And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous.
So if you occasionally get speeding tickets when you weren't speeding but you were driving a car that was the same color as a speeding car, that would be OK because some speeding tickets are given to the actual speeding car?
Also, instead of the police, you were pulled over by a private company that had no legal requirement to make sure you had actually broken any laws.
Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of your comment.
I don't see any need for a warrant either. Email is hosted by a third party. Therefore, it is not protected under the fourth amendment. Like it or not. Welcome to the cloud.
Huh, so it's perfectly fine for the postal system to go through your mail, because it's being hosted by a third party?
Either way, you're wrong. The 6th circuit ruled that emails contained a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and this ruling has yet to be overturned (a bill codifying this into law, however, was shot down by the Senate last year).
Your reasoning is wrong too...the SEC is the reason emails were considered accessable, not the 4th amendment. The SEC states that electronic communication held for over 180 days is considered "abandoned" and can be freely accessed by government officials. This law was passed 30 years ago when actually storing such data was considered too expensive to consider. Now all email is stored essentially forever. The key point is that email under 180 days is considered private under the law...the 3rd party storage is irrelevant.
Re: USPS is a PRIVATE corporation, does NOT serve "public interest"!
USPS is a PRIVATE corporation, does NOT serve "public interest"!
...A private corporation specifically created by the Constitution, partially funded with government subsidies, and possesing several federally appointed powers, who's leadership is appointed by the President of the United States?
Yeah, totally private. Obviously not designed for the public interest at all.
Now read the part where Lori Drew was convicted of a misdemoner offense of the CFAA for violating Myspace's ToS.
Sure, the conviction was overturned in appeals, but that was a case of the DoJ using a ToS violation to charge a citizen with a criminal breach of the CFAA.
He never said they'd be convicted. He said they could be tried, under the DoJ's (NOT the court's!) interpretation of the law. It has been done, and tried successfully enough to get a jury conviction, in the past.
So often, folks get impeachment confused with conviction. They are not the same thing.
While true, this is irrelevant to the discussion. Simply being charged with a crime that is taken to court can devastate the average citizen financially regardless if they win or lose. The government prosecutors get paid whether they win or lose. For all practical purposes if someone gets charged with a crime they may as well have been convicted of it.
It is important to note that so far none of these individuals have been convicted of criminal charges under the CFAA, well, except Brekka, who was found guilty by jury but later overturned. These cases are likely to end up at SCOTUS level since two districts have found different interpretations of the CFAA.
The key point is that they were successfully charged under the CFAA. The result is irrelevant; the cases were still heard. District judges don't hear cases without merit; if it is obvious that a charge will be dismissed it's never brought to court, let alone given a guilty verdict.
When it's not clear whether or not a particular action is a violation of a law that is, by definition, vague. I seem to remember an issue or two with vague laws.
The ubiquitous "on a computer system"-style laws may have worked back in the 90s before computers were in virtually every household in the U.S. It's time to take a close look at those laws with a bit more technical knowledge and understanding, something that was clearly lacking when these laws were written.
Mike accused this woman of violating the DMCA and the CFAA. Both claims are unsupportable.
Have you read the charges against Aaron Swartz? He used a built-in function of JSTOR and a script to access free information and was being threatened with potentially years in prison. He even had legal access to the content.
Yet you find the idea that someone with unauthorized access to commercial content is an unsupportable claim?
Under our current laws she absolutely violated at a minimum the CFAA, and would probably lose against DMCA charges as well considering she is accessing copyrighted material based on unauthorized access to that material. The man who gave her the password had "permission" from the creator (HBO). She did not. Hence copyright infringement, regardless of the technical means to access the data.
If anything I would argue Mike is being too conservative with the law. Laws should not be based on whether or not some judge thinks they make sense in a specific context. They should be clear, and it should be clear when they are violated. The CFAA and DMCA are anything but clear and should be removed or replaced with something that is.
It still boggles my mind that Terms of Service could be considered legally binding. Since when does the purchase or use of something create an automatic, non-negotiable contract?
It would be like buying a desk that's only allowed to be placed on east-facing walls...put it on a north facing wall and now you're facing criminal penalties! What? You didn't agree to these terms? They're listed in section 36 on the 10 page document in the desk drawer that you can't open until after you bring the desk home and build it (which, since it's been built, you can no longer return).
Oh, you took a picture of your room with the desk in it, too? That's copyright infringement as well. You're in a heap of trouble! Prepare to spend at least $50,000 in legal fees...minimum, even if you somehow defend against your crime! Oh, and in the meantime your house will be confiscated indefinitely until the FBI can determine if you've possibly broken any more laws. If you're lucky you may even have it returned...most likely with all your furniture and belongings removed, you know, to avoid returning possibly illegal evidence back to you. No, you will not be compensated. You should never have been suspected of breaking the law...that's your fault!
