The upshot was that there was a mantra among professional recording studios: "Buy the software, use the crack." Yes, the DRM was so bad, that even people who paid for it used the cracked software instead - because it was more stable.
Inc identally, my brother actually gave me an MBox as a gift. I never used it - because it wouldn't even install the hardware drivers without installing PACE. It's still sitting on a shelf in my closet, totally unused.
As it happens, my brother used to be a software project manager for Avid.
The DRM caused them a lot of problems. It cost them tons of time and money, mainly fielding support calls from customers whose copy protection caused system failures.
Did it stop piracy? No.
In fact, my brother held a few meetings with the Board of Directors, encouraging them to drop the DRM. They didn't listen.
He left a couple of years ago, but AFAIK, they're still hemorrhaging money. He predicted that the only way they'll survive is to sell the company outright to some movie studio.
So, to answer your question: it worked out terribly.
If copyright allows a creator to be paid and thus not have to spend time laboring over something uncreative, then it obviously benefits the progress.
And how do anti-circumvention laws do this?
They don't. At least, nobody has presented any evidence that they do.
The evidence is that DRM makes copyrighted works less valuable to the public - thus the public is less willing to pay for them. That doesn't translate to rights holders making money; quite the opposite.
But even if those laws do benefit copyright holders, nobody has presented any evidence that the benefits that accrue to the public outweigh the public benefit from the absence of those laws. And that determines whether copyright laws are just.
If it benefits rightholders by creating more incentives to invest time, energy, money, and talent into the creation and dissemination of new and better works
And it doesn't. That should be the end of the story.
Benefiting authors/artists/rightholders inures to the public.
Benefiting authors/artists/rightsholders may inure to the public. Then again, it may not.
If "the granting of such exclusive rights" does not confer "a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly" (in the words of Congress), then benefiting rights holders does not inure to the public.
You can't just make a blanket assertion like this as if it's a fact. You need to present evidence that it's actually true... which you never have.
Certain rightholders use DRM because it benefits them.
Certain rights holders believe DRM benefits them. You've presented no evidence that it actually does. In fact, whenever you look at how technology progresses, it goes from more restrictive to less restrictive - as it did with iTunes and DRM. That's because rights holders eventually realize (usually too late) that DRM isn't good for them, either.
The real question, of course, is whether circumventing DRM ultimately harms the public - and harms it enough for anti-circumvention to be criminal. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true.
It's not an either-or, zero sum game.
Ideally, it shouldn't be. And, historically, it wasn't (at least for the most part). But in some cases - such as this case - it is.
...Or at least it is if you believe that DRM actually benefits rights holders. I actually agree that this is not a zero-sum game: DRM is good for neither rights holders nor the general public. It is a positive-sum game that everyone is losing.
There are also many positives that come from the provisions as well
Name them.
Here's a helpful hint: since we're talking about copyright law, those "positives" "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts" (as the court put it in Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken).
But, even if you don't want to acknowledge this - which you won't - then provide some actual evidence that the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions have, in the real world, provided any concrete benefit to anyone, rights holders included.
All I've seen is stuff that does not hinder infringement, but only inconveniences paying customers; that does not result in more sales, but costs money to create, so only loses money for copyright holders.
From what evidence I've seen, you know what copyright holders would lose if the anti-circumvention provisions were removed?
Nothing.
But the benefit to the public would be immediate, and significant.
Does Mike support a reformed system of intellectual property in the U.S. that is designed to foster these goals ["innovation leading to economic growth, which increases opportunity for everyone"]?
Yes. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, though I believe it was.
If so, what might that system look like? These seem like perfectly fair questions to me.
Also questions I've answered ad nauseum, which is why I sometimes get frustrated when I feel that people who have clearly read those answers from me in the past feel the desire to repeat the questions as if I have not answered them.
The answer, again, is that the evidence today points to the fact that the copyright and patent systems seem to hinder the pace of growth (not hold back growth entirely, but slow its pace). There is significant evidence that less IP would increase the rate of growth.
However, I do not know what is the absolute *best* proposals are. Which is why I keep saying that the focus now should be on building up more evidence of what policies work and which do not.
I've said REPEATEDLY that what I am in favor of is *evidence-based* policies on these topics. I am fine with being convinced that such laws have a benefit, but I believe that it requires significantly more study. I am not in favor of getting rid of it all because I haven't seen enough evidence. I'm in favor of following what the evidence says. So far, it appears to suggest that significantly less protection would be beneficial.
