Alright, ive gone back link to link, article to article through the archive looking for the answer to one question: has the Supreme Court ruled on the "100-mile constitution free zone"? Has it even been instituted to the degree suggested? I can find links appellate court rulings vacating the 4th amendment AT the border. I can find other links to rulings which claim that 100 miles is the defined 'reasonable distance' from the border in which you can search a vehicle for aliens. However, I can find no article which claims that these two rules combine to allow seizure personal belongings 100 miles from the border. I can see how it could be ruled this way, but has this legal theory ever been tested (IE has the border patrol actually tried it)?
The biggest problem with the Throw it out Mantra is that you are suggesting writing a major copyright bill with thousands of provisions, and getting it through the most obstructionist, pro-copyright industries congress in history. And expecting it to be better then what we have.
It solves the true problem: "guilty until proven innocent." Everything else is just details.
...or you could just throw it out and institute sane rules that preserve the sanctity of due process and the presumption of innocence.
Those details you speak of matter greatly. Changing the DMCA to a notice and notice system would fix your issues with assumption of guilt without having to completely rewrite digital copyright law. It also gives rights owners a way to address concerns with infringement without A) creating a small claims court for copyright which would be a disaster, and B) requiring a rights holder to go through a bloated suit process for someone they likely cant serve. Remember we do actually have to think about independent artists. So we maintain the notice system, but remove the assumption of guilt inherent in the existing system.
as for CDA 230, It seems all the major case law with CDA took at least a year, and in several cases lesser defendants had already settled before the big companies, with the deep pockets, finally got a good ruling. And that was with issues far less financially backed then copyright. If you think that somehow a more strict immunity will prevent repeated lawsuits and repeated appeals, you're wrong. Yelp gets sued regularly for behavior its immune to under CDA 230 (alongside some dickish behavior of its own). The only reason Yelp is still in business is the case law has clearly been decided, so they no longer need to go through the lengthly trial every time. But back in the YouTube and Veoh days? Plenty of potential loopholes to pick at. thats what killed Veoh. The sanctity of due process is what killed Veoh.
Except without the safe harbors YouTube would totally have LOST its suits. Its entire defense hinged on the fact that by adhering to the law it was protected against the lawsuit. YouTube is not an ISP, therefore not subject to the common carrier doctrine. Even if it was, the same long drawn out lawsuit would have occured. Nothing in Common Carrier Doctrine would have changed the way The rulings were repeatedly appealed, would have done nothing to speed up the lawsuit or allow the lawsuit to be dismissed.
MegaUpload went out of business, yes, but because of the rogue actions of law enforcement. If allowed to remain a going concern, Or if its assets had not been seized, it very likely could have kept going, as it had the cash to fight (which is why he was never sued). It has yet to be decided if MegaUpload violated the safe harbors. Evidence provided to us suggests no, but we shall see.
Veoh yes got sued to death before being vidicated by the courts. But what took them down was court costs, not penalties for infringing on copyright. This has less to do with the safe harbors failing then the way the court system works failing.
Aereo was not subject to safe harbor provisions and never would be, as they do not host user generated content. Please dont conflate seperate issues.
You recommend a regime where if I upload say The Avengers 2 in HD and then go off grid, the site hosting the content would never have to take it down. Because even with the court declaring me guilty of infringement, the host isn't liable if it remains up. So without me to take it down, it remains up indefinitely. The safe harbors attempt a balancing act, providing a mechanism to get infringing content taken down by the host, while sheilding the host from claims of copyright infringement. They have problems, having no way to prevent censorious abuse. But they do work to prevent copyright infringement judgments against hosts, as shown by the YouTube and Veoh lawsuits.
Throwing out the safe harbor provisions doesn't solve anything. Fix the issues in the courts, as with all copyright disputes make fee shifting the norm, institute penalties (on top of the fee shifting) for those who sue hosts who are adhering to the DMCA and make it so false DMCA claims are punishable, and you have fixed most of the problems with the safe harbors.
Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
Masnick is not saying in this article that there should be 'no regulation'. He's saying that A) The safe harbor regulations are GOOD. B) Removing safe harbor regulations would be BAD. This is the opposite of no regulation.
I enjoy that you are saying we need regulation to rein in big companies (your standard oil comparison), then use that argument to say we should give big companies (recording industry) free reign. Seems a bit strange doesn't it?
The complaint and the article focus on YouTube, so I am going to address the rest of your comments in that vein. Apparently YouTube people are making money 'using the value that other people'. I am going to assume you mean the value that other people create. Ok. Lets look at the top grossing YouTube channels. That should give us a good idea of how much money is being made off other people's content, since its all pirates.
Well, you've got official channels from Taylor Swift, WWE, Spinnin Rec, and EMI. So no piracy there. 3 Original content channels, Disney collector, Littlebabybum, and stampylonghead.
Then we get to the stuff that you need to look at a little closer. movieclipsTRAILERS, for instance. They have a significant amount of original content. But they do Have official trailers from major movie studios. If they do monetize trailers, its likely revenue sharing with the studio, as I doubt the studio didn't upload the trailer to ContentID. So likely an accepted advertising strategy, since the goal of a trailer is not to make money but to put the trailer to eyeballs. They spend money doing it. Here they get eyeballs for free. getmovies is strange. They have a lot of Russian childrens programming, and its unclear whether its pirated or not. Given their size I doubt unsanctioned media from them would go unnoticed long, and some of their content has been up for at least 4 years suggesting their content is licenced/owned by them. Finally we have pewdiepie. A sweedish video game commentator. Video game commentary is an unclear area of copyright law right now. Some creative elements come from the game. But many do not, leading to a new transformative work which generally doesn't hurt the market for the original game. Given the wide acceptance he gets from developers (except nintendo) it seems to be legit. You can't say pewdiepie didn't create the videos they uploaded, even if they didn't create the underlying game.
$100 million dollar movies are rapidly taken down, if they even manage to get put up in the first place. hell 1 million dollar movies get taken down pretty quickly if they manage to get past ContentID in the first place.
Now tell me, how is YouTube legally liable for the actions of others? Why, legally, should Youtube, which not only adheres to the law when it comes to copyright, but goes beyond the law to protect legacy content creators at the expense of smaller, independent content creators, be liable for the actions of a 'greasy blob'.
All Mike is saying in this article is that the target of a civil suit (or a criminal investigation) should be the person who committed the Tort (or crime), not a secondary party who happens to have bigger pockets.
The affordable care act was released when announced. You are conflating the (errornous) debate that no one READ the bill with the issue of announcing a bill to the news that the news (and congress) haven't received yet.
I think the big story here is that by this logic I should get replacements for any lost, stolen or broken DVDs/Blue-Rays. Because its not the disc I am buying. Its access to that content in a specific format. And my access to that content shouldn't be limited to the Temporal nature of the delivery mechanism.
More seriously, Music tried this very argument against format shifting (ripping and using an MP3 player), that we only bought the music in the cd format. It failed.
A) the government prefers dragnet survalence to targeted surveillance, B) by having the SIM encryption keys, they don't need malware to surveil your phone, and 3) If they can install malware on your phone wirelessly from a drone, its unlikely the SIM card encryption, which involves how the phone talks to the network, is of any benefit.
While Khan Academy made a large upgrade to the iOS capability (and if its software, how is it apple's fault?) in january, last I checked "other tablets" are rated as a worse experience by Khan Academy.
The post i am responding to says that if today you signed a contract for percentage of net you are an idiot. I am pointing out those contracts were not recent contracts but from 25 years ago. If anything I was implying that its worse now. But I was intending to do nothing of the sort, merely indicate that knowledge of the practice may not have been as widespread.
If you search and entire neighborhood home and computer and car im sure you'll turn stuff up. But that doesn't mean you had reasonable, articulatable, objectective reasons for searching that neighborhood. The ends does not justify the means.