> It gives the false impression that the company is "doing something"
> in the eyes of shareholders
It's the exact same reason we have ridiculous card key readers that open the roll-up doors of the parking garage where I live. The doors do nothing to stop unauthorized entry (anyone without a card can just sit off to side and wait for someone else to come along and open the door, then follow them through) but they do manage to annoy the legitimate residents who have to stop and wait for this silly door to trundle open every time, not to mention having to roll down your window to put the key card on the reader-- that's a real joy when it's pouring rain and you have to let yourself and the inside of your car be drenched just to get in the garage.
In short, the electronic doors provide zero security while at the same time making life just that much more difficult for the legitimate residents. At best it's the illusion of security-- it allows the management to point out the "state-of-the-art keycard security" to prospective tenants, knowing full well that they'll have already signed the contract and moved in before realizing it's rubbish.
> the copyright holders would have no alternative but to go after
> the owner of record of the IP block
You apparently live in some fantasy world where it's assumed that an aggrieved copyright owner has to be able to sue *somebody* and if they can't find the person who actually aggrieved them, they can just start attaching liability to whomever they please.
In reality, sometimes shit just happens and there's no recourse.
For example, last night's episode of "The Big Bang Theory" included a vanity card from the producer after the end credits bemoaning the fact that there's a direct rip-off of their show airing in Belarus called "The Theorists" containing the same characters with the same names, and the episodes are almost line-by-line transcriptions of the American show. The producer, Chuck Lorre, was frustrated when Warner legal told him nothing could be done because the TV network in Belarus is owned by the government and the government won't allow itself to be sued.
In reality, that's the end of it. Lorre and Warners just have to live with the fact that they're being ripped off. Shit happens. But according to your view of the world, since the rights-holder can't sue the *actual* infringer, they should be able to just find the next best person available. Maybe in this case, they'd be justified in opening up the Minsk phone directory and suing random Belarussians for the actions of their government?
Once again, it seems that the adult world has forgotten what it was like to be a kid and how quickly kids can find ways around things.
Should this become widespread-- punishing kids for what they do at home with their own computers-- it won't be long before the kids realize that the only reason they can be punished is because they go to that school and the school has authority over them-- and conversely that it doesn't have authority over anyone else.
So... if finding some public computer at a library or something to use for their mockery pages is too much trouble, an easy solution would be to find someone (older brother, sister, friend, neighbor, etc.) who doesn't go to that school and over whom the school has no authority (but who conveniently lives in the same house or right next door) to put the fake MySpace or Facebook (or whatever) page up under their name.
How long do you think it'll take for kids to figure this out?
> If it was a parody, which I truly doubt. I more looks like an
> attempt to defame a person, and put words in their mouth.
The courts give wide latitude and great deference to the 1st Amendment when it comes to parody. Basically they err on the side of parody. Look up Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell and you'll see both a prime example of that as well as the controlling law on the matter. Below is a brief summary of the case, which involved Rev. Jerry Falwell suing Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt for libel. Hustler's (successful) defense was parody. There's no question that if Hustler's ad was protected parody, as debased as it was, then this ADM ad surely would be covered by the same standard.
Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
The satire at issue was a takeoff of an advertising campaign for Campari, an Italian apéritif. The real ads were tongue-in-cheek interviews with celebrities talking about their “first time.” The ads played off a double entendre, with the headline (“X talks about his first time”) and the interview first sounding like a discussion of the star’s first sexual experience, then revealing that the discussion actually concerned the subject's first time drinking Campari.
The Hustler parody featured a picture of Falwell, and an "interview" in which "Falwell" describes his first sexual experience as occurring “with Mom” in an outhouse while both were "drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time" and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards. Finally, when asked if he had tried Campari since, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don’t think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?" The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page, reading "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
Falwell sued Larry Flynt, Hustler magazine, and Flynt's distribution company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before trial, the court granted Flynt's motion for summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, and the remaining two charges proceeded to trial. A jury found in favor of Flynt on the libel claim, but found in favor of Falwell on the intentional infliction of emotional distress charge, and awarded Falwell $150,000 in damages.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and held on appeal, in a unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.
