Even then, most of them actually weren't psychotic mass murderers. After several incidents where their soldiers refused to follow some of the more horrific orders that came down from on high, the Nazis ended up restructuring a lot of their operations so that no individual person was wholly responsible for the murders of civilians that they participated in, and often they weren't actually aware of the full impact of their actions. In other words, the Nazis had to refine their evil to specifically work around the "problem" of too many Nazis having a conscience!
In a healthy market, companies respond to the rise in new competition by competing on service quality and price. Not the cable industry. Despite a soaring variety of new, cheaper streaming options, every year the industry's first impulse has been to raise cable TV prices, in turn driving more users than ever to "cut the cord" and embrace these streaming options instead.
One of the core components of those cases being brought forwards was the idea that YouTube was somehow complicit in infringing because they didn't do anything proactively to look for or filter infringing content.
Yes, and that's my entire point: this is what they call a "novel legal theory," which is legalese for "you're making up stupid crap that has no foundation in the actual law." The law did not require them to proactively look for or filter infringing content. In fact, it specifically said they had no obligation whatsoever to do so. The. Law. Was. On. Their. Side.
You're focussing on the one lawsuit, I'm focussing on the entire bodies of hundreds, or maybe even thousands upcoming that used the same types of arguments
I'm focusing on one lawsuit because one is all it takes. All they had to do was get the one win, and then they could use that as a precedent to say "this case needs to be thrown out because it's based on the exact same faulty reasoning as this other case that we won" for all the rest of them.
Wait... are you saying you're rooting for cable ISPs to be replaced by wireless phone ISPs? That's one of those "even worse, if such a thing is even possible" scenarios.
Also, your timeline is all wrong. You seem to be under the impression that the lawsuits caught Google unawares, but nothing could be further from the truth; they were already taking place, against the independent company YouTube, at the time Google chose to rescue them by buying them out. So once again, you're arguing on the basis of factually incorrect data.
But teh lawsuits! But teh lawsuits! But teh lawsuits! But teh lawsuits!
What about them? Once again, for the zillionth time, the law was on YouTube's side! (As evidenced by the fact that they won the case!) You keep ignoring this simple fact. ContentID was never necessary. The law was on their side, and if they had said "screw you, the law is on our side and we're sticking to our guns," that "new legal precedent" you keep talking about would indeed have come down, but it would have been a good one. But they didn't do that. They caved and took the easy way out, and that did set a precedent--not one in a court of law, but a very real precedent notwithstanding--that's been screwing over everyone except the major publishing interests to this very day. And that was the wrong thing for them to have done.
I don't know how it's possible for you to know as much about this whole issue as you evidently do, and yet remain unaware of this basic fact. But somehow you've managed it!
Salisbury students were quizzed on the pyramid, which implied that phrases such as “Why can’t we all just get along?” were complicit in supporting the mass murder of individuals based on race.
Nice one. Not 100% sure here, but IIRC didn't that phrase originate with a black man?
My wife and I are among those "millenials moved out and old enough to have children" that cable companies seem to believe will reverse the cable-cutting trend. (We don't actually have any kids yet, but we're definitely the right demographic.)
We don't have cable. Never have. Neither of us sees any real reason to, as between Netflix, Amazon Video, YouTube and free streaming services set up by the various broadcasters, we're not missing anything we actually want to see. And I don't see any good reason why our kids, when they come, would change that calculus.
Are you saying that, as I am online and therefore statistically likely to be hundreds if not thousands of miles away from you, I should be free to fling any insults I want at you with impunity?
Because that kind of sounds like it's what you're saying...
Re: Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
I am fairly sure Mason means "these channels broadcast their signal over the air for anyone with the right hardware to pick up at no ongoing cost. So how can a cable company like Comcast get away with charging me a fee to receive the same channels?"
Almost. What I mean is, "...so how can the broadcasters get away with charging a cable company like Comcast a fee for transmitting free content, so that they have anything to pass on to me in the first place?"
The part I still don't get: how are these broadcast fees even a thing? I mean, isn't "giving away your shows for free, supported by ads instead" inherent in the nature of TV broadcasting? How do the broadcasters manage to get away with not only charging for a free product in the first place? (Let alone use this illogic as the basis for the tortured reasoning at the heart of the Aereo case?!?)
False dichotomy, and if you really think that some movie studio had a big enough war chest to do to Google, of all companies, what was done to Veoh, you have no room to be throwing around words like "pathetic."
What Google could have done to resolve this, if they actually had the spine to, was to take one look at the lawsuit and say "let's handle this like businessmen," and initiate a hostile takeover of Viacom. (Among other things. There were other very viable options available, such as sticking to the actual law and pushing back against attempts to abuse the court system to expand it beyond its bounds, but that's the one I like the best. "Play the game as it was being presented" when the person presenting it is your enemy who is making it up as they go was the worst possible response.)
> Did you attack anyone else in your rant? I must have missed that.
You apparently missed the meaning of the word "extortion" if you think I didn't blame anyone else for what happened.
Once again, typing this nice and slow so you'll comprehend it: simply because one party did something wrong doesn't mean that someone else responding to it couldn't have *also* done something wrong that made the whole situation worse.
> They really didn't if you actually understood the other options that were on the table at the time. Would you prefer YouTube to have been shut down, and thus everyone else who didn't have Google's weight behind them?
Argh, I checked the Markdown spec, and you're right. I'm used to a few other sites that use an extended Markdown version that's more user-friendly.
