I think we're going to end up seeing the judge invent a legal argument that makes sharing the tracker files being the equivalent of pirating the content itself.
Blizzard uses its own BitTorrent client to download World of Warcraft, Starcraft II, and Diablo III.
Facebook and Twitter both use BitTorrent internally to move files around.
The Internet Archive uses it.
The UK government released several large data sets via BitTorrent.
NASA used BitTorrent to make a 2.9GB picture of the Earth available.
Linux ISOs are commonly distributed via BitTorrent.
Many bands release free music and videos via BitTorrent to promote their work and encourage people to attend live shows and buy albums.
You're insisting that torrent search engines be responsible for everything they link, much like some delusional courts insist that Google be responsible for everything THEY link to.
Making an automated search engine all but impossible. Someone would have to download each torrent (already a legal minefield) and verify the copyright status of each and every song, movie, image and 3D model.
Something similar has already happened in Europe in relation to sharing a URL, and it's not actually a bad idea
In the same sense that "The Mooch" was not actually a bad Communications Director.
This isn't Iran; it's Comcast. It's like choosing a cable channel package. If you want due process at one stage of the process (extradition), you CAN'T have due process at another. (US federal court) "But hey, it's your choice."
Hopefully the Polish court makes extradition dependant on due process at all stages of the process.
An attorney who filed dozens of BitTorrent copyright cases on behalf of Voltage Pictures and Millennium Films has renounced the practice, saying he was duped into participating in unethical copyright “trolling.”
Looking at this page's current Hot Topics list, it could have been worse. He could have been trying to represent a monkey in a PETA lawsuit.
Or even more embarrassing, trying to defend Comcast over its hidden bogus fees.
It's not doxing when the one making the threat signs his own name and address to it. Let alone when he's posting the same threats on his own social media pages under his real name.
On the flip side, at what point do we say that Twitter is being forced to host speech that the Twitter higher-ups would otherwise not want hosted on the service?
This might be similar to a bakery not wanting to print a same-sex marriage message on a cake.
ISPs - like telegraph and telephone companies before them - cannot refuse to carry speech it finds offensive, because they're "common carriers." I suppose the questions might be, "At what point does Twitter become a common carrier?" "Section 230 gives them a lot of protection from being held responsible user-generated content. Should that come with a minor obligation to allow content they might not like?"
I'm thinking about this because beyond simply reading articles, when it comes to speaking out, exercising free speech, for many people Facebook and Twitter ARE the internet.
Personally I think the way things are now is the better alternative. But as this article shows, it's not ideal. It's worth discussing alternatives.
The law should never ban republication of facts about criminals or facts about named individuals provable crimes.
Van Dyke's threats may be crimes, and his views are certainly repugnant. But until he's convicted of anything, I'm not sure the above statement applies.
On the other hand, with no conviction it should be up to the John Doe to explain to the court why his own words were repugnant enough - or his own actions criminal enough - to cause him harm if not removed from the public record.
Van Dyke's threats and Stormfront posts for example. No conviction, no harm in the information being public. Unless HE explains to the judge what's wrong with his actions. With possible negative consequences.
Private businesses that serve the general public do have some limits. A bakery can't refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Nor can they refuse service based on race or religion or political preference.
Techdirt is a private business serving the general public, making money off ads and "insider" donations. Do the rules for "bricks and mortar" stores extend to online businesses? If not, should they? Or could Techdirt ban based on political preference? There are certainly some sites that do.
Of course, I haven't seen Techdirt ban based on political preference. The AC above gets banned for being abusive and disruptive, adding noise rather than intelligent conversation. Banning THAT should certainly be allowed.
But still, we don't say that the bakery "is a private company with its own free speech and free association rights." It must serve the entire (non-abusive) public. At what point do we say the same of Twitter or any other business whose product is a communication medium?
Re: Re: Re: No policing due to "incompetence", eh? Twitter in this instance makes a howling plain error, so no bar owner should throw out loudmouths challenging to fights!
And he has a post pinned at the top to con money out of supporters, claiming to support some white supremacist "Proud Boys" who made fools of themselves* in Halifax.
* They disrupted what they though was an "anti-Canada" protest, but left after finding out that it was nothing of the sort. The indigenous group was protesting a statue of an openly genocidal governor from the 1700s.
The fundraising site makes a lot of false claims about the incident. And while they object to the "Proud Boys" being labelled neo-Nazis, a Venn diagram of the two groups would have near 100% overlap.
Re: Strange, curious powerful properties of Canadian trademarks
Canadian trademark law used to be more nuts.
In the late '80s I was working for a local computer store, Microbyte. (It no longer exists, but at the time had been around for 15 years.) One day we get legal demand from a Microbyte in Ontario, saying "We've just registered the Microbyte trademark Canada-wide. You must stop using it."
