Sounds like a real doctor to me. Licensed and practice clinical psychologist. I'd love to see where he pretended to be an M.D. Doesn't sound at all plausible, Mike. I know you're an evidence-based buy, so I can't wait to see your evidence.
Megaupload wasn't even notified of its domain seizure nor was it given the oppotunity to contest.
You're confusing seizure and forfeiture I believe. All of the seizures happen without notification.
It's only after that, if you follow a particular process, you can protest the forfeiture process. Seizure is supposed to be temporary, forfeiture is permanent.
So, in Dajaz1, they were seized with no notification and then the process was delayed when Dajaz1 sought the return of the domain. With Rojadirecta, the government actually filed for forfeiture after Roja first sued the government over the seizure.
Recently, however, on June 20, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision which, while ostensibly limited to the facts of that case, nonetheless strongly indicates that hot news misappropriation claims are generally preempted by the Copyright Act....
International News Service v. Associated Press is no longer precedential law because it relied on the concept of federal common law, which the Supreme Court determined in 1938 federal courts had no power to create. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
Separately, can you name a successful hot news case in the last decade?
You do realize that people with a PhD often are called "Doctors" because, well, they hold a doctorate degree, right? Apparently not.
You do realize that he has used the title to imply he's a medical doctor, right? Apparently not.
... well, under this name, right? What is this, your 6th or 7th "persona" on the site? You took a bigger break this time than last.
What amazes me is that you never change your writing style (other than that one time when you couldn't type capital letters -- remember that?). It's obvious its you every time you pop up with your logic free arguments.
As the AC above points out, 18 USC Section 2 says those who aid, abet, or "induce" others to violate any of the criminal statutes in title 18 (which would include criminal infringement) is guilty as a principle. In other words, that the person can be held criminally liable as though he himself committed the violation. This is a much older and established part of US than the Grokster opinion. Mike says above that "supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different." But one doesn't have to "support" the DOJ to read Section 2 and see that it criminalizes "inducing" someone else to commit a crime (as well as the more familiar "aiding" or "abetting" them).
As Karl explained above, and as we've discussed in detail in the past: you have to show aiding and abetting *CRIMINAL* infringement. They may be able to show support for civil infringement, but that's different and doesn't qualify here.
Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement.
As in the Rojadirecta case, they're mixing and matching the different elements of criminal copyright infringement. They need to show that someone *willfully* engaged in significant infringement for profit (or worth a significant amount or a pre-release copy). The government doesn't even make this argument.
It, at best, is arguing that there is some civil infringement, and then that Dotcom and crew induced *civil* infringement for profit. But that's not how the law works.
Perhaps I should clarify. $1.99/month by itself isn't much. But the fact that it's just for a single channel seems like an issue. Hulu Plus and Netflix are both $7.99/month for a ton of content. So... that's just 4 YouTube channels. Just seems expensive in comparison.
Yeah, that all sounds great but there's a long way to go and plenty of opportunity for the **AA et al to bri... uh... "contribute" to the study. Thus, I suspect some of the eventual answers will look like this:
No need to be so cynical early on. The entire point of the project was to look for *empirical* evidence to answer each of those questions. The answers you gave wouldn't qualify.
Seriously, we shouldn't be so jaded that when people are finally looking for actual evidence-based approaches to understanding the issues that we mock them for it. Let's focus on the opportunity to get it right here.
That coudl produce undesired results. The reason for patents is without them cos will not invest in R&D becasue if a product is successful in teh mktplace others will copy it. Then there would be no such drugs.
You do realize that the pharma industry first developed in Germany and Switzerland BECAUSE there were no patents on chemistry in both places? The early R&D centers all moved to those countries because of the lack of patents.
Yes it does...that is according to the US copyright office. If you did not create the work, you cannot make money off the work without permission from the creators of said work. You can do what ever you wish with it...even make it a meme...but if you make it a part of a money making scheme like a download center..you have to get it licensed. The tangible expression (which is a fancy word for meme..like "adhesive bandage strips" (what they are) being called BandAids (Johnson and Johnson's brand of adhesive bandage strips)) clause allows it to be freely recreated *but not re-branded* without permission as long as the newer creation does not make money.
Uh, Wally, you're very confused. First of all, you're confusing trademark and copyright. Second, you're simply wrong about the law.
For what it's worth, the original commenter was being particularly disingenuous in demanding court rulings. Because he's either totally uninformed or he pretends to not know that most of these settle out of court before going to court.
However, as in some of the examples above, when the courts do look at these, they tend to find that the studios cheated people out of money.
Seriously, Twitter is now a reliable source of impeachable opinions?
You do realize that *HUMAN BEINGS* write messages, not "Twitter." I didn't rely on "Twitter" as the source of opinions, but rather the fact that Dean Baker, one of the most respected economists out there made a statement and pointed to a blog post from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
I agree that sales reps are constantly streaming goodies to doctors in the hope of influencing what will be written on a prescription. To state, however, that patents are in part responsible is, in a word, absurd.
No, actually, it's not. If you've ever spent any time studying what drives drug marketing, you'd realize that patents are a HUGE part of it. Why do you think pharma companies are going nuts these days with "evergreening" and complaining about how their patents are running out and they're all going to go out of business?
The identical practice goes on even when patents are no longer a factor.
Ha! No, not identical. Yes, generics market their drugs as well, but it's not nearly as the same level. You really don't know what you're talking about if you think they're the same.
I love when he pulls out the "I talked to a lawyer and he's the best and he told me it's true" argument. Not convincing.
See. If you had just written what you wrote in response to me, and not added that, it might have been worth having a discussion with you.
But, instead, you show your true colors.
Anyway, as stated, I'll pass along your comments to the person who made the original argument to me. I never said that it must be true because of who made the argument. I was just pointing out that perhaps others who have a hell of a lot more experience with the law than you do, have differing opinions. But you don't even take that into account. If I said it, it must be attacked in your book.
This is why (again) engaging with you is not worth it.
It's a massive problem in that history, culture is being lost, and the world is unable to do anything about it.
This sort of legislation is only defensible where usage is limited to non-commercial use.
Why? I don't see that at all. If someone can make an orphaned work commercially interesting again, what's wrong with that?
Why does need to use someone else's 'orphan' work for their commercial benefit? So you like collection of cat photos? Great, find me and pay me or find (and pay) a photographer to take similar photos.
Ah, I think you don't understand the issue... at all. We're not talking about your cat pictures. We're talking about amazing works of culture and history that are being lost forever because they're locked up.
And this reliance on a diligent search is the weakest argument. I'd happily put money on this diligent search boiling down to an automated search through a for-profit image registry.
Then send us your money because you're flat out wrong. Address is on our contact page. We'll be waiting.
Oh, and if you see your work show up without getting paid, have fun going through our mostly automated bureacracy to retrieve what we've decided is the appropriate market rate.
So you're dismissing the system that doesn't even exist yet? Okay, here's your choice: you wallow in obscurity and have no one care at all about your cat photos such that they and you disappear... or you let someone help make them famous. You want the former? I want the latter. So do most people.
Overall, this legislation favours and saves money for those most able to afford to go through more traditional channels and costs money and time for small businesses.
No, it doesn't. If you took 3 seconds to actually understand the issue, rather than ranting, you'd understand that.