Yet this is pretty much the exact situation computer users risk every day under the CFAA/DMCA. Obviously we only disagree with it because we're criminals. Obviously.
There is also a group of people that think just because a company made a profit out of the public for a number of years, that they made enough and no longer deserve a profit and should continue to operate the business in a nonprofit mode. That is bullshit to me. Nobody has a right to free TV service.
No one "deserves" a profit. You earn a profit. This is the problem right here.
Why not just stream their network TV through the internet? Aero would go away in a heartbeat because that's what customers want. They won't because...because. Because they've been making money the other way and never want it to end.
That's bullshit. Do corded phone manufactures deserve profits? What about the poor typewriter manufacturers? You know, those horse-and-buggy guys sure got screwed by these newfangled "car" things. Where's the profits they deserve?
TV is like the VCR and cassette tape; old technology that no longer has relevance to the modern world. The TV distributers either need to update to new tech or GTFO.
Nobody has a right to legislate their business model.
Chosen, it's illegal because passwords could be considered a "technological measure" to prevent access to copyrighted works. Thus even if someone freely gives you their password, by using it you have violated the DMCA since it's intended to prevent you from doing so.
I'm still trying to figure out at what point we decided it was OK to sell things and yet still keep ownership of them. If someone sold me a chair 15 years ago, and then told me if I stood on it instead of sitting they'd take it back and fine me hundreds of dollars, I'd have laughed at them.
Now I'd have to laugh nervously and call my lawyer. It's ridiculous and why the copyright maximalists have lost any semblence of moral high ground.
I'm not asking for free chairs. I'm not demanding free chairs. I just want the person who sells me a chair to go away and leave me alone after I've bought it, whether I intend to use it as a chair, a stool, or to use it as a model to make my own chair.
We've criminilized the entire country and it needs to stop.
Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
If you don't like what Mike has to say, then go start your own blog. It's that simple.
Nobody could read OOTB's blog. You'd be violating copyright by viewing it without prior permission. I can see the opening page now...a link to his email asking for personal permission before you can read the first entry.
Why isn't anyone reading his blog? Piracy! Obviously.
Ad hom...I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If you'd read my comments with even minimally open mind, you might see that I support copyright but definitely not unlimited copyright let alone unlimited gov't.
If you'd read this blog with even a minimally open mind, you'd realize that's the whole point of the articles here. We currently exist in a country where "unlimited copyright" is the reality. Lack of enforcement on something that's arguably unenenforceable does not change this fact.
Current copyright law means that *everything* created since you were born will be copyrighted until after you die. I don't really care if it expires after I'm dead; nothing created now will be relevant by then anyway.
How can a company copyrighting rounded corners for beyond the human lifespan be considered anything other than "unlimited?"
Bull. You're on the internet. It's impossible to avoid infringement on the internet. The only way to not infringe is to never use a computer.
Here's how it works. You visited this website. This website has copyrighted information (the articles). This information is copyrighted regardless of the creator's will; it's automatic.
By visiting the website, your computer made at least two unauthorized copies, according to current copyright law. It saved the files once into RAM, and once into your temporary internet files. You did not have permission for either of these copies because your created *new* copies of a copyrighted work. Even if Mike gave you permission to use his original copy, your computer automatically created new copies which are inherently infringing since they are separate from the original work.
In order for this to be avoided, the *only* websites (and all internet media, for that matter) you could ever view would require an unlimited distribution and free manipulation license, which the vast majority of the internet does not have. Therefore, by going to any website with any sort of media, including text, video, or sound, you are guilty of copyright infringement.
It doesn't fit under fair use, since the new copy is not 1) Transformative (the work is virtually identical), 2) they are not facts/ideas, but are artistic works, 3) they copy the entire work, not just a small part, and 4) you do not purchase this copy and thus potentially caused economic harm to the creater (whether they are selling it or not).
The only reason the internet isn't banned by current copyright law is either because the lawmakers haven't quite figured out how computers work yet, or because the concept is so insane the legal system is willfully ignoring it. Or maybe because there's so much money in suing people they don't want to destroy the internet, just rip people off for using it.
I can imagine you're thinking that description is dumb, or false, or there's something wrong with it. Bingo. You just figured out why the people on this website don't like copyright laws as they currently exist.
It's silly fear mongering to be concerned we may get accused of copyright infringement from organizations that manage to accuse *themselves* of copyright infringement?
That's like saying "I never speed, therefore those intersection cameras will never affect me, only you dirty speeders!" I wonder if your tune would change if you were one of the people who's parked car was cited for speeding.
You are just as vulnerable to six strikes as everyone else, whether you pirate or not. The only way to avoid it is to not use the internet at all.
