No, it's like telling store owners that if someone walks into the store with crack in their pocket, the store owners can get nailed for possession.
Seriously, that is what it is. TPB would be the store, the infringers would be the people walking in with crack.
The courts just said the store owners are liable. That is SECONDARY liability.
This sets a bad precedent. While right now, it may be used to shut down sites like TPB or SumoTorrent, in a few years, it could be used for other, more nefarious purposes. And since the precedent has been set, you wouldn't be able to stop it.
To quote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
--Martin Niemöller
To bring it to modern times
"First they came for copyright infringers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an infringer.
Then they came for whistleblowers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a whistleblower.
Then they came for hosts of internet sites
and I didn't speak out because I do not host an internet site.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
OK, Mike does not support or condone piracy. The defense you think he gives to pirates isn't that pirates are right, but that the punishments are out of line with the crime.
Since you seem to think that piracy is stealing, let's go with an example of actual theft. If a kid walks into a store and pockets a chocolate bar (for the sake of discussion, let's say its a dollar). Now, the kid makes it outside and splits the bar with two of his friends, but is then caught. What is the punishment? A fine (probably a couple hundred dollars) or restitution (that's a dollar). There may be a small amount of jail time, but most courts would wave that considering the small amount of the theft.
The kid committed a crime. What he did was wrong and illegal.
Now, if the company that produced the chocolate bar decided that the kid had stolen potential revenue because he split the bar with his friends (that would be 2 dollars if each other kid paid for it on their own), they could sue him for actual damages ($2) or they could sue for statutory damages ($300,000). So they decide to go after the kid for $300K. That is what Mike is complaining about. The companies are going after pirates for damages FAR IN EXCESS to the amount of loss.
Let's move over to a sample of "piracy". If someone downloaded a song, and shared it with say, 10,000 people the actual damages would be in the range of $20,000 dollars (that's at 2 dollars a song, which is about what iTunes sells them for). But why go for actual damages, when you can go for statutory damages and net a massive 1,500,000,000 (150K per infringement, 10,000 infringements). That is the issue. Companies feeling justified to go after someone for 1.5 billion dollars for a loss of 20,000 dollars.
His case isn't a question about right and wrong, it is a question of the punishment fitting the crime. More and heavier enforcement doesn't eliminate the problem, it only makes the problem harder to solve. The criminals go to more lengths to hide their tracks, and make law enforcement's job that much harder.
This is especially true when you consider that you can reduce the amount of piracy (or 'theft' if you want) by offering a better service at a reasonable price.
I have always likened the current copyright system like a pair of pants. You buy the pants brand new (circa 1790). As you wear them, you notice holes in them, and start to patch them up. Eventually (now) your pants are more patches than pants.
At some point, you have to realize that the pants need to be tossed out and replaced.
Honestly, this seems so incredibly moronic, that I actually hope that they try to enforce that trademarked number, only to have their trademark completely rendered invalid by a court. I assume that any judge with more than 0 brain cells can figure out that trademarking a NUMBER which coincides with the YEAR is a blatant overreach of the trademark system. Perhaps it can lead to trademark reform...
Closer and closer we get each day,
to that world envisioned and Orwell did say,
1984 it is called and that day will soon come,
And then all our freedoms will be undone.
Yes, actually it does. Separation of Church and State. Since the schools are state run, they must be separated from church. In addition, it is not the government's policy to support one religion over another. And teaching Intelligent Design in schools does exactly that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Apparently you do not understand what theory means in science. It is not the same as the 'layman's' definition of theory. Making a statement like that shows people that you have not actually made any effort to learn the material which you speak out against.
Yes, that makes your argument and argument from ingnorance, which, while allowed, puts you in a weak position.
However, science class is about science. I do not have a problem with a religion class, or a philosophy class talking about these sorts of points. I do have a problem with a science class discussing it, because there is no science involved. If there was science involved, then there can be a point made, but there is not.
For the record, in science, a theory is scientific hypothosis which is supported by evidence.
It would depend on how EMI set up the licences and how they were distributed to various music sites/blogs. However, if they want to control WHO gets host the MP3's then they should have specifically stated so when deistributing these MP3's. By not doing so, they shot themselves in the foot as it were.
It's a real shame that some companies can't rely on the strength of their product to sell, but instead try to make laws to enforce things.
People WANT to support others they like. Maybe certain companies realize they aren't as liked as they want to be, and only their monopoly rights are keeping them in business.
A Patent on Copyright trolling. Then the patent holder can start demanding all sorts of licence fees from companies that create software to find infringement.
Australia, in 1996 enacted gun control after a mass shooting there. In fact, it took them a whopping 12 days to enact the legislation. In 1996 they had 521 gun deaths. The next year, the number dropped by 84, and has steadily since.
You know what stops gun deaths? NOT HAVING GUNS!!!!! America is swimming in an ocean of weaponry, with more guns per capita than ANY OTHER WESTERN NATION! The primary reason so many people have guns, is because there is little gun control.
On the post: Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression
Re: Re: Sad day indeed...
On the post: Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, that is what it is. TPB would be the store, the infringers would be the people walking in with crack.
The courts just said the store owners are liable. That is SECONDARY liability.
This sets a bad precedent. While right now, it may be used to shut down sites like TPB or SumoTorrent, in a few years, it could be used for other, more nefarious purposes. And since the precedent has been set, you wouldn't be able to stop it.
