You might want to re-read the article. The police knew before obtaining the warrant and executing the search that no laws had been broken. Therefore, this dismantles completely any argument in favour of probable cause. How can there be probable cause of belief of a crime being committed...if the cops doing the search are talking about knowing there's no crime being committed before the search?
Re: Does the Canadian constitution provide for such language?
But that concept only works if the government itself agrees to enforce. Take for example the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Their constitution says they will respect the wishes of the people "Article 18: The law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reflects the wishes and interests of the working people and is a basic instrument for State administration. Respect for the law and strict adherence to and execution of it is the duty of all institutions, enterprises, organizations and citizens."
And if we're not allowed remove the software? Case in point, the Playstation 3. The first batch of PS3 consoles allowed the user to install Linux on it. I can no longer do that. Sure, technically, if I took the time and energy to do it, I might be able to do it, but that involves circumventing Sony's DRM (their hypervisor, that restricts access to the hardware to only Sony signed code). Circumventing DRM is against the DMCA. So I don't technically fully own my PS3.
Wait...am I reading it right? They're saying Google is guilty of felony interference of a business model? No business model is or ought to be protected by law.
"It's one thing to sell these on ebay as an owner, but it's quite another to sell them as a business.
A huge difference, that's somehow being overlooked in this article."
How so? And what difference does it make to this article? This article's point is all about the bullshit legal threats from Velodyne. If someone else is buying product from them and then re-selling them marked as "new", that's a separate issue. What this article is talking about is the one company threatening mandatory jail time with no justification for where it's getting this supposed judicial power from.
""There will be a lot more cats on skateboards; we'll have a lot less Game of Thrones.""
In other words, a lot more amateur videos and a lot less corporate produced content. Ironic thing is, that is precisely what I want to watch more of. I watch the odd movie and TV series sure (last one I watched was Battlestar Galactica) but on the whole, the vast majority of things that I watch are done on the amateur level. I watch abridged anime, I watch Youtube reviews, I watch Atheist Experience. Basically, shows produced with a bare minimum of people involved. Oh, and Game of Thrones? Haven't watched it, and I highly doubt I ever will.
Wow...is this an oblique way of you admitting defeat, that you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard that all you can come up with is "That seem more than metadata to me"? Do you have anything of substance you can potentially throw at us, or is this all you can think of?
That statement sounds an awful lot like infamous christian apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate, who says "I don't do bible studies with atheists", whenever non-believers want to challenge him on his interpenetration of said bible. So in other words, it's fine for you to come along and post your opinion and critique, but not fine for someone else, whether anonymous or not when doing the same to you.
"You are all worried about the govenment having this metadata, yet you will gladly hand most of it to google, facebook, twitter, and the like." Do you want to know why I'm not worried (typically) in Google et al having this sort of information on me? Because these technology corporations DO NOT HAVE the power to imprison me. For feck's sake, can you not think about what you're going to say for a bit before you post it, thus you won't be revealed as an idiot?
"I think what tech-dirt and other sites promoting "free" fail to consider, is this: if the artist wants to include free in his business model fine, if he doesn't, that's fine too.
Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist."
I think what you yourself are failing to consider is that this involves restricting speech and property rights of everyone else on the planet. If an artist wants to release a music track for 99 cents and have it enforced by the law, the only way the law can do it is via a system that monitors speech and restricts property rights. iTunes doesn't have DRM anymore but at one point in history it did. DRM involves taking away control of a computing device away from its owner and preventing that owner from using that device to make speech.
I can't find the quote I'm thinking of, but it goes something along the lines of "If your business model depends on sacrificing other people's rights, then you don't deserve to be allowed to do it".
"Indeed. That's called a rational response to operating in the real world. "Bad Thing X exists, and here's a good way to deal with it." I'm not sure how this related to the incorrect assertion that Techdirt doesn't think artists get to decide the terms under which they release their music."
More along the lines of "Bad Thing X exists, here's a good way to deal with it, that doesn't involve sacrificing speech and/or property rights of everyone else just to prop up a business model so that everyone wins".
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re:
On the post: Canada's New Investment Agreement With China Will Take Precedence Over Canadian Constitution for 31 Years
Re: Does the Canadian constitution provide for such language?
