Helping someone to commit a wrong is itself wrong. This is a concept that is centuries old. It shouldn't be too surprising. Copyright owners have the exclusive right "to do" and "to authorize" the enumerated rights. 17 U.S.C. 106. By linking to an infringing work, the linker is authorizing copying. This is infringement. Helping others to infringe is infringement. This is well-settled law.
Not a convincing argument. If the link is for the purpose of helping others infringe, and others in fact infringe using that link, then liability attaches because one who assists an infringement is an infringer. It's pretty simple, really. In your view, people should be able to help others infringe without liability. But in the legal view, where infringement is in fact a wrong, helping someone commit a wrong is itself wrong. You're just working backwards. Just like Mike.
Mike said this: "It is a troubling ruling for a number of reasons. Merely setting up the precedent that a link itself is infringement has all sorts of problematic implications."
I'm responding to that statement. You're the one derailing things.
Do you not understand that I'm speaking generally, and not about this particular case. I believe I've said this now three times. I'm addressing the idea that linking can never be infringement. It can. But it depends on the facts.
If someone in the U.S. provides a link to copyrighted material for the purpose of assisting others to infringe, it doesn't matter whether they also uploaded the material in the first place. They are still contributing to the infringement.
The press is typically covered by fair use. So, no. That's typically protected by the First Amendment. But links also have a functional aspect, and under certain conditions that functional aspect creates liability.
Ninja, I'm not talking about this particular case or the law in the Netherlands. I'm talking about Mike's notion that linking isn't/shouldn't be infringement. If he really believed that infringement is bad (which he only pretends to believe), then he wouldn't think that holding people liable for the infringement they intend to cause via links they knowingly provide for that purpose is bad. But Mike's a pirate apologist and a liar and he will always defend everything people do that assists in infringement, like linking.
Basically, average_joe's point is that there are victims in both situations and both are having things done to them against their wishes (thus they are victims).
Right. And that is the extent of the comparison. Are there significant differences between infringement and rape? Of course. That's obvious. But that doesn't mean that certain aspects of the two can't be analogized. Folks here seem to think that if two different things have any differences, then no analogies between the two can ever be made. That's not how analogies work. If two things had to be exactly the same thing before they could be compared, then only things that were in fact the same thing could be compared. What's the point of that?
But it falls back to what we're all trying to point out to him, which for being a lawyer he's being either purposefully obtuse or something in not getting.
They aren't the same thing. I 100% agree. That misses the point of an analogy.
Making any comparison between being a "victim" of copyright infringement and being a victim of rape is morally repugnant to the majority of people. And while he's not directly conflating the two, but he's walking a pretty f*cking fine line on that, it still is a comparison. Just because there's a victim.
Both are having something done to them that they don't want to happen. That is a fact. Is one worse than the other? Of course. The analogy doesn't say that the thing being done is of the same degree of reprehensibility. It just says that they share one aspect in common, which is true.
Btu it's also worth noting that in the case of copyright infringement there is no true victim. Just because something is being done against your wishes DOES NOT make you a victim, average_joe. It is til something is done that actually causes you measurable harm in some way, shape or form (and that can be supported and verified with facts and evidence) that a victim is created.
Your standard is that there has to be measurable harm. I question how you decided that there's never any harm in infringement. The studies point in different directions and are in my opinion inconclusive. And as I tried to explain to Mike, I'm talking about the issue of liability, not the issue of damages. Those are different things. When you're talking about harm, you're talking about damages. Damages for infringements are notoriously difficult to prove, which is why we have statutory damages.
Your comparison is still flawed and still morally repugnant. As someone who wouldn't stfu about morals the other day, you seem to have some major issues with just where your morals lie. Conflating the copying of a file with the willful violation of a person's body is pretty damn low and sickening. You've got a great future ahead of you though, teaching copyright violaters a major lesson in court and whatnot. You'll definitely be on the "potential employees/attorneys" list for the RIAA/MPAA with the way you're going.
In both situations, somebody is having something done to them that they don't want to be done. That is the full extent of the comparison. I'm not saying the harm done is of the same degree. I haven't said anything about the harm. I don't think stating a fact is repugnant, but you have every right to disagree. Get on that soap box! Of course you don't seem to understand that I'm not saying they are the same, I'm merely pointing out that in one small facet they are. The differences between the two are significant, so I agree with you there. But yeah, call me names because I say one thing that is the truth. Good on ya! You fit in well on Techdirt. Don't try to think too hard! Mike doesn't like that.