What's really fun is when various countries adopt this same attitude-- that the entire internet should be regulated based on the country with the strictest laws. That speech should only be as free as China or Iran allows it to be-- and that their laws should apply worldwide in terms of the internet. Same with France and Germany when it comes to stuff like Nazi propaganda and symbolism: they've outlawed it so they think it should be illegal everywhere merely because the internet is accessible within their borders.
> 1 - "TAM still hasn't admitted that copyright is intended to b
> a limited-duration, State-granted monopoly *privilege"." - keyword
> is limited, and what you consider limited (an hour) and what the
> law considers limits (70 years or so) is the subject of debate.
No, the real issue comes with Congress's constant extension of the copyright term. By continually extending it, Congress is essentially making copyright perpetual, which is the exact opposite of "limited".
> As a law enforcement agent, you would know that this sort of
> combination of information would be more than enough for
> warrant, right?
Actually, it wouldn't. Since P2P use in and of itself isn't illegal or necessarily indicative of criminal activity (or even civil infringement), a cop would need a quite a bit more in order to meet the probable cause standard. Only by looking inside the file could that standard be met, but to do that, probable cause is required (at which point the entire process descends into a never-ending spiral of circular logic).
But more to the point, the sort of copyright infringement at issue with file sharing is not a criminal offense in the first place. It's a civil offense, which means the sort of invasive searching granted by search warrants isn't even available to the police. Hell, investigating civil wrongs between private parties is neither the job of the police nor is it even within their jurisdiction.
No, the best a rights-holder can hope for under the law is a subpoena, the standard for which also won't be met merely by Disney (or Warners or whoever) going to a judge and saying, "Your honor, we can tell that John Smith is using P2P." Without more than that, they'd never even get a subpoena, let alone a criminal warrant.
> You can know that there is P2P traffic, and at minimum you
> can shape it.
And then people start encrypting all their traffic and you're back to square one. Can't tell what it is unless you decrypt and look at it, and for that you need probable cause and a warrant.
> with each new computer, motherboard ect.. you would get and
> app for the lic, and then you would have to get a biometric reader
> say thumb print or something else.
So what's to stop someone from using his/her friend's computer without getting a license, etc.?
> Don't get me wrong I would not like it any more then you, but it will happen.
> If RD's allegations about me being in "the industry" and taking
> orders from "overlords" was right, you would have a point. But
> as he is as wrong as they come, he doesn't get to call me out on it.
And if your allegations about RD using other screen names to hide his identity were right, you would have a point. But as you have offered up no proof whatsoever of that "fact"-- indeed nothing but your own personal speculation and opinion-- you don't get to call him out on it.
It works both ways, my friend. Otherwise you become nothing but a hypocritical asshole and your credibility zeroes out completely.
> We may not like this sort of use of DMCA, but it is within the law to do so.
Not really. The DMCA only legally allows the takedown of copyright violations. Since parody is defined under law as not infringing and therefore not a violation, using the DMCA to suppress a parody is an abuse of the DMCA.
> please explain (people arguing this on both sides) how that has
> anything to do with stuff happening in Australia?
It doesn't. The Anti-Mike turned it into a discussion of American law when he started comparing enforcement against file-sharing to how the American Post Office operates.
Of course Postal Inspectors exist, but just like all the rest of us in federal law enforcement, they have to obey the Constitution and the various laws of the United States.
I'm a federal agent and I can't just yank mail out of someone's mailbox and open it, unless I have probable cause that the specific individual in question is engaged in criminal activity and that the piece of mail contains the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of that crime. And even then it's not up to me. I have to present that probable cause to a judge and have him/her sign off on it in the form of a warrant.
A postal inspector is bound by those same restrictions.
> You don't think that at least some packages aren't checked
> by bomb sniffing machines, perhaps x-ray machines, sniffed
> by dogs for drugs, etc?
Anything that shows the actual contents of the packages (x-rays, etc.) is subject to the same warrant requirement. The courts have ruled that things that sniff for bombs and drugs (dogs and machines) are not searching the actual property in question. They're merely sampling the air around the property, which is in the public domain and which therefore contains no expectation of privacy, hence no 4th Amendment violation.
If there were some way to "sniff" the outside of an email or a file for copyrighted material, then it might be legal to do so. As it is, you can't tell what's in an email or a file without looking at its contents, which is the equivalent of opening the mail in your analogy, and which would make doing so a constitutional violation.