Actually, for some US citizens that is somewhat true. If a naturalized citizen is found to be a member of a communist or anarchist organization they can have their citizenship stripped and be deported (and if you admit to having ever belonged to a communist party, you will never become a citizen in the first place or even get a green card). The same is true if they're accused of being a terrorist.
Is this sarcastic? I'm can't really tell if this is a joke or you're being serious.
Just in case, being part of a communist or anarchist organization is perfectly legal in the U.S. You are legally permitted to speak out against the U.S. government. In order to have your citizenship revoked you must stand trial before a federal judge. And you would never lose it for an accusation; you would have to be convicted of illegal activity.
Let us all just agree that copyright should ideally balance the rights of artists and creators with the rights of the general public. However this appears to be an inpediment to the whiny Google lobbyists on this board that wish to line their pockets with stolen content.
This statement may have had relevance ten years ago. It doesn't now. The fundamental premise of this logic is flawed because there is no functional difference between "artists and creators" and "the general public." You act like these are completely separate groups when modern technology easily combines the two. Youtube users are both creators and the public. Game modders are both creators and the public. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, deviantart...all these people are creators and the public.
The concept of "art" as something created by an elite few for the pleasure of the masses has been dying a slow death since the internet developed. It's like we're passing legislation to prevent cars from going faster than 15 MPH in order to avoid causing "irreparable harm" to the horse-and-buggy industry.
You can't steal culture. You can fight culture, you can direct culture, you can profit off of culture. But it is not a commodity that can be taken away by spreading more of it.
We've created a society where every single person, including you, breaks the law on a daily basis, often without even realizing it. When a normal life becomes illegal, there is a problem with the law, not a problem with the people.
Re: Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
actually, obviously IT IS !!!!
Saying something multiple times does not make it true. If I send a letter to you without a return address it will still be sent. The post office will have no idea who sent it and will deliver it anyway. This is not illegal nor even against policy. The same is true of UPS.
They are liable, and they are required to know the contents of the parcels they transport. They are required by law to follow all the importation laws, and all the laws that relate to the transport of illegal materials.
This is also not true. I worked for UPS for three years. The only time packages were "inspected" is if they gave indications of being hazardous; i.e. leaking, smoking, moving, etc. Packages would often break open if not properly packed and these would be placed in a new box (and obviously employees would see the contents). There were never any notices to watch out for packages from a specific sender and the only address we were concerned about was the destination address. I packed hundreds, maybe thousands, of boxes with no return address.
The action may have been illegal for another reason, but it certainly isn't because UPS was required to know what was in the packages and take action to avoid transporting illegal material, because such a requirement simply does not exist.
This is not black and white. The drug company may be committing a crime in the U.S., but not in their own country, so their action is not illegal. UPS is not required to inspect nor deny packages based on suspicion of illegal activity without a court order (which would then have to be more than suspicion).
UPS would have had to spend far more than $40 million fighting this in court, so they took the cheaper end of the deal and moved on. They're just another company trolled by the DOJ, as has been happening for years.
Given the DOJ's recent track record I believe they need to regain the U.S.'s trust and cannot assume they have it. The entire justice system has become corrupt and are not being held accountable for their actions. This is far more of an issue than UPS sending drugs that are legal to purchase and use in Canada, a country with arguably much better health care standards than the U.S., to U.S. consumers.
If legal issues were so simple as you describe, we wouldn't need incredibly expensive lawyers that spend years and years in school in order to understand and manipulate those laws. But we do because it really is that complicated. The American public has every right to be skeptical when it comes to rulings passed by the DOJ.
Sorry, the rest of us were talking about illegal downloads. You do understand the difference, right?
NO. The rest of us were talking about copyright infringement. Six strikes is about copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is NOT "illegal downloads." Please, please go do some actual research since you still don't grasp what we're talking about here.
If I buy a movie, then play a 30 second clip of it on YouTube, I have participated in possible copyright infringement. If I buy a movie and then rip it to play on my tablet, I have participated in copyright infringement. If I buy SimCity, then hack it to play offline, I have participated in copyright infringement.
Not one of these examples involve illegal downloads. Yet all would be considered violations under copyright law and the six strikes policy. None of these things are unethical or immoral.
You do understand the difference between something that is unethical and something that is illegal, right?
So don't pay. If you didn't steal it, you shouldn't have a problem. PS, there's an old saying: "You can't get fucked unless you assume the position." Maybe you should think of that before you download Game of Thrones instead of being reminded at your hearing.
Huh, so it's OK for the police to set up cameras in your house and watch you 24 hours a day? Hey, you don't have anything to hide, right?
Hey, wait a minute! You're using your neighbor's lawnmower! YOU MUST HAVE STOLEN IT! You say he let you borrow it? OK, we'll just arrest you until you can prove that it wasn't stolen.