The part that makes me really sad about this case is that the people who are supposed to be responsible for upholding justice are the ones that "cheated" to take down MegaUpload. As the farce that "was" this case unravels it is starting to prove just what a comedy of errors it was. All at the behest of Hollywood and their henchmen to punish its fans. What upsets me the most is that once this gets dropped because of all the mistakes that were made, I wouldn't be suprised if Dotcom turns around and sues the US over its blatant abuse, errors and bad faith prosecution and the US Taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. I see a very sad day coming for our wallet.
I don't know about the rest of the buying public, but my real disposoable income has come down so far that after gas for the car, home energy price increases, and a decrease in pay, any media purchases become a much larger piece of the little disposable income pie.
Is the Karate Kid movie back in the theaters? When Mr. Miyagi is first starting to teach Daniel karate, Daniel knocks a kerchief to the floor and Mr. Miyagi says (something to the affect of) "Be careful knocking that weapon to the floor". He then shows Daniel how even a flimsy kerchief can be used to generate a distraction that will allow an advantage in a fight. Unfortunately, DHS has become the weapon that is only good as a distraction.
We were also concerned that officials from the IPO find it difficult to describe intellectual property as a property right. It was described as a framework by one official which immediately undermines it.
The rightsholders (i.e. the labels, publishers, etc.) seem to want to call it "their" property until it comes time to sell it. Then it is no longer property. Once it gets to the consumer, then it is only licensed and then the consumer is only allowed to do what the rightsholder wants to allow the consumer to do with it, with the ability to go back and change the rules at will. Once the consumer has paid for it, it can't be sold, it can be taken back at any time (see Amazon story about cancelling account), and it can't be given to anyone else and "Oh, my God", don't try to make a backup copy or a copy of any sort to protect your license or else. Wow, that just doesn't sound like any property to me.
We need to pass laws to make unlawful activities illegal
In order to provide effective criminal justice responses to threats presented by terrorists using the Internet, States require clear national policies and legislative frameworks. Broadly speaking, such policies and laws will focus on:
(a) Criminalization of unlawful acts carried out by terrorists over the Internet or related services;
Can anyone (without having a laughing fit) please explain why we need new laws to make illegal activities illegal?
Seriously, I want an answer because I don't understand. Please help.
Since it would be truthful, can they list a "NOT Nutella milkshake since Nutella sued us" flavor? and in bigger letters whoever won to be the replacement flavor?
What I find extremely weird was that when I had a store, we got money from manufacturers to use there name in advertising, aka co-branding. Now this place gets nastygrammed for doing what they've been doing for 14 years. I'm guessing that Nutella needs new laywers.
I hope that Country Joe Lawyer for $15 an hour is not involved in the case. This is where the ACLU or EFF or somebody "extremely" familiar with copyright law can/will get involved to help the defendant's cases and get a proper precedent set with this case.
If you stick with McCarthy and what he did in America it is a very different conversation than about Communist Politicians who abused millions for whatever their reasons were.
The issue with McCarthy and his tactics is that when he and his committee accused you, you were automatically guilty. There was no trial, no ability to defend yourself. You were guilty by accusation. The worst part is that, once called before the committee, you were asked to prove the negative. No "proof" of your guilt was presented except the accusation. Then you had to prove the accusation was not true. There was no evidence to contest, no witnesses to cross-examine. Just an open accusation that you were guilty. The childhood reply of "nah ah" did not work either. Using the obvious counter of "No I'm Not" didn't work either. How do you "prove" your not something that you were accused of? What proof can you present? How do you contest the evidense against you when there are none? The accusation with a few words were enough to make you guilty but nothing you said was enough to make you innocent.
This is similar to a man being asked the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". If you answer "yes", then you implicitly agree that there was wife beating going on and that you have stopped that activity. If you answer "no", they implicitly you have agreed that there was wife beating going on and that it has not stopped.
In this case, the company was accused, allowed for an investigation, and as a result of the investigation they were declared bad because. No evidence of any wrongdoing was collected, the investigators "Just Knew" that something bad was going on. So, how to "prove" that nothing bad is going on. Well the first step is to have some evidense of what the "bad thing" was. Show some evidense that they are doing a "bad thing". Find at least one piece of equipment that they did a "bad thing" on (and prove that they did it either by proof that they put on a bad update or something).
If McCarthy said "you are bad". Then by accusation you were bad. No proof was required. No evidence was presented that could be contested or proven false. The fact that an accusation was made, was by default a guilty verdict. Since the committee could not find anything that it could show as evidence that Huawei did anything wrong we should just accept that there bad anyway, just because. That is very dangerous ground. That kind of power always goes to a person's head that anybody they accuse is automatically guilty.
The system in the US is supposed to be the presentation of the evidence of guilt in an adversarial hearing with the ability to present counter evidence of innocense. NOT a guilty by accusation system. That system is EXTREMELY open to abuse and mistakes. Even the best "good" person can be swayed or misled when there is no need for valid legal proof of guilt, just an accusation.
It's easier to "see" chinese pirates, they look different. It's much easier to go after a 'made-up' enemy that anybody can tell from the "us". It makes it easy to point out "us" versus "them". "They" can be picked out in any crowd. Just watch, soon we'll start having the "Chinese" concentration camps just the US used to have the concentration/internment camps to round up the Japanese starting in 1942. Where is McCarthy when you need him.
Get busy making videos to put up on YouTube because you have to - because I said so, so there.
Google, I've got all of the slaves busy making you free videos. I'll get them up there as soon as they are done, so you can make all that free money on your free internet connection (you know, the one you don't have to pay for).
Didn't anyone else see this great pun in the article?
If they were actually willing to learn, they would take a step back and work with the government of Guyana to come up with a pricing plan that would actually work. Of course, that might be too much to ask from some companies.
Oh come on, these are educational book publishers, are THEY going to learn? Nope, it costs too much.......... :)-
We already have a computer hacking law (Just ask Lori Drew ) that can be used to go after computer criminals (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). But, what the administration is saying that this Cyber Attack (well I guess that a Cyber Atack is not computer fraud or abuse, is that what I'm missing?) So now, a (maybe) cyber attack that was unsuccessful and nothing bad happened that is not computer fraud or abuse needs a new law (although what they probably want is a whole new huge expensive department to deal with this failed threat). OR, they could just take the sensitive information off the internet so it can't be reached. Wow, why didn't I think of that.
Look at the fine print, normally the contracts will include a "successor and assigns" clause which means they can assign the contract to someone else and the band will go along with the contract to whomever it gets assigned.
My take on the economic impact is that PAUS has now tarnished on image that was properly registered for copyright by the lawful owner (the photographer). That case should be fairly strong in that the photographer's exclusive rights have been infringed. The value of any future use of the photograph has been damaged by the unlawful appropriation of the image. The difficult part of this case is going to be sticking to the rights defined by law and avoiding the emotional aspect (although if it goes to a jury, jury selection of neutral or gay favorable jurists will be critical). Certainly someone made money from the appropriation of the image and production of the brochures. At least more than the photographer made from the use of the photos (other than the payment by the couple).
Part of the problem with the fight is that there are many different eggs in the basket with different problems and everybody (on all sides) seem to be looking for the broad stroke that will fix all problems. If tomorrow I decide to call myself a musician (and hand out earplugs to the people forced to listen to me play), am I automatically entitled to make a living at it (and quit my day job)? That's a windmill that you can tilt at for a long time and never solve, yet I see frequent comments that seem to ASSUME that anyone who calls themself a musician is entitled to be a millionare. Like many other professions, there is a wide range of people who call themselves something and really shouldn't be (just look at the mess the "bricklayer" made of my brother-in-laws brick wall).
On the other hand, "the recording industry" is having problems because they don't like the fact that the technology of recording has escaped from their high price machines. The "Plastic Disk Production" industry that they are in is going the way of the buggy whip, just like the casette and the vinyl record (excluding purists).
In the "really" good old days, musicians "made it" as troubadors or court musicians. Many families had musicians and sitting around in the evening and singing were a way of life before radios. For many years, a musician would make a "recording" once well actually the label, and be able to make and sell millions of copies of the one effort. Those days are dissappearing. Now (well still), musicians are making more from live performances and the labels need to find something else to do besides make plastic disks. They need to get back to their other roles like promotion of musicians. Life was good when it took a $100,000 machine to make the little plastic disks. Now anybody can do it with a $25 CD burner and a download from the internet. The cow has gotten out of the barn. The "recording" industry AKA the labels need to find a new purpose in life and stop trying to penalize their customers for the lost cow.
Instead of trying to lock down all of the new technology, they need to give up the lost cow and find the "Next New Thing" and get ahead of the ball instead of losing relavance by paying politicians for new laws that will still not work (as in will not increase revenues).