Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence

from the dolphins-in-the-fish-nets dept

In the recent amicus filing by the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel the need to pay up, as it's cheaper to do so than to hire a lawyer and fight. It looks like that's already happening. Ars Technica is reporting on a number of people proclaiming innocence over the filings. What you get is a picture of frustration as well. Many were informed by their ISP that they had just a couple days to try to quash the subpoena or their info would get handed over to USCG. Even those that tried to understand the details of what they were being threatened with were left in the dark:
"Originally we got a letter from our ISP stating they have a subpoena for our name and address. We literally had 2 business days to research and try to find legal counsel on this matter. I called a local ISP lawyer here in [state redacted]. His advice was to contact a lawyer over where this lawsuit originated (Washington, DC). Well, we do not have the monetary means or time to try and fight this..."
Another example:
"I received a subpoena notice from [ISP redacted] on May 4, with a deadline of May 7 for response. It included NO INFORMATION as to what the subpoena was about so I immediately tried to contact the sender of the notice. After countless e-mails & phone calls, I finally reached an informed, live person by calling [ISP's] corporate line (which I found online and was NOT included in the notice).

"I was finally provided a copy of the subpoena itself and I recognized the date that I was accused of downloading Far Cry (a movie I never heard of) as a period when I was having Internet connection and wireless router issues. I suspect my neighbors may have been using my connection without my permission and my ISP should have record of my support calls...

"Unfortunately, I tried to hire an attorney that could help me with this and I was repeatedly told there was little I could do without further information from [ISP], and certainly nothing I could do in the very short period before the subpoena deadline. I did all this in the span of only a few days and STILL DIDN'T GET ANYWHERE. I assume my identity has been sent to the plaintiff and I can only imagine what others are going through trying to figure out what is going on here."
We've had numerous defenders of these sue-em-all programs in our comments say that false positives are few and far between, and that it's "easy" to get the case dropped if you didn't do it. I'm guessing most of those people have never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit. It is not a good feeling -- especially when it is incredibly expensive to defend your innocence. I have no doubt that many, many people on the list actually did make unauthorized copies of these files. But is it worth this sort of collateral damage on innocent people to go after them?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:39am

    it would appear that the [ISP redacted] doesnt know how to communicate well with their clients.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    TPBer, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    What a waste

    Far Cry was at best the worst movie of the year, not worth the HD space. I DL previewed and threw in the trash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:47am

    Re:

    It appears that the ISP needs to redact their head out of their [bodypart redacted].

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    Hey, I linked that article!

    Source

    Oh well, glad it got used and not ignored.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:54am

    It is better to send one hundred innocent people to jail then to let one guilty person free. Oh copyright, how retarded you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:57am

    i would file bankruptcy before i paid these fuckers if i received this letter.

    If i were these people, though, I would definitely cancel my service with the ISP asap. better to have no internet than a company who will fuck you over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    jsl4980 (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    I wonder why you're assuming that the list is correct when you made the statement: "I have no doubt that many, many people on the list actually did make unauthorized copies of these files. "

    You didn't give a number or percentage so it's hard to argue the point, but the IP address gets associated with the name of the account holder. According to the last Census the average household size is 2.59. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts

    So the odds that the name on the account matches the user behind the keyboard is less than 39%.

    Then you can take into account the number of people with open Wifi and the likelihood of the account holder being the pirate gets even lower.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    "We've had numerous defenders of these sue-em-all programs in our comments say that false positives are few and far between, and that it's "easy" to get the case dropped if you didn't do it. I'm guessing most of those people have never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit. It is not a good feeling -- especially when it is incredibly expensive to defend your innocence." - the amazing thing is that the prisons are full of innocent people. very few convicted inmates will admit they are guilty. what the person in this story is doing is the digital equivalent of soddi. by intentionally leaving their wireless intent connection open, they hope to have an excuse. in the end, they are the end user.

    moral of the story: if you have a wireless, at least take a moment to secure it. ignore what chris anderson of wired and what mike are says is cool, think about the implications.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Dundy, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:12pm

    Re:

    We all now that there are so many innocent account holders...but do they have children, neighbours unsecured wifi? It is the digital millenium which means that laws need to be enforced in another way.

    Buy the DVD or pay $1 for VOD. You did not do it - your fault.

    Best,
    AP

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    Re:

    Doubt it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    Re:

    I could still go to Starbucks or Mc Donalds, log on, download, then hit the road.

    They have my temporary IP address and nothing else.

    It only gets easier the more you move around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Re:

    Here's a fun fact for you:

    The number of individuals who have gone to court and lost is much less than those who have gone to court and had their case dropped.

    The number of individuals who have received "guilty" verdicts is roughly the same as those who have been awarded lawyer fees.