Having said that, some of the omissions in Techdirt's version are very annoying. For example, the fact that not only does a single return not work, but there is also no other way at all to create a single line break, (double-returns create a P tag which is much larger, both mechanisms for "code literal" formatting have been stripped out, and no HTML support means you can't write a BR tag,) is quite annoying at times.
It's a perfectly cromulent answer. It's a "I will not be baited by a troll arguing in bad faith into trying to come up with a formal definition of something that means exactly what it says" answer, which is exactly the right tack to take when engaging with someone like Thad.
On the post: Producers Of Movie About Falling In Love With Nazis Using DMCA To Silence Criticism
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Cable's Response To Surging Streaming Competition? More Price Hikes
Suicide by cannibalism.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and that's my entire point: this is what they call a "novel legal theory," which is legalese for "you're making up stupid crap that has no foundation in the actual law." The law did not require them to proactively look for or filter infringing content. In fact, it specifically said they had no obligation whatsoever to do so. The. Law. Was. On. Their. Side.
I'm focusing on one lawsuit because one is all it takes. All they had to do was get the one win, and then they could use that as a precedent to say "this case needs to be thrown out because it's based on the exact same faulty reasoning as this other case that we won" for all the rest of them.
On the post: 2019 Brings Another Wave Of Cable Programming Blackout Feuds Nobody Wants To Address
Re:
On the post: Apple Admits The Obvious: User Repairs Harm The Bottom Line
Yeah, but we've always known that! The fact that Apple ever tried to claim otherwise is particularly despicable in and of itself.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But teh lawsuits! But teh lawsuits! But teh lawsuits! But teh lawsuits!
What about them? Once again, for the zillionth time, the law was on YouTube's side! (As evidenced by the fact that they won the case!) You keep ignoring this simple fact. ContentID was never necessary. The law was on their side, and if they had said "screw you, the law is on our side and we're sticking to our guns," that "new legal precedent" you keep talking about would indeed have come down, but it would have been a good one. But they didn't do that. They caved and took the easy way out, and that did set a precedent--not one in a court of law, but a very real precedent notwithstanding--that's been screwing over everyone except the major publishing interests to this very day. And that was the wrong thing for them to have done.
I don't know how it's possible for you to know as much about this whole issue as you evidently do, and yet remain unaware of this basic fact. But somehow you've managed it!
On the post: Another State Lawmaker Thinks Teachers Should Be Banned From Discussing 'Controversial' Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice one. Not 100% sure here, but IIRC didn't that phrase originate with a black man?
On the post: 2019 Brings Another Wave Of Cable Programming Blackout Feuds Nobody Wants To Address
Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
On the post: 2019 Brings Another Wave Of Cable Programming Blackout Feuds Nobody Wants To Address
We don't have cable. Never have. Neither of us sees any real reason to, as between Netflix, Amazon Video, YouTube and free streaming services set up by the various broadcasters, we're not missing anything we actually want to see. And I don't see any good reason why our kids, when they come, would change that calculus.
On the post: Techdirt 2018: The Stats.
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Court: Guy Who Didn't Write Defamatory Tweet Needs To Pay $50,000 In Damages Because The Guy Who Did Doesn't Have Any Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to get rich quick in the UK in four
On the post: Techdirt 2018: The Stats.
Re:
On the post: UK Court: Guy Who Didn't Write Defamatory Tweet Needs To Pay $50,000 In Damages Because The Guy Who Did Doesn't Have Any Money
Re:
Because that kind of sounds like it's what you're saying...
On the post: 2019 Brings Another Wave Of Cable Programming Blackout Feuds Nobody Wants To Address
Re: Re: Re: I'll try to straighten ya out, "Mason Wheeler":
Almost. What I mean is, "...so how can the broadcasters get away with charging a cable company like Comcast a fee for transmitting free content, so that they have anything to pass on to me in the first place?"
On the post: 2019 Brings Another Wave Of Cable Programming Blackout Feuds Nobody Wants To Address
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False dichotomy, and if you really think that some movie studio had a big enough war chest to do to Google, of all companies, what was done to Veoh, you have no room to be throwing around words like "pathetic."
What Google could have done to resolve this, if they actually had the spine to, was to take one look at the lawsuit and say "let's handle this like businessmen," and initiate a hostile takeover of Viacom. (Among other things. There were other very viable options available, such as sticking to the actual law and pushing back against attempts to abuse the court system to expand it beyond its bounds, but that's the one I like the best. "Play the game as it was being presented" when the person presenting it is your enemy who is making it up as they go was the worst possible response.)
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You apparently missed the meaning of the word "extortion" if you think I didn't blame anyone else for what happened.
Once again, typing this nice and slow so you'll comprehend it: simply because one party did something wrong doesn't mean that someone else responding to it couldn't have *also* done something wrong that made the whole situation worse.
> They really didn't if you actually understood the other options that were on the table at the time. Would you prefer YouTube to have been shut down, and thus everyone else who didn't have Google's weight behind them?
On the post: Ajit Pai Gloats As House Fails To Restore Net Neutrality
Re:
Argh, I checked the Markdown spec, and you're right. I'm used to a few other sites that use an extended Markdown version that's more user-friendly.
Having said that, some of the omissions in Techdirt's version are very annoying. For example, the fact that not only does a single return not work, but there is also no other way at all to create a single line break, (double-returns create a P tag which is much larger, both mechanisms for "code literal" formatting have been stripped out, and no HTML support means you can't write a BR tag,) is quite annoying at times.
On the post: Another State Lawmaker Thinks Teachers Should Be Banned From Discussing 'Controversial' Issues
Re:
Next >>