So basically what you are saying is this is nothing more than felony interference of a business model. After all it was the broadcasters that setup the model of charging for free content (humm you can't compete with free, really?) and it is the same broadcasters that are upset that someone else is watching that content over the internet. Oh and the "Aereo is not paying for that content" statement, Aereo is paying EXACTLY what you and I would pay for it ourselves.
So tell me why should cable/sat companies pay for free content just so they can enabled more viewers to watch that content? That same statement has been said in the comments several times but what is never said why it should be that way. And don't use the old fall back argument of "but its the law." Laws can and do change all the time. Instead of repeating the same statement over and over thinking that will change people's mind lets bring out the reasons why? Why was this setup to begin with? What purpose did it serve then? Does it still serve the same purpose? Is it hindering other features or services?
This is just stupid, plain and simple. The content is sent OTA and is designed to be picked up and consumed by as many people as possible for free. This service is only allowing more people to pickup and consume that very same content.
Since 1980 in the U.S., Coke has been made with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as an ingredient. Originally it was used in combination with more expensive cane-sugar, but by late 1984 the formulation was sweetened entirely with HFCS.
So nobody can ever write a tragic love story anymore? Nobody can write about about regicide to gain power? Nobody can write about corruption, betrayal, time travel, space travel, etc? Wow I guess nobody can write about anything anymore. All are can be traced down to some public domain works on at least a basic level.
I saw a video quite some time ago about a musician that noticed how many many many songs today all have a certain number of notes in common. He recognized this because when he was in band at school he got sick of playing these same notes over and over again and heard them in a piece of music he was listening to. I think this was in response to a lawsuit between two musicians. In his video he points out the notes in common between the two songs in question. He then points out the same notes in songs going back several years and concluding by showing the same notes in some classical song.
whenever the industry seems to get close to creating a good product for video -- see: Hulu or Netflix -- the industry then freaks out that it's going to cannibalize their old way of doing things
Isn't that the point? Don't you want something that works BETTER then the old way or reaches MORE customers or both?
I am a small web hosting provider myself and have to ask if I got a DMCA notice on one of my client's sites what options do I have? Can I change the client's code or database to remove the material in question or do I just disable the account? Since I just host the site and have nothing to do with the content then the only course of action I can see would be to disable the site in question or risk bringing my business into a legal battle that I can't afford. Shut down that client's site or shut down all of my client's sites and go out of business? Unfortunately that is the way the DMCA is written (that I understand) it is the nature of the beast. Yes it needs to be changed to a notice - notice provision vs notice - take down but until that gets changed my hands would be tied to a very expensive pole.
So I am asking the Techdirt community what would be my best course of action if I did get a DMCA notice? What would you do if you were in my shoes? GoDaddy has tons of cash to throw at lawyers and could have fought for this customer, I can not. It seems my only course of action involves loosing that client (one way or another) or risk my business. Two loose - loose options.
Then the same judge gets the trail of State vs Courtney Gallion in the charges of violating the CFAA by accessing her now divorced husband's Facebook account.
Would "felony interference of a business model" be consider dedicated to infringement? Will this bill be limited to only copyright? At some point would trademark be rolled into it as well? Wouldn't that be swell. Now someone who has a trademark dispute with another company files suit (in East Texas no less), goes to the ITC to get all imports barred, and then uses SOPA to deal the final blow; shutdown of the website and any CC payments.
Under the new law SOPA I hereby notify you of a domain that is dedicated to infringement and demand that you block access to and/or deny payments to anybody using this domain or any subdomains. The domain in question is .com
I can't watch that video, it requires me to download the FREE Adobe Flash player. Free is bad!
Seriously, WHAT?! Do these employees really have their heads up their rear ends they can't see how horribly this will be abused? Do they really think Viacom would not use this new "tool" to crush a new competitor that is starting to take business away from Viacom? Do they not know this will make everybody who builds a business online guilty until proven innocent?
Do a simple internet search for SOPA and you can find all kinds of different companies against it. Does Congress really live in a bubble where the only people they hear are the ones that are allowed to testify? One would think that our own reps would research a bill outside of DC before voting ya or na. But then again that would involve common sense, something I think is removed before an official is sworn into office.
The backers of this bill should be worried about the bill back firing on them. If it will be this easy then what is to stop someone from filing a complaint against Viacom or UMG? Sure they have high priced lawyers to defend themselves but get enough complaints and their lawyers will be working overtime to keep up.
Re: Re:
So tell me why should cable/sat companies pay for free content just so they can enabled more viewers to watch that content? That same statement has been said in the comments several times but what is never said why it should be that way. And don't use the old fall back argument of "but its the law." Laws can and do change all the time. Instead of repeating the same statement over and over thinking that will change people's mind lets bring out the reasons why? Why was this setup to begin with? What purpose did it serve then? Does it still serve the same purpose? Is it hindering other features or services?
This is just stupid, plain and simple. The content is sent OTA and is designed to be picked up and consumed by as many people as possible for free. This service is only allowing more people to pickup and consume that very same content.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
When you are in your 20's anything new is awesome and you fully embrace it.
When you are in your 40's anything new is wrong and against the vary nature of the universe.
(untitled comment)
I saw a video quite some time ago about a musician that noticed how many many many songs today all have a certain number of notes in common. He recognized this because when he was in band at school he got sick of playing these same notes over and over again and heard them in a piece of music he was listening to. I think this was in response to a lawsuit between two musicians. In his video he points out the notes in common between the two songs in question. He then points out the same notes in songs going back several years and concluding by showing the same notes in some classical song.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Isn't that the point? Don't you want something that works BETTER then the old way or reaches MORE customers or both?
(untitled comment)
So I am asking the Techdirt community what would be my best course of action if I did get a DMCA notice? What would you do if you were in my shoes? GoDaddy has tons of cash to throw at lawyers and could have fought for this customer, I can not. It seems my only course of action involves loosing that client (one way or another) or risk my business. Two loose - loose options.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Seriously, WHAT?! Do these employees really have their heads up their rear ends they can't see how horribly this will be abused? Do they really think Viacom would not use this new "tool" to crush a new competitor that is starting to take business away from Viacom? Do they not know this will make everybody who builds a business online guilty until proven innocent?
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Backfire
Backfire
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Wow
What Else Can We Patent
More comments from Chris Hoeschen >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Chris Hoeschen.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt