And neither is file type and size going to do it either. File size might get you in the ballpark (a 10 KB file is probably not what you are looking for), but other than that what does a video named Homeland that is roughly the size of a one hour video (whatever that means) imply in terms of copyright infringement? Nothing more than to take a closer look. It might very well be infringement, it might be somebody else who has created a movie based on Doctorow's book or their own work entirely, or it might even be a one hour review of Fox's show that falls under fair use (perhaps not even showing a single clip from the show).
If you are going to state that your copyrights are being infringed, you need to know your copyrights are actually being infringed. The copyrighted work is the entirety of the work, not the title, not the type, and certainly not the size. And with the Lenz v. Universal case, the copyright holder also has to take Fair Use into account as well. If you can't automate that, then you have no business filing a DMCA notice (under penalty of perjury I might add).
Cory should sue. Fox should lose. DTecNet should go out of business. But increasing the check for filesize and type simply reduces the space required to look into. It doesn't tell you that you've found an occurrence of infringement.
I've been asked my zip code while making a purchase probably a handful of times in my life. I assure you, for the vast majority of purchases I've made in my life, the only information the seller needed from me was what items I was buying and what my method of payment would be. That's because you are taxed based on the location of the seller, not where you live. I don't see why this should change.
Plus, what you are describing is called regulatory capture. Sure big etailers aren't hurt by this. Amazon used to be against it, but is now in favor of an internet tax. Why? Not because they feel sorry for the lost tax revenue of states. It's because it's easy for them and hard for little upstarts.
Wrong. If you were to look at the hundreds of books I have on my Kindle, not a single one is copyrighted. Some never even had a copyright.
Music is a bit different. For starters, they aren't on my Kindle, but I digress. Secondly, while I have lots of music that doesn't have a copyright on the composition, the symphonies that recorded them claim to have a copyright on their recordings. Unfortunately, there's just not a lot of sound recordings from the very early 1900s and late 1800s that are still usable.
Movies suffer from the same fate as music even more so. That doesn't mean I don't have public domain movies though. One of my favorites is Night of the Living Dead, for example.
All the other books, movies and music that I have were paid for (sometimes multiple times because I'm stupid and follow this dumb copyright law even though I don't agree with it). Does it hurt you to see that stuff might get into the public domain? Does it hurt you to see that people can disagree with a law but still follow it, meaning you can't just dismiss them as filthy pirates? I hope I haven't shattered your world view.
How about this? Or are we to believe that members of the MPAA will circumvent copy protection measures (violation of 17 USC § 1201), and copy and distribute those copies (which is infringement, not fair use), but would absolutely not use ubiquitous devices like VCRs and DVRs because they believe it's not fair use?
Plus, you conventiently ignored that the MPAA did lobby congress to change the law to make VCRs illegal, and yet Congress didn't. Ergo, congress agreed with your "six" judges, making those in favor of it being fair use hundreds.
We have so much amazing technology to make services that are absolutely amazing. And then the business people come in and say "Yes, but how can we make it a little bit worse to squeeze out a little bit more money?" Note I didn't say creators, and this isn't a problem restricted to copyrights or patents (though the maximalists of those groups fall on the same side as the dumb business people).
I'd love to buy ebooks on my Kindle. But with the number of times Amazon has taken books away from people keeps me from doing that. And all the while I'm keeping my money from current authors, I'm enjoying myself by reading free public domain books (see, no piracy). Current authors and their freeloading middle men aren't getting my money, not because they're content isn't good, and not because of piracy, but because they refuse to release without DRM, and want to have control of my devices. So I don't play their game, and I read The Three Musketeers and Oliver Twise. If Amazon takes those away from my Kindle, I'll go get them on projectgutenburg.org. Less convenient, sure, which is why I've been using Amazon so far for my public domain book fix.
The same is true for any digital movie service. I won't buy digital movies, because they come with DRM. I do buy DVDs, and the first thing I do is rip them to my XBMC file server, and then put them back in the case as a backup. It's less convenient than what Google, or Amazon could do for me, but I can't trust them to always give me my content. It's not always because of those companies. Sometimes it's because of the copyright holders. I can't trust them, so I won't bother with them.
Copyright maximalists hate me. Not because I hate their content, and not because I pirate. In fact, it's because I don't pirate that they hate me. I'm fine with consuming content that is their biggest competitor; the public domain.
First the US government will serve foreign companies for providing services illegal in the US to US citizens. Then foreign companies will just block all US traffic. Then the US government will sue them for not providing access based on some US law (perhaps the ADA?).
Then foreign governments will do the same to US companies. Then there will be a need for some third party organization to mediate all of this. Perhaps we can call it the World Trade Organization?
Disclaimer: I don't like the WTO. I think each country should be independently sovereign from other countries. If a US citizen breaks a US law, then punish the US citizen, not the foreign company that provided some service to the US citizen.
