Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
I would think that none of it violates the DMCA. Use of the tool may not be an official takedown notice depending how an official notice is defined by the DMCA itself. WB put itself in a dubious position by asking for a tool in the first place instead of official notices. Any lawsuit by Hotfile for abuse of it's provided software would be outside of the scope of the DMCA.
That's not what I read at all. WB had full opportunity inform Hotfile of any infringing material and did not. So, how is Hotfile supposed to magically know the status of the content? Hotfile's argument is why should we do anything if WB isn't willing to? If there's something copyrighted and the owner allows it, no law has been broken. That's licensing for $0. Promoters license for $0 all the time.
I like this comment a lot! It points out the futility of security theater. Put it in the mail, one lead encased dirty bomb in a freight container, one bomb vest detonated at a TSA inspection point, and on, and on...
Re: Re: Physical searches make sense if your already spying...
The government mentality is to collect the data as it believes any encryption can eventually be broken. However, encryption is off the point. The government is doing the border searches as a data collection point[possibly the last], encryption or no.
Physical searches make sense if your already spying...
"If you wanted the content of your laptop to go over the border you'd just send it using the internet."
At which point, the NSA has it.
I know this isn't the point of this particular topic, but Mike keeps rolling out the 'this makes no sense' argument. With the NSA tapping the cables, physical searches make sense (to the feds, at least).
The American government has yet to figure out what the terrorists already know. Terrorism is an economic war. For every $1.25 stick of dynamite a terrorist shoves in their pants, the TSA spends 100 million.
In business, if you could spend $100 to make your competitor think they need to spend $100,000, you'd do it. It's called a sustainable competitive advantage.
Terrorists don't need to get past TSA checkpoints anymore. The TSA has already spent that money. Now, they'll bomb the transit choke points. Then the DHS will spend more in securing those. And the cycle goes on until the terrorists win.
Someone in the capital might figure this out before it's too late.
If you look at this from the other direction, scaling back this verdict is incentive to not fix what's broken. Consider this:
If the verdict and the amount were allowed to stand, companies would eventually get the clue that patient laws that allow such big awards, are as much of a liability as an asset.
As soon as the percentage of payouts vs. total revenue gets large enough for large companies, they will lobby for lower awards which in turn will make filing the lawsuits less lucrative in the first place, turning the focus to innovation.
If you truly wish reform of a broken system, the best thing to do is to allow it to perform broken. The influential players will eventually get fed up and reform it.
I'm beginning to wonder why the secret hold isn't being used elsewhere if it's so easy to do. I mean there's a lot of issues the two parties are diametrically opposed. Why not just halt any bill on those issues? There's got to be more to this.