    In other words: Yes, the majority of people who have gone to court from these lawsuits are, in fact, innocent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Re:

    You are asking for proof from Mike, while the lawyers suing people can legally extort money with false accusations?

    This is like a Monty Python sketch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Re:

    No. The moral of the story is: no matter how much of an innocent you are, there will still be people looking at you like you're the devil.

    These people get falsely accused of file sharing, scammed out of thousands of dollars, and you point at them and say secure your network. I guess for you it's better to have people remove their own freedoms instead of going after the people truly doing illegal things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Other Solutions

    Hopefully the parts of this that are playing out in the courts rather than at the ISPs will make this moot. If the courts follow through and make them sue each individual rather than a block, it will become as expensive (relatively) for them as it is for the people being blindsided.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re:

    Innocent of stealing imaginary property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    jsl4980 (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re:

    No, I'm not asking Mike for proof. I disagreed with his statement that many people on that list are the responsible individual. I'm trying to add some actual numerical data.

    Hopefully next time Mike or anyone else writes an article like this they can point out that according to the statistics, the probability of the account holder being the actual infringer is less than 39%.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Jesse, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:33pm

    Well I know which movie I will never, ever watch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:39pm

    Calm down now

    This is not the RIAA (who were trying to scare people) - this is the US equivalent of Davenport Lyons / ACS law in the UK (who are trying to make money).

    The best advice - as found in the speculative invoicing handbook is as follows.

    1) You are unlikely to be able to stop your ISP from revealing your identity - unless they were minded not to anyway - don't bother fighting this stage.

    2) If/when your ISP reveals your details - switch ISP if you can and tell your old ISP why.

    3) When you get a letter direct from US copyright group make a simple reply denying everything and noting that they do not have reliable evidence against you. Do not, under any circumstances give them any information that they do not already have and do not give them any money

    4) Repeat this tactic if you receive further letters. If you wish you could at this stage add a rider that you consider their repeated approaches to be harassment and that you will begin proceedings against them if they send any further letters.

    No one who has followed these tactics has actually been sued in the UK. It is not in US copyrights interest to do so since it would cost them considerable upfront money and risk a loss. Their business model is based on the old Chess proverb that "a threat is more powerful than its execution".

    For more info and a support group (UK based) see :

    http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/

    and

    http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/Th e-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf

    5) If you receive multiple letters

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:44pm

    Re: What a waste

    Yes.

    Sometimes a movie just isn't worth the space it wastes on your disk. It doesn't matter if it is highly compressed or if you have 10TB of space for your movies.

    Some things are just not worth the bother.

    If your stuff isn't being pirated, then you really need to worry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 12:54pm

    I guess the moral to the story is don't ever, ever, ever use an ISP that will give up your personal information without any sort of fight (this means YOU, Verizon). If my ISP did this, I'd be slapping THEM with a lawsuit. There's got to be a reasonable amount of time to quash a subpoena, and 2 business days is NOT reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re:

    The number of individuals who have gone to court and lost is much less than those who have gone to court and had their case dropped.


    You are thinking about the RIAA lawsuits - these are different. IN this type of lawsuit both numbers are zero.

    These people are trying to make money. Actually going to court is not on the agenda. This is the reason why they are trying to get the initial subpoenas done en mass. If they intended to actually take people to court then the damages that they could obtain would far outweigh the cost of the initial subpoenas - but they don't. They intend to shake people down for a few hundreds of dollars each - hence the legal economy drive is needed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Eugene (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Calm down now

    This is the most clear-headed approach. You don't even need a lawyer to deal with this kind of kangaroo bullshit. Just threaten them back. They have nothing, so they'll run away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Larry, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    Re:

    Wait just a minute, you are displaying common sense..
    You should know that common sense means nothing to these scumbuckets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wouldn't

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    mjb5406 (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:19pm

    Can they?

    Would there be a possibility of a class action suit against US Copyright Group for copyright law abuse?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Thinker, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

    Disrepect

    The more things like this manifest itself the possibility of a total disrespect for law could be the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

    Why is no one suing the ISPs?

    It would seem like a suit for damage could be filed against the ISP for the settlement since the disclosure of the IP opens the customer to a lawsuit. The customer getting hit with the infringement suit needs to turn this on the ISP and make it costly to turn over their records and personal information. Sue the ISP for relief and at $1,500 this could be performed in small claims court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

    Mobilize the press?

