So here's a fun question. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be getting this wrong. But I remember somewhere in copyright law, there are requirements on what has to happen before a copyright exists. If memory serves, it has to be in fixed form, and it has to be distributed to at least one other person. (I'm hazy on the last bit, but I remember something about authors' private drafts for a book not getting the same sort of copyright protection as a finished manuscript submitted to a publisher.) If the show never aired, does that mean it was never distributed, and therefore there is no copyright on that clip?
I think he was implying that there is a cost to the risk that the publisher will sue you for copyright infringement or you could get arrested for theft. Doesn't matter if the charges are legit or bogus; there's still a cost to defend yourself against them. If the charges stick, the cost is increased even further, so you have to consider the probability of that too. See: Vimeo, Jammie Thomas, Joel Tennebaum.
Assault and battery with a deadly weapon? I was always told that battery means physical contact happened, assault merely means that you threatened the person. IANAL, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
The deadly weapon part is shakier, but any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make a case that a taser can be used to kill people, even if only by misusing it.
I was afraid that might be an issue for me, but I was able to transfer six domains (granted, not a lot) pretty easily in less than two hours, end to end.
That's a good point. In addition to that, I'd wonder how many of those new registrations will still be registered after the five-day grace period to void a registration. I'd also like to see how this tracks with GoDaddy's previous history (for the two weeks before the boycott day). If there's an unreasonable spike on Dec. 29 for new domains or ones transferred in, that means someone is playing with the numbers.
Meanwhile, over at NameCheap, they've gotten over 30K domains transferred in to them from GoDaddy, resulting in a contribution of over $60k ($2 per domain) to the EFF.
There were about 10K domains transferred before yesterday, which means about 20K were transferred on the day of the boycott itself. Since NameCheap can't be the only registrar people were transferring their domains to, I have to assume that more went elsewhere. That doesn't jive with GoDaddy's figures of 15K transferred out. Someone is fudging somewhere.
2:30pm EST and it's over $12,000, of which six are mine. =) (Yes, I shifted my six domains over from GoDaddy.)
My guess is it will spike even further towards the evening as those chained to their offices go home and start moving their personal domains.
For what it's worth, the actual process of moving the domains was surprisingly painless. I'd read some horror stories, and I feared I might run into roadblocks or (as a few people suggested) get actively blocked by GoDaddy, but none of that was the case for me. Less than two hours end to end.
So, here's a fun thought. My understanding is that, like most of these copyright cases, Righthaven has settled with an unknown number of defendants for an unknown sum of money. This implies that they had some revenue. However, now they're claiming they can't afford their bills. So would it make sense for one of the lawyers demanding payment of their legal bills to file a motion with the court demanding that Righthaven account for every single penny of revenue they've received in order to "prove" that they can't afford to pay? I think it would be very illuminating to see how much they've earned for undisclosed settlements, and where that money has actually gone now.
"gee, I can't trust this email stuff to communicate with my friends; now I'm going to start sending real letters through the USPS!"
I think you missed the point a bit. These ads aren't aimed at Joe Blow sending a love note to his girlfriend, or at a girl writing her Aunt in Nowhere, Nebraska. They're aimed at middle managers at firms, both big and small, who don't understand email and technology. They're designed to remind them that paper mail is traditional, and therefore better (yeah, right), while at the same time sowing some FUD about email. One person sending an email versus a paper letter to a friend or family member won't make or break the Post Office. One company switching all its billing to email instead of paper mail will make a measurable dent in their revenue, though.
Any of our visiting lawyerly folks care to comment on the possibility of the court ruling that the actions of Righthaven's management are so egregious that it's grounds for breaching the corporate liability shield and going after Righthaven's owners personally (or, for that matter, after Stephens Media itself)?
(And yes, that was an insanely-bad run-on sentence-question hybrid-monstrosity. Yes, I just wrote another abomination. Yes, I need more (or less?) caffeine.)
The assumption in your statement is that voting for someone else will somehow change things, which in turn implies that other politicians would be different. I've yet to be convinced that's a real possibility. More to the point, changing the mind of one elected official is irrelevant. You have to change the mind of the majority of them, AND convince them they won't lose the next election if they endorse your stance.
The nature of the modern "democratic" political system is that he who has the most money (to campaign) has a huge boost over he who doesn't. In turn, corporations can raise and spend way more money in one election cycle than an average person earns in a lifetime.
Politicians who get elected either have to have that money, or they have to have some edge over their opponents to draws votes -- and unless that edge is a national issue that affects pretty much everyone in a public and emotional manner (e.g., wars, pension payments), it also won't affect the outcome.
Copyright is not a sexy or emotional topic. No one gets out of bed thinking, "We have to change copyright!" People DO get out of bed thinking "We have to end this war!" or "We have to make sure my grandmother gets her government pension/social security check/welfare payment/other handout!"
Find a way to show that copyright will cause or extend a war, or will cause checks to your grandmother to be cut off, and you'll see copyright changes that benefit the public. Otherwise, you have to be able to outspend the copyright industry on lobbying to have a real shot.
(untitled comment)
So here's a fun question. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be getting this wrong. But I remember somewhere in copyright law, there are requirements on what has to happen before a copyright exists. If memory serves, it has to be in fixed form, and it has to be distributed to at least one other person. (I'm hazy on the last bit, but I remember something about authors' private drafts for a book not getting the same sort of copyright protection as a finished manuscript submitted to a publisher.) If the show never aired, does that mean it was never distributed, and therefore there is no copyright on that clip?
Re: Re:
I don't know whether to mark this Insightful or Funny.