There is no other side here. There is simple NO evidence that a single person ever would not produce something because they "only" got a monopoly for life plus 50 instead of life plus 70. None. Zero. Zilch. Suggesting that that is even a possibility is ridiculous.
What there is PLENTY of data on is the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of people -- when they had to file for a renewal of their copyright (prior to the 76 Act) did not do so (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse- than-it-seems.shtml). In other words, for the vast majority of copyright holders, the value of copyright is less than the hassle of reregistering by 28 years. To argue that there is any evidence suggesting that life plus 70 as compared to life plus 50 has ANY incentive on initial creation is someone who cannot be taken seriously.
I'm sure I could dig up more, if I tried longer.
Of course, you will never accept any of those pesky things called "facts." You are motivated solely by your emotions - specifically, a vicious, irrational hatred of anything you consider "piracy."
Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
a key sentence stating that copyright is based on common law, not on statutory (state-granted) monopoly.
That's not what the sentence said, because if it did say that, it would be wrong. The very first Supreme Court copyright case said - explicitly - that copyright is not based on common law. (Quote is below).
In fact, what the author was saying is that sound recording "pirates" had to be fought without using copyright law at all, but using statutory "unfair competition" laws that were not like copyright laws. It is the exact opposite of what you claimed.
As I've written before and will again, copyright merely recognizes the natural rights of a creator to control copies of a work, and what rights others have in the work are distant secondary.
And every time you've written that, you've been entirely, 100% wrong. Copyright is not a common-law right; it is not a natural right; it is not designed to reward the fruits of authors' labors; the rights of the author are secondary to the rights of the public.
Congress and the Supreme Court have repeatedly made this very, very clear:
That an author at common law has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against anyone who deprives him of it or by obtaining a copy endeavors to realize a profit by its publication cannot be doubted, but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work after the author shall have published it to the world.
The argument that a literary man is as much entitled to the product of his labor as any other member of society cannot be controverted. And the answer is that he realizes this product in the sale of his works when first published.[...]
Congress, then, by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right, as contended for, created it.
- Wheaton v. Peters
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will [be] promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
- Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal
The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration.
- U.S. v. Paramount
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
- Feist v. Rural
The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an "author's" creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
- Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved.
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
Don't you get tired of saying things that you know are wrong?
For anyone reading at home, PIA USA is the "Professional Inventors Alliance," a pro-patent astroturf "organization" run by Ronald J. Riley. His Wordpress site posts almost exactly the same text as above in response to every single article it discusses.
He is a total nutcase. No actual facts are ever given, he constantly slings ad hominem attacks, and he presents anyone who wants to reform the patent system (to any degree) as "huge multinational thieves and their paid puppets - some in Congress, the White House and elsewhere in the federal government."
Ironically, in 2008 Riley was sued by John Dozier, who is perhaps the only person on the planet to have even more extreme views on IP than Riley (but about copyrights, rather than patents).
In 1990, Riley found himself unemployed. A community college dropout, he was soon living in a mobile home. And then he came up with an ingenious plan. Riley enjoyed tinkering, and so he decided to falsely portray himself as a renowned and successful inventor, even though he was neither. The Internet gave him an idea. If he could create a false identity, he could convince those not familiar with his background that he was an expert in entrepreneurial ventures and inventions. Then he could make money as a consultant and offer feigned “expertise” to assist inventors and entrepreneurs in commercializing their ideas and creations. [...]
Through this fraud, Ronald J. Riley has gone from an unemployed community college dropout living in a mobile home to an assumed identity of a credentialed investigative journalist, an associate of a Nobel Prize winner, the titular leader of seemingly prestigious inventor industry think tanks and powerful special interest groups, a Washington, D.C. powerbroker and friend of U.S. Senators and Congressmen, an award winning inventor revered by MIT, and a sought after speaker by the Harvard Law School. Riley has perpetrated one of the most successful business credential frauds ever committed upon the inventor and entrepreneur community.
Is any of this true? Beats me. But considering how Riley portrays himself on the Web, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Imagine of there was a system where he could have patented it for free use to everyone but anyone making money from selling mp3's had to pay him 1 cent per mp3 sold or even 5 cents. He could be making a fortune and mp3 format would be free for personal use.
First of all: MIDI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with MP3. MIDI data is not audio data, but "control" data (e.g. "Turn on note X at pitch Y" or "Use synth patch X for this voice"). MIDI predated MP3 by about a decade.
