I concur. I think you meant to say "because it hates to see any attempt to negotiate a treaty that includes "exceptions" to copyright (i.e., rights of the public) expanded."
not "because it sees any attempt to negotiate a treaty that includes "exceptions" to copyright (i.e., rights of the public) expanded."
I think that he is beneath Wal-Mart. In fact, Wal-Mart would take one look at him and say "Nope. This guy is not what we are looking for. He does not meet our standards."
I have to disagree, however, I do think it needs to be completely re-done, right from the beginning. IP protection DOES have some value, however, it needs to be set up to spur on innovation, and not allow the stifling of free speech or criticism.
The current system is an unmitigated disaster, but I disagree that scrapping all IP laws is the way to go.
This is how all people in all walks of life should be treated. Equally. This judge obviously has the right idea. The law applies to everyone, rich or poor, judge or customer service representative, CEO or Wal-Mart Greeter. I would feel, after this, that I would be treated fairly by this judge.
Take note all you other judges out there. This is how it's done!
I disagree with your assessment. I think it was a domestic person. A foreign terrorist would have done three things different.
1: Taken credit for it.
2: Attacked a much higher-profile target.
3: Done more damage.
I think it is an American who used the connection the Boston Marathon had with the Sandy Hook shooting to attempt to sow more confusion and anger. Probably a nutbag who wanted to be mentioned in the same breath as the nutbag from Sandy Hook.
Sorry, but no. We must always remain vigilant, for it is in these weakest of times, when we are so focused on helping those who have suffered tragedy, that the government will steal our rights from us.
Well then, now the people exposing this flaw can get 3.5 years in jail and pay $73,000 USD.
Gotta love how our system works. You show a company that it has a security hole in their software, and instead of thanking you for exposing it so it can be fixed, they crucify you.
No, it's like telling store owners that if someone walks into the store with crack in their pocket, the store owners can get nailed for possession.
Seriously, that is what it is. TPB would be the store, the infringers would be the people walking in with crack.
The courts just said the store owners are liable. That is SECONDARY liability.
This sets a bad precedent. While right now, it may be used to shut down sites like TPB or SumoTorrent, in a few years, it could be used for other, more nefarious purposes. And since the precedent has been set, you wouldn't be able to stop it.
To quote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
--Martin Niemöller
To bring it to modern times
"First they came for copyright infringers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an infringer.
Then they came for whistleblowers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a whistleblower.
Then they came for hosts of internet sites
and I didn't speak out because I do not host an internet site.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
OK, Mike does not support or condone piracy. The defense you think he gives to pirates isn't that pirates are right, but that the punishments are out of line with the crime.
Since you seem to think that piracy is stealing, let's go with an example of actual theft. If a kid walks into a store and pockets a chocolate bar (for the sake of discussion, let's say its a dollar). Now, the kid makes it outside and splits the bar with two of his friends, but is then caught. What is the punishment? A fine (probably a couple hundred dollars) or restitution (that's a dollar). There may be a small amount of jail time, but most courts would wave that considering the small amount of the theft.
The kid committed a crime. What he did was wrong and illegal.
Now, if the company that produced the chocolate bar decided that the kid had stolen potential revenue because he split the bar with his friends (that would be 2 dollars if each other kid paid for it on their own), they could sue him for actual damages ($2) or they could sue for statutory damages ($300,000). So they decide to go after the kid for $300K. That is what Mike is complaining about. The companies are going after pirates for damages FAR IN EXCESS to the amount of loss.
Let's move over to a sample of "piracy". If someone downloaded a song, and shared it with say, 10,000 people the actual damages would be in the range of $20,000 dollars (that's at 2 dollars a song, which is about what iTunes sells them for). But why go for actual damages, when you can go for statutory damages and net a massive 1,500,000,000 (150K per infringement, 10,000 infringements). That is the issue. Companies feeling justified to go after someone for 1.5 billion dollars for a loss of 20,000 dollars.
His case isn't a question about right and wrong, it is a question of the punishment fitting the crime. More and heavier enforcement doesn't eliminate the problem, it only makes the problem harder to solve. The criminals go to more lengths to hide their tracks, and make law enforcement's job that much harder.
This is especially true when you consider that you can reduce the amount of piracy (or 'theft' if you want) by offering a better service at a reasonable price.
I have always likened the current copyright system like a pair of pants. You buy the pants brand new (circa 1790). As you wear them, you notice holes in them, and start to patch them up. Eventually (now) your pants are more patches than pants.
At some point, you have to realize that the pants need to be tossed out and replaced.
Re:
I concur. I think you meant to say "because it hates to see any attempt to negotiate a treaty that includes "exceptions" to copyright (i.e., rights of the public) expanded."
not "because it sees any attempt to negotiate a treaty that includes "exceptions" to copyright (i.e., rights of the public) expanded."
Re: Support laborers, not the thieving Rich!
And so you believe that the blind are lesser people who do not deserve the same access to information as everyone else?
Classy. Real classy.
Re:
It is probably attatched to his steering wheel.
