The location detection doesn't invalidate the process. My IP address is always recognized as from a town other than my own. It all depends on what Whois database you are looking at and when it was last updated. That is the nature of rotating IP addresses.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 10:30am
Re: Re: Re:
The amount that each party gets is based on the percentage of votes their party got in the previous election.
That won't work. That unfairly harms new parties and parties that lose their status in hard to win states.
Require networks and other media outlets to give equal time to all interested parties. Compensation for media is paid from the general pool.
Who defines what "equal time is" How can we give equal time to 10 different candidates without diluting any of their messages?
Uncompensated expressions of opinion are unregulated. You'd have to find a way to fund your blog that doesn't include money from candidates or political parties.
Does this apply to PACs? What about famous bloggers that clearly support a candidate? That is what Citizens United was about.
It is very complicated. I don't think there are any easy solutions either.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 10:10am
Re: Re: Re:
Vengeance? Really? You honestly are full of it.
No person is required to do business with any company, let alone one they have severe moral objections too.
Did Godaddy change its mind sue to pressure from its customers? Yes. Was that a restraint on its freedom of speech? No.
This is an example of markets at work, not stifling of anyone's ability to speak freely. To claim that their ability to support SOPA was harmed by this event is beyond ignorant and bordering on insanity.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:36am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its not that Congress respects the 3rd amendment any more than the rest, they just can't figure out any way to justify violating it. Trust me, if they could find some way to use terrorism to force people to house soldiers they would.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:33am
Re: Re: Re:
I thought we have already covered the fact that sites operating under safe harbors are not abusing the law but operating under a clearly defined legal precedence that dates back to the 70's at least.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:31am
Re: Re:
Yes, because listening to the concerns of the creators of the internet, venture capitalists and tech industry entrepreneurs is a waste of time and effort.
I honestly don't know why you continue to ignore historical precedence on this issue. We have seen time and time again that if a law can be abused it will be abused by someone. We have learned that the easier a law is to be abused, the more often it is abused.
Why would we want to pass a law that has clearly defined was of being abused?
If the potential market is "all of the population", and 50% of the people obtain the material for free, the potential market drops by 50%.
Except we know neither of those cases are true. A content creator's market never was and never will be "all of the population". All content is targeted at specific niches of the populace.
If 50% of your target market (remember it is not 100% of the world population) gets the product for free, it is your job to find a way to get them to pay you something. If they want an easy way to watch the movie online or download the song etc, it is your job to find a way to do that. That is happening now.
I recently watched one of Creative America's propaganda films on SOPA. In that film someone claimed that if you search for "Transformers Online" you get link after link of pirate websites. That is true. But my questions is why the first link in google is not a legal place to watch and/or get the film online. That should be the first priority of the film maker.
Potential sales are lost. It's not NOTHING, it's just harder to measure directly.
You are correct there. That is why innovation exists. So that you can figure out just what is being lost and how to capture those potential lost sales. No business can stand still and expect to keep making the same amount of money forever. They must change with the market or fail.
I hate to disappoint you, but someone else giving away your product hurts business.
Youtube has no editorial control over the content. They accept the content and display it in a user friendly fashion. They retain no control beyond that.
I don't know why you continue to misrepresent how YouTube functions by comparing it to a newspaper or magazine which both retain complete editorial control over what is published and what is not.
Once again you also misrepresent what the DMCA's Safe harbors are. They are not a new concept. They are codified case law from as far back as the Betamax ruling. seriously, read up on that ruling and compare it to the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. You will find both to be strikingly similar.
Once again you are comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended)
You are not losing product when people infringe on copyrights. You still have the ability to sell and succeed. Many artists are currently doing so and succeeding. Why should we force them out of work by making the way they do business illegal?
The artificial law (DMCA) makes it possible for any tom, dick, and harriette to put up pirated copies of the material, and only have to take them down when notified
No. The DMCA placed liability for infringement where it belongs, with the infringer. It was not a new concept. It was codifying into law the protections that the Betamax ruling placed on tool providers. Without the DMCA, those protections would still be there, but there probably would be more lawsuits contesting that protection.
Further, because of the way existing laws are written, without a basis in current technology, it is possible for site owners to play shell games to avoid liablity, hiding files on THIS free host, linking to them on THAT public site, and so on. That too is artificial, because anyone with half a brain can see what is going on - but in purely legal terms, because of the way a law is written, they are "legal".
If the site owners were the ones uploading the infringing content, then they would be liable even without the DMCA. They are the infringers. Safe harbors protect tool creators from being liable for users of those tools infringements.
However, if they are forced to "compete" with people giving away the very product they are attempting to sell, then yes, they will fail in the long run.
Guess what, you would have to do that with or without the DMCA and SOPA. You have always had to compete with people offering your content cheaper or for free. There has never been a time where that was not true. Any real business would accept that truth, live with it and succeed despite that.
But unfair competition isn't the free market
Then why are you advocating for SOPA? SOPA is one of the worst attacks on the free market in US history. It threatens to destroy many of the tools that independent artists use to distribute their content all in the name of "protecting" those same artists. Why would we want a law on the books that harms their ability to get their content to their fans? That seems far more unfair than what we currently have.