Re: Re:
I think he was implying that there is a cost to the risk that the publisher will sue you for copyright infringement or you could get arrested for theft. Doesn't matter if the charges are legit or bogus; there's still a cost to defend yourself against them. If the charges stick, the cost is increased even further, so you have to consider the probability of that too. See: Vimeo, Jammie Thomas, Joel Tennebaum.
Re: Re: no excuse
Assault and battery with a deadly weapon? I was always told that battery means physical contact happened, assault merely means that you threatened the person. IANAL, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
The deadly weapon part is shakier, but any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make a case that a taser can be used to kill people, even if only by misusing it.
Re: Registrar transfers are not instantaneous
I was afraid that might be an issue for me, but I was able to transfer six domains (granted, not a lot) pretty easily in less than two hours, end to end.
Re: Marketing or deep discounts??
That's a good point. In addition to that, I'd wonder how many of those new registrations will still be registered after the five-day grace period to void a registration. I'd also like to see how this tracks with GoDaddy's previous history (for the two weeks before the boycott day). If there's an unreasonable spike on Dec. 29 for new domains or ones transferred in, that means someone is playing with the numbers.
(untitled comment)
Meanwhile, over at NameCheap, they've gotten over 30K domains transferred in to them from GoDaddy, resulting in a contribution of over $60k ($2 per domain) to the EFF.
https://www.namecheap.com/moveyourdomainday.aspx
There were about 10K domains transferred before yesterday, which means about 20K were transferred on the day of the boycott itself. Since NameCheap can't be the only registrar people were transferring their domains to, I have to assume that more went elsewhere. That doesn't jive with GoDaddy's figures of 15K transferred out. Someone is fudging somewhere.
Re: Re: Re: NameCheap transfer counter
2:30pm EST and it's over $12,000, of which six are mine. =) (Yes, I shifted my six domains over from GoDaddy.)
My guess is it will spike even further towards the evening as those chained to their offices go home and start moving their personal domains.
For what it's worth, the actual process of moving the domains was surprisingly painless. I'd read some horror stories, and I feared I might run into roadblocks or (as a few people suggested) get actively blocked by GoDaddy, but none of that was the case for me. Less than two hours end to end.
Re: Re: Re:
Wasn't that Captain Kirk during Star Trek VI's prison scene?
End result?
So Bas, I have to ask. Which VPN provider did you end up going with, and what drove your decision?
Money gone where?
So, here's a fun thought. My understanding is that, like most of these copyright cases, Righthaven has settled with an unknown number of defendants for an unknown sum of money. This implies that they had some revenue. However, now they're claiming they can't afford their bills. So would it make sense for one of the lawyers demanding payment of their legal bills to file a motion with the court demanding that Righthaven account for every single penny of revenue they've received in order to "prove" that they can't afford to pay? I think it would be very illuminating to see how much they've earned for undisclosed settlements, and where that money has actually gone now.
Individuals versus companies
I think you missed the point a bit. These ads aren't aimed at Joe Blow sending a love note to his girlfriend, or at a girl writing her Aunt in Nowhere, Nebraska. They're aimed at middle managers at firms, both big and small, who don't understand email and technology. They're designed to remind them that paper mail is traditional, and therefore better (yeah, right), while at the same time sowing some FUD about email. One person sending an email versus a paper letter to a friend or family member won't make or break the Post Office. One company switching all its billing to email instead of paper mail will make a measurable dent in their revenue, though.
Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
In law school, the answers might be "C". After a lawyer graduates, though, the answer becomes C-bills.
(untitled comment)
Hah! I called it earlier today. =)
Pierce the corporate shield
Any of our visiting lawyerly folks care to comment on the possibility of the court ruling that the actions of Righthaven's management are so egregious that it's grounds for breaching the corporate liability shield and going after Righthaven's owners personally (or, for that matter, after Stephens Media itself)?
(And yes, that was an insanely-bad run-on sentence-question hybrid-monstrosity. Yes, I just wrote another abomination. Yes, I need more (or less?) caffeine.)
Re:
The assumption in your statement is that voting for someone else will somehow change things, which in turn implies that other politicians would be different. I've yet to be convinced that's a real possibility. More to the point, changing the mind of one elected official is irrelevant. You have to change the mind of the majority of them, AND convince them they won't lose the next election if they endorse your stance.
The nature of the modern "democratic" political system is that he who has the most money (to campaign) has a huge boost over he who doesn't. In turn, corporations can raise and spend way more money in one election cycle than an average person earns in a lifetime.
Politicians who get elected either have to have that money, or they have to have some edge over their opponents to draws votes -- and unless that edge is a national issue that affects pretty much everyone in a public and emotional manner (e.g., wars, pension payments), it also won't affect the outcome.
Copyright is not a sexy or emotional topic. No one gets out of bed thinking, "We have to change copyright!" People DO get out of bed thinking "We have to end this war!" or "We have to make sure my grandmother gets her government pension/social security check/welfare payment/other handout!"
Find a way to show that copyright will cause or extend a war, or will cause checks to your grandmother to be cut off, and you'll see copyright changes that benefit the public. Otherwise, you have to be able to outspend the copyright industry on lobbying to have a real shot.
Good music!
I love love love that you linked to each buying method. :) Picking up the music now, it's some good stuff.
Invitation with teeth...
Boy, the judge isn't kidding around:
"The United States Marshals have beds available if necessary, so you may wish to bring a toothbrush in case the party runs late."
I'd read that as "show up and play nice for the rest of this trial, or I'm holding you in contempt and tossing you in jail."
I like this judge. =)