And Spectrum.
And AT&T
Make it $5000 damages per spoofed-number call, together with court costs and triple-time payment to the telecom provider their costs for helping to track down the offender.
And that's the reason I have completely avoided even considering ANY Sony product (much less buying it) for the last twenty years. And I expect to continue that for the rest of my life.
Turning off the camera should be considered as spoliation of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence: Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding... a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. )
After which, Stryker's case should be allowed to succeed on summary judgement.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..." (U.S. Constitution Clause VIII).
In the context of the times, "Titles of Nobility" constituted immunity to various aspects of the law. This clause should be interpreted in modern language as saying, "No class of persons shall be above the law."
In imposing their qualified immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court imposed a Constitutional abomination, and severely violated their oaths of office.
Subject says it: the "reaching out to the company we work with to manage the ad flow on our website" with such falsehoods is almost certainly libel per se.
As a matter of logic, I still don't see how the DMCA passes Constitutional muster: The Constitutional requirement is "for a limited time", and if those "technological measures" do not disable themselves after a limited time, then they are Constitutionally illegal.
And the legislators who enacted this have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and so are oathbreakers.
Speaking of penalties: fraudulent claim of copyright is also theft -- theft from the public -- and so should be punished just as severely as copyright infringement.
And "a separate class of people but a superior class, one for whom the rules, if they apply at all, are markedly different" is exactly what Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution forbids:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...
I do have the sheet music for the Vivaldi -- what do you think "my copy...Copyright Walton Publishing..." implies?
BTW, this kind of fraud is near-universal among publishers of sheet music; Kalmus and Oxford University Press are the only two publishers I know of that don't do this kind of thing. The Vivaldi just happened to be the earliest work for which I have the sheet music at y fingertips.
Generally, suit for improper claim of copyright should automatically subject the plaintiff to penalties at least as severe as the penalties for the corresponding infringement. After all, the fraudulent claim of copyright is an attempt to steal from the public.
There are a number of such types of fraudulent claims, of which manifestly fair use (as in this case) is one. Another is claim of copyright over a work that is in the public domain. (My copy of Vivaldi's Requiem claims "Copyright Walton Publishing... all rights reserved". Vivaldi died 279 years ago.) A third type of fraudulent claim is claim for a work owned by someone other than the plaintiff. There are probably more...
A few months ago, I checked out Spencer Quinn's "To Fetch a Thief" under Amazon Kindle.
I was about halfway through reading it.
Then the publisher, Simon and Schuster, decided to pull this book from Kindle. And also to have Amazon delete it from devices to which it had been lent -- including my tablet.
As far as I am concerned, this is part of a contract; all of the essential parts are there: they made an offer, I paid my consideration, and I took possession of the relevant item.
Their removal of it from my tablet constitutes breach of contract. For which they should be held responsible, and for which they should be condemned strongly. And if they are freely willing to breach contracts once, should they ever be trusted again?
That was assuming a cell-phone sized (1.2mm) sensor, BTW. If you use a larger sensor, the lens can be smaller, so this is in fact somewhat practical for fixed installations.
Doing the arithmetic, this corresponds to a sensor-pixel size of about 5.0e-9M, and according to the equations about optical resolution, a perfect lens of at least 60M (larger if the lens is not itself perfect, as almost always happens).
However, if Verizon (etc.) could get $10K in cost reimbursement for tracking down the spoofer to support my suit (in addition to my statutory $5K+legal costs), then they might be willing to try to help. Right now, they aren't.
And that would push the penalty up significantly...
And basically the FCC does nothing about violations of the Federal "Do Not Call" ordinance, either. (Oh, they do have a web-page, https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx, where they appear to pay lip-service and then do nothing...)
As it stands, violations are supposed to be subject to $500 statutory damages ($1500 for repetitions, or for various technical failures), but my legal costs for suing will be a lot more than that -- if I can find out the caller who violated the law, something made far more difficult by number-spoofing.
Instead: call-ID spoofing in violation of the Federal Do Not Call ordinance should constitute aggravated violation, for which the penalties should be: $5000 statutory damages plus costs plus reimbursement for the carrier for investigating to find the identity of the violator.
If such penalties were in place, they could provide a far more productive arena for the efforts of ambulance-chasers for a while, and would serve to reduce the problem greatly.
Re:
When you do "takedowns"
in court, it is called "spoliation" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence#Spoliation"
"the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator...."