Second of all: what you are suggesting did, in fact, happen with MP3's. Officially, MP3 is patented by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. Originally, you only had to pay a license if you encoded MP3's, and decoders didn't require a license. Of course, once the MP3 format was fully established, they changed the license, and now every piece of software that uses the MP3 format is supposed to pay royalties to Fraunhofer (through Technicolor, its licensing arm).
So, in reality, what happened? Two things. First, most users simply pirated the MP3 codecs. Second, there was a huge push for more open formats. OGG came out of this push, and is completely open source.
LAME is an MP3 implementation, which is distributed only in source code (not binary) form, so can be downloaded without paying the patent royalties. You can only compile and run it in countries (like the U.S.) where Fraunhofer's patent on MP3 technology has expired.
Of course, nobody really pays attention to that legal requirement, so lots of people are technically "pirating" the MP3 technology by either distributing the LAME binaries, or compiling and using the LAME source code.
In other words - what you described has only led to a huge mess.
Re: Megaupload was doing BUSINESS in the United States.
Oh, and this PROVES why DOJ should have gone after Megaupload:
No, it doesn't prove anything. Even if the closure of Megaupload did boost sales 10%, boosting sales is not the purpose of copyright.
"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors." (Fox Film v. Doyal.) Copyright "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
Unless that 10% sales boost primarily benefited the public, and resulted in more works being broadly available, then it is completely immaterial insofar as copyright is concerned.
He was never charged with copyright infringement in England; and others who have been sued for similar things had been found not guilty. Moreover, he would have been the first person in the U.S. to be criminally prosecuted for providing links, and not hosting files, meaning that there's no precedent for believing he violated U.S. criminal law either.
Yet, the U.S. makes a big stink about extraditing him, England goes along, and when he gets here, the government essentially drops the case.
The whole ordeal was a bad joke, a waste of taxpayers' money, and an unnecessary victimization of a foreign national.
It might technically be a crime in Sudan, but the U.S. wouldn't extradite you for that.
Yet, the people who violate copyright laws of the U.S. - but not of their home countries - should be extradited and charged, like O'Dwyer or Rojadirecta.
Rojadirecta was a website that was used to violate U.S. rightholders rights.
Sorry, but wasn't the case against Rojadirecta dropped? So, it looks like the website was not used to violate U.S. rightsholders' rights.
Especially since those same rightsholders had already sued Rojadirecta in Spain - and lost.
So, yes, the fact that .com's are handled by Verisign in the U.S. means that all .com's are potentially seizable--if there's probable cause that they are used for crime, they can be seized.
That remains to be seen, since none of those seizures have actually made it to a judicial ruling. Every time any of the owners of the seized domains have challenged the seizures, the DOJ has stalled for months on end, then dropped the charges.
On the other hand, courts have made it clear that mere probable cause is absolutely not enough for seizure, at least outside of the copyright domain.
Even if what you're doing in your country is legal, if you do it over the internet so that it affects people in a country where it's not legal, then you may have to answer in that country.
So, if I say something that is perfectly legal in the U.S., but violates Sharia law, then I can be extradited to Sudan to face charges... as long as I say it "over the internet."
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Found a (badly-formatted) copy of the article:
http://news.dmusic.com/article/19705
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PACE iLok. It's not manufactured by Avid, but by a third party.
It is notorious for causing BSOD's in Windows. There was an article by Rip Rowan (sadly offline) about how it caused BSOD's - even after multiple OS re-installs. (This was with Waves plug-ins.) Another article about it is here:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/12/developer-to-users-boycott-ilok-and-pace-2/
The upshot was that there was a mantra among professional recording studios: "Buy the software, use the crack." Yes, the DRM was so bad, that even people who paid for it used the cracked software instead - because it was more stable.
The problem, apparently, still is not solved:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=45329
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=318314
http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=70622&sid=1ff8a1dbb6c69ce9b723698934c4b454
Inc identally, my brother actually gave me an MBox as a gift. I never used it - because it wouldn't even install the hardware drivers without installing PACE. It's still sitting on a shelf in my closet, totally unused.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Forgotten sarc mark, I assume?
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As it happens, my brother used to be a software project manager for Avid.
The DRM caused them a lot of problems. It cost them tons of time and money, mainly fielding support calls from customers whose copy protection caused system failures.
Did it stop piracy? No.
