The way this is going smacks of the progression p2p networks made from Napster (centralized) to Limewire and other apps tapping into the Gnutella network (de-centralized).
Should prove an interesting development.
Hopefully, though, this trend of trolling firms getting their legal comeuppance continues, and those who receive notices learn that making the process as difficult as possible is in their best interests, and settling up is decidedly not.
Granted, were I threatened with a million-dollar lawsuit, I might sing a different tune, but I'd like to think I would - at the least - draw out the process using free-to-me legal means such as motion to dismiss, etc.
I don't think that any similarities matter, really. All that matters is that - if this case is settled - it will act as precedent for other frivolous cases of the same sort. If it's not looking too good for Hershey, the just drop the suit.
More legal drivel systemic in our over-litigated society.
So well said. While people submit to all manner of erosion of their freedoms, they participate in activities such as riding on elevators, having drinks with friends, and driving that all have a much higher chance of ending their lives than terrorism.
Yeah, because even though many people claim no one uses libraries, that's not at all correct. They may not use them for books so much, but they are chock-full of people checking out DVDs, audio books, comics, and magazines.
You hit it regarding papers (albeit in editorials) leaving out the reason we're at war, the necessity of it, etc, as if being at war is part and parcel with having a damn good reason for it (an erroneous assumption, of course).
Not only do blacklists make citizens feel like the government is doing something, it also creates yet another vehicle through which finger-pointing can ensue. I understand that - according to COICA - the two blacklists would belong to the courts and the attorney general, but that wouldn't stop scared, self-righteous do-gooders from sending tips on where sites they felt should be on the blacklists reside, a la those FACT ads from the UK a few years ago.
A basic way in which looking at historical perspectives with anything - copyright included - is to provide comparable cause and effect scenarios (among other ways).
So that, when making an argument about the uselessness of certain laws, restrictions, tactics, etc, one can refer to how they were used historically and either failed or succeeded. The digital age is faster-paced than the time covered in this book, but there are indeed fundamental similarities to how information is handled today.
This is quite close to eBay's policy as well, which was apparently adapted with only power sellers and buyers in mind. They will pull anything that someone claims violates copyright, so power sellers simply have auctions pulled that compete with their wares. Since there's apparently no one actually working customer service at eBay, the ruling stands. The result is that you can't sell anything with a copyright without the threat of being fingered as a violator. It's less so on Half.com, but this means the largest online auction site is pretty much defunct for a small seller dealing in any resale media - protection via first sale doctrine be damned.