and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed
Am I the only one who thinks this could be interpreted as an affirmative duty not just to remove the content from your own website, but to identify anywhere else on the internet it's published?
I mean, it's bad enough that it's just a flat notice-and-takedown procedure with no carveouts, but this seems like they're trying to set up even more liability.
After all, how long until CNN or Fox gets ahold of some of the footage? "Watch this horrifying footage of David Ortiz bashing an innocent ghoul's head in! What kind of monster is he? Find out in our special at 11."
Aggravated assault Simple assault Criminal threats Disorderly conduct Interference with public safety
I feel like all of these charges should be leveled at the officers in question, based on their behavior.
Any chance we could get a law that basically says "anytime an officer produces an utterly bullshit arrest, all charges you level against your victim will be instead filed against the officer(s) in question"?
Uh... Michael doesn't seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues here. But please continue telling us how living in the affected area gives you a free pass to jump on people.
Or, better, take a long walk off your newly abridged sidewalk.
I find it amusing that they try to obfuscate (again) by saying "What? 75% of American online communications? We only look at 1.6% of worldwide internet activity" as though the two are the same thing.
This guy just keeps vomiting out more, too... Here he seems to be claiming that the law school Crouch works at is a scam? Not really sure, he just vomited numbers all over a page and called it a day.
and here he has a badly-spelled attempt at the "Glenn Beck" style of ad hominem.
Looks like there's still more amusement yet to come, if you're willing to brave his remarkably shitty website to find it.
I suspect UMG may not be trying for "some court will magically believe UMG's made up interpretation of copyright law" so much as they're hoping that Veoh will run out of money to continue the legal fight.
Under such a circumstance, I'm sure UMG will be more than happy to provide a "generous" settlement offer of "if you admit guilt, we'll let you die in peace".
It's much like any other corporation fighting with a smaller entity - they're just swamping the other person down in pointless appeals/paperwork in the hopes of draining their resources. Because, y'know, fair fights are for sissies/paupers.
Those lessons are the property of the MPAA. Any and all attempts to learn from their "example" will be considered theft and dealt with harshly in a court of law.
Obviously, if you steal a lesson from the MPAA, they no longer have it. And that's just WRONG.
(not that they're using it, anyways. But that in no way means that their example is part of some mythical "public domain".)
Here's the part I find truly despicable: Senator Dodd and his team are quite good at this. We?ll sit down with them and ask what has to be done to make legislation more narrowly tailored....
Not "we'll sit down with the people who complained". Not "we'll sit down with Google or the other tech companies that understand how these things work". Not even "we'll sit down with the congressmembers who we're pretending wrote this."
This total [self-censored] wants to "sit down" with the same people who created this overly broad piece of crap in the first place and ask them how they want to proceed. And doesn't see any problem with that.
Dear RIAA and MPAA:
See this story? This story is the last straw.
Henceforth, you will not see one dime of commerce from myself or anyone in my household. Considering the trash you produce, it's not really like I want to watch or listen to anything made by the American film/recording industries anyways.
I also will make it a point to campaign and vote against any politician who accepts campaign donations from either of you.
Seriously. Fuck you both. Words cannot describe the hatred you've engendered in my mind.
And I doubt I'm alone.
Uh... do you have any idea at all what these sites actually did?
It was never about "paying people to seed content that wasn't theirs", except in a minority of cases. It was about collaboration and bypassing the gatekeepers.
But I guess that's the point you just let whiz right over your head, huh? The fact that these services have substantial non-infringing uses in collaborative efforts and independent distribution. Courtesy of the chilling effects caused by this action, the free speech rights of many American citizens (along with substantial amounts of their data...) have been reduced or destroyed.
But... apparently, copyright trumps the first amendment. I missed that part in my constitutional scholarship, it seems.
Bad wording in laws? Say it ain't so
They have a point...
After all, how long until CNN or Fox gets ahold of some of the footage?
"Watch this horrifying footage of David Ortiz bashing an innocent ghoul's head in! What kind of monster is he? Find out in our special at 11."
I feel like all of these charges should be leveled at the officers in question, based on their behavior.
Any chance we could get a law that basically says "anytime an officer produces an utterly bullshit arrest, all charges you level against your victim will be instead filed against the officer(s) in question"?