I'm responding to Mike's "worry": "It is a troubling ruling for a number of reasons. Merely setting up the precedent that a link itself is infringement has all sorts of problematic implications." I'm not applying that to the facts of the Dutch case.
Mike has made clear many times that he doesn't think linking should give rise to any liability. And usually he makes the "but if linking is infringement then Google is an infringer!" argument. This, of course, ignores the fact that there has to be intent. And it ignores the fact that Google can be an infringer for linking.
Google search's automated organizing of the web isn't infringement because there's no knowledge of linking to any specific infringing file. But once Google is given notice that a link points to an infringing file via a DMCA takedown notification or some other method, Google removes the link. Why? For the reasons mentioned by the Ninth Circuit. Once Google has knowledge that a specific link points to infringing material, Google is thereafter facing liability for whatever infringement occurs via that link. The intent to cause that infringement is imputed.
Mike sticks his fingers in his ears and pretends like linking creates no liability. The truth is that sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. And don't be confused by the fact that the liability is for contributory infringement. Contributory infringers are still susceptible to the full range of remedies provided by the Copyright Act which include money damages and injunctive relief. A contributory infringer is an "infringer" under Section 501, and they are treated the same as a primary infringer.
I know you don't like to acknowledge this, but intentionally linking to infringing content can create copyright liability. The Ninth Circuit held that Google could be liable for contributory infringement for inline linking. Once someone has knowledge that the link points to infringing material, the intent to cause infringement is imputed. The link itself materially contributes, so you have knowledge (intent) and material contribution which is contributory infringement.
Our tests for contributory liability are consistent with the rule set forth in Grokster. We have adopted the general rule set forth in Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., namely: “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer,” 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir.1971). See Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076; Napster, 239 F.3d at 1019; Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir.1996).
We have further refined this test in the context of cyberspace to determine when contributory liability can be imposed on a provider of Internet access or services. See Napster, 239 F.3d at 1019–20. In Napster, we considered claims that the operator of an electronic file sharing system was contributorily liable for assisting individual users to swap copyrighted music files stored on their home computers with other users of the system. Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011–13, 1019–22. We stated that “if a computer system operator learns of specific infringing material available on his system and fails to purge such material from the system, the operator knows of and contributes to direct infringement.” Id. at 1021. Because Napster knew of the availability of infringing music files, assisted users in accessing such files, and failed to block access to such files, we concluded that Napster materially contributed to infringement. Id. at 1022.
The Napster test for contributory liability was modeled on the influential district court decision in Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On–Line Communication Services, Inc. (Netcom), 907 F.Supp. 1361, 1365–66 (N.D.Cal.1995). See Napster, 239 F.3d at 1021. In Netcom, a disgruntled former Scientology minister posted allegedly infringing copies of Scientological works on an electronic bulletin board service. Netcom, 907 F.Supp. at 1365–66. The messages were stored on the bulletin board operator's computer, then automatically copied onto Netcom's computer, and from there copied onto other computers comprising “a worldwide community” of electronic bulletin board systems. Id. at 1366–67 & n. 4 (internal quotation omitted). Netcom held that if plaintiffs *1172 could prove that Netcom knew or should have known that the minister infringed plaintiffs' copyrights, “Netcom[would] be liable for contributory infringement since its failure to simply cancel [the former minister's] infringing message and thereby stop an infringing copy from being distributed worldwide constitute[d] substantial participation in [the former minister's] public distribution of the message.” Id. at 1374.
Although neither Napster nor Netcom expressly required a finding of intent, those cases are consistent with Grokster because both decisions ruled that a service provider's knowing failure to prevent infringing actions could be the basis for imposing contributory liability. Under such circumstances, intent may be imputed. In addition, Napster and Netcom are consistent with the longstanding requirement that an actor's contribution to infringement must be material to warrant the imposition of contributory liability. Gershwin, 443 F.2d at 1162. Both Napster and Netcom acknowledge that services or products that facilitate access to websites throughout the world can significantly magnify the effects of otherwise immaterial infringing activities. See Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022; Netcom, 907 F.Supp. at 1375. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that “[t]he argument for imposing indirect liability” is particularly “powerful” when individuals using the defendant's software could make a huge number of infringing downloads every day. Grokster, 545 U.S. at 929, 125 S.Ct. 2764. Moreover, copyright holders cannot protect their rights in a meaningful way unless they can hold providers of such services or products accountable for their actions pursuant to a test such as that enunciated in Napster. See id. at 929–30, 125 S.Ct. 2764 (“When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement.”). Accordingly, we hold that a computer system operator can be held contributorily liable if it “has actual knowledge that specific infringing material is available using its system,” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022, and can “take simple measures to prevent further damage” to copyrighted works, Netcom, 907 F.Supp. at 1375, yet continues to provide access to infringing works.
