I'd love to see the State of Virginia try and cite me if I ever decided to re-publish their publicly available information on a web server here in California.
I'm just flat out getting ripped off on my "broadband" DSL service. Our provider advertises "Up to 3Mbps, faster in some areas" so then I called in to report that I'm getting a flat maximum of 150k for downloads.
They come out and do a test that says we're getting 900k, and the guy says, "Well that's what you get." I said, look, "I understand if "up to.." means I get a fraction of the speed most of the time, but right now I'm getting a fraction of your 256k, you show me at a fraction of 1Mbps, and I'm paying the rate for a fraction of 3Mbps." I get the whole fraction thing - just give me the fraction that I'm paying for!!"
"Well, sir in your area..."
"Oh, nononono, it doesn't say slower in some areas. It says faster in some areas. Give me what I'm paying for."
"Well, umm...I'm going to have to pass your ticket on to a level 3 tech, blah, blah, blah"
==> Rip-off
Yeah, it was dumb of them, but their claims are valid because their credit card info was given for the shipping and handling with NO TOS in view. The company had no business obtaining the CC info under false pretenses to rip them off after the fact. That's pretty close to de facto fraud.
"nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well."
I think the so-called blogger/Internet culture will decide for itself, thanks.
A plurality, (a majority?), though certainly not all within that culture value the complete erasure of your so-called copyrights in favor of the right to copy. It's less of a corny oxymoron that way.
To me that's a bigger part of the problem. The fact that he didn't know that he was publishing this content, which WAS on a webpage (that he thought was private) IS a problem.
That's a pretty basic snafu for someone who is responsible week in and week out for setting authoritative case law precedents on internet copyright/free speech/sharing/etc issues.
The case is not about obscenity. The case is about the law, and obscenity law is about the first amendment. Obscenity case law deals with loads of minutia involving format, method of distribution, number of violations and degree of criminality.
Any physical videos produced might be cut and dry decisions, but any stuff on his hard drive, or on websites, email attachments, etc. directly impacts decisions on how many counts and exactly what types of violations occurred.
Additionally, anything from this case that goes to publication could be used in further cases that don't involve obscenity at all but if they share a parallel issue, then the case can be cited and the citation could ultimately be decisive in a non-obscenity case.
If Time Warner et. al actually are successful in blocking Usenet on their networks to protect against obscenity, any statement he would have made that referenced format or method of distribution would have had direct impact on non-obscenity related topics.
This judge doesn't even know how to click on his "View my profile" link. How is he going to be able to gauge the broader impact of the statements in his findings or rulings on other free speech cases?
So, yes his complete demonstration of technical savior fail matters here.
Recording a broadcast is not illegal. If you still have one, you can put a tape in a tape deck and record on-air radio and listen to that tape as much as you want. It's not only perfectly legal, it's protected.
RIAA is trying to use this back door by way of the change in broadcast technology to bypass the law and extort people - ultimately it's the end user getting cheated.
Yeah, whatever. Shark's videos in no way compete with the interests of television stations in airing a calf-roping competition.
The videos are about the injured calves being drug out of the arena and left to die. It's one thing if an event-goer took a camera in to bootleg the event coverage. It's an entirely differently thing when someone witnesses a crime in a public venue and then whips out their camera to document that crime.
Oh wait, Non-disclosure agreement stuff...kind of ironic. Our kids will laugh at non-disclosure agreements like we laugh at Metallica. But hey, antiquity isn't stupid; it's just old.
"Your analogies are flawed in that they all involve objects that are used by people independently of the vendor.
A better analogy would involve a venue..."
--------------------
No, a better analogy would involve requiring a telephone company to reasonably prevent any crime that might be committed over a telephone.
Perhaps now you can see the problem. You see a networked data stream is just a data stream. The only way to monitor content is to monitor content. An ISP has no more business preventing illegal use than the phone company has in recording every user's phone conversations.
Are there instances where a phone company or internet service provider under the properly obtained orders of a federal judge or magistrate should reasonably assist law enforcement in monitoring a specific user where probable cause has been demonstrated and the agency reasonably suspects that a crime has been committed? That at least has some tenable points.
But what the French government requires is idiocy in action. They want to talk war crimes? They are quickly turning into the Gestapo all by themselves, AND they are deputizing the utility companies by force.
"It will never happen. Too many powerful people..."
Yes it will. People inherently recoil at corny sounding irony, and The word itself is oxymoronic - an exclusive broad-sweeping restriction on the right to copy.
My children's generation will be the one's to make jokes about their copy-rights being violated. Seriously, our grandchildren will laugh at us for enforcing copyrights.
What am I saying; it's probably already happening. I'm at work, so can't check YouTube for it, but I guarantee there are already streaming political cartoons making fun of the ancient culture of copyrights.
For the 2-19 yr olds that make up the two largest user segments of YouTube, copyfreedom is their current reality.
You probably know more about who held what office in the Presidential Cabinet when you were in kindergarten than your current day kindergartner will ever know about copyrights.
On the post: Virginia Won't Stop Publishing People's Social Security Numbers; But Will Fine You For Republishing Them
Stupid
On the post: 200kbps No Longer Considered Broadband In The US
Even broadband isn't
They come out and do a test that says we're getting 900k, and the guy says, "Well that's what you get." I said, look, "I understand if "up to.." means I get a fraction of the speed most of the time, but right now I'm getting a fraction of your 256k, you show me at a fraction of 1Mbps, and I'm paying the rate for a fraction of 3Mbps." I get the whole fraction thing - just give me the fraction that I'm paying for!!"
