"Nothing in this Motion is intended to confirm or deny that Google has received any order or orders issued by this Court.
Of course, that might lead some to suggest that Google can't actually have standing, but there's an interesting legal argument here. Basically, Google is arguing that the perception that it's opened up its network to the NSA, as suggested in various reports, and which it cannot refute fully without revealing some details of FISA orders it has received, has caused it harm"
Actually, its posible that by confirming they receive FISA requests (and specifically FISA requests) they would actually violate the gag order and therefore be sanctioned without the merits of the case ever being debated.
Again, the real issue is reimportation. We will want to watch the Mars Landing. But if the astronauts are singing an inspirational tune, or have one playing in the background, the audio track is in trouble. And the "company" established to finance the colony mission is likely incorporated in a Bern Convention state, meaning all of your support could come out from under you as the follow up supplies cant be shipped, cause the colony venture was sued for the colonists actions, and now has no money....Until the colony is self sufficient, it cant form a truly independent government, and therefore will be held in some fashion to Earth copyright.
Arizona (where the restaurant is) law is better, only allowing a credit of up to $3.00 an hour. As in only $3.00 an hour can be attributable to tips. However, In most jurisdictions, an employer CAN'T take an employee's tips. The tip is being paid to the waiter, not the restaurant. Arizona does not have a similar law ive found, but what are the odds hes reporting the tips as income to the restaurant?
"Mike has NO position on copyright reform that he'll state"
As you say, he is a economist, not a lawyer. He states broad positions, with no details because it isn't his field. A lawyer or congressman would create better specific language then Mike would. That said, what is a position of copyright if not these:
Providing for orphan works in the digital age?
(I know there was a good article about this recently, but I can't find it quickly)
Mike has no enhanced copyright stance. He believes copyright has gone beyond its intent and value to society, and is now hurting culture (though he rags more on patents then Copyright). So reform is now about curtailing the abuses of copyright so culture is enhanced, not expanding copyright itself.
Tenth Amendment. Bill of Rights. Its where most rights we have come from. Like your right to privacy, which you exercise by being an AC. Also your right to not be hunted down and raped and beat to death by the blind. Just because its not enumerated, doesn't mean you dont have it. That said, Here are some places where existing rights imply a the right of the blind to equal access to the vast stores of human information.
1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
If I have the right of access to information, so does a blind person. Copyright should not stand in the way of providing that information in a form that is consumable by a blind person, as suggested by Article 27 section 1 (this is the Article which gives us "Copyright"):
"Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
If that isnt enough, the Commentaries on the International Bill of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights help express again that universal access is a right (emphasis mine ):
"As such, it is intrinsically linked to the other rights recognized in article 15 of the Covenant, i.e. the right to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a)), the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (art. 15, para. 1 (b)), and the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity (art. 15, para. 3). "
"...the freedom of expression including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, the right to the full development of the human personality, and rights of cultural participation, including cultural rights of specific groups."
Title 4 of the Americans with Disabilities Act deals with Telecommunications access for the Deaf. The US Government required the Telecos to provide functionally equivalent services to those who could not use the Telephone in the traditional manner. While not directly related, the US government recognized the need for equal access for those who could not interact with the world in the manner the majority does. You might say "But the ADA doesn't include requirements to require e-books and their readers to support access for the blind!" That is true. However, that is highly because now that the tech exists to better support the blind, laws are only now being implemented to require it. Those laws are the ones being blocked by Copyright maximalists.
Support for the position is included in a large number of rights. Any equality provision suggests that the blind have a right to read just as much as anyone else. Please show me a right that suggests the the blind should just be uncultured second class citizens. Existing books for the blind have one of several upcharges, either because they need to have special braille paper, or because they have to get an expensively produced Audiobook. An E-reader has the capability of producing a low quality audio narration (a good narrator adds to the novel in ways a computer synthesized voice can not) but cant, because of Copyright and DRM. So Why should the blind pay a 'Blind Tax" to access information originally written down?
Of course the judge threw out Cablevision as well. Then again, the case specifically calls out the fact that the 2nd and 9th circut courts are very clearly divided on the issue, and the 1st circut court could very well accept cablevision. nothing is set in stone.
As Ive previously noted to you, Juries do not decide Questions of Law. Copyright disputes are more often questions of law then fact, and so are not Jury trials. This case was a question of law, which they won repeatedly. The facts were never in dispute. A speedy trial is a misnomer because A) the right only applies to criminal cases B) still takes months and C) the defense could not ignore discovery to get to trial. Its why the plaintiffs demanded lots of discovery.