You're adding judges from different levels? Really? The MPAA lobbied heavily to have congress change the law. Congress never did. So I guess that makes hundreds on the side of fair use and only 7 against. Also, given the fact that members of the MPAA, congress, and many judges have used the VCR to home tape, I'd add an even larger number of people to that fair use side. Or maybe they're all just pirates as you propose?
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
I consider Benito Mussolini to be the ultimate fascist, but only because he was one of the first, and one of the founders of the fascist movement. Hitler (or maybe someone else) may have been more fascist, but I haven't bothered myself to come up with a Who's Who of fascists.
Yeah, Hitler did get the German economy going, but so what? If I had a choice of living under Hitler or the Germany before Hitler, I'd choose the latter. Freedom means a lot more to me than the economy. Blue's praise of Hitler just shows to me he isn't a populist that cares for the people. That's all a charade he puts on. He claims he's for the little guy, against big corporations, etc, but he's for government granted monopolies and knocks Mike any time Mike talks about government corruption or the like.
Like "The Prince", or Hitler, Blue like his subtle form of evil. Pretend to be for the people, when you really just want to rule over them completely.
Note: I'm not accusing Blue of supporting Holocaust Hitler or warmongering Hitler. I'm pointing out that blue praises fascist Hitler.
Re: Two other disadvantages of separate leg bookings
Don't take offense, but I'm going to poke some fun at you now.
Hey Mike, Danny here makes some good points. You should add something to the story indicating those problems. Perhaps make up a fictitious converstaion you had with a man named Goldstein (that's a more mature sounding name than Danny), and have him bring up those points. Like this:
That said, Goldstein also argues that there are downsides to buying individual flights. He brings up, as we discussed above, the issue of connecting flights (and also having bags checked all the way through to destination) -- but as noted, that doesn't apply in this situation. He also points out that if you have to "change or cancel your whole trip, you have to pay separate change/cancel fees for each booking, instead of one for the whole thing."
But then (because you are Mike and have to be contrarian) rebut it with something like this:
That's absolutely true, but is that "insurance" worth paying twice as much? I could rebook my entire trip with different times and dates... and basically pay the same total amount. So... that argument doesn't make much sense.
Copyright law should honestly just be abolished. There is no purpose to it beyond creating a business model, and one that is particularly dangerous to creativity. When I want to express myself, even if it's a simple reply to someone, I do it by using the expressions I have learned from others, whether those others are my parents, siblings, friends, or people in my neighborhood, or movies, tv shows, songs, books, poems, etc. It's all the better when it's a shared experience.
I could dismiss someone who has clearly lost an argument with a "you lose", or I could do it by showing a video.
If I own a gym, I could get my customers pumped up by giving my own speech, or I could play a song.
Any of those options are valid, and ought to be valid choices, but copyright says that you should only be allowed to express yourself in ways that are really old (70 years + life of author), paying for it, or creating a new way of expression. There's a lot of validity to new creation, and that creation will happen, but no one creates new things in a vacuum. We are all products of our culture, our shared experiences, etc. Being allowed to express ourselves using the expressions of those around us is a necessity. It's how we are.
Copyright goes against all that. At one point I thought it could be reformed. I'm leaning towards that being an impossibility. I'm not sure copyright could ever be squared with how humans express themselves. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong, but the more I think about it, I don't think it's possible. Sure copyright gives us certain business models, but then you'd have to prove that those business models are worth it, and I don't think they are.
Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
They did change it. I can't say whether they changed it because of this lawsuit, but their current logo is nothing like the one created by Frederick Bouchat. Teams change their logos regularly. I'm sure had they been given the choice to pay even one million dollars or change their logo, they would have just changed their logo. It'd give them an opportunity to refresh the team, make it look new and exciting, etc.
Here's a brief history of NFL team logos. The Detroit Lions have change their logo twice in the last 10 years, Broncos have changed their logo twice in 20 years, and there's more. Some teams change more often than others, and some only make minor changes, but they all make changes (except the Jaguars, but they're young).
I agree on the question, but disagree with your reason. The question "Why should she NOT be in trouble over this?" is a valid question. She has clearly broken the law. If it's stupid to enforce the law over this, then the law is stupid and should be removed, not just unenforced. Selectively enforced laws are what despots, dictators, kings and tyrants do. Your essentially free at the whim of the government. That is wrong.
As for what she's doing being wrong, I'm not seeing it. If the guy gave her his credentials freely, then what's wrong with her using it? If he doesn't want her to access it, he could change the password and be done.
That's not a problem for HBO. They just pop up a helpful message stating that you need to create a new account because your IP address has been pirated. Something along the lines of, "Someone has pirated your IP address. You need to create a new account. See how it feels to have your property pirated from you?"
Anything, anywhere in the chain that might possibly lead one to a possibly infringing work must be liable as well, and those responsible for those sites must then, obviously, act as Hollywood's personal police force.
I'll be happy when they start going after that pirate haven known as PACER.