We wrote back, "We own the Microbyte trademark in Manitoba. Your so-called "Canada-wide" trademark is only good for Ontario, Quebec and a couple other provinces." We never heard back from them.
At some point all the provincial systems were merged. Which didn't fix existing problems. Furniture store The Brick (new federal trademark) moved into Manitoba and demanded that furniture store Brick's Fine Furniture (old Manitoba trademark) stop using their family name. Brick's Fine Furniture won, after five years of hell and $180,000 in legal bills.
Canada is a great place for a person to never be seen again.
Not really. We had a guy who was arrested for shoplifting, thinking he was invisible. Naturally, drugs were involved. Months later he was also charged with "Failure to appear."
It's not just trademarks. Geographic areas are also protected in the .ca domain name registry. Only the city, municipality or province with that name may register it.
But apparently it wasn't always this way. Haliburton.ca was registered back in 2000 and is owned by a private company, but apparently not this guy. The domain is currently parked.
TV money was the main driver for the NCAA to exist
The NCAA predates TV by a few decades. Their reaction to TV, in 1951, was to ban college games from being televised. This to prevent any drop in gate attendance.
You can't have a new medium cutting into existing revenue streams. Not until they can enforce a monopoly on that new medium.
Like they eventually did for TV for a few more decades, before losing that monopoly in court. Those on the internet will have to fight that fight all over again. With a lot less money and resources than the colleges had.
John Oliver made a point of sticking up for the miners; documenting Murray's opposition to black lung regulations, his dishonest reaction to the mine collapse that killed several miners, and more.
In fact the "Eat Shit, Bob" originated not with Oliver, but with one of those miners. It was written on a cheque returned by an employee, which was shown in the show. A $3.23 cheque sent to the employee in return for accepting increased production over safety.
Likewise Mike Masnick's articles on the subject can only work in favor of the miners, helping to end Murray's history of barratry to avoid responsibility for miner safety.
I'd label you a liar, but it's hard to accept that your apparent level of incompetence is real. Your lies are well-documented as such, in both text and video in links at the top of this page. You casually dismiss the sins of a coal mining corporation - which include $millions in political funding to influence government, but dismiss its critics as "globalists." Is this some kind of performance art project?
On the post: Kickass Torrents Creator Can't Get Criminal Case Tossed Out
Re:
Think about that. Please. BitTorrent has non-criminal, not-pirate uses.
Blizzard uses its own BitTorrent client to download World of Warcraft, Starcraft II, and Diablo III.
Facebook and Twitter both use BitTorrent internally to move files around.
The Internet Archive uses it.
The UK government released several large data sets via BitTorrent.
NASA used BitTorrent to make a 2.9GB picture of the Earth available.
Linux ISOs are commonly distributed via BitTorrent.
You're insisting that torrent search engines be responsible for everything they link, much like some delusional courts insist that Google be responsible for everything THEY link to.
Making an automated search engine all but impossible. Someone would have to download each torrent (already a legal minefield) and verify the copyright status of each and every song, movie, image and 3D model.
In the same sense that "The Mooch" was not actually a bad Communications Director.
On the post: Kickass Torrents Creator Can't Get Criminal Case Tossed Out
Re:
Hopefully the Polish court makes extradition dependant on due process at all stages of the process.
On the post: Voltage Picture's Lawyer Sues Copyright Trolling Participants, Calls Lawsuits Unethical
Looking at this page's current Hot Topics list, it could have been worse. He could have been trying to represent a monkey in a PETA lawsuit.
Or even more embarrassing, trying to defend Comcast over its hidden bogus fees.
On the post: Film Director's Op-Ed Ignores Reality To Push Hollywood Lobbying Talking Points
Up next:
A solution is announced that only works on BlackBerry Messenger. The MPAA lobbies for legislation to make it mandatory.
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re:
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This might be similar to a bakery not wanting to print a same-sex marriage message on a cake.
ISPs - like telegraph and telephone companies before them - cannot refuse to carry speech it finds offensive, because they're "common carriers." I suppose the questions might be, "At what point does Twitter become a common carrier?" "Section 230 gives them a lot of protection from being held responsible user-generated content. Should that come with a minor obligation to allow content they might not like?"
I'm thinking about this because beyond simply reading articles, when it comes to speaking out, exercising free speech, for many people Facebook and Twitter ARE the internet.
Personally I think the way things are now is the better alternative. But as this article shows, it's not ideal. It's worth discussing alternatives.
On the post: Stupid Patent of the Month: HP Patents Reminder Messages
Prior Art
Event data: Chemically imbalanced white supremacist 'Proud Boy' criticized on Twitter
Reminder message: "Send threats and glitter bomb"
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Europe and privacy
Van Dyke's threats may be crimes, and his views are certainly repugnant. But until he's convicted of anything, I'm not sure the above statement applies.