Ignoring precedent doesn't make it go away. When someone knowingly links to an infringing file, it is for the purpose of facilitating infringement. It should come as no surprise that the law actually holds people responsible for the infringement they intend to facilitate.
Give me a link to the post you think is me, and I will tell you whether it's me. I don't conflate copyright infringement with rape. They are two different things. There may be some analogies to be drawn, but that's not the same thing as saying the two are the same. There's also differences. One thing I've noticed on Techdirt is that lots of people don't understand a simple analogy. For example, if I say that rape and copyright infringement are similar because the victims don't want it to happen to them, the less intelligent members would respond, "You think infringement is as bad as rape?!?!?!?!" See my point. Anyway, give me the link and I will tell you if it's me. If it was something I said, I will directly say so. Heck, if it's something I agree with, I'll say that too. So let's clear this up today if it's that important to you.
Yes, a similar image was in the movie. My image is not from a still in the movie.
And not, it wasn't me. If I had said that, I would admit it. But I didn't say it.\
and even if you didn't say "rape" you still agreed with the person in question, so, yes, you did agree.
I'm a terrible person because you assume that I would agree with something someone else said even though I didn't say I agree?
You're not too bright. I'm putting you on mental "ignore" as well. You're way too angry. Respond/attack me all you want. I'm not reading your posts anymore.
Grow up, little boy. You must not get enough attention.
That's interesting about collateral estoppel. I would have thought that an invalidated claim would be reported to the USPTO who would then officially take away the grant.
He said it's not right before I gave him the particular fact pattern, and after he said that he said he couldn't answer about the morality of it because he didn't have all the facts. So no, again, he has not addressed my exact fact pattern, and he has not definitively stated whether he thinks it to be immoral.
And, as I have mentioned several times already, when he says it's not right, he means that it goes against the wishes of the rightholder. He has significantly qualified that statement several times. For example, he doesn't think the rightholder should even have the right, he doesn't think they should worry about their rights being violated, he doesn't think that anyone who violates that right should ever be prosecuted, he doesn't think the violation of the right causes any harm, he thinks that rightholders should embrace those who violate their rights. Etc. Etc.
So no, when he says it's not right, there's about 20 asterisks coming after it. When you consider all of these qualifications, it's impossible to believe that he thinks it's immoral. Hence my direct question to him about the morality of it.
An example. If I tell you that hating black people because of their race is wrong because they don't like it, I'm not necessarily saying it's immoral. And then if I qualify that statement by saying that white people are absolutely superior, black people shouldn't mind being hated because they're no good, etc., you would think that my having said it's wrong wasn't all there is to it.
Mike is the same way. When he says it's not right, he's leaving out tons and tons of relevant information. So no, again, he has not answered the question.
Mike has not come into these comments and said, "When someone downloads a copyrighted movie for free they are acting immorally." Nor do I think he will ever say that, because I don't think he believes that. He'll pay us all lip service and pretend like it's "not right," but at bottom, he thinks it's the bee's knees.
We can keep talking about this over and over and over and over again, but where is Mike? Why won't he just answer the direct question with a direct answer? Why all the games?
The obvious answer is it's because he's too ashamed and dishonest to just say what he believes.
Keep on asking me, I'll keep posting in this thread for days and days. I'm still here, Mike. Why pretend like I ran away when I didn't? Why the dishonesty? Is there even one honest cell in your body?
My guess is that the particular claims that were found to be invalid this past summer (the jury invalidated them for anticipation and nonobviousness) are not the particular claims being sued on.
They are probably suing over other claims in those two patents. That would at least make sense. We need to keep in mind that it's not the entire patent that's been invalidated. It's just certain claims therein.