To quote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
--Martin Niemöller
To bring it to modern times
"First they came for copyright infringers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an infringer.
Then they came for whistleblowers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a whistleblower.
Then they came for hosts of internet sites
and I didn't speak out because I do not host an internet site.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
On the post: Verizon Steps In On Prenda Case; Says Brett Gibbs Never Informed Them Of Judge's Order Killing Subpoenas
Re: Re: 5 minutes and counting
On the post: Avid Gamer (And Minnesota Vikings Punter) Chris Kluwe Does The Math On How Much EA's SimCity Debacle Cost EA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Finally Answers Some Questions; No Mention Of Alan Cooper
Crud. I'm out.
I think i'll run out and get some more for March 11th. :)
On the post: White House Turns Star Wars / Star Trek Mistake Into Funny Meme
This
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Universal Sued For Screwing Over Its Own Sister Company
Re: Re:
OK, Mike does not support or condone piracy. The defense you think he gives to pirates isn't that pirates are right, but that the punishments are out of line with the crime.
Since you seem to think that piracy is stealing, let's go with an example of actual theft. If a kid walks into a store and pockets a chocolate bar (for the sake of discussion, let's say its a dollar). Now, the kid makes it outside and splits the bar with two of his friends, but is then caught. What is the punishment? A fine (probably a couple hundred dollars) or restitution (that's a dollar). There may be a small amount of jail time, but most courts would wave that considering the small amount of the theft.
The kid committed a crime. What he did was wrong and illegal.
Now, if the company that produced the chocolate bar decided that the kid had stolen potential revenue because he split the bar with his friends (that would be 2 dollars if each other kid paid for it on their own), they could sue him for actual damages ($2) or they could sue for statutory damages ($300,000). So they decide to go after the kid for $300K. That is what Mike is complaining about. The companies are going after pirates for damages FAR IN EXCESS to the amount of loss.
Let's move over to a sample of "piracy". If someone downloaded a song, and shared it with say, 10,000 people the actual damages would be in the range of $20,000 dollars (that's at 2 dollars a song, which is about what iTunes sells them for). But why go for actual damages, when you can go for statutory damages and net a massive 1,500,000,000 (150K per infringement, 10,000 infringements). That is the issue. Companies feeling justified to go after someone for 1.5 billion dollars for a loss of 20,000 dollars.
His case isn't a question about right and wrong, it is a question of the punishment fitting the crime. More and heavier enforcement doesn't eliminate the problem, it only makes the problem harder to solve. The criminals go to more lengths to hide their tracks, and make law enforcement's job that much harder.
This is especially true when you consider that you can reduce the amount of piracy (or 'theft' if you want) by offering a better service at a reasonable price.
On the post: Maryland Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Bar Schools From Claiming Copyright On Student & Faculty Work
A pair of pants
At some point, you have to realize that the pants need to be tossed out and replaced.
We are at that point now.
On the post: Anatomy Of A Boondoggle: How The US Broadband Plan Led To WV Buying $20,000 Routers For A One Room Library
Re: "this is not at all surprising."
On the post: Copyright Explained Musically
Interesting
On the post: Bayer Fights India's Compulsory Licensing Of Cancer Drug By Claiming It Spent $2.5 Billion Developing It
On the post: The International Olympic Committee Has Already Staked A Trademark Claim On The Number '2014'
Just wow.
On the post: Court Again Says It's Okay For The Feds To Snoop Through Your Digital Info Without Telling You
Closer and closer
to that world envisioned and Orwell did say,
1984 it is called and that day will soon come,
And then all our freedoms will be undone.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re:
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Yes, that makes your argument and argument from ingnorance, which, while allowed, puts you in a weak position.
However, science class is about science. I do not have a problem with a religion class, or a philosophy class talking about these sorts of points. I do have a problem with a science class discussing it, because there is no science involved. If there was science involved, then there can be a point made, but there is not.
For the record, in science, a theory is scientific hypothosis which is supported by evidence.
On the post: EMI Was Actively Giving Away MP3s It Accused Michael Roberston Of Downloading Illegally
Re: Was Robertson explicitly authorized?
On the post: Makers Of Minecraft Documentary Put It On The Pirate Bay, Despite High Profile Launch With Xbox
Very Cool
It's a real shame that some companies can't rely on the strength of their product to sell, but instead try to make laws to enforce things.
People WANT to support others they like. Maybe certain companies realize they aren't as liked as they want to be, and only their monopoly rights are keeping them in business.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Company Seeks Patent On Automated Copyright Trolling
LOL
A Patent on Copyright trolling. Then the patent holder can start demanding all sorts of licence fees from companies that create software to find infringement.
Trolling the Trolls as it were.....
On the post: NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL WOT ?
Well then, here you go:
http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html
h ttp://guncontrol.org.au/
Australia, in 1996 enacted gun control after a mass shooting there. In fact, it took them a whopping 12 days to enact the legislation. In 1996 they had 521 gun deaths. The next year, the number dropped by 84, and has steadily since.
You know what stops gun deaths? NOT HAVING GUNS!!!!! America is swimming in an ocean of weaponry, with more guns per capita than ANY OTHER WESTERN NATION! The primary reason so many people have guns, is because there is little gun control.