So if this guy got his wish and everyone had to get an Internet License, would this tie you to using only one computer? What about your phone or your work computer? What if you were at your friend's house? Would it be illegal to use his computer to look up some movie times? Or to grab your girlfriend's iPhone to look for a restaurant while she drives?
I'd expect this kind of assholery from some ancient politician who doesn't understand the technical issues involved, but from a guy who's involved in running Microsoft? Really?
> Are you going to go spank that naughty judge who called it stealing?
No, he just pointed to settled case law to the contrary by the court of highest authority in the United States, and which absolutely outranks that one judge and his mistaken opinion.
> A free speech issue? No. Only governments can
> be accused of violation of the 2nd amendment.
> Simply doesn't apply to any other entity.
But in this case, the private corporation is using a branch of government to enforce its attempts to shut down speech-- namely, the DMCA and the courts that enforce it.
If the corporation were just kicking and screaming and demanding the removal of the video, that's one thing, but when they turn to the government to use the legal system to enforce it, then it does become government action and the 1st Amendment is implicated.
> If the amount of illegal goods in the mail was
> as high as the amounts of piracy traffic on the
> internet, you can be sure they would be checking
> every package closely.
Not unless Congress managed to pass an amendment to the Constitution limiting the scope of the 4th Amendment and repealing 200+ years of search-and-seizure jurisprudence.
That's about as likely to happen as the sun suddenly rising in the west tomorrow morning.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Illusion of Security (as btr1701)
> It gives the false impression that the company is "doing something"
> in the eyes of shareholders
It's the exact same reason we have ridiculous card key readers that open the roll-up doors of the parking garage where I live. The doors do nothing to stop unauthorized entry (anyone without a card can just sit off to side and wait for someone else to come along and open the door, then follow them through) but they do manage to annoy the legitimate residents who have to stop and wait for this silly door to trundle open every time, not to mention having to roll down your window to put the key card on the reader-- that's a real joy when it's pouring rain and you have to let yourself and the inside of your car be drenched just to get in the garage.
In short, the electronic doors provide zero security while at the same time making life just that much more difficult for the legitimate residents. At best it's the illusion of security-- it allows the management to point out the "state-of-the-art keycard security" to prospective tenants, knowing full well that they'll have already signed the contract and moved in before realizing it's rubbish.
Pretty much the same thing with DRM.
Re: Nonsense (as btr1701)
> the copyright holders would have no alternative but to go after
> the owner of record of the IP block
You apparently live in some fantasy world where it's assumed that an aggrieved copyright owner has to be able to sue *somebody* and if they can't find the person who actually aggrieved them, they can just start attaching liability to whomever they please.
In reality, sometimes shit just happens and there's no recourse.
For example, last night's episode of "The Big Bang Theory" included a vanity card from the producer after the end credits bemoaning the fact that there's a direct rip-off of their show airing in Belarus called "The Theorists" containing the same characters with the same names, and the episodes are almost line-by-line transcriptions of the American show. The producer, Chuck Lorre, was frustrated when Warner legal told him nothing could be done because the TV network in Belarus is owned by the government and the government won't allow itself to be sued.
In reality, that's the end of it. Lorre and Warners just have to live with the fact that they're being ripped off. Shit happens. But according to your view of the world, since the rights-holder can't sue the *actual* infringer, they should be able to just find the next best person available. Maybe in this case, they'd be justified in opening up the Minsk phone directory and suing random Belarussians for the actions of their government?
Unenforceable (as btr1701)
Once again, it seems that the adult world has forgotten what it was like to be a kid and how quickly kids can find ways around things.
Should this become widespread-- punishing kids for what they do at home with their own computers-- it won't be long before the kids realize that the only reason they can be punished is because they go to that school and the school has authority over them-- and conversely that it doesn't have authority over anyone else.
So... if finding some public computer at a library or something to use for their mockery pages is too much trouble, an easy solution would be to find someone (older brother, sister, friend, neighbor, etc.) who doesn't go to that school and over whom the school has no authority (but who conveniently lives in the same house or right next door) to put the fake MySpace or Facebook (or whatever) page up under their name.
How long do you think it'll take for kids to figure this out?
Re: Re: Re: Re: parody (as btr1701)
> If it was a parody, which I truly doubt. I more looks like an
> attempt to defame a person, and put words in their mouth.