"Well, sir in your area..."
"Oh, nononono, it doesn't say slower in some areas. It says faster in some areas. Give me what I'm paying for."
"Well, umm...I'm going to have to pass your ticket on to a level 3 tech, blah, blah, blah"
==> Rip-off
On the post: Recording Industry Now Making Up Facts To Support Having ISPs Police File Sharing
re: some old troll
On the post: RIAA Goes Judge Shopping After One Judge Actually Pushes Back
re: double jeopardy
On the post: 'Free Software' Scammers Fined $2.2 Million
Stupid or not...
On the post: Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Graffiti Years After The Idea Is In Use
@Anon Cow...Since when...
On the post: AP Goes After Bloggers For Posting Article Headlines And Snippets
Dictate culture to someone else...
I think the so-called blogger/Internet culture will decide for itself, thanks.
A plurality, (a majority?), though certainly not all within that culture value the complete erasure of your so-called copyrights in favor of the right to copy. It's less of a corny oxymoron that way.
On the post: AP Goes After Bloggers For Posting Article Headlines And Snippets
Auto-fail
On the post: AP Goes After Bloggers For Posting Article Headlines And Snippets
@Agonizing
Don't go all AP on the guy, okay?
On the post: Will The RIAA Sue Judge Kozinski For Sharing MP3s?
Re: @Formerly
To me that's a bigger part of the problem. The fact that he didn't know that he was publishing this content, which WAS on a webpage (that he thought was private) IS a problem.
That's a pretty basic snafu for someone who is responsible week in and week out for setting authoritative case law precedents on internet copyright/free speech/sharing/etc issues.
On the post: Yes, DMCA Safe Harbors Apply To Websites
Anonymous Coward Test
On the post: Federal Judge On Obscenity Case Posted Porn Images On His Web Server
Re: Re: Not the point!
The case is not about obscenity. The case is about the law, and obscenity law is about the first amendment. Obscenity case law deals with loads of minutia involving format, method of distribution, number of violations and degree of criminality.
Any physical videos produced might be cut and dry decisions, but any stuff on his hard drive, or on websites, email attachments, etc. directly impacts decisions on how many counts and exactly what types of violations occurred.
Additionally, anything from this case that goes to publication could be used in further cases that don't involve obscenity at all but if they share a parallel issue, then the case can be cited and the citation could ultimately be decisive in a non-obscenity case.
If Time Warner et. al actually are successful in blocking Usenet on their networks to protect against obscenity, any statement he would have made that referenced format or method of distribution would have had direct impact on non-obscenity related topics.
This judge doesn't even know how to click on his "View my profile" link. How is he going to be able to gauge the broader impact of the statements in his findings or rulings on other free speech cases?
So, yes his complete demonstration of technical savior fail matters here.
On the post: Why Should XM Have To Get Permission From The Recording Industry To Innovate?
No, RobG
RIAA is trying to use this back door by way of the change in broadcast technology to bypass the law and extort people - ultimately it's the end user getting cheated.
On the post: Once Again, The DMCA Doesn't Let You Takedown Any Content You Don't Like
Re: In favor of rodeo
The videos are about the injured calves being drug out of the arena and left to die. It's one thing if an event-goer took a camera in to bootleg the event coverage. It's an entirely differently thing when someone witnesses a crime in a public venue and then whips out their camera to document that crime.
On the post: Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline
Hmm...what?
Oh wait, Non-disclosure agreement stuff...kind of ironic. Our kids will laugh at non-disclosure agreements like we laugh at Metallica. But hey, antiquity isn't stupid; it's just old.
On the post: Record Store Owner Calls People Who Pay To Download 'Idiots'
Unless of course you're targeting an independent subculture that values smartass attitudes. Then it's really good for business.
On the post: French Courts Still Very Confused About The Difference Between A Platform And A User
Re: Finding the right analogy
A better analogy would involve a venue..."
--------------------
No, a better analogy would involve requiring a telephone company to reasonably prevent any crime that might be committed over a telephone.
Perhaps now you can see the problem. You see a networked data stream is just a data stream. The only way to monitor content is to monitor content. An ISP has no more business preventing illegal use than the phone company has in recording every user's phone conversations.
Are there instances where a phone company or internet service provider under the properly obtained orders of a federal judge or magistrate should reasonably assist law enforcement in monitoring a specific user where probable cause has been demonstrated and the agency reasonably suspects that a crime has been committed? That at least has some tenable points.
But what the French government requires is idiocy in action. They want to talk war crimes? They are quickly turning into the Gestapo all by themselves, AND they are deputizing the utility companies by force.
On the post: Copyright Has Stretched So Far That It Has Broken
Re: Re: Crosbie had it right -- abolish copyright
Yes it will. People inherently recoil at corny sounding irony, and The word itself is oxymoronic - an exclusive broad-sweeping restriction on the right to copy.
My children's generation will be the one's to make jokes about their copy-rights being violated. Seriously, our grandchildren will laugh at us for enforcing copyrights.
What am I saying; it's probably already happening. I'm at work, so can't check YouTube for it, but I guarantee there are already streaming political cartoons making fun of the ancient culture of copyrights.
For the 2-19 yr olds that make up the two largest user segments of YouTube, copyfreedom is their current reality.
You probably know more about who held what office in the Presidential Cabinet when you were in kindergarten than your current day kindergartner will ever know about copyrights.
Next >>