Re: Re:
And that's the reason I have completely avoided even considering ANY Sony product (much less buying it) for the last twenty years. And I expect to continue that for the rest of my life.
(untitled comment)
Turning off the camera should be considered as spoliation of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence: Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding... a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. )
After which, Stryker's case should be allowed to succeed on summary judgement.
The Constitution itself
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..." (U.S. Constitution Clause VIII).
In the context of the times, "Titles of Nobility" constituted immunity to various aspects of the law. This clause should be interpreted in modern language as saying, "No class of persons shall be above the law."
In imposing their qualified immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court imposed a Constitutional abomination, and severely violated their oaths of office.
Re: Re: This ought to be libel
Libel requires statements to third parties.
Which happened. And I listed them.
This ought to be libel
Subject says it: the "reaching out to the company we work with to manage the ad flow on our website" with such falsehoods is almost certainly libel per se.
Ditto the "phishing attempt" and "spam" messages.
DMCA and Constitution
As a matter of logic, I still don't see how the DMCA passes Constitutional muster: The Constitutional requirement is "for a limited time", and if those "technological measures" do not disable themselves after a limited time, then they are Constitutionally illegal.
And the legislators who enacted this have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and so are oathbreakers.
copyright abuse
Abuse of copyright should be punishable just as severely as copyright infringement.
And in this case, since it is abuse for commercial gain, it should be punished just like felony infringement.
FWIW
Copyright violation as theft
Speaking of penalties: fraudulent claim of copyright is also theft -- theft from the public -- and so should be punished just as severely as copyright infringement.
Re: Back to the days of nobility and peasantry
And "a separate class of people but a superior class, one for whom the rules, if they apply at all, are markedly different" is exactly what Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution forbids:
(untitled comment)
Why isn't Officer Hackett in jail for perjury?
Re: Re: Copyright-abuse penalties
"Copyfraud" is a bit of a neologism.
I do have the sheet music for the Vivaldi -- what do you think "my copy...Copyright Walton Publishing..." implies?
BTW, this kind of fraud is near-universal among publishers of sheet music; Kalmus and Oxford University Press are the only two publishers I know of that don't do this kind of thing. The Vivaldi just happened to be the earliest work for which I have the sheet music at y fingertips.
Copyright-abuse penalties
Generally, suit for improper claim of copyright should automatically subject the plaintiff to penalties at least as severe as the penalties for the corresponding infringement. After all, the fraudulent claim of copyright is an attempt to steal from the public.
There are a number of such types of fraudulent claims, of which manifestly fair use (as in this case) is one. Another is claim of copyright over a work that is in the public domain. (My copy of Vivaldi's Requiem claims "Copyright Walton Publishing... all rights reserved". Vivaldi died 279 years ago.) A third type of fraudulent claim is claim for a work owned by someone other than the plaintiff. There are probably more...
Amazon Kindle book-bricking
Resolution
That was assuming a cell-phone sized (1.2mm) sensor, BTW. If you use a larger sensor, the lens can be smaller, so this is in fact somewhat practical for fixed installations.
Re:
Doing the arithmetic, this corresponds to a sensor-pixel size of about 5.0e-9M, and according to the equations about optical resolution, a perfect lens of at least 60M (larger if the lens is not itself perfect, as almost always happens).
Not practical.
Re: Re: (as carlie coats)
Civil suit -- just as the law presently allows.
However, if Verizon (etc.) could get $10K in cost reimbursement for tracking down the spoofer to support my suit (in addition to my statutory $5K+legal costs), then they might be willing to try to help. Right now, they aren't.
And that would push the penalty up significantly...
(untitled comment)
And basically the FCC does nothing about violations of the Federal "Do Not Call" ordinance, either. (Oh, they do have a web-page, https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx, where they appear to pay lip-service and then do nothing...)
As it stands, violations are supposed to be subject to $500 statutory damages ($1500 for repetitions, or for various technical failures), but my legal costs for suing will be a lot more than that -- if I can find out the caller who violated the law, something made far more difficult by number-spoofing.
Instead: call-ID spoofing in violation of the Federal Do Not Call ordinance should constitute aggravated violation, for which the penalties should be: $5000 statutory damages plus costs plus reimbursement for the carrier for investigating to find the identity of the violator.
If such penalties were in place, they could provide a far more productive arena for the efforts of ambulance-chasers for a while, and would serve to reduce the problem greatly.
Re: Re: First Amendment caveats
More comments from Carlie Coats >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Carlie Coats.
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