The courts give wide latitude and great deference to the 1st Amendment when it comes to parody. Basically they err on the side of parody. Look up Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell and you'll see both a prime example of that as well as the controlling law on the matter. Below is a brief summary of the case, which involved Rev. Jerry Falwell suing Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt for libel. Hustler's (successful) defense was parody. There's no question that if Hustler's ad was protected parody, as debased as it was, then this ADM ad surely would be covered by the same standard.
Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
The satire at issue was a takeoff of an advertising campaign for Campari, an Italian apéritif. The real ads were tongue-in-cheek interviews with celebrities talking about their “first time.” The ads played off a double entendre, with the headline (“X talks about his first time”) and the interview first sounding like a discussion of the star’s first sexual experience, then revealing that the discussion actually concerned the subject's first time drinking Campari.
The Hustler parody featured a picture of Falwell, and an "interview" in which "Falwell" describes his first sexual experience as occurring “with Mom” in an outhouse while both were "drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time" and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards. Finally, when asked if he had tried Campari since, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don’t think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?" The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page, reading "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
Falwell sued Larry Flynt, Hustler magazine, and Flynt's distribution company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before trial, the court granted Flynt's motion for summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, and the remaining two charges proceeded to trial. A jury found in favor of Flynt on the libel claim, but found in favor of Falwell on the intentional infliction of emotional distress charge, and awarded Falwell $150,000 in damages.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and held on appeal, in a unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.
Re: Re: Re: Internet License (as btr1701)
> You would still need the bio info, what are you going to do
> cut off there thumb
No, you just find a computer that someone has left on and use it.
> it will happen some day.
Not unless the repeal the Constitution and our entire evidence-based legal system.
Re: Parody (as btr1701)
> there's a big difference when you profit from parady
Baloney. "Saturday Night Live" has been doing it for decades. So has MAD Magazine and Hustler Magazine.
Jurisdictions (as btr1701)
What's really fun is when various countries adopt this same attitude-- that the entire internet should be regulated based on the country with the strictest laws. That speech should only be as free as China or Iran allows it to be-- and that their laws should apply worldwide in terms of the internet. Same with France and Germany when it comes to stuff like Nazi propaganda and symbolism: they've outlawed it so they think it should be illegal everywhere merely because the internet is accessible within their borders.
Re: Re: Why bother? (as btr1701)
> 1 - "TAM still hasn't admitted that copyright is intended to b
> a limited-duration, State-granted monopoly *privilege"." - keyword
> is limited, and what you consider limited (an hour) and what the
> law considers limits (70 years or so) is the subject of debate.
No, the real issue comes with Congress's constant extension of the copyright term. By continually extending it, Congress is essentially making copyright perpetual, which is the exact opposite of "limited".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense (as btr1701)
> As a law enforcement agent, you would know that this sort of
> combination of information would be more than enough for
> warrant, right?
Actually, it wouldn't. Since P2P use in and of itself isn't illegal or necessarily indicative of criminal activity (or even civil infringement), a cop would need a quite a bit more in order to meet the probable cause standard. Only by looking inside the file could that standard be met, but to do that, probable cause is required (at which point the entire process descends into a never-ending spiral of circular logic).
But more to the point, the sort of copyright infringement at issue with file sharing is not a criminal offense in the first place. It's a civil offense, which means the sort of invasive searching granted by search warrants isn't even available to the police. Hell, investigating civil wrongs between private parties is neither the job of the police nor is it even within their jurisdiction.
No, the best a rights-holder can hope for under the law is a subpoena, the standard for which also won't be met merely by Disney (or Warners or whoever) going to a judge and saying, "Your honor, we can tell that John Smith is using P2P." Without more than that, they'd never even get a subpoena, let alone a criminal warrant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense (as btr1701)
> You can know that there is P2P traffic, and at minimum you
> can shape it.
And then people start encrypting all their traffic and you're back to square one. Can't tell what it is unless you decrypt and look at it, and for that you need probable cause and a warrant.
Re: Internet License (as btr1701)
> with each new computer, motherboard ect.. you would get and
> app for the lic, and then you would have to get a biometric reader
> say thumb print or something else.
So what's to stop someone from using his/her friend's computer without getting a license, etc.?
