fact explicitly said that the government cannot do exactly what the California A.G. is attempting to do in this case.
That really sucks for you, doesn't it, asshole A.C.?
Uh huh. When Techdirt post stories about the government collecting data in violation of the 4th (and probably 1st) Amendment, they're just "milking it for the clicks."
But when Techdirt posts a story about anything else (like copyright infringement), they're spreading FUD.
And, of course, merely speaking about the silencing of protected speech under the guise of "copyright protection" means that you "LOVE PIRACY" but are "too dishonest to admit or to discuss it."
Uh huh.
It's amazing how low you are willing to sink. You are possibly the most dishonest asshole I have ever encountered.
whether you think that it's just the first step in the lizard-people's plot to systematically ruin American families so that children will be easy pickings for their hungry salamander love-children
On the post: Prometheus, Meet Thomas Jefferson: On Fire, Stealing And Sharing
Interesting title
I mean, stealing while on fire I can comprehend. But I would hate to share being on fire with him.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"
Of course, in Average Joe's case, that "someone" would be a See 'N Say.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"
I kind of doubt it, not least because out_of_the_blue seems utterly unemployable.
No, I believe that they're the copyright equivalent of Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads." Someone comes up with an idiotic talking point, and they all repeat it.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re:
AJ, we all can tell this is you. I'd ask you to stop resorting to sock puppetry, but I know you won't.
It does show how hypocritical you are every time you falsely accuse Mike of using sock puppets. Like every accusation you level against Techdirt, they're all based on your behavior.
On the post: MPAA's Chris Dodd Will Be The Chair Of 'Free Speech Week'
Re:
As long as he doesn't get to sit on us!
...'Cause he's fat.
On the post: States Attorneys General Want Special Exception To Blame Sites For Actions Of Users
Typo in headline
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on
I don't see how you could say it is not a "jurisdictional statute" when, quite clearly, its entire reason for existing is to preempt state actions. Every court that mentions it calls it "an explicit preemption provision" (or something along those lines).
There is case law out of the 11th Circuit (Crow v. Wainwright) that deals with a state's entitlement to prosecute matters that may be associated with materials secured by copyright law.
Wait... the case that ends with this quote?
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. I could hunt down other cases that said the same thing, if you want.
Can you find even one court that said that the State could prosecute for actions that were covered entirely under Federal copyright law? I've never heard of one.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on
I meant that the Supreme Court didn't have to decide it in any case, since it is a matter of black-letter law.
The court did not rule that copyright infringement was not "theft" as a normative matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "normative matter" in this instance, since criminal acts must be explicitly defined by statute.
Criminal matters are not explicitly limited.
Where do you get that? Here is the relevant text from 17 USC 301:
There's no distinction made between civil and criminal laws. The only rights and remedies that are allowed, as a matter of black-letter law, are the ones granted in Title 17.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re: Come on
The Supreme Court ruled on all piracy in 1985, whether online or not.
And they ruled that copyright infringement is not "theft, conversion, or fraud," and that you can't be charged with any of those things for copyright violations.
They didn't have to rule on preemption, since Federal copyright laws have preempted state copyright laws since 1976. Meaning that if you infringed on any work that is covered by Federal copyright law, you can only be charged under the Federal copyright statutes.
But, of course, the California D.A. doesn't want to do that, because it would probably turn out like the myVidster case.
On the post: Legacy Recording Industry Claims Pandora Is Playing A 'Sick Joke' In Seeking The Same Rates Others Pay
Re: Re:
To be clear:
Pandora is asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations do for streaming on the Internet.
That is, if you're a terrestrial radio station, and you run Internet streams in the same way that Pandora does, the terrestrial radio stations pay far less for their Internet streams.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Feeble
Megaupload was not charged with theft.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re:
I already covered Breyer's comment, dipshit.
Are you seriously suggesting that Breyer's intent was to overturn Dowling?
And I'm the fucking idiot?
Just like the OP wrote.
No, he didn't. He said that copyright infringement was "no different than garden-variety theft." Not that it was "no less" than garden-variety theft, but that they were one and the same thing under the law.
And he was doing it to justify the California A.G. bringing theft charges, not copyright infringement charges, against the site owners.
He is wrong, and an entire Supreme Court case that focused only on this specific issue showed that he is wrong.
Assuming "he" is not you, of course.
On the post: Senator Biden Teaches President Obama A Lesson About NSA Spying From The Past
Re: Biden?
The sad part about this is that Biden has one of the worst political records in history when it comes to privacy.
In fact, it was some of Biden's legislation that spurred Phil Zimmerman to create PGP. When he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he introduced two bills: the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, and the Violent Crime Control Act. Both contained this language:
According to Zimmerman, "It was this bill that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
Of course, Biden didn't stop there. Details are here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
On the post: Senator Biden Teaches President Obama A Lesson About NSA Spying From The Past
Biden?
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.
Not according to either the Federal statutes or the Supreme Court, it's not.
Common law, in my opinion, directly equates commercial scale infringement under these circumstances with theft.
Your opinion is wrong.
First, copyright law is not based on common law, as I've already made very clear to you:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/16073622693/julie-samuels-favorite-techdirt-posts-we ek.shtml#c618
Second, even if you consider state statutes to be "common law," no state has ever equated copyright infringement with theft. They've always been considered two separate things.
One major difference is that theft laws are always criminal (either misdemeanors or felonies). Copyright infringement has always been primarily a civil infraction.
That's why IsoHunt was never found guilty of any criminal act. They only faced civil liability.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re:
Not once have you interacted with Mike, where you didn't insult him and lie about him.
Not once.
As usual, you're the only one here who doesn't have "even one honest cell in his body." You've proved this over and over and over again.
Enjoy your delusion that refusing to interact with a lying, petulant asshole is the same as refusing to discuss something "on the merits." I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.
IsoHunt was never found guilty of theft. (Nor even charged with theft.)
They were found guilty of civil copyright infringement.
They are not the same thing at all.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re:
No, they didn't.
The quote you're referring to is this one: "And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); §1956(c)(7)(D) (money laundering includes the receipt of proceeds from copyright infringement)."
That was from a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer - not the opinion of the court.
Furthermore, the statutes he quoted to support his (dicta) claim were all copyright infringement statutes. Not a one was a statute dealing with theft, conversion, or fraud.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court, when it decided exactly this issue, said explicitly that copyright infringment was not theft, and that people who engage in piracy cannot be charged under Federal theft laws:
Dowling's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2314 was overturned.
So, you're 100% wrong: the Supreme Court said no such thing, and in fact explicitly said that the government cannot do exactly what the California A.G. is attempting to do in this case.
That really sucks for you, doesn't it, asshole A.C.?
On the post: Sony Issues Takedown Of Mashup Album That Did Reinterpretation Using Original (Non-Sony) Samples
Re:
But when Techdirt posts a story about anything else (like copyright infringement), they're spreading FUD.
And, of course, merely speaking about the silencing of protected speech under the guise of "copyright protection" means that you "LOVE PIRACY" but are "too dishonest to admit or to discuss it."
Uh huh.
It's amazing how low you are willing to sink. You are possibly the most dishonest asshole I have ever encountered.
On the post: Fox News Too Cowardly To Refuse Critical Ad Because It's Critical, Claims Copyright Instead
Lizard People
I, for one, welcome our new Lizard People overlords.
Next >>