Re: Re:
Uh... Michael doesn't seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues here. But please continue telling us how living in the affected area gives you a free pass to jump on people.
Or, better, take a long walk off your newly abridged sidewalk.
I find it amusing that they try to obfuscate (again) by saying "What? 75% of American online communications? We only look at 1.6% of worldwide internet activity" as though the two are the same thing.
Re: Re:
Or do they just count the one "give us everything" order as one single request?
Well, technically, if they just hand the data over, they're not "responding to a request"...
This guy just keeps vomiting out more, too...
Here he seems to be claiming that the law school Crouch works at is a scam? Not really sure, he just vomited numbers all over a page and called it a day.
and here he has a badly-spelled attempt at the "Glenn Beck" style of ad hominem.
Looks like there's still more amusement yet to come, if you're willing to brave his remarkably shitty website to find it.
I have to imagine there's a simple way to game this. Like a handheld device to scan candy bars for electronics.
Cue TSA buying 100000 chocolate bars and running them through their X-rays.
Re: And more...
I own neither daughters, nor beer, nor a house. Good luck.
Based on the article, I have to wonder if "bookface" would go unchallenged...
Hmm. I think I'd actually appreciate targeted coupons from them.
Like, specifically targeted. Anyone know how I can sign up?
I wonder how many people in the RIAA/MPAA have looked at SOPA and thought "We just had our Pearl Harbor moment".
So, basically, the gov't is behaving as a willing participant in the destruction of MegaUpload long before anything resembling an adversarial hearing?
Classy, DoJ. Just when I thought your blatant disregard of the constitution couldn't get any worse...
I suspect UMG may not be trying for "some court will magically believe UMG's made up interpretation of copyright law" so much as they're hoping that Veoh will run out of money to continue the legal fight.
Under such a circumstance, I'm sure UMG will be more than happy to provide a "generous" settlement offer of "if you admit guilt, we'll let you die in peace".
It's much like any other corporation fighting with a smaller entity - they're just swamping the other person down in pointless appeals/paperwork in the hopes of draining their resources. Because, y'know, fair fights are for sissies/paupers.
Re:
Those lessons are the property of the MPAA. Any and all attempts to learn from their "example" will be considered theft and dealt with harshly in a court of law.
Obviously, if you steal a lesson from the MPAA, they no longer have it. And that's just WRONG.
(not that they're using it, anyways. But that in no way means that their example is part of some mythical "public domain".)
Re: Re: Good Entertainment
... wait, hasn't that already happened?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01185716104/monsanto-wins-patent-dispute-against-farmer-who-bought-legal-seeds.shtml
Here's the part I find truly despicable:
Senator Dodd and his team are quite good at this. We?ll sit down with them and ask what has to be done to make legislation more narrowly tailored....
Not "we'll sit down with the people who complained". Not "we'll sit down with Google or the other tech companies that understand how these things work". Not even "we'll sit down with the congressmembers who we're pretending wrote this."
This total [self-censored] wants to "sit down" with the same people who created this overly broad piece of crap in the first place and ask them how they want to proceed. And doesn't see any problem with that.
Dear RIAA and MPAA:
See this story? This story is the last straw.
Henceforth, you will not see one dime of commerce from myself or anyone in my household. Considering the trash you produce, it's not really like I want to watch or listen to anything made by the American film/recording industries anyways.
I also will make it a point to campaign and vote against any politician who accepts campaign donations from either of you.
Seriously. Fuck you both. Words cannot describe the hatred you've engendered in my mind.
And I doubt I'm alone.
Re: Re: It's actually really, really bad
Uh... do you have any idea at all what these sites actually did?
It was never about "paying people to seed content that wasn't theirs", except in a minority of cases. It was about collaboration and bypassing the gatekeepers.
But I guess that's the point you just let whiz right over your head, huh? The fact that these services have substantial non-infringing uses in collaborative efforts and independent distribution. Courtesy of the chilling effects caused by this action, the free speech rights of many American citizens (along with substantial amounts of their data...) have been reduced or destroyed.
But... apparently, copyright trumps the first amendment. I missed that part in my constitutional scholarship, it seems.