In this situation, if they end up being "right" and skipping commercials is deemed to be copyright infringement and therefore illegal, the backlash from the public would do much greater harm than merely skipping commercials.
This is a lose-lose situation. They should quit while they're ahead.
wouldn't be surprised to see the Betamax ruling overturned. the entertainment industries have managed to get everything they ever wanted into law by using one means or another. cant see them failing now.
This would be *great*. Think of the mad dash to piracy that would occur. People are already used to being able to timeshift, if suddenly they are no longer allowed to do so legally, they wouldn't rearrange their schedules to make time for the show; they would pirate, or not watch.
Is this a trick question? The police in Baltimore were arresting people for recording the police, even though there is no law on the books that makes it illegal.
In the story linked about the man in Illinois, he was actually breaking the state's wiretapping laws, which carve out specific exceptions for police officers, so they if you don't have their consent, it's illegal to record them (audio only).
So, it's unlikely the DOJ will come to the aid of a man who has actually broken the law. (I'd love to be wrong!)
Please don't take this as an endorsement of that law (which my own state of Massachusetts also has-- they're the only two!). I think it's a horrible law, but that doesn't mean the DOJ is going to rush in and defend him.
The difference is that the people in Baltimore aren't breaking any laws. The guy in Illinois is breaking an Illinois law. (Sure, it's a stupid, outdated, easily abused law, but that's, unfortunately, beside the point.)
Similarly, I know a lot of cops that are good, honest people. Unfortunately, when it comes to people in a position of power over us, it's the saying about sewage and wine: "If you add a spoonful of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage. If you add a spoonful of sewage to a barrel of wine, you also have a barrel of sewage."
The fact is, a few bad members of the group cause us the distrust the entire group.
Maybe. You might be a little over-cynical in this respect, if only for the fact that the government can already record us with drones, as long as we're in public.
The police department in question was trying to apply laws, like loitering, to people who were filming police officers while on duty in public, after they were educated to the fact that filming a police officer while on duty in public is not against the law.
Their "logic" (and I use that term very, very loosely) is that after he seeded twice, the file would be presumably shared again, and again, and again. So, they don't know how much "damage" was actually caused, so they ask for the statutory damages.
There was no copyright infringement, was there? The "suspicion" was some third party saying so.
So, you're saying that I can simple say that iTunes is infringing on my copyrights, and ICE will take down itunes.com, and all will be perfectly fine and legal? They'll then ask me for my proof, after the fact, and will let me stall for a year when I don't have any. Once they finally return itunes.com, there will be no backlash against me or ICE?
Re: Re: Excuses
In this situation, if they end up being "right" and skipping commercials is deemed to be copyright infringement and therefore illegal, the backlash from the public would do much greater harm than merely skipping commercials.
This is a lose-lose situation. They should quit while they're ahead.
Re: Re:
Click on the blue word "claiming" in the OP. :-)
Re:
wouldn't be surprised to see the Betamax ruling overturned. the entertainment industries have managed to get everything they ever wanted into law by using one means or another. cant see them failing now.
This would be *great*. Think of the mad dash to piracy that would occur. People are already used to being able to timeshift, if suddenly they are no longer allowed to do so legally, they wouldn't rearrange their schedules to make time for the show; they would pirate, or not watch.
It would be delicious to watch.
Re: Re: Re: Send DOJ to IL to help this guy!
Is this a trick question? The police in Baltimore were arresting people for recording the police, even though there is no law on the books that makes it illegal.
In the story linked about the man in Illinois, he was actually breaking the state's wiretapping laws, which carve out specific exceptions for police officers, so they if you don't have their consent, it's illegal to record them (audio only).
So, it's unlikely the DOJ will come to the aid of a man who has actually broken the law. (I'd love to be wrong!)
Please don't take this as an endorsement of that law (which my own state of Massachusetts also has-- they're the only two!). I think it's a horrible law, but that doesn't mean the DOJ is going to rush in and defend him.
Re: Send DOJ to IL to help this guy!
The difference is that the people in Baltimore aren't breaking any laws. The guy in Illinois is breaking an Illinois law. (Sure, it's a stupid, outdated, easily abused law, but that's, unfortunately, beside the point.)
Re:
Similarly, I know a lot of cops that are good, honest people. Unfortunately, when it comes to people in a position of power over us, it's the saying about sewage and wine: "If you add a spoonful of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage. If you add a spoonful of sewage to a barrel of wine, you also have a barrel of sewage."
The fact is, a few bad members of the group cause us the distrust the entire group.
Re: Trojan Horse
Maybe. You might be a little over-cynical in this respect, if only for the fact that the government can already record us with drones, as long as we're in public.
The police department in question was trying to apply laws, like loitering, to people who were filming police officers while on duty in public, after they were educated to the fact that filming a police officer while on duty in public is not against the law.
Re: Re: Re: Typical
Read his name backwards.
Re:
Their "logic" (and I use that term very, very loosely) is that after he seeded twice, the file would be presumably shared again, and again, and again. So, they don't know how much "damage" was actually caused, so they ask for the statutory damages.
I didn't say it made sense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time I read your posts like this, I feel like standing up and starting a slow clap.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? I have no contract with NBC if they host a video, and linking to that video doesn't enter me into a contract with them.
You're just making things up, aren't you?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the work you're linking to is under copyright, you don't have any right to link to it.
So, if I link to an authorized video.. it's wrong?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Allow me to help you.
If I have an ebook on my computer and I copy it to paper, I have infringed on the copyrights of someone.
If I have a link to an ebook and I copy it to paper, I have not infringed on the copyrights of someone.
That concludes today's lesson.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not that frightening at all. If property is used to commit crimes, that property gets seized and forfeited.
Please tell us more about this crime that was committed. I can't find it anywhere.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There was no copyright infringement, was there? The "suspicion" was some third party saying so.
So, you're saying that I can simple say that iTunes is infringing on my copyrights, and ICE will take down itunes.com, and all will be perfectly fine and legal? They'll then ask me for my proof, after the fact, and will let me stall for a year when I don't have any. Once they finally return itunes.com, there will be no backlash against me or ICE?
Seems unlikely.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does one tell the difference between an authorized mp3 and an unauthorized one?
Re:
What do you mean start?
Re: Re: obviously
http://xkcd.com/1049/
Re: Business Opportunity
On the gripping hand
Lay off the porn, buddy.
Re:
You state that he has a point, and then show examples of where the lack of competition is making things worse...
I'm very confused.