"Article 18: The law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reflects the wishes and interests of the working people and is a basic instrument for State administration.
Respect for the law and strict adherence to and execution of it is the duty of all institutions, enterprises, organizations and citizens."
Does that happen? Nope.
On the post: New Bill Designed To Stop Bogus Copyright Claims From Stopping You From Selling What You Own
Re: Re: Re:
So I don't technically fully own my PS3.
On the post: Canada's New Investment Agreement With China Will Take Precedence Over Canadian Constitution for 31 Years
On the post: Only Surviving Recording Of The Very First Superbowl Is Because A Fan Recorded It, But You Can't See It, Because Copyright
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused
On the post: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp: Still Failing To Understand The Internet After 20 Years Of Flops
No business model is or ought to be protected by law.
On the post: Audio Equipment Manufacturer Threatens Amazon Reseller With 'Mandatory Jail Time'
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online -world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml
On the post: Audio Equipment Manufacturer Threatens Amazon Reseller With 'Mandatory Jail Time'
Re:
A huge difference, that's somehow being overlooked in this article."
How so? And what difference does it make to this article? This article's point is all about the bullshit legal threats from Velodyne. If someone else is buying product from them and then re-selling them marked as "new", that's a separate issue. What this article is talking about is the one company threatening mandatory jail time with no justification for where it's getting this supposed judicial power from.
On the post: Netflix And Infringement Called Out During Australian Copyright Forum, But One Major Studio Admits Windowed Releases Are Stupid
Re: People actually pirated the Lego movie?
On the post: Netflix And Infringement Called Out During Australian Copyright Forum, But One Major Studio Admits Windowed Releases Are Stupid
In other words, a lot more amateur videos and a lot less corporate produced content.
Ironic thing is, that is precisely what I want to watch more of. I watch the odd movie and TV series sure (last one I watched was Battlestar Galactica) but on the whole, the vast majority of things that I watch are done on the amateur level. I watch abridged anime, I watch Youtube reviews, I watch Atheist Experience. Basically, shows produced with a bare minimum of people involved.
Oh, and Game of Thrones? Haven't watched it, and I highly doubt I ever will.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: do you want to be a member of the illuminati
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Football?
On the post: Analysis Of Volunteer's Metadata Stream Reveals His Life In Detail, Allows Passwords To Be Guessed
Re: misinformation?
Do you have anything of substance you can potentially throw at us, or is this all you can think of?
On the post: Analysis Of Volunteer's Metadata Stream Reveals His Life In Detail, Allows Passwords To Be Guessed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Analysis Of Volunteer's Metadata Stream Reveals His Life In Detail, Allows Passwords To Be Guessed
Re: Re: Re:
So in other words, it's fine for you to come along and post your opinion and critique, but not fine for someone else, whether anonymous or not when doing the same to you.
On the post: Analysis Of Volunteer's Metadata Stream Reveals His Life In Detail, Allows Passwords To Be Guessed
Re:
Here's that link
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140511/06390427191/michael-hayden-gleefully-admits-we-kill-p eople-based-metadata.shtml
On the post: Analysis Of Volunteer's Metadata Stream Reveals His Life In Detail, Allows Passwords To Be Guessed
Re:
Do you want to know why I'm not worried (typically) in Google et al having this sort of information on me?
Because these technology corporations DO NOT HAVE the power to imprison me.
For feck's sake, can you not think about what you're going to say for a bit before you post it, thus you won't be revealed as an idiot?
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist."
I think what you yourself are failing to consider is that this involves restricting speech and property rights of everyone else on the planet. If an artist wants to release a music track for 99 cents and have it enforced by the law, the only way the law can do it is via a system that monitors speech and restricts property rights. iTunes doesn't have DRM anymore but at one point in history it did. DRM involves taking away control of a computing device away from its owner and preventing that owner from using that device to make speech.
I can't find the quote I'm thinking of, but it goes something along the lines of "If your business model depends on sacrificing other people's rights, then you don't deserve to be allowed to do it".
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
More along the lines of "Bad Thing X exists, here's a good way to deal with it, that doesn't involve sacrificing speech and/or property rights of everyone else just to prop up a business model so that everyone wins".
On the post: Record Labels Issue Takedown To Take Kim Dotcom's Album Down From His Own Site
Next >>