They also claim they didn't mention the June 2010 warrant, but they did
Another little bit of misdirection is this:
Similarly unfounded is the allegation by Megaupload that the government "planted Megaupload's alleged knowledge of infringing files" and misled the Court. Megaupload Supp. Br. 11-12. Megaupload claims that the government inserted a misleading "snippet" into "each relevant affidavit," id. at 2, and that the "snippet" misinformed the Court by highlighting Megaupload's failure to remove content deemed infringing in the June 24, 2010 warrant. To the contrary, no such "snippet" appears anywhere in the primary search warrant at issue in Mr. Goodwin's motion. That warrant, the search warrant executed at Carpathia Hosting in January 2012 (Case No. 1:12 SW 41), does not even mention the June 24, 2010 search warrant.
Which may be technically true (I can't find a copy of SW 41 online), but if you look at the redacted search warrant to GoDaddy to seize the domains names (SW 34, available here) you'll see this:
17. On or about June 24, 2010, members of the Mega Conspiracy were informed, pusuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting, a hosting company headquarted in the Eastern District of Virginia. A member of the Mega Conspiracy informed several of his co-conspirators at that time that he located the named files using internal searches of the Mega Conspiracy's systems. As of November 18 2011, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were still being stored on servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy.
So maybe they didn't mention it in that particular warrant but they mentioned it and relied on it in seizing other stuff, so pretending they didn't rely on the June 2010 warrant for their case is highly misleading.
Well you see, one of the major companies behind these complaints is Microsoft, and they tried that with Bing... and they failed, so now they're trying to get the EU (and the FTC before that) to make up for their utter failure to compete in the market by castrating their competition. The other companies are no better, there's lots of companies that produce sites of nothing but search results that are pissed that Google removes them from search results that have complained. (No consumer wants results of more search results as hits, they want the actual answer, so Google rightfully filters that crap out.)
Is a Copyright Trolling company finally going to dig the hole so deep the bottom falls out from under them?
Arguably that has already happened, since Righthaven completely collapsed and had their assets sold off to pay attorney's fees awarded against them. (And there's still some Bar investigations into the principals last I heard.)
Yes, but this is apparently a "Hail Mary" pass attempt. I believe Gibbs is thinking "If I can get this judge kicked off, maybe the next one will ignore this whole Alan Cooper thing." I believe this is the only change he's got, and it's a mighty slim one.
I don't think it's a particularly smart one, but smart people don't get themselves into situations like this in the first place.
If the allegations about Alan Cooper are correct, insulting the judge to try to avoid answering those questions might actually be the only thing Gibbs can do. I suspect that if they are true (and given Gibbs' reaction, it's looking highly likely they are), he's in deep, deep trouble. As in contempt of court, going to jail trouble. Committing fraud on the courts is much, much worse than simply insulting a judge.
labels have always given away free music, and long before there was an internet. but the labels (and artists) had consent about how much, to who, and what they got in return for it.
No, they thought they could control what happened once they gave it away, but the courts smacked them down. It was just last year, and TechDirt did report on it, that the 9th Circuit appeals court declared selling promotional CDs to be 100% legal.
They certainly don't get to control digital Mp3s that they deliberately try to get plastered all over 3rd party websites more than they can control promotional CDs! Freely redistributable means it's freely redistributable.
Seems to me that if I had a brand, and someone *did* try to register a fake domain based around its name like this email insinuates might happen, then I would have a perfect case to take that person to court for (actually legitimate this time) trademark infringement.
You could use the domain name dispute process and probably get the domain name turned over to you on trademark grounds as well, but then... you still have to pay the yearly fee for the domain to keep it. So the registrar for .sx domains wins and you still lose.
Personally, I had a bad feeling about this from the start because of this sentence from Google's announcement:
"Based upon feedback from our community, today we're introducing an appeals process that gives eligible users a new choice when dealing with a rejected dispute."
I suspected at the time that this meant that the new appeal system wouldn't be available to everyone, and now we're seeing that this is indeed the case. It seems the new system has just allowed Google to anoint a chosen few to be eligible for a reasonable review policy, and the rest of the plebes are just out of luck.
It might make people think the attack ads are correct
Given that his response is so far out of the norm, this may have the entirely opposite effect, with voters going "hmm, he sure is overreacting to those ads, they must be true". I know that was my first reaction!
I still blame the studio. Probably the only way Amazon can get the licenses to "sell" the movies digitally is to agree to this kind of crap. It's basically an either-or decision: sell digital movies or don't sell them at all. (Or at least nothing from the major studios.) Both choices are bad, but having the content to sell with ridiculous restrictions is better than not having it to sell at all from Amazon's viewpoint.
As for Amazon Prime, this really doesn't impact that. The free streaming stuff is subject to change at any time anyway. Even if it's still on the service, Amazon can change what is free and what isn't, so you definitely don't want to depend on it for keeping your toddler happy. Amazon Prime's free videos are great if you view them as a bonus to the "free" 2nd day shipping you're actually paying for.
It is now completely 1 sided and makes no sense, just to allow rightsholders who don't want to actually put the work into "protecting" their valuable IP and shift those costs and issues onto everyone else.
If it's valuable, then they should be willing to foot the bill to protect it. If it'd cost more to "protect" than it's worth, then perhaps it isn't as valuable as they think it is.
Tickets to a show really aren't the same as regular property. They're good just for the showing (or multiple showings if it's that kind of ticket) you paid for when buying it. After that, they're worthless. This is much more akin to a license than a sale. You're basically buying a license to be able to sit in a certain seat on a certain date to watch a certain entertainer/group.
But even if it is a sale, the restrictions are offset by the much lower price. (If you read the original article Louis CK says the $45 price is about half what his fans have been paying, even before scalping, in the past few years due to fees and markups added on.) Given that 1. the money's going directly to the artist, 2. the prices are beyond reasonable, to being a steal and 3. people really do hate scalpers (even if you need one at the last minute you still hate the markup), people are much more willing to accept the extra restrictions.
That goes along with what Mike calls being "open, human and awesome". Louis CK has been quite open about what the restrictions are for, and has also lowered the prices for his fans (being human), so they think it's awesome and aren't complaining about the resell restrictions.
He claimed to have been working for funnyjunk for 5-6 months, and in that time he never thought to check the claims?
He also didn't think to file the DMCA agent form until May 25th or so. (Not reading that article again to confirm.) So it took him 4-5 months to have the site properly comply with the DMCA. Quality lawyer there.
The lawsuit was by farmers in the Rio Grande do Sul state and the appeal's not been decided yet by the supreme court. All they've said is that any decision they make will apply to the entire country instead of just that one state. This ups what Monsanto will have to pay back if they lose. Before they just had to reimburse the farmers in that one state, now they'll have to reimburse all the soybean farmers in the entire country of Brazil.