    It would be interesting for some group to offer a package of resources for those who get sued. They'd use these materials to a) contact the local TV station "consumer watchdog" reporter; b) give an on-camera interview proclaiming innocence; and c) give the reporter a fact sheet full of statistics on what's really happening... maybe even contact info for a lawyer they can interview. Local TV stations generate immense ratings with the watchdog nonsense, and will follow up far more earnestly than for actual news. But local reporters are lazy; if you spoon-feed them sources, they're more inclined to give it a shot.
    I'm just sayin'...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:40pm

    Sue 'Em All

    "Sue 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out" seems to me to be morally akin to "kill 'em all and let G*d sort 'em out". In other words, morally bankrupt. But then, what do you expect from the copyright industry? They sold their souls a long time ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 1:54pm

    instructions on how to never have issues

    download virus
    make virus whatever

    download movie burn onto other media HIDE IT.
    then when they come go OOOH NOOOS i was haxored

    then give middle finger to attorneys and countersue for slander and defamation of character

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    sinrtb, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:08pm

    Fair Use?

    Has anyone ever tried a fair use defense? It seems to me even under the strictest conventions, that anything torrented would fall under Fair-Use due to the fact that when you download a torrent, the amount you actually download from each person would be considered a triffle of the overall copyrighted work. IE 256 kb of a 700 meg movie might only be a single frame. Which definetly falls under fair-use and is considered a triffle

    from Wikipediea"Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[13] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." "

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Fair Use?

    Has anyone ever tried a fair use defense? It seems to me even under the strictest conventions, that anything torrented would fall under Fair-Use due to the fact that when you download a torrent, the amount you actually download from each person would be considered a triffle of the overall copyrighted work. IE 256 kb of a 700 meg movie might only be a single frame. Which definetly falls under fair-use and is considered a triffle

    Joel Tenenbaum sorta kinda tried a fair use defense (though, it was poorly thought out, and procedurally screwed up) and it got tossed out quickly.

    Perhaps a super well argued fair use claim could work, but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    mikeinrichmond (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Calm down now

    Great advice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:47pm

    I mentioned this in another thread but thought I'd report it here: Here's a great way to scare off law firm from these types of suits: Contact the law firms' clients and state you object to what the law firm is doing, and therefore you will boycott the Client as a result.

    This will send shivers down the spine of any law firm. Trust me on this. They will GLADLY drop one 'bad' client in order to keep their 'regular' revenue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:49pm

    Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel the ne

    Stop blaming "bad action by lawyers" ON "bad copyright law".

    The lawsuit "situation" can be fixed w/o touching Copyright law.

    BUT we have "lawyers lobbying" against "other lawyers", on court procedure , AND congress , being mostly lawyers often makes it all worse.
    --------------------
    The Constitution protects us from a crazy Congress too !!
    ---------------
    But Copy-Rights is cool . Everyone in Government agrees.
    ---------------------
    ( but patent is sick , most agree, me too.)
    Why can you not understand that ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 2:58pm

    Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    "but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make."

    where did you get your law degree mike?

    I don't see it post in any of your cyber-bios.

    must be an oversight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 3:11pm

    Re:

    It's impossible to secure wireless, just like it's impossible to secure a digital file with DRM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    Right, because only someone with a law degree has any experience with how judges typically respond to arguments. No one who's been following these issues for years, but doesn't have a law degree can know anything.

    How about you try a warm glass of STFU?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel th

    "( but patent is sick , most agree, me too.)
    Why can you not understand that ?"

    Maybe becase you have the writting style of a dyslexic baboon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 3:40pm

    Re:

    Add "open wireless" to the list of things TAM thinks should be illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 3:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    I don't see your qualifications to participate in an intelligent debate. Your blatant logical fallacy is blinding me, perhaps?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:10pm

    > and that it's "easy" to get the case dropped if you didn't do it.

    It is not easy. If you did not do it, you have no proof you did not do it. But they have some kind of "proof" (extremely weak, but more than nothing) that you did it, namely the fact that the output of some unproven and unreliable process pointed to your IP address.

    You cannot prove a negative, and their weak evidence is still stronger than your complete lack of evidence.

    As you see, even completely innocent people can easily lose their case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Darryl, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:19pm

    They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.

    Yea Dont you just hate it when everyone claims they are innocent !.

    Gone are the days when you were caught, you said "yes, it was me who did that, I did wrong and I should be punished by the full extent of the law".

    Now days its all this "Im innocent" "I never had relaltions with that person", And the prisons today, everyone in there is innocent, just ask them !

    It would be just great if you could put an add on google that says "Everyone who has undertaken unorthorised file sharing please report your guilt to us so we can charge you".

    That would be so much easier for all concerned.

    I wonder why it does not work that way?

    May be that is why its not up to the person charged of an offense to rule on it, if it was im quite sure more people would get off.

    It IS why they have judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to act for or against you. You dont get to decide on your own guild or innocent.

    As you tend to find most people who are guilty profess their innocents, very few innocent people profess their innocense.
    And very few of the guilty will up front admit their guilt, whereas most will admit their innocence regardless of guilt or innocence, thus they dont get to make that decision, they are kind of biased.