If a company were to sue YouTube, it would have the same net effect as the DMCA's Safe Harbor protections. The court would rule that YouTube is not liable for the infringement of its users in the same way that Sony was not liable for the infringements of Betamax users.
The DCMA safe harbors simply codified that ruling into law to avoid further pointless lawsuits against otherwise legal tools.
On the post: GoDaddy Officially Has Name Removed From Judiciary's List Of SOPA Supporters
Re: Lets see the list
On the post: US House Of Representatives... Is A Rogue Site?
Re:
On the post: Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: GoDaddy Officially Has Name Removed From Judiciary's List Of SOPA Supporters
Re: List of Companies
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re: Re: Re:
That won't work. That unfairly harms new parties and parties that lose their status in hard to win states.
Require networks and other media outlets to give equal time to all interested parties. Compensation for media is paid from the general pool.
Who defines what "equal time is" How can we give equal time to 10 different candidates without diluting any of their messages?
Uncompensated expressions of opinion are unregulated. You'd have to find a way to fund your blog that doesn't include money from candidates or political parties.
Does this apply to PACs? What about famous bloggers that clearly support a candidate? That is what Citizens United was about.
It is very complicated. I don't think there are any easy solutions either.
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re: Re:
No person is required to do business with any company, let alone one they have severe moral objections too.
Did Godaddy change its mind sue to pressure from its customers? Yes. Was that a restraint on its freedom of speech? No.
This is an example of markets at work, not stifling of anyone's ability to speak freely. To claim that their ability to support SOPA was harmed by this event is beyond ignorant and bordering on insanity.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Star Ashton Kutcher Says 'SOPA Is The Problem, Not The Solution'
Re:
On the post: How SOPA Creates The Architecture For Much More Widespread Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How SOPA Creates The Architecture For Much More Widespread Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Star Ashton Kutcher Says 'SOPA Is The Problem, Not The Solution'
Re: Re:
On the post: How SOPA Creates The Architecture For Much More Widespread Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How SOPA Creates The Architecture For Much More Widespread Censorship
Re: Re:
On the post: How SOPA Creates The Architecture For Much More Widespread Censorship
Re:
Why would we want to pass a law that has clearly defined was of being abused?
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except we know neither of those cases are true. A content creator's market never was and never will be "all of the population". All content is targeted at specific niches of the populace.
If 50% of your target market (remember it is not 100% of the world population) gets the product for free, it is your job to find a way to get them to pay you something. If they want an easy way to watch the movie online or download the song etc, it is your job to find a way to do that. That is happening now.
I recently watched one of Creative America's propaganda films on SOPA. In that film someone claimed that if you search for "Transformers Online" you get link after link of pirate websites. That is true. But my questions is why the first link in google is not a legal place to watch and/or get the film online. That should be the first priority of the film maker.
Potential sales are lost. It's not NOTHING, it's just harder to measure directly.
You are correct there. That is why innovation exists. So that you can figure out just what is being lost and how to capture those potential lost sales. No business can stand still and expect to keep making the same amount of money forever. They must change with the market or fail.
I hate to disappoint you, but someone else giving away your product hurts business.
Only if you never change with the market.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know why you continue to misrepresent how YouTube functions by comparing it to a newspaper or magazine which both retain complete editorial control over what is published and what is not.
Once again you also misrepresent what the DMCA's Safe harbors are. They are not a new concept. They are codified case law from as far back as the Betamax ruling. seriously, read up on that ruling and compare it to the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. You will find both to be strikingly similar.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are not losing product when people infringe on copyrights. You still have the ability to sell and succeed. Many artists are currently doing so and succeeding. Why should we force them out of work by making the way they do business illegal?
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. The DMCA placed liability for infringement where it belongs, with the infringer. It was not a new concept. It was codifying into law the protections that the Betamax ruling placed on tool providers. Without the DMCA, those protections would still be there, but there probably would be more lawsuits contesting that protection.
Further, because of the way existing laws are written, without a basis in current technology, it is possible for site owners to play shell games to avoid liablity, hiding files on THIS free host, linking to them on THAT public site, and so on. That too is artificial, because anyone with half a brain can see what is going on - but in purely legal terms, because of the way a law is written, they are "legal".
If the site owners were the ones uploading the infringing content, then they would be liable even without the DMCA. They are the infringers. Safe harbors protect tool creators from being liable for users of those tools infringements.
However, if they are forced to "compete" with people giving away the very product they are attempting to sell, then yes, they will fail in the long run.
Guess what, you would have to do that with or without the DMCA and SOPA. You have always had to compete with people offering your content cheaper or for free. There has never been a time where that was not true. Any real business would accept that truth, live with it and succeed despite that.
But unfair competition isn't the free market
Then why are you advocating for SOPA? SOPA is one of the worst attacks on the free market in US history. It threatens to destroy many of the tools that independent artists use to distribute their content all in the name of "protecting" those same artists. Why would we want a law on the books that harms their ability to get their content to their fans? That seems far more unfair than what we currently have.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The DCMA safe harbors simply codified that ruling into law to avoid further pointless lawsuits against otherwise legal tools.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>