Other issues aside, I'm not sure the CIAPC site qualifies as "parody". Though what constitutes parody is largely subjective, I don't really see any attempt being made to "lampoon" or "mock" The Pirate Bay; it is merely a replication of the webpage with re-direction of the links.
That being said, I'm very much in favor of a generous interpretation of parody, and would be entirely satisfied should the courts accept CIAPC's send-up as fair usage.
There is no "balance" needed here. What we need is a free and open internet, period.
This. 100 times, this. If a particular business model can not find a way to be consistent with free and open communication between the citizens of this planet, that business model needs to be abandoned.
Likewise the majority of GNU/Linux and BSD distributions include a bittorrent client by default and not installed as a deliberate act -- not that installing legal software with legitimate, ethical uses should ever support an inference of criminality.
Payment processors can drop anyone if they have a good faith belief that the TOS is being violated.
Mr Thompson's post wasn't about the actions of the payment processors, it was about the actions of Mr King. If you write a libelous letter to the newspaper, you are held responsible for the publication of that letter (the newspaper may or may not be, but nonetheless...).
No, MegaUpload is claiming the opposite: they were aware that the particular files were infringing -- because the DOJ told them so -- but that they didn't remove the files because the DOJ was investigating the people who uploaded the files and removing the files would have exposed that investigation.
"In asking for the search warrant, prosecutors said in June 2010 they warned MegaUpload via a criminal search warrant that the company's servers housed more than 30 pirated video files and managers had not removed them even as late as November 2011."
If the above is true then the prosecutors are lying now; if the above is false then the prosecutors were lying when they sought the search warrant. Either way they engaged in deceiving the courts.
This is good... but I still get nervous when people focus too much on software patents. There are significant problems with all kinds of patents, and focusing just on "software" alone, may leave other problems in place.
Even for those who feel that patents generally may be beneficial, software patents can still be viewed as particularly problematic. There are strong arguments against patenting software that are not applicable against the patenting of machines or manufactures, and it is not unreasonable to object to the issuance of software patents without challenging the patent regime as a whole.
This is not a matter of copyfraud since the "lending" is qualified by "unauthorized"; just as those FBI warnings at the start of videotapes were not copyfraud because infringement was limited to unauthorized copying. Of course, those familiar with copyright law knew that they were allowed to make copies for their personal use.
If the VCR hadn't come out, surely another home video player would have with movies supplied by the studios.
You are correct that "no home video market" is a bit of hyperbole. However, it is not necessary to hypothesize whether a market for play-only devices would have eventually evolved since, at the time videotape machines were hitting the home market, various play-only Videodisc and Laserdisc were also being marketed.
Yet the "content industry" failed to actually supply enough "content" for those devices to encourage their adoption, apparently holding little interest in fostering a home video market despite the technology existing.
The ugly reality for the zealots here is that enforcement does result in more sales. And that's why no one except the willfully blind are surprised when content owners pursue enforcement. It works.
This ignores the deleterious effect upon sales that enforcement causes amongst those who have no interest in pirating, but likewise have no interest in supporting an industry that attacks its very customers.
While a grocery may be able to dramatically reduce shoplifting by executing random strip searches of its customers, any shop owner who hopes to remain in business recognizes the obvious folly of such an approach.
... comprising: an infringement module configured to identify an infringing computer, wherein the infringing computer includes a computer associated with an infringement event;
This "infringement module" is an extremely intriguing technology in and of itself. Where can I get one? The courts at all levels -- district, circuit, supreme -- can only determine infringement after deep examination of the facts specific to a case, and even then disagree with each other as often as not. Yet this "infringement module" apparently has the illustrious ability to detect the occurrence of such "infringement events" in some automated manner.
If such an "infringement" module were to exist, it should be far more worthy of a patent being issued than this particular application. It would certainly be of benefit to our society; a great improvement over the status quo of millions of people, thousands of ISPs, and hundreds of courtrooms being utterly incapable of reaching any sort of consensus on whether infringement has taken place in any particular instance.
I agree with Mr Zeal. Copyright isn't about an entitlement of creators to income streams and while examining various marketing methods of creative works can be interesting and provide some comfort that extensive reform may not be inconceivable, the core issues of copyright are its impact on the culture, freedom, and economy of society as a whole.
That all works benefiting from the copyright privilege should be proactively registered with the Copyright Office and that a digitized copy be submitted for archiving.
The first proposal would eliminate confusion over the copyright status of works (i.e., copyright abandonment). There could be a grace period of a year or so wherein copyright is presumed but after that, any non-registered works should be in the public commons.
Another caveat could be that copies of some qualified works (e.g., software source code) would be retained by the government in non-public archives; however, it should be ensured that, once the copyright term has expired, the public domain actually receives the copyrighted work it was promised.
With advancements in technology over the last few decades, implementation of these proposals is almost trivial and could probably be accomplished for less than the cost of a bridge on an interstate or of a fighter jet.
In the following sentence, "Mayo" should be substituted in place of "Myriad" (in the penultimate paragraph).
Of interest, there were two questions appealed to the Supreme Court: (1) are human genes patentable and (2) did CAFC make a mistake in its application of the Myriad medical diagnostics patent ruling to this case -- but the Supreme Court has only agreed to review the first question: are human genes patentable?