    Just as you and them dont get to interpret the law how you see fit, it is what it is, like it or not, deal with it dont break it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:23pm

    Re: Re:

    Sounds like too much freedom to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    Hey Technopolitical, where'd you get your rape degree?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still fee

    A raping dyslexic baboon!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:27pm

    Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.

    You're guilty of Strawmania!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:41pm

    Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.

    Yea Dont you just hate it when everyone claims they are innocent !.

    These lawsuit threats are nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They are everything to do with using legal threats to extort money.

    The equivalent actions in the UK have been called "legal blackmail" in the UK House of Lords.

    The people threatening these actions don't care whether the people they threaten are guilty or not. They only care if they will pay up. Innocent people are just as likely (possibly more likely) to pay up than the guilty - because the guilty are more likely to realize that there is no evidence that will stand up in court.

    Since US copyright group (like ACS law and Davenport Lyons) are not actually going to sue anyone - it doesn't really matter if their evidence is genuine. Given their business model all they need to do is grab some IP addresses of the net more or less at random and then accuse people. Unlike the RIAA they don't want any actual trials - since that will just lose them money - even if they win (since the odds are that many of the accused don't have enough money to even cover their legal costs). Of course if they were to lose a case it would be a big hit on their bottom line - as well as damaging their ability to bring further threats.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:52pm

    Fighting back can work

    Have a look at this link -

    http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34690659-post287.html

    It seems that you may even be able to sting these scamsters for some money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    and you folks wonder why techdirt is not considered a mainstream website ?? those 3 comment right there.
    Me , i like a good cyber-fight. i will not back down , and will beat you with facts and logic,,though like Karl, you will never admit, even if you see it.

    Can i get you more rope to hang your self ?

    As far as, my qualifications, on law , and public policy, click on my profile ,, my resume is a few clicks away in my blogger profile.

    all you AC's and folks with empty profiles , have empty heads.

    the "real posters" here, are not afraid to provide links to who they are ,, or simply use their real name , so we can google them.

    Yes there are a few ACs who add to the debate. they probably are techdirt admin staffers, who know Mike would fire them , if they post under their real name!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still

    again. pointless posts. no wonder why school teachers will never recommend this site for homework ,

    There is no comment moderation , and w/o it , you got to cut through too much crap , to have a meaningful exchange.

    Want to help , public policy ? fix Patent? . Adjust copyright lawsuit procedures?

    Post intelligently and respectfully.

    And maybe you Mike ,

    if you ever agree with me ,, post such.

    It would help your creditability.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    STOP RAPING ME!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom s

    You're the one who thinks it's possible to rape art. Fucking moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    You can employ logic?

    I've never seen you do that before. In fact, I usually see the opposite, which is you being hypocritical. I really thought it was hilarious when you insisted that illegal file-sharing was horrible but were found to have been using illegal file-sharing as part of your own lame business model. So it's okay to give away the Beatles' music, but not yours... Very logical...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    "and you folks wonder why techdirt is not considered a mainstream website ??"

    - By whom?

    (I) "will beat you with facts and logic"

    - like the ones missing from your post?

    "all you AC's and folks with empty profiles , have empty heads."

    - And this statement does what for your credibility?

    "the "real posters" here, are not afraid to provide links to who they are ,, or simply use their real name , so we can google them."

    - What is a real poster? And why does lack of personal info make one unreal? This is quite silly.

    "Yes there are a few ACs who add to the debate. they probably are techdirt admin staffers, who know Mike would fire them , if they post under their real name!!"

    - conjecture ... your sad attempts do you an injustice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom s

    The lawsuit "situation" can be fixed w/o touching Copyright law.

    People disagree with you, and have explained why. You disagree with them, but haven't explained why. Please do so, or I call bullshit. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:28pm

    Re: Re:

    no, open wireless should make the owner of the wireless liable for what happens on it. if you leave your phone in an open spot and a bunch of people make long distance calls, you are responsible for the bill. internet service is pretty much like phone service, someone is paying the bill and they should be liable for what happens on their connection.

    and no, you cannot complete secure wireless. you also cannot completely secure your house or car. but from a legal standpoint, there are differences between door wide open and door closed, or a locked car and one with the door open and the key in the ignition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Any Mouse, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're asking for proof for an opinion? Since when do you need proof to state an opinion?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom s

    "if you ever agree with me ,, post such.
    It would help your creditability."

    Are having difficulty obtaining credit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    RD, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:48pm

    Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.

    "May be that is why its not up to the person charged of an offense to rule on it, if it was im quite sure more people would get off.

    It IS why they have judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to act for or against you. You dont get to decide on your own guild or innocent."