> Don't get me wrong I would not like it any more then you, but it will happen.
No, it won't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ACTA (as btr1701)
> If RD's allegations about me being in "the industry" and taking
> orders from "overlords" was right, you would have a point. But
> as he is as wrong as they come, he doesn't get to call me out on it.
And if your allegations about RD using other screen names to hide his identity were right, you would have a point. But as you have offered up no proof whatsoever of that "fact"-- indeed nothing but your own personal speculation and opinion-- you don't get to call him out on it.
It works both ways, my friend. Otherwise you become nothing but a hypocritical asshole and your credibility zeroes out completely.
Re: Re: parody (as btr1701)
> We may not like this sort of use of DMCA, but it is within the law to do so.
Not really. The DMCA only legally allows the takedown of copyright violations. Since parody is defined under law as not infringing and therefore not a violation, using the DMCA to suppress a parody is an abuse of the DMCA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> please explain (people arguing this on both sides) how that has
> anything to do with stuff happening in Australia?
It doesn't. The Anti-Mike turned it into a discussion of American law when he started comparing enforcement against file-sharing to how the American Post Office operates.
I merely responded in kind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense (as btr1701)
> https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/
Of course Postal Inspectors exist, but just like all the rest of us in federal law enforcement, they have to obey the Constitution and the various laws of the United States.
I'm a federal agent and I can't just yank mail out of someone's mailbox and open it, unless I have probable cause that the specific individual in question is engaged in criminal activity and that the piece of mail contains the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of that crime. And even then it's not up to me. I have to present that probable cause to a judge and have him/her sign off on it in the form of a warrant.
A postal inspector is bound by those same restrictions.
> You don't think that at least some packages aren't checked
> by bomb sniffing machines, perhaps x-ray machines, sniffed
> by dogs for drugs, etc?
Anything that shows the actual contents of the packages (x-rays, etc.) is subject to the same warrant requirement. The courts have ruled that things that sniff for bombs and drugs (dogs and machines) are not searching the actual property in question. They're merely sampling the air around the property, which is in the public domain and which therefore contains no expectation of privacy, hence no 4th Amendment violation.
If there were some way to "sniff" the outside of an email or a file for copyrighted material, then it might be legal to do so. As it is, you can't tell what's in an email or a file without looking at its contents, which is the equivalent of opening the mail in your analogy, and which would make doing so a constitutional violation.
Nonsense (as btr1701)
So if this guy got his wish and everyone had to get an Internet License, would this tie you to using only one computer? What about your phone or your work computer? What if you were at your friend's house? Would it be illegal to use his computer to look up some movie times? Or to grab your girlfriend's iPhone to look for a restaurant while she drives?
I'd expect this kind of assholery from some ancient politician who doesn't understand the technical issues involved, but from a guy who's involved in running Microsoft? Really?
Re: Re: Re: Re: ACTA (as btr1701)
> walks like duck, quacks like duck, shits like duck, I call you a duck.
Which is just what happened to you. But when people call you a duck, they're paranoid and off their meds.
You're basically saying, "I'm allowed to do it because by definition, I'm right, but no one else is because by definition they're wrong."
Your hypocritical double-standard is stunning to behold.
Re: Law (as btr1701)
> Are you going to go spank that naughty judge who called it stealing?
No, he just pointed to settled case law to the contrary by the court of highest authority in the United States, and which absolutely outranks that one judge and his mistaken opinion.
Re: Re: These guys are idiots. (as btr1701)
> A free speech issue? No. Only governments can
> be accused of violation of the 2nd amendment.
> Simply doesn't apply to any other entity.
But in this case, the private corporation is using a branch of government to enforce its attempts to shut down speech-- namely, the DMCA and the courts that enforce it.
If the corporation were just kicking and screaming and demanding the removal of the video, that's one thing, but when they turn to the government to use the legal system to enforce it, then it does become government action and the 1st Amendment is implicated.
Re: Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> If the amount of illegal goods in the mail was
> as high as the amounts of piracy traffic on the
> internet, you can be sure they would be checking
> every package closely.
Not unless Congress managed to pass an amendment to the Constitution limiting the scope of the 4th Amendment and repealing 200+ years of search-and-seizure jurisprudence.
That's about as likely to happen as the sun suddenly rising in the west tomorrow morning.