In fact, my brother held a few meetings with the Board of Directors, encouraging them to drop the DRM. They didn't listen.
He left a couple of years ago, but AFAIK, they're still hemorrhaging money. He predicted that the only way they'll survive is to sell the company outright to some movie studio.
So, to answer your question: it worked out terribly.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how do anti-circumvention laws do this?
They don't. At least, nobody has presented any evidence that they do.
The evidence is that DRM makes copyrighted works less valuable to the public - thus the public is less willing to pay for them. That doesn't translate to rights holders making money; quite the opposite.
But even if those laws do benefit copyright holders, nobody has presented any evidence that the benefits that accrue to the public outweigh the public benefit from the absence of those laws. And that determines whether copyright laws are just.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it doesn't. That should be the end of the story.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Benefiting authors/artists/rightsholders may inure to the public. Then again, it may not.
If "the granting of such exclusive rights" does not confer "a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly" (in the words of Congress), then benefiting rights holders does not inure to the public.
You can't just make a blanket assertion like this as if it's a fact. You need to present evidence that it's actually true... which you never have.
Certain rightholders use DRM because it benefits them.
Certain rights holders believe DRM benefits them. You've presented no evidence that it actually does. In fact, whenever you look at how technology progresses, it goes from more restrictive to less restrictive - as it did with iTunes and DRM. That's because rights holders eventually realize (usually too late) that DRM isn't good for them, either.
The real question, of course, is whether circumventing DRM ultimately harms the public - and harms it enough for anti-circumvention to be criminal. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true.
It's not an either-or, zero sum game.
Ideally, it shouldn't be. And, historically, it wasn't (at least for the most part). But in some cases - such as this case - it is.
...Or at least it is if you believe that DRM actually benefits rights holders. I actually agree that this is not a zero-sum game: DRM is good for neither rights holders nor the general public. It is a positive-sum game that everyone is losing.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Name them.
Here's a helpful hint: since we're talking about copyright law, those "positives" "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts" (as the court put it in Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken).
But, even if you don't want to acknowledge this - which you won't - then provide some actual evidence that the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions have, in the real world, provided any concrete benefit to anyone, rights holders included.
All I've seen is stuff that does not hinder infringement, but only inconveniences paying customers; that does not result in more sales, but costs money to create, so only loses money for copyright holders.
From what evidence I've seen, you know what copyright holders would lose if the anti-circumvention provisions were removed?
Nothing.
But the benefit to the public would be immediate, and significant.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re:
Asked and answered - REPEATEDLY. Sometimes to others, but in many MANY cases, to you directly.
Here are links to Mike's answers:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23215021120/copyright-maximalists-attempt-to-dow nplay-significance-rsc-report-chanting-their-mantra-copyright-is-property.shtml#c3761
From another comment in the same thread:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23215021120/copyright-maximalists-attempt-to-down play-significance-rsc-report-chanting-their-mantra-copyright-is-property.shtml#c3000
This "evidence-based approach" is evident in this discussion on term lengths - which he had with you - here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/20344621680/new-research-extending-copyright-massiv ely-increases-prices-limits-dissemination-knowledge.shtml#c887
I'm sure I could dig up more, if I tried longer.
Of course, you will never accept any of those pesky things called "facts." You are motivated solely by your emotions - specifically, a vicious, irrational hatred of anything you consider "piracy."
On the post: Washington State Apparently Taxes Clubs For People Saying On Yelp That They Danced
Re:
Yeah, but it's only a matter of time before they tax chin-scratching and head-bobbing. When that happens, Seattle is in big trouble.
On the post: Julie Samuels' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
That's not what the sentence said, because if it did say that, it would be wrong. The very first Supreme Court copyright case said - explicitly - that copyright is not based on common law. (Quote is below).
In fact, what the author was saying is that sound recording "pirates" had to be fought without using copyright law at all, but using statutory "unfair competition" laws that were not like copyright laws. It is the exact opposite of what you claimed.
As I've written before and will again, copyright merely recognizes the natural rights of a creator to control copies of a work, and what rights others have in the work are distant secondary.
And every time you've written that, you've been entirely, 100% wrong. Copyright is not a common-law right; it is not a natural right; it is not designed to reward the fruits of authors' labors; the rights of the author are secondary to the rights of the public.
Congress and the Supreme Court have repeatedly made this very, very clear:
- Wheaton v. Peters
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
- Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal
- U.S. v. Paramount
- Feist v. Rural
- Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
Don't you get tired of saying things that you know are wrong?