Re:
I think that he is beneath Wal-Mart. In fact, Wal-Mart would take one look at him and say "Nope. This guy is not what we are looking for. He does not meet our standards."
Wow
Prenda seems to be sinking faster than the Titanic!!!
Re: Re: Duh...
In 1984.
Re:
Don't forget grapestone gravestones :)!
Re:
I have to disagree, however, I do think it needs to be completely re-done, right from the beginning. IP protection DOES have some value, however, it needs to be set up to spur on innovation, and not allow the stifling of free speech or criticism.
The current system is an unmitigated disaster, but I disagree that scrapping all IP laws is the way to go.
Awesome
This is how all people in all walks of life should be treated. Equally. This judge obviously has the right idea. The law applies to everyone, rich or poor, judge or customer service representative, CEO or Wal-Mart Greeter. I would feel, after this, that I would be treated fairly by this judge.
Take note all you other judges out there. This is how it's done!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree with your assessment. I think it was a domestic person. A foreign terrorist would have done three things different.
1: Taken credit for it.
2: Attacked a much higher-profile target.
3: Done more damage.
I think it is an American who used the connection the Boston Marathon had with the Sandy Hook shooting to attempt to sow more confusion and anger. Probably a nutbag who wanted to be mentioned in the same breath as the nutbag from Sandy Hook.
Re: Re:
Sorry, but no. We must always remain vigilant, for it is in these weakest of times, when we are so focused on helping those who have suffered tragedy, that the government will steal our rights from us.
(untitled comment)
Well then, now the people exposing this flaw can get 3.5 years in jail and pay $73,000 USD.
Gotta love how our system works. You show a company that it has a security hole in their software, and instead of thanking you for exposing it so it can be fixed, they crucify you.
Re: Re: Sad day indeed...
I am yoinking this quote. Will give credit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's like telling store owners that if someone walks into the store with crack in their pocket, the store owners can get nailed for possession.
Seriously, that is what it is. TPB would be the store, the infringers would be the people walking in with crack.
The courts just said the store owners are liable. That is SECONDARY liability.
This sets a bad precedent. While right now, it may be used to shut down sites like TPB or SumoTorrent, in a few years, it could be used for other, more nefarious purposes. And since the precedent has been set, you wouldn't be able to stop it.
To quote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
--Martin Niemöller
To bring it to modern times
"First they came for copyright infringers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an infringer.
Then they came for whistleblowers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a whistleblower.
Then they came for hosts of internet sites
and I didn't speak out because I do not host an internet site.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
Re: Re: 5 minutes and counting
I agree. I am in front of my comp, with Popehat's twitter running, waiting for the debacle to begin. Ahhh, popcorn, what would we do without you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At this point, you could claim to have SimCity 5 on a rock or hunk of wood and it would still work about as well as the one on your computer.
Crud. I'm out.
Of popcorn that is. There has been so much concerning Prenda that I seem to have run out of popcorn.
I think i'll run out and get some more for March 11th. :)
This
Somehow, I think we need more of this in politics. It certainly helps the politicians CwF.
Re: Re:
***Straw Man alert***
OK, Mike does not support or condone piracy. The defense you think he gives to pirates isn't that pirates are right, but that the punishments are out of line with the crime.
Since you seem to think that piracy is stealing, let's go with an example of actual theft. If a kid walks into a store and pockets a chocolate bar (for the sake of discussion, let's say its a dollar). Now, the kid makes it outside and splits the bar with two of his friends, but is then caught. What is the punishment? A fine (probably a couple hundred dollars) or restitution (that's a dollar). There may be a small amount of jail time, but most courts would wave that considering the small amount of the theft.
The kid committed a crime. What he did was wrong and illegal.
Now, if the company that produced the chocolate bar decided that the kid had stolen potential revenue because he split the bar with his friends (that would be 2 dollars if each other kid paid for it on their own), they could sue him for actual damages ($2) or they could sue for statutory damages ($300,000). So they decide to go after the kid for $300K. That is what Mike is complaining about. The companies are going after pirates for damages FAR IN EXCESS to the amount of loss.
Let's move over to a sample of "piracy". If someone downloaded a song, and shared it with say, 10,000 people the actual damages would be in the range of $20,000 dollars (that's at 2 dollars a song, which is about what iTunes sells them for). But why go for actual damages, when you can go for statutory damages and net a massive 1,500,000,000 (150K per infringement, 10,000 infringements). That is the issue. Companies feeling justified to go after someone for 1.5 billion dollars for a loss of 20,000 dollars.
His case isn't a question about right and wrong, it is a question of the punishment fitting the crime. More and heavier enforcement doesn't eliminate the problem, it only makes the problem harder to solve. The criminals go to more lengths to hide their tracks, and make law enforcement's job that much harder.
This is especially true when you consider that you can reduce the amount of piracy (or 'theft' if you want) by offering a better service at a reasonable price.
A pair of pants
I have always likened the current copyright system like a pair of pants. You buy the pants brand new (circa 1790). As you wear them, you notice holes in them, and start to patch them up. Eventually (now) your pants are more patches than pants.
At some point, you have to realize that the pants need to be tossed out and replaced.
We are at that point now.