My fact patterns are clear, and I'm only interested in basic, straightforward, wholesale infringement. No outlier scenarios. No crazy facts. I want to know if Mike thinks that when someone goes online and downloads a copyrighted movie so they can watch it without paying for it is immoral. Mike hasn't answered that question, and he will never discuss directly his personal beliefs about infringement. You can't shut him up about copyright infringement--he's probably whined about it more than any other human being on earth. Yet he refuses to discuss his personal beliefs when asked a direct, simple question. That speaks volumes of his character.
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. First you say the patents have been ruled invalid, and then you say they've filed another suit claiming infringement of these very same patents. Which is it?
Shut the fuck up average_joe.
You yourself are infringing right this very moment, with that avatar. As I and others have said before, its from the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. So you're being a hypocrite for lecturing us on copyrights.
How do you know my image came from the movie? You're assuming that.
Also you're a monster. In previous articles, you casually used rape to support your argument, when such a reference doesn't belong. Two of my sisters were raped, so it really pisses me off when I see a guy screaming "Obey Copyright Law, cause of RAPE! Child porn!"
That wasn't even me. Sorry, Rikuo, but you're going on my mental "ignore" list. You just don't have anything of value to add to the discussion, and you're just too angry.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm responding to that statement. You're the one derailing things.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Say there's a copyrighted video that I want to help others infringe upon, and I provide a link: http://www.pirateapologists.com/mikeblowsyoungboys.avi
By providing the link, I'm facilitating the infringement that occurs when people click on it. Under these facts, I'd be a contributory infringer.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. And that is the extent of the comparison. Are there significant differences between infringement and rape? Of course. That's obvious. But that doesn't mean that certain aspects of the two can't be analogized. Folks here seem to think that if two different things have any differences, then no analogies between the two can ever be made. That's not how analogies work. If two things had to be exactly the same thing before they could be compared, then only things that were in fact the same thing could be compared. What's the point of that?
But it falls back to what we're all trying to point out to him, which for being a lawyer he's being either purposefully obtuse or something in not getting.
They aren't the same thing. I 100% agree. That misses the point of an analogy.
Making any comparison between being a "victim" of copyright infringement and being a victim of rape is morally repugnant to the majority of people. And while he's not directly conflating the two, but he's walking a pretty f*cking fine line on that, it still is a comparison. Just because there's a victim.
Both are having something done to them that they don't want to happen. That is a fact. Is one worse than the other? Of course. The analogy doesn't say that the thing being done is of the same degree of reprehensibility. It just says that they share one aspect in common, which is true.
Btu it's also worth noting that in the case of copyright infringement there is no true victim. Just because something is being done against your wishes DOES NOT make you a victim, average_joe. It is til something is done that actually causes you measurable harm in some way, shape or form (and that can be supported and verified with facts and evidence) that a victim is created.
Your standard is that there has to be measurable harm. I question how you decided that there's never any harm in infringement. The studies point in different directions and are in my opinion inconclusive. And as I tried to explain to Mike, I'm talking about the issue of liability, not the issue of damages. Those are different things. When you're talking about harm, you're talking about damages. Damages for infringements are notoriously difficult to prove, which is why we have statutory damages.
Your comparison is still flawed and still morally repugnant. As someone who wouldn't stfu about morals the other day, you seem to have some major issues with just where your morals lie. Conflating the copying of a file with the willful violation of a person's body is pretty damn low and sickening. You've got a great future ahead of you though, teaching copyright violaters a major lesson in court and whatnot. You'll definitely be on the "potential employees/attorneys" list for the RIAA/MPAA with the way you're going.
In both situations, somebody is having something done to them that they don't want to be done. That is the full extent of the comparison. I'm not saying the harm done is of the same degree. I haven't said anything about the harm. I don't think stating a fact is repugnant, but you have every right to disagree. Get on that soap box! Of course you don't seem to understand that I'm not saying they are the same, I'm merely pointing out that in one small facet they are. The differences between the two are significant, so I agree with you there. But yeah, call me names because I say one thing that is the truth. Good on ya! You fit in well on Techdirt. Don't try to think too hard! Mike doesn't like that.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
Mike has made clear many times that he doesn't think linking should give rise to any liability. And usually he makes the "but if linking is infringement then Google is an infringer!" argument. This, of course, ignores the fact that there has to be intent. And it ignores the fact that Google can be an infringer for linking.
