IANAL, but that's sounds like something which would really piss of a judge, which is why I thought I was misunderstanding it. I mean, there's the legal doctrine of "minimization of damages", which means the person who's (potentially) being damaged is supposed to take reasonable steps to minimize the damage they take, yet when ASCAP has a chance to minimize damages fall into their laps, they do nothing.
During negotiations, ASCAP and the publisher increased the pressure by refusing to provide Pandora the list of tracks that were being withdrawn, exposing Pandora to copyright infringement liability of up to $150,000 per work. At Pandora’s scale, such liability would be enormous.
The way I'm reading that is that Pandora is asking "Would doing X be infringing", and the response was "if it is infringing, we'll tell you after you do it". But I'm pretty sure that can't be right, so what does the above quote actually mean?
Does Mike think that copyright infringement is immoral? We don't know. He refuses to say
He says he thinks that it's a waste of time to discuss the ethical element of copyrights. You can disagree with him about that, but I don't see how it's "weasel words".
Their are tons of sites engaged in infringing activities that are beyond the reach of law enforcement because they've deliberately located in countries with weak IP laws.
So, what should Google do? Refuse to index websites hosted in countries with weak IP laws?
I think that their accusation was that while the John Does do exist, none of those Does actually contacted Pietz, and he's just pretending one of them contacted them. Which is a stupid claim to make since they don't have any evidence for it, but it's not quite as stupid as you're making it out to be.
Feels weird to be defending the NSA, but with that much data they couldn't read it all, but would have to do targeted searches or terrorism-targeted data-mining, neither of which would have revealed stuff like that.
Awwwwwww. I was hoping that he'd try to explain why the IP evidence in this instance doesn't meant anything, while the much less extensive IP evidence he used for sending settlement demands is iron-clad. Whatever he came up with, it would've been hilarious.
If this was just to offset the costs, they could simply buy the clerks some stopwatches and charge by the minute. That would be easier to tie into the costs involved, and the charges would be much less discouraging to the public that wanted to do searches.
Of course, if the intent to get the government more income without raising taxes... Well, like Jim Ewert said, "[I]f it's adopted there is going to be very little additional funding, because people just aren't going to make the request", but I guess hope springs eternal.
It's not unlimited reproduction and distribution, but only reproduction and distribution while a member of that specific swarm. And "an implicit and temporary grant of rights because of how the technology used for distribution works" doesn't explicitly need to be a part of the Constitution, as there's tons of case-law that interprets the Constitution.
(untitled comment)
It's like reading an SCP Foundation document.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
If you're going to be a troll, at least try to come up with an excuse which isn't so pitiful.
Re: Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
"What was that, RIAA? Sue them all? Good idea!"
Re: Re:
IANAL, but that's sounds like something which would really piss of a judge, which is why I thought I was misunderstanding it. I mean, there's the legal doctrine of "minimization of damages", which means the person who's (potentially) being damaged is supposed to take reasonable steps to minimize the damage they take, yet when ASCAP has a chance to minimize damages fall into their laps, they do nothing.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
None of the trolls have anything nasty to say about the ACLU? C'mon, you guys are slipping.
Re: Re: thyere ya go
While he appears to be a troll, that doesn't seem to be his trollish-angle. His angle seems to be:
1) Mike (and the other contributors) don't give a shit about what they write, they just want to get as many page views as possible.
2) Mike should clearly lay out his political and ethical philosophies, and debate that with commenters.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Why not just repeal the 4th amendment?
I mean, if the government snooping on innocent people is okay because the innocent have nothing to hide, what's the point of the 4th amendment?
Re: Re:
I think that their accusation was that while the John Does do exist, none of those Does actually contacted Pietz, and he's just pretending one of them contacted them. Which is a stupid claim to make since they don't have any evidence for it, but it's not quite as stupid as you're making it out to be.
Re: Re: Boston
Feels weird to be defending the NSA, but with that much data they couldn't read it all, but would have to do targeted searches or terrorism-targeted data-mining, neither of which would have revealed stuff like that.
(untitled comment)
Oh, and also:
3) Pietz's request that the bonds be made payable to him rather than John Doe is evidence that his client doesn't actually exist.
(untitled comment)
My guesses:
1) Duffy will claim that a bug in his spam filtering software caused Pietz to be put in his spam list, without Duffy being aware of it.
2) Duffy will accuse Pietz of unprofessional behavior for not attempting to contact him by phone after the email stopped working.
Re: Boston
Re: Stating the Obvious
What, medical pharmaceutical companies didn't realize that 40 years ago?
(untitled comment)
Awwwwwww. I was hoping that he'd try to explain why the IP evidence in this instance doesn't meant anything, while the much less extensive IP evidence he used for sending settlement demands is iron-clad. Whatever he came up with, it would've been hilarious.
(untitled comment)
If this was just to offset the costs, they could simply buy the clerks some stopwatches and charge by the minute. That would be easier to tie into the costs involved, and the charges would be much less discouraging to the public that wanted to do searches.
Of course, if the intent to get the government more income without raising taxes... Well, like Jim Ewert said, "[I]f it's adopted there is going to be very little additional funding, because people just aren't going to make the request", but I guess hope springs eternal.
Re: Re:
It's not unlimited reproduction and distribution, but only reproduction and distribution while a member of that specific swarm. And "an implicit and temporary grant of rights because of how the technology used for distribution works" doesn't explicitly need to be a part of the Constitution, as there's tons of case-law that interprets the Constitution.
(untitled comment)