Perhaps, instead of producing a vague general comment about how if we actually read the 'rule' we would understand, you could point us to the region of the rules that is problematic. That is what allows for debate, as seen in this article where the author highlights a lack of understanding of what is actually in the current rules. If you have a different problem with the current rules, tell us, rather then suggest we read a 51 page brief. Highlighting the key points would allow us to read those sections carefully and craft a response.
Secondly, they are regulating ISPs, not 'the internet'. I realize the distinction between the US corporation that provides you access to the internet and the large, worldwide network of servers owned by many different companies and governments, mostly not owned by your ISP, is hard to grasp, but please, stretch yourself.
And The legal challenges and the stay have been covered here. Notably, When the FCC tried to just impose some vague guidelines covering blocking, throttling and paid prioritization without title II that ISPs helped write, Verizon sued. Verizon couldn't handle the most minimalist of rules regarding Net Neutrality. The FCC was then told by the courts that it only had the power to impose those types of rules if it imposed title II. Title II is necessary for the net neutrality provisions, and if Title II goes away, the rules that the stay would leave in place would be gone too, because Verizon already got a court to say they couldn't be enforced without Title II. Notably, according to this article at least one opponent of the Title II change thinks the 3 'bright line' rules are a problem that he'll need a lawyer for, even though he didn't need one back when those the bright line rules were implemented under different authority.
Moreover, It does block one net neutrality rule, the one that blocks a big violation that is actually occurring and has repeatedly occurred. It would not leave in place the rules on unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage. This rule is critical for Net Neutrality and has already caused AT&T to stop discriminating against unlimited customers when the network isn't congested. You can hide a lot of 'blocking' and 'throttling' by disguising it as network management. This fourth rule is designed to counter that effort.
Ah. So you are one of the people who believe that corporations are people. Ok. You apparently also like to ignore the numerous legal distinctions made between corporations and people, which exist because they are not the same thing. Copyright treats a corporation differently then a person for instance. We also have a body of law designed to handle criminal penalties for corporations, because we can't treat a corporation like a person in criminal punishment, because they are inherently different.
Its a logical question. When a corporation speaks, who is actually doing the speaking. What is the source of that speech? The corporation has no will of its own, it can only act at the will of its employees, generally the will of its executives. This distiction of 'whom is doing the speech' can be seen often in the social media landscape. When facing a 'rogue' employee, his speech is readily distinguishable from the corporation's, even if his prior speech through the same channels were his own work, at his own direction, without significant input from his superiors. So who was talking?\
This question is important, because if the COrporation can only act on the initative of its executives, then is a political contribution not a political contribution made under someone else's name? Because that is an illegal donation. In fact, that very question has been debated amongst campaign finance experts because of a growing tendency to create shell LLCs or shell corporations designed to be the name plate on official reporting.
Newspapers, TV Networks and similar media companies, aside from ones which require anonymity, normally display who is speaking, along side the speech. In fact, it is often contractually mandated. If it was the corporation's speech being protected there, they wouldn't need to tell you whose speech it was.
The same protections now offered a corporation could be retained without requiring a corporation to have its own rights. The point of giving a corporation rights is to hide the names of the people actually doing the speech. PACs and SuperPACs destablize the political landscape by allowing those who pockets are big to speak more than those whose pockets are small. Moreover, they allow private individuals to hide their campaign contributions by donating most heavily in the last 3 months, when reporting wont happen until after the election. Not only can the targets of PAC or SuperPAC speech not determine who is speaking to them (For instance "The Coalition for Community-Driven Broadband" sounds far more consumer friendly then "The Coalition of AT&T, Comcast, and Time-Warner", as a rhetorical example), they often can not generate effective counter speech, though there has been progress in that regard.
Re: Re: Uh huh. But if you do and people are injured, you'll be sanctioned up to jail.
You know, I was signed in and responding to a specific comment when I began that rant. So people know, I, James Burkhardt, am the owner of the above rant, and I was responding to the AC with the above subject line.
I highly enjoy the following proof of the failings of the general statement "There are exceptions to the first amendment"
You: Doctor, was the snake that bit me poisonous? Doctor: Actually snakes are usually venomous. Though some are both venomous and poisonous. You: Great. What about this snake here? I caught it in a bag for you to look at. Doctor: There are both harmless and venomous snakes in North America. You: Yes, thank you. Which is this? Doctor: That snake has rings! You: Yes. Yes it does. Doctor: Some venomous snakes have rings. You: Is there anyone else on duty I could see?
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Since copyright is valid under common law and statute, ALL corporations -- which are legal fiction permitted to exist so long as serve the public, not persons with natural rights such as controlling copies -- have some positive duty to suppress infringement, or at very least not HELP infringers.
Ignoring the assertion that copyright is a 'natural right' that corporations can't have and the distinction of rights that doesn't exist in common law or statute, You are wrong. Nothing in copyright law requires imposes a 'positive duty' to enforce copyright law. Common law and statute are very clear on that point, and the courts have made that very clear.