GPS mount =/= Phone mount. Since the bill sepcificly calls out GPS and not cell phones, I'd expect to get hit with a ticket on that one. And given that the mount's locations are a source for increased danger as well, who knows how valuable that would be. Moreover, in response to your reply criticizing the 'misleading' aspects of Mikes report, Voice control is notoriously unreliable. Great strides have been made, but voices outside the bell curve of standard vocal pitch and inflection (or with a strong accent) have significant issues. Increasingly so when you encounter strange street names. Also I often have to over-ride my gps manually when it starts misplacing me, or decides that Grand Rd. is the best way out of Pheonix (its not) and will fight me for the first half hour of my trip, until i get to a point where it decides back tracking is no longer worth it. But that requires manually checking the full GPS route often to see what it comes up with when it changes.
"BUT Pandora could NOT have the same equity WITHOUT artists!" Equity is money put in by owners/shareholders to form the company, i.e. all the starting capital that goes into servers, salaries for programmers who write code before you make money, ect. It also contains a profit/loss balance (retained earnings/loss), but that number is still not a representation of cash-in-hand which could be given to someone. moreover, in pandoras case, its likely retained loss, meaning none of that equity comes directly from music yet, it all come from investors you believe in the service
"Pandora produces nothing; like Megaupload or any other file host, it's simply a middleman grifting off the value artists make. " So the local top 10 station is a middleman grifter right? as is XM radio? Without specialized software, I cant download from pandora. Moreover, i can't tell it to play me a specific song. It also takes a lot of work to get pandora to give me a great radio station. But thats what pandora is, personalized radio. Not a file locker.
"This is another case where you package up disparate notions and try to put them all over at once without anyone noticing"
Seems your the one picking up 'disparate notions' there, with equating file lockers to Radio, and trying to obscure what equity is and how one gets it by conflating the value of 'music' with investment in 'the service', the latter being the only source of equity on Pandora's books.
royalty rates arent't fixed costs. They are variable costs (more songs played, more royalties) that can not be directly tied to the main revenue (subscriptions) only secondary revenue, and only some of the time (ads on free service).
And yet, the publisher still might not be the better option if the marketing campaign is separate from the 75% publishers cut. The devil is in the details. Though i will posit that a $10 book is far less likely to be an impulse buy.
"If the $10 book out sells the $3 book 3:1 I want the $10 deal If not then I want the $3 deal"
Good thinking, but incomplete. The napkin-math presented gives us 2 incomes: $2.10/Book Self-Published(SP) and $1/book Traditional Publisher (TP).
The TP option needs to not just outsell, but sell more then double the sales of the SP route to be a better option.
And that assumes that your royalty contact doesn't have strange provisos such as, but not limited to:
You need to make a minimum sales per month threshold to start earning royalties
You need a minimum $ in royalties 'in the bank' before you can get a payout.
You have a 'marketing' fee every year or a fee for 'keeping your book in print/listed'
Which means you also have to consider what happens when your book sales tickle down/take time to take off. How well off are you in that case?
"Juries have the power to decide what the law is and whether it's properly applied"
No. Juries have the power to rule on fact. A Judge tells the jury what the law is, and the Jury weighs evidence and makes a ruling of fact, that is to say, what happened. They take that ruling of fact and use the instructions as to the law to come to a verdict. Many cases have been overturned in appeal because the jury made a ruling of law rather than fact or the judge failed to properly educate a jury as to the law.
"So you're saying ISP records shouldn't be like phone records."
Phone records can not be equated to subscriber usage data in this context. Most notably, Phone records were never widely (or possibly at all) used in this fashion. There was no major case where 1-900-Fuck-You tried to blackmail you into paying $500 or they would publicly identify you in court documents as having called them (with a fake credit card).
Phone records are not automatically released in civil cases either. I can't get AT&T to give me identifying or usage data on 702-555-0109 without a judge telling them to. But the problem we see here is MM is expecting to get extensive identification and usage data outside of a court. Likely because the court will say no, given the history of IP-capture-based lawsuits.
The history of these situations (Phone vs IP) suggests that Comparing them is comparing apples to oranges.
I know, and Mike knows that Information society has evi applications. That is why Techdirt spends so much time covering bad laws and bad actions by public and private entities, to highlight and inform us on how our information is being abused. I take what Techdirt exposes for me and display that same activism out to my friends and colleagues. A subpoena is different though, then what MM is looking for right now. Which is avoiding the court altogether and jumping straight to the blackmail without the pesky court asking questions.
Could you link to that Megaupload article? Because I cant find it. It is especially egregious considering you just scraped Techdirt's headlines. You just violated their copyright according to the Meltwater ruling you just applauded.
Also Meltwater is a ruling inconsistent with other American court cases, disregarding volumes of case law regarding what constitutes transformative use. Combined with the court conflagorating different conceptual businesses (both News Reporting/News Aggregation and licensing snippets/Full articles), appeals are wide open.
Well, prior to this (back in november) the lower courts ruled that the use of a logo was copyright misuse, i.e. that using the copyright of the logo to restrict the movement of the watch was outside of the bounds of the copyright assigned to the logo. Given that the logo was , by the companies own admission, only placed on the watch to restrict the movement of the watch, the court ruled against the watch manufacturer. I dont think it was Casio though.