    Yeah this worked so good for Prohibition. You know what else this works GREAT for? Slavery. Since slavery was legal and the "offender" wasnt allowed to "rule on it", that is why we have slavery today. Oh wait....thats not right now, is it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:50pm

    Re: They are all innocent, everyone is innocent, even in prison.

    Darryl, you are quite daft.

    Not sure in what country you reside, but in many places one must be proven guilty, with evidence - not accusations.

    In addition, you may not be aware of the fact that there are people in prison who are found to be innocent. This happens quite often. Some DAs have become indignant and combative when faced with the fact that they imprisoned an innocent person. So, please get off your high horse and join reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    RD, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    "all you AC's and folks with empty profiles , have empty heads.

    the "real posters" here, are not afraid to provide links to who they are ,, or simply use their real name , so we can google them."

    Ah the last refuge of those who are losing the argument: attack the person, not the topic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Any Mouse, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 6:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    Your 'qualifications' are a poli-sci degree. Or was that a lie, too?

    No degree is ever necessary to discuss a thing, even law. If you truly believe that one is, then you are still the idiot everyone says you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 6:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Liability

    > if you leave your phone in an open spot and a bunch of people make
    > long distance calls, you are responsible for the bill.

    Because that's part of the contract between private parties. Not federal law.

    A better analogy would be if you left your phone on a table and someone came along and phoned in a bomb threat. You would not be criminally liable for that use of your phone. Only the person who actually made the call would be liable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 11th, 2010 @ 6:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l

    again. pointless posts. no wonder why school teachers will never recommend this site for homework ,


    Amusingly, Techdirt posts are regularly found on various college websites as reading for assignments.

    So, TP, you are wrong again. Will you admit it?

    There is no comment moderation , and w/o it , you got to cut through too much crap , to have a meaningful exchange.

    TP, there was tons of meaningful exchange. To date, your mode of commenting has been to insult many of our commenters, not respond to direct questions, never admit when you are wrong, and to ignore factual proof of your errors.

    I would suggest that perhaps you rethink your position.

    Post intelligently and respectfully.

    This from the guy who calls any reasonable proof that he is wrong "pirate logic,"? This from the guy who falsely cites authorities that say the opposite of what he thinks they say? This from the guy who mocks those who don't have a law degree -- even though you have no law degree? This from a guy who abuses copyright law himself while screaming about how everyone who points this out to him is a "pirate"?

    You have no credibility, TP. For your own sake, please, rethink your posting strategy here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability

    If only we could attach a recording device to everyone's face then we wouldn't have to fear bomb threats!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 8:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability

    "A better analogy would be if you left your phone on a table and someone came along and phoned in a bomb threat. You would not be criminally liable for that use of your phone. Only the person who actually made the call would be liable."

    Don't expect a lowercase coward response to logic, that is not his forte.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 12:42am

    Re: What a waste

    I could have saved you the effort of even doing that in 2 words: Uwe Boll. Go to his IMDB page, note down a list of movies he's directed. Avoid them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 1:05am

    Re: Re:

    "pay $1 for VOD"

    I suspect that many people would, if VOD was in fact $1.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 1:07am

    Re:

    Everybody note: if this is indeed TAM as we all suspect, this is the same moron who swears that WEP is secure. His opinion on technical matter is highly suspect and should not be listened to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 3:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    but from a legal standpoint, there are differences between door wide open and door closed, or a locked car and one with the door open and the key in the ignition.

    But from a legal standpoint even having left the key in the ignition would not make you liable if someone stole your car and used it in a bank robbery. It just means the insurance might not pay out for the theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 12th, 2010 @ 6:25am

    Re:

    The name on my account belongs to an ex who lives in California, and in the 16 years since he left, I have been unable to get my ISP to correct that error. Based on my IP address, who would get the subpoena?

    Neither of us would download from unauthorized sources, so if either of us were to receive a threat, I am sure we would see the accusation as defamation, refuse to bow down to their extortion, and file a counter claim for malicious prosecution. It would be interesting to see how they think a Californian could download through a Pennsylvania modem.

    I wonder how egregious this systemized extortion will have to become before some AG files criminal charges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 12th, 2010 @ 6:29am

    Re: Re:

    If someone were to steal your car and kill a pedestrian with it, are you guilty of murder because you forgot to lock it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 12th, 2010 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    misleading numbers. average household is 2.59 people. only one of them is paying the bill. the chance that the lawsuit is against the individual responsible for the connection is 100%. nice play, but even the dumb judges dont fall for that crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 12th, 2010 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Doubt it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l

    But the Fact is MIKE ,, 100% , of Congress , and all remembers of SCOTUS agree with me on Copyright ,, and not you.

    Do you dispute that FACT?