On the post: Here's Another Inventor Who Willingly Gave Away His Greatest Idea In Order To Establish It As A Global Standard
Re: another biased article
He is a total nutcase. No actual facts are ever given, he constantly slings ad hominem attacks, and he presents anyone who wants to reform the patent system (to any degree) as "huge multinational thieves and their paid puppets - some in Congress, the White House and elsewhere in the federal government."
There's a compendium of his nutty proclamations here:
http://ronaldjriley.blogspot.com/
Ironically, in 2008 Riley was sued by John Dozier, who is perhaps the only person on the planet to have even more extreme views on IP than Riley (but about copyrights, rather than patents).
The text of the complaint is an interesting read:
http://www.dozier-internetlaw.org/
Is any of this true? Beats me. But considering how Riley portrays himself on the Web, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
On the post: Here's Another Inventor Who Willingly Gave Away His Greatest Idea In Order To Establish It As A Global Standard
Re: Shame
First of all: MIDI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with MP3. MIDI data is not audio data, but "control" data (e.g. "Turn on note X at pitch Y" or "Use synth patch X for this voice"). MIDI predated MP3 by about a decade.
Second of all: what you are suggesting did, in fact, happen with MP3's. Officially, MP3 is patented by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. Originally, you only had to pay a license if you encoded MP3's, and decoders didn't require a license. Of course, once the MP3 format was fully established, they changed the license, and now every piece of software that uses the MP3 format is supposed to pay royalties to Fraunhofer (through Technicolor, its licensing arm).
So, in reality, what happened? Two things. First, most users simply pirated the MP3 codecs. Second, there was a huge push for more open formats. OGG came out of this push, and is completely open source.
LAME is an MP3 implementation, which is distributed only in source code (not binary) form, so can be downloaded without paying the patent royalties. You can only compile and run it in countries (like the U.S.) where Fraunhofer's patent on MP3 technology has expired.
Of course, nobody really pays attention to that legal requirement, so lots of people are technically "pirating" the MP3 technology by either distributing the LAME binaries, or compiling and using the LAME source code.
In other words - what you described has only led to a huge mess.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Megaupload was doing BUSINESS in the United States.
No, it doesn't prove anything. Even if the closure of Megaupload did boost sales 10%, boosting sales is not the purpose of copyright.
"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors." (Fox Film v. Doyal.) Copyright "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
Unless that 10% sales boost primarily benefited the public, and resulted in more works being broadly available, then it is completely immaterial insofar as copyright is concerned.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're using O'Dwyer as an example? Seriously?
He was never charged with copyright infringement in England; and others who have been sued for similar things had been found not guilty. Moreover, he would have been the first person in the U.S. to be criminally prosecuted for providing links, and not hosting files, meaning that there's no precedent for believing he violated U.S. criminal law either.
Yet, the U.S. makes a big stink about extraditing him, England goes along, and when he gets here, the government essentially drops the case.
The whole ordeal was a bad joke, a waste of taxpayers' money, and an unnecessary victimization of a foreign national.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet, the people who violate copyright laws of the U.S. - but not of their home countries - should be extradited and charged, like O'Dwyer or Rojadirecta.
Got it.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but wasn't the case against Rojadirecta dropped? So, it looks like the website was not used to violate U.S. rightsholders' rights.
Especially since those same rightsholders had already sued Rojadirecta in Spain - and lost.
So, yes, the fact that .com's are handled by Verisign in the U.S. means that all .com's are potentially seizable--if there's probable cause that they are used for crime, they can be seized.
That remains to be seen, since none of those seizures have actually made it to a judicial ruling. Every time any of the owners of the seized domains have challenged the seizures, the DOJ has stalled for months on end, then dropped the charges.
On the other hand, courts have made it clear that mere probable cause is absolutely not enough for seizure, at least outside of the copyright domain.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if I say something that is perfectly legal in the U.S., but violates Sharia law, then I can be extradited to Sudan to face charges... as long as I say it "over the internet."
Got it.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look in the mirror, buddy.
Mike actually made a substantive rebuttal of the A.C.'s claims. You did nothing but toss out ad hominems.
On the post: Canadian Copyright Collection Group Access Copyright Declares War On Fair Dealing
Re: Re: Re:
By and large, they don't.
Or, at least, they don't if we're talking about music in the States. I don't know about Canada or textbooks.
Next >>