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.
While generally I'm heavily opposed to copyright infringement litigation...
In this case, I advocate a policy of "live by the sword, die by the sword".
Sue that astroturf into oblivion.
Ebay's model is an example of a second-price auction.
The major advantage of second-price auctions is that they encourage a bidder to bid their "true valuation" of a product. I.e. if I am willing to pay $20, I have motivation to insert that as my bid.
A first-price auction, on the other hand, makes it so the bidder has motivation only to bid minimally above the person below them.
It's a classic game theory problem and the second-price auction is better for both the buyer (no sniping required) and the seller (again, no sniping)
I think the government is claiming something resembling the following:
The domain was used to commit a crime, but Puerto 80 is not the criminal in question. Instead, they're simply providing the vehicle that some criminals (and many legitimate users) happen to employ in the course of their activities.
Granted, this a completely weird way to go about stopping criminals. In real-world terms, it seems roughly analogous to the following:
I ride a city bus on my way to commit murder.
Therefore, the city bus was used in the process of committing a crime.
Therefore, the government seizes the bus.
1) It's rights, not "rights".
2) Seriously, you're implying it's militant to give away lemonade and record the conversations you have? Weird... I thought "militant" actually had a defined meaning.
Specifically:
mil·i·tant [mil-i-tuhnt]
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
Since it doesn't look like anything about this event fits that definition, except the gentleman who committed assault... perhaps you're talking about him? After all, your entire statement of entitlement and militant behavior seems much more applicable to the so-called "president" than it is of the peaceful protester... in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
1) It's rights, not "rights".
2) Seriously, you're implying it's militant to give away lemonade and record the conversations you have? Weird... I thought "militant" actually had a defined meaning.
Specifically:
mil·i·tant [mil-i-tuhnt]
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
Since it doesn't look like anything about this event fits that definition, except the gentleman who committed assault... perhaps you're talking about him? After all, your entire statement of entitlement and militant behavior seems much more applicable to the so-called "president" than it is of the peaceful protester... in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
(untitled comment)
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
(untitled comment)
Based on the article, I have to wonder if "bookface" would go unchallenged...
(untitled comment)
Hmm. I think I'd actually appreciate targeted coupons from them.
Like, specifically targeted. Anyone know how I can sign up?
(untitled comment)
I wonder how many people in the RIAA/MPAA have looked at SOPA and thought "We just had our Pearl Harbor moment".
(untitled comment)
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...
(untitled comment)
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-agains t-farmer-who-bought-legal-seeds.shtml
(untitled comment)
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
(untitled comment)
While generally I'm heavily opposed to copyright infringement litigation...
In this case, I advocate a policy of "live by the sword, die by the sword".
Sue that astroturf into oblivion.
Second-price auction
Ebay's model is an example of a second-price auction.
The major advantage of second-price auctions is that they encourage a bidder to bid their "true valuation" of a product. I.e. if I am willing to pay $20, I have motivation to insert that as my bid.
A first-price auction, on the other hand, makes it so the bidder has motivation only to bid minimally above the person below them.
It's a classic game theory problem and the second-price auction is better for both the buyer (no sniping required) and the seller (again, no sniping)
TL;DR, this is a stupid lawsuit.
(untitled comment)
Wouldn't Facebook have to shut down completely, for fear that someone violate an author's copyright by posting a quote?
Re:
I think the government is claiming something resembling the following:
The domain was used to commit a crime, but Puerto 80 is not the criminal in question. Instead, they're simply providing the vehicle that some criminals (and many legitimate users) happen to employ in the course of their activities.
Granted, this a completely weird way to go about stopping criminals. In real-world terms, it seems roughly analogous to the following:
I ride a city bus on my way to commit murder.
Therefore, the city bus was used in the process of committing a crime.
Therefore, the government seizes the bus.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oops, double post.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) It's rights, not "rights".
2) Seriously, you're implying it's militant to give away lemonade and record the conversations you have? Weird... I thought "militant" actually had a defined meaning.
Specifically:
mil·i·tant [mil-i-tuhnt]
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
Since it doesn't look like anything about this event fits that definition, except the gentleman who committed assault... perhaps you're talking about him? After all, your entire statement of entitlement and militant behavior seems much more applicable to the so-called "president" than it is of the peaceful protester... in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) It's rights, not "rights".
2) Seriously, you're implying it's militant to give away lemonade and record the conversations you have? Weird... I thought "militant" actually had a defined meaning.
Specifically:
mil·i·tant [mil-i-tuhnt]
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
Since it doesn't look like anything about this event fits that definition, except the gentleman who committed assault... perhaps you're talking about him? After all, your entire statement of entitlement and militant behavior seems much more applicable to the so-called "president" than it is of the peaceful protester... in which case I agree wholeheartedly.