    Welcome to reality Mike.


    --------------------------------------------

    And Grade school teachers , and even High School teachers , could get fired if they recommended a site with foul language for a homework assignment.

    ------------------------------------

    Enjoy being in the trash bin of history, Mike , as time will prove.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 12th, 2010 @ 7:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?// but I find it unlikely that a judge would recognize the key points that you make.

    I am sorry if you miss my logic,, but the logic of my mind has been "academically tested" , and "rabbinically tested" repeatably for 40 years now till today. ( As I mentioned I am an orthodox Rabbi.)

    I get good grades still in "secular studies" or "religious law studies" ,, mostly "A"s.

    Sorry if you do not understand it,

    Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens, they could not understand his logic either .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Them Douchey Poster Be Funny Sometimes, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 8:21am

    Remember The Anti-Mike

    So... Is Technopolitical The Anti-Mike's new screen name? If not, they should totally hook up.

    But please please PLEASE guys don't have kids together, thanks in advance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Them Douchey Poster Be Funny Sometimes, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    wow... you're not just a troll, you're really cuckoo...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Remember The Anti-Mike

    YOU :So... Is Technopolitical The Anti-Mike's new screen
    name?

    Me : No. If Mike is right on something ,, i say so ( electronic voting , paywall,, even "patents" to a small certain degree, as long as the Constitution is untouched).

    I am me. I post only by me , from my thought and knowledge,

    chips fall where they may

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 5:27pm

    you're really cuckoo

    from a birdbrain like you ,, i am honored by your statement

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l

    But the Fact is MIKE ,, 100% , of Congress , and all remembers of SCOTUS agree with me on Copyright ,, and not you.

    I would say most of Congress doesn't think about copyright law very much. Those who do are split. There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said, including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Rick Boucher.

    So, no, not 100% of Congress agree with you.

    But, really, that doesn't mean anything either way. There are lots of things I disagree with Congress about, but it doesn't make me any less right. I do not understand your false appeal to authority.

    Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:

    Let's say 100% of Congress agreed that slavery was good for society. But some people felt otherwise. And they worked hard to explain their reasons. Would you argue that their reasons made no sense because 100% of Congress disagreed with them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 7:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l

    MIKE : I would say most of Congress doesn't think about copyright law very much.

    ME : Not a very factual sentence , but the Commerce committee thinks , holds hearings often,

    It is their job to form the legislation,,

    AND on copyright -- and most issues ---,, the congress as a majority whole --usually follows any. committees lead.

    When they do not ,, that's when CNN does special reports, and c-span a hot watch.
    ---------------------------------------
    MIKE : Those who do are split. There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said,

    ME ; "many" , "seem" ," basics ",, pretty weak terms for a pro-writer.

    MIKE : including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Rick Boucher.

    So, no, not 100% of Congress agree with you.


    ME : ok 3 out of 435 in the house plus 100 in the senate.
    Truly a major political force [sic]. And I hear Texas wants to succeed form the union, t'ain't gonna happen,,neither will Mikes vision of Copyright.

    ( again Patents you got a chance , within the Constitutional framework , of the Copyright clause,)


    MIKE :But, really, that doesn't mean anything either way.

    ME : True from m your "crazy kill copyright prospective",, but not the "pro-copyright side",

    Having congress on out side is what will make the ASCAP BORs ,,law !!!

    MIKE :
    There are lots of things I disagree with Congress about,

    ME : ME TOO !!! ( Drug policy , I like a flat tax, . and I think Pelosci , is a nice women & great speaker , but a lousy dresser, not real style)


    MIKE : but it doesn't make me any less right.

    Me : Democracy is about majority rule. If your are holding a "3" ( weaken copyright) vs. "530" ( modernize and Better copyright) in congress , good chance you are not swimming in the mainstream, where policy is made,

    MIKE :I do not understand your false appeal to authority.


    Me : because you are an ANARCHIST MIKE !

    MIKE : Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question,

    ME : the newspaper ad , stuff ,, sure did ,, and i hold by it .

    If not that one ,, restate,, i never dodge a question


    MIKE : so let me ask another:

    ME : shoot .

    MIKE :Let's say 100% of Congress agreed that slavery was good for society. But some people felt otherwise. And they worked hard to explain their reasons. Would you argue that their reasons made no sense because 100% of Congress disagreed with them?

    ME: As my political science proff always said , when some floated a premise like that :: " Let's say my Aunt Mary had balls, she would be my uncle Peter."

    In other words your example is too far fetched from the real world to have meaning,

    Surely you could make your point better, Maybe not.