On the other hand, with no conviction it should be up to the John Doe to explain to the court why his own words were repugnant enough - or his own actions criminal enough - to cause him harm if not removed from the public record.
Van Dyke's threats and Stormfront posts for example. No conviction, no harm in the information being public. Unless HE explains to the judge what's wrong with his actions. With possible negative consequences.
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Private businesses that serve the general public do have some limits. A bakery can't refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Nor can they refuse service based on race or religion or political preference.
Techdirt is a private business serving the general public, making money off ads and "insider" donations. Do the rules for "bricks and mortar" stores extend to online businesses? If not, should they? Or could Techdirt ban based on political preference? There are certainly some sites that do.
Of course, I haven't seen Techdirt ban based on political preference. The AC above gets banned for being abusive and disruptive, adding noise rather than intelligent conversation. Banning THAT should certainly be allowed.
But still, we don't say that the bakery "is a private company with its own free speech and free association rights." It must serve the entire (non-abusive) public. At what point do we say the same of Twitter or any other business whose product is a communication medium?
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Re: Re: No policing due to "incompetence", eh? Twitter in this instance makes a howling plain error, so no bar owner should throw out loudmouths challenging to fights!
From wrong, to wrong in detail.
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Re:
On the post: Twitter Suspends Popehat For Writing About Violent Threats He Received From Another Twitter User
Re: Re:
* They disrupted what they though was an "anti-Canada" protest, but left after finding out that it was nothing of the sort. The indigenous group was protesting a statue of an openly genocidal governor from the 1700s.
The fundraising site makes a lot of false claims about the incident. And while they object to the "Proud Boys" being labelled neo-Nazis, a Venn diagram of the two groups would have near 100% overlap.
On the post: Canadian Man Somehow Gets Trademark On His Own County's Name, Govt. Says Legal Action Is The Only Remedy
Re: Strange, curious powerful properties of Canadian trademarks
Canadian trademark law used to be more nuts.
In the late '80s I was working for a local computer store, Microbyte. (It no longer exists, but at the time had been around for 15 years.) One day we get legal demand from a Microbyte in Ontario, saying "We've just registered the Microbyte trademark Canada-wide. You must stop using it."
We wrote back, "We own the Microbyte trademark in Manitoba. Your so-called "Canada-wide" trademark is only good for Ontario, Quebec and a couple other provinces." We never heard back from them.
At some point all the provincial systems were merged. Which didn't fix existing problems. Furniture store The Brick (new federal trademark) moved into Manitoba and demanded that furniture store Brick's Fine Furniture (old Manitoba trademark) stop using their family name. Brick's Fine Furniture won, after five years of hell and $180,000 in legal bills.
On the post: Canadian Man Somehow Gets Trademark On His Own County's Name, Govt. Says Legal Action Is The Only Remedy
Re:
Not really. We had a guy who was arrested for shoplifting, thinking he was invisible. Naturally, drugs were involved. Months later he was also charged with "Failure to appear."
On the post: Canadian Man Somehow Gets Trademark On His Own County's Name, Govt. Says Legal Action Is The Only Remedy
But apparently it wasn't always this way. Haliburton.ca was registered back in 2000 and is owned by a private company, but apparently not this guy. The domain is currently parked.
On the post: Fact Checking Snopes On Its Own Claims Of Being 'Held Hostage' By 'A Vendor': Well, It's Complicated
On the post: NCAA Strips UCF Kicker Of Eligibility After He Refuses To Stop Being An Athlete That Posts YouTube Videos
Re: Re: can you please explain.
The NCAA predates TV by a few decades. Their reaction to TV, in 1951, was to ban college games from being televised. This to prevent any drop in gate attendance.
You can't have a new medium cutting into existing revenue streams. Not until they can enforce a monopoly on that new medium.
Like they eventually did for TV for a few more decades, before losing that monopoly in court. Those on the internet will have to fight that fight all over again. With a lot less money and resources than the colleges had.
On the post: ACLU To Court: It's Legal To Tell Bob To Eat Shit
Re:
In fact the "Eat Shit, Bob" originated not with Oliver, but with one of those miners. It was written on a cheque returned by an employee, which was shown in the show. A $3.23 cheque sent to the employee in return for accepting increased production over safety.
Likewise Mike Masnick's articles on the subject can only work in favor of the miners, helping to end Murray's history of barratry to avoid responsibility for miner safety.
I'd label you a liar, but it's hard to accept that your apparent level of incompetence is real. Your lies are well-documented as such, in both text and video in links at the top of this page. You casually dismiss the sins of a coal mining corporation - which include $millions in political funding to influence government, but dismiss its critics as "globalists." Is this some kind of performance art project?
On the post: Fact Checking Snopes On Its Own Claims Of Being 'Held Hostage' By 'A Vendor': Well, It's Complicated
Re: Re: Whoa...
Here you go!
Bonus Snopes link.
Next >>