Google search's automated organizing of the web isn't infringement because there's no knowledge of linking to any specific infringing file. But once Google is given notice that a link points to an infringing file via a DMCA takedown notification or some other method, Google removes the link. Why? For the reasons mentioned by the Ninth Circuit. Once Google has knowledge that a specific link points to infringing material, Google is thereafter facing liability for whatever infringement occurs via that link. The intent to cause that infringement is imputed.
Mike sticks his fingers in his ears and pretends like linking creates no liability. The truth is that sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. And don't be confused by the fact that the liability is for contributory infringement. Contributory infringers are still susceptible to the full range of remedies provided by the Copyright Act which include money damages and injunctive relief. A contributory infringer is an "infringer" under Section 501, and they are treated the same as a primary infringer.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Ignoring precedent doesn't make it go away. When someone knowingly links to an infringing file, it is for the purpose of facilitating infringement. It should come as no surprise that the law actually holds people responsible for the infringement they intend to facilitate.
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And not, it wasn't me. If I had said that, I would admit it. But I didn't say it.\
and even if you didn't say "rape" you still agreed with the person in question, so, yes, you did agree.
I'm a terrible person because you assume that I would agree with something someone else said even though I didn't say I agree?
You're not too bright. I'm putting you on mental "ignore" as well. You're way too angry. Respond/attack me all you want. I'm not reading your posts anymore.
Grow up, little boy. You must not get enough attention.
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is getting way beyond stupid.
He said it's not right before I gave him the particular fact pattern, and after he said that he said he couldn't answer about the morality of it because he didn't have all the facts. So no, again, he has not addressed my exact fact pattern, and he has not definitively stated whether he thinks it to be immoral.
And, as I have mentioned several times already, when he says it's not right, he means that it goes against the wishes of the rightholder. He has significantly qualified that statement several times. For example, he doesn't think the rightholder should even have the right, he doesn't think they should worry about their rights being violated, he doesn't think that anyone who violates that right should ever be prosecuted, he doesn't think the violation of the right causes any harm, he thinks that rightholders should embrace those who violate their rights. Etc. Etc.
So no, when he says it's not right, there's about 20 asterisks coming after it. When you consider all of these qualifications, it's impossible to believe that he thinks it's immoral. Hence my direct question to him about the morality of it.
An example. If I tell you that hating black people because of their race is wrong because they don't like it, I'm not necessarily saying it's immoral. And then if I qualify that statement by saying that white people are absolutely superior, black people shouldn't mind being hated because they're no good, etc., you would think that my having said it's wrong wasn't all there is to it.
Mike is the same way. When he says it's not right, he's leaving out tons and tons of relevant information. So no, again, he has not answered the question.
Mike has not come into these comments and said, "When someone downloads a copyrighted movie for free they are acting immorally." Nor do I think he will ever say that, because I don't think he believes that. He'll pay us all lip service and pretend like it's "not right," but at bottom, he thinks it's the bee's knees.
We can keep talking about this over and over and over and over again, but where is Mike? Why won't he just answer the direct question with a direct answer? Why all the games?
The obvious answer is it's because he's too ashamed and dishonest to just say what he believes.
Keep on asking me, I'll keep posting in this thread for days and days. I'm still here, Mike. Why pretend like I ran away when I didn't? Why the dishonesty? Is there even one honest cell in your body?
On the post: University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents
Re: Re:
From the final judgment: "AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT. Claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 are found to be invalid. Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 18, 20, 22, 36, 38, 40, and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 are found to be invalid." Source: http://ia600400.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.txed.118976/gov.uscourts.txed.118976.docket.htm l
They are probably suing over other claims in those two patents. That would at least make sense. We need to keep in mind that it's not the entire patent that's been invalidated. It's just certain claims therein.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You yourself are infringing right this very moment, with that avatar. As I and others have said before, its from the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. So you're being a hypocrite for lecturing us on copyrights.
How do you know my image came from the movie? You're assuming that.
Also you're a monster. In previous articles, you casually used rape to support your argument, when such a reference doesn't belong. Two of my sisters were raped, so it really pisses me off when I see a guy screaming "Obey Copyright Law, cause of RAPE! Child porn!"
That wasn't even me. Sorry, Rikuo, but you're going on my mental "ignore" list. You just don't have anything of value to add to the discussion, and you're just too angry.
Next >>