    ( Slavery was ALWAYS a controversial subject , with the north free , and the south slave,, before the war , the States themselves decided, with Congressional oversight on slavery. )

    ==========

    Yawn, too easy Mike,, no challenge in answering. High School stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 7:29pm

    Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins:

    ME Great piece in the Sunday NY Times.,,,very much related to out "political theory debate" on copyright. Worth reading the whole piece 3x ,,, here are selected excepts , related to our debate on "Copyright Law Now & in the Future"

    - - - - - - - - - -
    The Very Angry Tea Party
    By J.M. BERNSTEIN
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion

    "Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins: when, that is, the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and what owes its existence to an other. "

    "Americans struck with the state institutions supporting modern life is that they would be politically acceptable only to the degree to which they remained invisible, and that for all intents and purposes each citizen could continue to believe that she was sovereign over her life; she would, of course, pay taxes, use the roads and schools, receive Medicare and Social Security, but only so long as these could be perceived not as radical dependencies, but simply as the conditions for leading an autonomous and self-sufficient life. Recent events have left that bargain in tatters."

    "Tea Party anger is, at bottom, metaphysical, not political: what has been undone by the economic crisis is the belief that each individual is metaphysically self-sufficient, that one’s very standing and being as a rational agent owes nothing to other individuals or institutions. The opposing metaphysical claim, the one I take to be true, is that the very idea of the autonomous subject is an institution, an artifact created by the practices of modern life: the intimate family, the market economy, the liberal state. Each of these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not have without them."

    "Rather than participating in arranged marriages, as modern subjects we follow our hearts, choose our beloved, decide for ourselves who may or may not have access to our bodies, and freely take vows promising fidelity and loyalty until death (or divorce) do us part. There are lots of ways property can be held and distributed — as hysterical Tea Party incriminations of creeping socialism and communism remind us; we moderns have opted for a system of private ownership in which we can acquire, use and dispose of property as we see fit, and even workers are presumed to be self-owning, selling their labor time and labor power to whom they wish (when they can). And as modern citizens we presume the government is answerable to us, governs only with our consent, our dependence on it a matter of detached, reflective endorsement; and further, that we intrinsically possess a battery of moral rights that say we can be bound to no institution unless we possess the rights of “voice and exit.”

    The great and inspiring metaphysical fantasy of independence and freedom is simply a fantasy of destruction.

    If stated in enough detail, all these institutions and practices should be seen as together manufacturing, and even inventing, the idea of a sovereign individual who becomes, through them and by virtue of them, the ultimate source of authority. The American version of these practices has, from the earliest days of the republic, made individuality autochthonous while suppressing to the point of disappearance the manifold ways that individuality is beholden to a complex and uniquely modern form of life.

    Of course, if you are a libertarian or even a certain kind of liberal, you will object that these practices do not manufacture anything; they simply give individuality its due. The issue here is a central one in modern philosophy: is individual autonomy an irreducible metaphysical given or a social creation? Descartes famously argued that self or subject, the “I think,” was metaphysically basic, while Hegel argued that we only become self-determining agents through being recognized as such by others who we recognize in turn. It is by recognizing one another as autonomous subjects through the institutions of family, civil society and the state that we become such subjects; those practices are how we recognize and so bestow on one another the title and powers of being free individuals.

    All the heavy lifting in Hegel’s account turns on revealing how human subjectivity only emerges through intersubjective relations, and hence how practices of independence, of freedom and autonomy, are held in place and made possible by complementary structures of dependence. At one point in his “Philosophy of Right,” Hegel suggests love or friendship as models of freedom through recognition. In love I regard you as of such value and importance that I spontaneously set aside my egoistic desires and interests and align them with yours: your ends are my desires, I desire that you flourish, and when you flourish I do, too. In love, I experience you not as a limit or restriction on my freedom, but as what makes it possible: I can only be truly free and so truly independent in being harmoniously joined with you; we each recognize the other as endowing our life with meaning and value, with living freedom. Hegel’s phrase for this felicitous state is “to be with oneself in the other.”

    Hegel’s thesis is that all social life is structurally akin to the conditions of love and friendship; we are all bound to one another as firmly as lovers are, with the terrible reminder that the ways of love are harsh, unpredictable and changeable. And here is the source of the great anger: because you are the source of my being, when our love goes bad I am suddenly, absolutely dependent on someone for whom I no longer count and who I no longer know how to count; I am exposed, vulnerable, needy, unanchored and without resource. In fury, I lash out, I deny that you are my end and my satisfaction, in rage I claim that I can manage without you, that I can be a full person, free and self-moving, without you. I am everything and you are nothing. "

    --- the whole piece again @
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 9:59pm

    Re: Re: What a waste

    I could have saved you the effort of even doing that in 2 words: Uwe Boll. Go to his IMDB page, note down a list of movies he's directed. Avoid them.

