Bad business models are found out and eliminated through market pressures.
Bad laws make previously legal activities and business models and make them illegal.
Reddit is currently operating under a legal and a good business model. SOPA threatens to turn that business model illegal and costly. That is not market pressure.
The record labels have a bad business model. They have failed to keep up with market pressures and are losing money. Those that do make money right now are keeping up with market pressures. You do not need laws in this instance, just innovation.
Its kind of like teachers unions. While they are not a government entity, their pull on government education policy makes them pretty much makes them a de facto government entity.
I guess the same could be said of the Chamber of Commerce.
No need to apologize. The US Chamber of Commerce purposely deceives the general public into think they are a government agency. It is part of how they work. It is also how they can convince so many people into believing their tripe.
The reason they have the trade policy playbook is because they "represent" just about every business in the US and need to know all trade regulations. I don't really think that any of that information is secret so I wouldn't really think that it is such a bad thing to have that hacked.
He is a law enforcement officer. His job is to protect and serve the public. If that requires putting dangerous people in prison, that is fine. But if putting people in jail is more a priority over protecting and serving the public, he is not the kind of person that should carry a badge.
Where is the proof that actual harm was committed. Fox can't provide it. The prosecution couldn't provide it. So with this lack of any proof of harm, why is this guy being locked up for a year?
1) Fox is the one suing pressing charges. It should be up to them to prove actual harm committed. Don't like it, get the law changed. Oh right you are trying with SOPA.
2) See #1.
3) Why is it a crime to not hurt someone else? Sure he uploaded a video. People watched the video and the film still made a profit. Was his intent malicious? Not that was ever proven.
My defenses of him are not to make the process of prosecuting real crime more difficult or impossible. It is to show that not everything is as cut and dry as you wish it to be.
Are you seriously that braindead or are you just a really really bad parody?
So I should not participate in word of mouth promotion of a film I love because the copyright owner hasn't given me permission? Is that what copyright law has come down to? And you think this is right?
Why is it illegal for me to promote a film I look forward to watching? Me sharing the trailer or hosting screen captured images of the trailer is not going to diminish the the revenue of the actual film. In fact, my sharing those things will only increase the revenue.
I am sorry that real life does not mesh with the fantasy world you have created in your head.
The problem I have with this ruling and the law and especially your interpretation of the law is as follows:
1) No harm could be proven to have been done to Fox. The movie made loads of money both in theater and DVD sales. They made a profit. They could not prove that harm was done to him.
2) While he may have received some benefit, whether that be financial or social, was that benefit made by causing harm to another person or business? Not that can be proven.
3) if the only benefit he gained was social and no harm was done to Fox, why is he being punished? Is it now a crime to raise yourself socially?
While I can understand copyright law as it currently stands, there are too many scenarios and too many variables to really make this a black and white area. That is what this court did.
Please provide a cost effective way of prescreening uploaded content that does not involve unnecessary steps, does not violate privacy and does not force people out of anonymity. Oh wait you can't provide a service that meets any of those that people will actually want to use.
Veoh provided a service to people. People used it. Safe Harbors protected them from liability for infringement performed by their users. I still don't understand why you do not want liability to be placed where it should be placed, on the person who infringed the copyright. Rather you want liability placed on the tool the person used.
Veoh is a tool. Not the infringer. The fact that a judge can see that and you can't tells a lot about you.
You made no such "well reasoned post" You said Veoh was wrong for no other reason than you think they are wrong. You based your opinion on your personal interpretation of the safe harbor provisions, completely ignoring every legal ruling on the topic. You provided no facts only ad hominems. That is not well reasoned.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 12:16pm
Re:
From the article:
Finally, Veoh itself had appealed the rejection of its request for attorneys fees. Here, Veoh wins a partial victory as the court says that the lower court needs to go back and review some (though not all) of that part of the ruling.
There is a possibility that Veoh will get some reimbursement for attorney fees, but it will be too little too late.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 12:14pm
Re:
So is "content grifter/ing" the phrase of the month? I tend to lose track.
As for Veoh, I will take the word of a judge on Veoh's legal status under the DMCA over your word any day. The judge found Veoh to be completely legal so that it what it is.
Sadly, the judge was unable to remedy the fact that it is now dead, not through market forces at work but because of a vindictive lawsuit.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:53am
Re: Re: Re: Re: The core problem
While piracy does not have a lost sale ratio of 1:1 there are certainly some lost sales in there.
I won't argue that, because you are right.
But the inverse is also true. Piracy drives sales. While it is again not a 1:1 ratio, there are some gained sales there. It is a shame that the *AA side is so busy claiming otherwise that they can't see it.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:47am
Lamar's Twitter Profile
I was just looking at Lamar's twitter profile and it reads as follows:
I represent the 21st District of TX in Congress & protect the Constitution as the top Republican on the Judiciary Com.