An ISP doesn't want to annoy its customers is obvious and reasonable motive, sure, but actively objecting to court orders and in any degree helping its customers to infringe goes well beyond lawful. I say this makes IINet an accessory if any of the cases are run through, so Voltage should pick the top infringers and get a conviction, then go after the deep pockets of the ISP...Actively objecting to court orders is certainly lawful, and expected of any company respecting your privacy. Remember, the customers have not yet been proven to have committed any crime, and therefore are presumed innocent (Australia does hold to this principle). iiNet is arranging for pro-bono legal council to help people understand the legal missives being sent to them. In no way is that helping the customers infringe. What it does do is help iiNet's customers understand the merits of Voltage's case, and help them judge if settlement is the correct action. In no way does that make iiNet an accessory to an actual infringement case. Even if the lawyer helps an actual infringer in an illegal manner to avoid the penalties of infringement, iiNet could only be held partially responsible if they instructed the lawyer to do so. And here is where the IP is not identity statement IS applicable to your argument. Because that means customers innocent of the copyright accusations levied against them CAN exist, and so we have to run with the assumption that they DO exist, and therefore getting pro-bono assistance to these people is a great public service (and accordingly help develop goodwill). Or do you think that allowing Voltage to coerce a settlement from someone who does not understand the law and/or is scared of a lawsuit from the deep pocketed corporation is a valid use of copyright?
One, corporations should not be treated as people. The corporation should not have first amendment rights. Its owners have first amendment rights, and can exercise them as individuals, the employees including the board/president/CEO on down all have first amendment rights and can exercise them as individuals. The Corporate entity should not have First Amendment rights, as its speech is merely the speech of its owners/board/Executives.
On the other hand, I do believe the .1% is perfectly capable of funding major political campaigns in the absence of corporations, and so you actually have a point if you consider a broad logical interpretation of the comment you are responding to. That said, campaign contribution limits, and/or public election funds backed by greater scrutiny and restrictions on 'independent' political adverts (imposing the same restrictions on everybody) could greatly reduce the influence of deep pockets on politics.
I thought the current problems were caused by a lack of competition in the marketplace. As has regularly been stated, net neutrality rules are really only needed because there isn't any competition to keep ISPs honest. The only way that i see that the FCC could have avoided this condition is by imposing Title 2 initially, but then we'd be in the same theoretical boat we are in now, so I fail to see how the FCC could have fixed this problem in a way that does not have the pitfalls you envision.
Additionally, any scheme designed to ensure net neutrality without requiring the person complaining to be rich enough to sue will come down to a governmental body making a decision. Your complaints that the FCC might not go after legitimate violators would be true even if it wasn't the FCC in charge.
Also, could you point to a case where the FCC went after a company for violations it didn't commit to the detriment of consumers and the benefit of its competitors? I can't find them, but I don't have the time for an intensive google search to find something I am unfamiliar with.
This story exposes nothing of the sort. Yes, if you dig deep and read between the lines you can learn WHY a diploma mill is so valuable, but that is not what hte article is about. The (Techdirt) article, on its face, is about a (NY TIMES) expose on the secret company behind most of these mills and the subsequent attempts to memory hole the expose via legal threats, which only bolsters the claims of the expose.
Trying to reframe the NY Times article as an expose on the overvaluing of degrees and downplaying the problems associated with a fake degree excuses the actions of Axact and recasts their actions as merely serving a need, rather then defrauding both their customers and the public. There are many professions where a degree is often a necessary step to ensure you know what you need to know. Accounting can be learned on your own, or under the tutelage of an experienced, trained accountant, but my personal experience with accountants trained this way is a regular failure to understand basic underlying concepts that are integral to the Accounting process. Proper education can help prevent pitfalls which could end up costing a business a lot of money. And I am talking about Associate's level training. Columbiana University offers PHD programs. If your job needs a PHD, it likely needs the ton of schooling it would normally take to get that.
If HR requires a degree where no need exists, yes that is a problem. But not one that should be solved with expensive, worthless fake degrees.
Actually, having the government search for your files in a civil proceeding is not actually a desired outcome, big picture wise. However, he should be found in contempt. A contempt charge should have him put in jail until he (or his office) provide the documents, or alternatively the assumption can be made that the contents of the documents fully support the claims made by Google, and make a ruling against the AG in the case.
So really what your are saying is roll over, submit to your masters, and then expect to get your property and liberty returned after-the-fact by the court system. Because where the law failed to protect you before, it will totally protect you now.
Given that backdooring requires the consent of the companies involved, and those companies stated aversion to including intentional backdoors, and the fact that if we 'win' this fight people can release their own encryption algorithims, I dont see how backdooring encryption will become a mainstay if we win this fight.
Re: As if Techdirt/Manick had always regarded Aereo as illegal!
He never said he didn't disagree with the Supreme Court, so he didn't change his position, in fact has argued that the Court's ruling was stupid. He is just stating the fact that the Supreme Court's decision is that that Aereos model is illegal. And that was not decided 'long long ago', because the courts agreed with aereo up until the supreme court decision less then a year ago. Mike should not have to restate his opinion on the Supreme court ruling everytime it comes up. Its well known and only detracts from the opinion.
As well, are you claiming he is taking down Techdirt articles for some purpose?
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 12:20pm
In this case your ticket generally includes the proviso that either you do not video the performance, or that you assign the copyright to [insert entity here]. in either case, you have a contract.
or did you mean official recordings? in which case the camera person is clearly working in a capacity for someone else, and their individual recording is a work for hire, which their contract likely plays out.
While mentioned by Mike, the other remedies Garcia have aren't germane to the point of the opinion article and the articles that proceeded it, which is copyright abuse. factoring in that portion of the ruling would have made the article a rambling mess.
Actually, The statement quoted can be read to have nothing to do with the public domain, and harkens back to the original reasons for copyright, that without it, a creative work might never be fixed and/or released to the public. The monopoly encourages a work to be fixed and made accessible to the public via sale. Now issues with the current state of the 'limited' monopoly are valid, but not really what the Justices are talking about in this statement.