    Rampage wasn't too bad, although I agree about everything he's made that I've seen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 11:07pm

    There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said, including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog --

    I found the speech in question full text at :

    http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml

    Excerpt:
    "If people are pirating movies and music, they should be punished. There are laws on the books against that illegal activity."
    " I am quite pleased that at the December meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States delegation outlined its support for new fair-use-like exceptions to copyright for the visually impaired that might help them have access to technologies like book readers and more.

    And in their filing, the delegation made clear that ++++“The United States is committed to both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” That’s exactly my belief, +++++and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.""

    From : January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
    http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml
    --------------------- ---------------

    Mike , even Karl , posts better than you, lately.
    ( I just woke , for natures call here @ 2am, -- i know ,, more than anyone needed to know -- maybe next "call" , I will find the other Reps. speeches on copyrights.
    ------------------------------------------------------

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 11:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l

    Holy shit. Please stop typing like an idiot. For a person who claims to be educated, intelligent and logical you have the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.

    Thirteen year old girls on myspace write better than you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 11:22pm

    Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:

    MIKE "Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:"

    ME : I am not sure what "direct quest"

    If you mean the Newspaper ad one :
    I did here again:

    MIKE :"Question, TP: do you think it's illegal or unfair for a car company to buy an ad in a newspaper next to the classified listings for car dealers?."

    ME ::: Ask a lawyer who deals with it, MM.
    Ask a sitting judge , also. Get back to me.

    I follow the lead of my teachers, mentors , spiritual masters.

    I do not invent to arguments , i post here.

    They are strait out of any Political theory class and/or textbook

    But, on your question-- which is irrelevant to copy law ---- my educated guess it is the newspaper's call, and the AMERICAN law is neutral on the point.

    But I may be wrong , as I am only answering of the top of my head w/o research. If you have any sources on a good discourse on the topic , i will gladly read it carefully. Then ask some law professors and/or sitting judges, that I know personally, and get back to you.

    I do not own a newspaper , so , if the AMERICAN law is neutral , i would not know , how i would view it ethically, without dealing daily with the issue. ( Fair ??)

    But I fail to see what you question has to do with my right to control my Art. A right you deny exists. That is where you are wrong. and it is the root & core of or "debate".

    You never answers , "MY Springsteen vs John McCain" question.

    Do you mike , think Bruce had the , "legal" ? , "moral" , and/ or "natural" RIGHT to tell McCain NOT to use his songs and music?

    POINT :>>>That fact is McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song. He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART. Do you Mike ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 11:53pm

    Re: Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:

    By PATRICK HEALY
    Published: June 13, 2010
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/theater/theaterspecial/14tony.html?hp

    "The American rock ’n’ roll story “Memphis” won the Tony Award for best musical on Sunday night"
    ---------------------
    ME : David Bryan Rashbaum (--- Memphis songwriter and Bon Jovi keyboardist and founding bandmember---) ---is my first cousin Bruce's ( our mom are sisters) ---- Bruce is first cousin of David ( their Dads are bothers), we know each other since early childhood

    Congrats DAVID !!!

    (((( In 1982 ,, I am sitting next to David at our common cousin Bruce's wedding, and we is talking music ,, me my first Green Village gig just started ,, and David is telling me ,,how Tom Petty , is helping "the unsigned" at the time Bon Jovi score a good record deal. I thought "yeah , right , good luck" , and drank some more wine. The next time we saw each other , at my Parents house in 1987 , Bon Jovi ruled planet earth musically. AND ,, Now that David has a Tony:
    I can hear my Mom and Aunt already ,, "David has a Tony and a Grammy ,, why don't you ? huh , your just the family Rabbi. ( Mom and Dad are visiting next week to NYC for a family wedding,, uuuuugh.) )))

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 14th, 2010 @ 12:10am

    the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.

    again , I am very dyslexic,, and I am not hiring an assistant to proof read my posts here.

    My hold a writing Arts minor for a top 50 university.

    My resume :
    http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/search/label/my%20full%20resume

    and my music :

    http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin
    -----------------------------------------------

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jun 14th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Criminally, no, in most cases. However, you can be the recipient of a life-destroying wrongful death suit, which the victim's family will invariably win in many states. Saw it happen in Omaha shortly before I moved. A guy started his car to warm in up in the winter. Some high-school students stole it, then hit and killed a pedestrian. The vehicle owner had quite a lot of money. He was charged with some minor misdemeanor for leaving the car running unattended, and he paid a couple million in damages to the family, who won on the argument that he "should have know that the vehicle could be stolen when he left it running."

    So, unfortunately, the answer to your question is almost a yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Jun 15th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    Re: the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.

    "My hold a writing Arts minor for a top 50 university"

    Im sure the university would appreciate you kindly returning this misplaced item.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This