I think it is pretty hypocritical of Lamar to claim that he wants to protect the Constitution at the same time he is championing one of the worst censorship legislation ever seen.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 10:33am
Re: Re: The core problem
I should also add that in the case of retail, shrink does real and visible harm. When a product is physically stolen, the store no longer has it to sell. Thus it is an actual loss of revenue.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re:
Bad laws make previously legal activities and business models and make them illegal.
Reddit is currently operating under a legal and a good business model. SOPA threatens to turn that business model illegal and costly. That is not market pressure.
The record labels have a bad business model. They have failed to keep up with market pressures and are losing money. Those that do make money right now are keeping up with market pressures. You do not need laws in this instance, just innovation.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess the same could be said of the Chamber of Commerce.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason they have the trade policy playbook is because they "represent" just about every business in the US and need to know all trade regulations. I don't really think that any of that information is secret so I wouldn't really think that it is such a bad thing to have that hacked.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re:
Where is the proof that actual harm was committed. Fox can't provide it. The prosecution couldn't provide it. So with this lack of any proof of harm, why is this guy being locked up for a year?
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) See #1.
3) Why is it a crime to not hurt someone else? Sure he uploaded a video. People watched the video and the film still made a profit. Was his intent malicious? Not that was ever proven.
My defenses of him are not to make the process of prosecuting real crime more difficult or impossible. It is to show that not everything is as cut and dry as you wish it to be.
On the post: Did You Embed The Leaked Trailer For Dark Knight Rises On Your Blog? Under SOPA, You May Face Jail Time
Re: Re: Re:
So I should not participate in word of mouth promotion of a film I love because the copyright owner hasn't given me permission? Is that what copyright law has come down to? And you think this is right?
Why is it illegal for me to promote a film I look forward to watching? Me sharing the trailer or hosting screen captured images of the trailer is not going to diminish the the revenue of the actual film. In fact, my sharing those things will only increase the revenue.
I am sorry that real life does not mesh with the fantasy world you have created in your head.
On the post: Did You Embed The Leaked Trailer For Dark Knight Rises On Your Blog? Under SOPA, You May Face Jail Time
Re:
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re:
1) No harm could be proven to have been done to Fox. The movie made loads of money both in theater and DVD sales. They made a profit. They could not prove that harm was done to him.
2) While he may have received some benefit, whether that be financial or social, was that benefit made by causing harm to another person or business? Not that can be proven.
3) if the only benefit he gained was social and no harm was done to Fox, why is he being punished? Is it now a crime to raise yourself socially?
While I can understand copyright law as it currently stands, there are too many scenarios and too many variables to really make this a black and white area. That is what this court did.
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
Veoh provided a service to people. People used it. Safe Harbors protected them from liability for infringement performed by their users. I still don't understand why you do not want liability to be placed where it should be placed, on the person who infringed the copyright. Rather you want liability placed on the tool the person used.
Veoh is a tool. Not the infringer. The fact that a judge can see that and you can't tells a lot about you.
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re:
Finally, Veoh itself had appealed the rejection of its request for attorneys fees. Here, Veoh wins a partial victory as the court says that the lower court needs to go back and review some (though not all) of that part of the ruling.
There is a possibility that Veoh will get some reimbursement for attorney fees, but it will be too little too late.
On the post: Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re:
As for Veoh, I will take the word of a judge on Veoh's legal status under the DMCA over your word any day. The judge found Veoh to be completely legal so that it what it is.
Sadly, the judge was unable to remedy the fact that it is now dead, not through market forces at work but because of a vindictive lawsuit.
On the post: Reuters Media Columnist Explains That SOPA/PIPA Are A 'Cure Worse Than The Disease'
Re: Re: Re: Re: The core problem
I won't argue that, because you are right.
But the inverse is also true. Piracy drives sales. While it is again not a 1:1 ratio, there are some gained sales there. It is a shame that the *AA side is so busy claiming otherwise that they can't see it.
On the post: Lamar Smith Says 'Just Joking...' About Tomorrow; SOPA Markup Postponed
Lamar's Twitter Profile
I represent the 21st District of TX in Congress & protect the Constitution as the top Republican on the Judiciary Com.
I think it is pretty hypocritical of Lamar to claim that he wants to protect the Constitution at the same time he is championing one of the worst censorship legislation ever seen.
On the post: Reuters Media Columnist Explains That SOPA/PIPA Are A 'Cure Worse Than The Disease'
Re: Re: The core problem
With piracy, that is not the case.
Next >>